Whose really to blame

[bitonti]

5ever since OIL was discovered there we as a nation have NEVER stayed out of their affairs and you know it

this s**t goes back to the thirties and FDR

isolationism has NEVER been tried.

---

so i ask you for one case where Terrorism has been stopped by force and you ask me for ANY case where terrorism has been stopped?

just pause for a second and think about how the fact that you can't recall an instance where terrorism has been defeated bodes for our chances for this war's "success"

well its not a pretty answer but the only times throughout history where suicidal terrorism has ceased is when the terrorists recieved their demands. This can be seen in the Iran hijackings all the way back to the British empire giving up on its widespread holdings.

remember that AL_Q doesn't want all Americans dead... they really want the US to leave the region and stop meddling in the affairs of the MidEast. That's been their mission from the beginning. We of cource "don't negotiate with terrorists" which leads us to the wonderful point in which we currently reside.

we are pushing ahead with a methodology that has been proven time and time again to be a faulty one. the price is being paid in US treasure and the lives of servicemen.

but don&#39;t worry im sure Dubya can figure this thing out where no one else has before <_<

[jets5ever]

Bitonti - you are starting to get on my nerves with your flagrant misrepresentations.

The war is not "now" about terrorism and "not" WMD. We haven&#39;t found stockplies, but Saddam clearly manitained the componentry, the know-how and the will to produce WMD at any point in the future. He did NOT comply with UN inspections at ANY point during the interim between wars, even according to Hans Blix during the recent inspections. He had not a the fundamwental decision to comply with the terms of the cease-fire he signed with us. He was a supporter of terrorism (including Palestinian terror that you point to as evidence of force "not working to contain") who was not deterred by inspections since so many countries illegally tadded with him during the sanctions. He was harboring terrorists and making life miserable for his own people, all of whom could be brainwashed into thinking it was the USA&#39;a fault. The reasons to remove him were many and just. It was about both WMD and terrorism. Why do you think I have repeated my joke about Saddam making cookies all this time? It accurately reflecst your dim understanding of the nature of the entire WMD and your narrow application of the fact that we haven&#39;t found any yet. Did you even read Kay&#39;s preliminary report? Are you this biased as to become a caricature?

You have admitted in the past to not acknowledging the threat AQ posed on 9-10-2001. How can you then turn around and say with certainty that country X was definitely not a threat? Was N Korea a threat in 1997, 1999, 2001? Well, what? Was AQ a threat after the 93 WTC attack or during any of the number of attacks prior to 9-11, or were they only a threat after 9-11? Are they still a threat? How do you define "threat" in these terms?

How would you KNOW if something worked to stop terrorism? If we had invaded Afganistan in 2000 and, let&#39;s say for argument&#39;s sake, kille EVERY member of AQ, but lost 400 US soldiers in the process you&#39;d be lecturing us this very day about how AQ wasn&#39;t a threat and that this type of action won&#39;t stop terrorism.

[jets5ever]

Bitonti -


WWII could have been avoided if we had just appeased Hitler.


Question - do you know what the word "jihad" means?

No one is saying the war will STOP terrorism.

You are amazing. When has appeasement "worked?"


You are hilarious sometimes....

[shakin318]

Originally posted by bitonti@Feb 4 2004, 02:06 PM
if this war isn&#39;t about WMD its about terrorism

Um, bit? Even lefty outlets like the Commie News Network have been referring to the President&#39;s decisive actions since 9/11 as "The War On Terror." Afghanistan and Iraq have both been categorized as theatres in said "War On Terror."

[bitonti]

5ever you are comparing apples and oranges. Hilter was the leader of a nation with a flag and an army with uniforms.... terrorism knows no national boundries it has no flag and there really isn&#39;t a leader you can off and end the whole thing.

its one thing to say we didn&#39;t know Al_Q was a threat... but its another to say we didn&#39;t know IRAQ was a threat. Iraq is a secular muslim country. Al_Q is an international organization of suicidal zealots. where is their country? Where are their borders? What is their capital?

how do i know Iraq wasn&#39;t a threat? Hmm i dunno maybe cause their 6000 miles away and their most advanced weapontry is a tomato can strapped to a camel? cmon man anyone with half a brain knows Iraq wasn&#39;t a threat.

Al_Q is a different bag altogther... which is why its stupid to fight it with methods used to fight countries. can you even consider for a moment the possibility that you can&#39;t fight an international terrorist organization with the same methods you used to fight the third reich?

besides im not talking about appeasement. im talking about pure isolationism. anything else we are either losing troops over there or losing civilians over here.

all for black gold aka Texas Tea

[bitonti]

Originally posted by shakin318+Feb 4 2004, 02:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shakin318 @ Feb 4 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti@Feb 4 2004, 02:06 PM
if this war isn&#39;t about WMD its about terrorism

Um, bit? Even lefty outlets like the Commie News Network have been referring to the President&#39;s decisive actions since 9/11 as "The War On Terror." Afghanistan and Iraq have both been categorized as theatres in said "War On Terror." [/b][/quote]
shakin that&#39;s just an illustration of how deeply this misunderstanding goes. just cause its called the war on terror doesn&#39;t mean we have a chance to actually beat "TERROR"

saying Iraq is a theater in the war on terror is like saying the south bronx is a theater in the war on poverty.

yeah ok we might make some head way if we really throw a ton of resources at it... but at the end of the day poverty ain&#39;t goin nowhere

War on Terror is just another catchphrase for gov&#39;t agenda and its NOT a real war you can WIN,

no different from the war on poverty or the war on drugs - no army can beat human nature.

[jets5ever]

You are obsessed with the stupid Treaty of Westphalia (that you obviously learned to apply here by reading some Chomsky-ite drivel withinin the last 9 months) and the fact that terrorism "has no borders." In most of your other posts you are simply burping up Michael Moore&#39;s claptrap about not being able to wage war on nouns. We are fighting actual terrorists, in addition to trying to create a better living situation for oppressed Muslims. In effect, we are trying to address BOTH the symptom and the cause.

AQ was supported by a country with borders and guess what - conventional warfare elimiated that supporter of AQ and disrupted their haven, which did fall between recognized borders.

Why are you so reluctant to lose troops? Can you think of anything that is worth losing troops over?

How do we possibly try this isolationism and what happens if that doesn&#39;t work. What then?

[tailgators]

Originally posted by jets5ever@Feb 4 2004, 02:18 PM
Bitonti -


WWII could have been avoided if we had just appeased Hitler.

Comparing Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler is not only ignorant but its also an insult to every soldier who fought in Europe during World War II.

Adolph Hitler&#39;s Germany was one of the world&#39;s superpowers, he had one of the finest militaries at his disposal.

[jets5ever]

Originally posted by tailgators+Feb 4 2004, 01:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tailgators @ Feb 4 2004, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever@Feb 4 2004, 02:18 PM
Bitonti -


WWII could have been avoided if we had just appeased Hitler.

Comparing Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler is not only ignorant but its also an insult to every soldier who fought in Europe during World War II.

Adolph Hitler&#39;s Germany was one of the world&#39;s superpowers, he had one of the finest militaries at his disposal. [/b][/quote]
Tailgators -

Had the world recognized the threat posed by Hitler early enough, we could have prevented the very atrocities he was able to inflict upon the world. He only was able to develop one of the world best armies precisely because he was appeased during every step of the way. Had he been eliminated early one, when he broke the first of his international agreements, or started building up his arsenal going against his sanctions people like you and Bit would to this day call those who acted then "fear mongers" and "war mongers" and WWII and the Holocaust would have never happened.


Hitler&#39;s body of work is not comparable to Saddam&#39;s..that is obvious. However, the Hitler of the mid -30&#39;s is very comparable and that is what I am referring to...it is precisely at those early stages that action needs to be taken. Saddam had flouted terms of a ceae-fire, had waged regional wars on many occasions, had actively pursued to biuld up his arsenal. Saddam also supported terrorism.

Besides, Bitonti was talking about appeasement, even if he is unable to recognize it.

Oh - and spare me you lectures about things being an insult to this or that group.

[tailgators]

Originally posted by jets5ever+Feb 4 2004, 02:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jets5ever @ Feb 4 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -tailgators@Feb 4 2004, 01:33 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever

@Feb 4 2004, 02:18 PM
Bitonti -


WWII could have been avoided if we had just appeased Hitler.

Comparing Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler is not only ignorant but its also an insult to every soldier who fought in Europe during World War II.

Adolph Hitler&#39;s Germany was one of the world&#39;s superpowers, he had one of the finest militaries at his disposal.

Tailgators -

Had the world recognized the threat posed by Hitler early enough, we could have prevented the very atrocities he was able to inflict upon the world. He only was able to develop one of the world best armies precisely because he was appeased during every step of the way. Had he been eliminated early one, when he broke the first of his international agreements, or started building up his arsenal going against his sanctions people like you and Bit would to this day call those who acted then "fear mongers" and "war mongers" and WWII and the Holocaust would have never happened.


Hitler&#39;s body of work is not comparable to Saddam&#39;s..that is obvious. However, the Hitler of the mid -30&#39;s is very comparable and that is what I am referring to...it is precisely at those early stages that action needs to be taken. Saddam had flouted terms of a ceae-fire, had waged regional wars on many occasions, had actively pursued to biuld up his arsenal. Saddam also supported terrorism.

Besides, Bitonti was talking about appeasement, even if he is unable to recognize it.

Oh - and spare me you lectures about things being an insult to this or that group. [/b][/quote]
Do you care to share exactly when during the 1930&#39;s the world recocnized the growing threat of Adolph Hitler?

Also, are you aware of what Germany&#39;s industrial production capacity was before World War II? 1930&#39;s Germany was a western nation that had a fully developed industrial complex. 2003 Iraq on the other had was a nation already in ruins. No comparison whatsoever&#33;

Also, 5-ever you wrote: "Hiltler&#39;s body of work is not comarable to Saddam&#39;s..that is obvious". Shouldn&#39;t it be the other way around?

[bitonti]

Originally posted by jets5ever@Feb 4 2004, 02:28 PM
We are fighting actual terrorists, in addition to trying to create a better living situation for oppressed Muslims. In effect, we are trying to address BOTH the symptom and the cause.

AQ was supported by a country with borders and guess what - conventional warfare elimiated that supporter of AQ and disrupted their haven, which did fall between recognized borders.

Why are you so reluctant to lose troops? Can you think of anything that is worth losing troops over?

5ever you make several points so ill address them one at a time.

-yes we are fighting actuall terrorists... only problem is there isn&#39;t X amount of terrorists and once we off them all there will be 0 and all is well with the world. More join the ranks every day, and events like cluster bombing the wrong house only add to their numbers.

-the real way to improve the way of life for oppressed Muslims is to stop supporting ALL Their dictatators not just the ones we don&#39;t like. Saudi and Pakistan are nothing more than cruel despotisms propped up by US oil revenue and/or foreign aid. Both places produce more terrorists than Iraq ever did (or will) but the average citizen doesn&#39;t realize how deeply we are in bed with the REAL baddies of the region.

-im so pleased you brought up afghanistan. AQ was disrupted for a period of time. But the country itself is ruled by warlords and you know as well as i do that outside of Kabul its no man&#39;s land. There are a ton of AQ in Afghanistan... we raid periodicially but the greater condition is that AQ is very much alive and well INSIDE the borders of afghanistan. The war in afghanistan accomplished making Kabul semi-safe. the rest of the country is a hell-hole. But don&#39;t worry cause poppy production is through the roof. <_<

-The only thing worth losing troops over is the safety of the country. Issues that are NOT debatable, such as the JAPs bombing pearl harbor. NO BRAINERS. Fighting terrorism with conventional troops does not fall under this ruberic. Just cause i don&#39;t think its smart to fight terrorism with ground troops doesn&#39;t mean i don&#39;t think ANY war is justified. That&#39;s reducio ad abusurdia and the oldest trick in the book.

If we had gone to war with Saudi Arabia over 9-11 that would at least make more sense than going to war with Afghanistan or Iraq... 15 of the 19 terrorists, PLUS bin ladin himself are Saudis.

How do we possibly try this isolationism and what happens if that doesn&#39;t work. What then?

hmm i dunno... maybe GO TO WAR as a LAST RESORT?

since when is going to war a FIRST RESORT?

since when do we have to RUSH TO WAR?

Iraq wasn&#39;t going anywhere. The mysterious WMD stockpiles weren&#39;t going anywhere. in retrospect we had all the time in the world to let inspections take their course.

face it 5ever you are on the wrong side of this argument, morally, logically and any other way you can look at it. You placed your support on the wrong side. It happens dude, the best thing to do is realize your mistake and move on. You are going down with the ship captain. 50 years from now historians will DERIDE this period of American history - they will absolutely SLAM this war just like how they slam the Spanish-American War as being WHite House agenda and NOTHING TO DO with national security.

[jets5ever]

The world recognized in 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland.


Yes, I meant Hitler&#39;s body of work is not comparable to Saddam&#39;s because Hitler&#39;s was much worse.

1930&#39;s Germany was also saddled with debt and unemployment and was not supposed to build up it&#39;s arsenal...but it did. Why? Because the international community lacked the will and resolve to enforce the very sacntions and requirements they imposed on Germany and Hitler knew it.

[MARYLAND JET]

Originally posted by jets5ever@Feb 4 2004, 02:53 PM
1930&#39;s Germany was also saddled with debt and unemployment and was not supposed to build up it&#39;s arsenal...but it did. Why? Because the international community lacked the will and resolve to enforce the very sacntions and requirements they imposed on Germany and Hitler knew it.

Excellent point &#33;.....

[jets5ever]

Bitonti-

We didn&#39;t rush to war, war was the last resort. Is 12 years a "rush." If giving Saddam 16 chances over 12 years to comply is a "rush" then I guess I am stupid. I am clearly NOT on the wrong side of this issue and believe me, history will look VERY kindly on the efficacy of this war, as it does Regan&#39;s actions during the Cold War, which were ridiculed by the left at the time....but you probably don&#39;t remember that. Removing Saddam makes a sh*t-ton of sense.

I have addressed your particular issues so many times in the past it&#39;s getting tiresome to keep trotting them out. Refer to my pst about "opportunity cost" with regards to Musaraff in Pakistan. That country hangs by a firggin thread. What, exactly, are we supposed to do to make Pakistan peachy-keen and safe?

So AQ is not disrupted at all presently? Interesting....

How do you define &#39;safety of the country&#39; in light of the threat posed from terrorists? If we invaded Afganistan in October of 2000 instead of October 2001 would that have been because of "safety of the country or not?"


Also - 15 of the 19 were Sauds, that&#39;s true. 19 of 19 were AQ and AQ was headquartered in Afganistan.

By that logic, the Iraq War is justified because the 93 WTC attack was perpetrated by an Iraqi national. Yes, this person was also AQ, but he was Iraqi too.

Believe me dude, I have not doubted the rightness of this war at all. The difference between us is that I would have said the same thing had Clinton invaded as well. It&#39;s called consistency. YOU were against the Afgan war initially. Now, you have lately said, "Well, they attacked us, thatw as a no brainer, but Iraq is a different story." You have also said the communism wasn&#39;t a threat. Sorry buddy, but your credit rating for being rational about these issues is pretty low.

I&#39;ll agree if you want to rip Bush for domestic stuff...but he&#39;s right on about national defense. Sorry buddy, your half-assed witticisms (sp?) are laughable to me.

[Come Back to NY]

Originally posted by MARYLAND JET+Feb 4 2004, 02:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MARYLAND JET @ Feb 4 2004, 02:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever@Feb 4 2004, 02:53 PM
1930&#39;s Germany was also saddled with debt and unemployment and was not supposed to build up it&#39;s arsenal...but it did. Why? Because the international community lacked the will and resolve to enforce the very sacntions and requirements they imposed on Germany and Hitler knew it.

Excellent point &#33;..... [/b][/quote]
In 2000 the final day of my honeymoon was spent in Normandy, France touring the D-Day beaches.

We (my wife and I) missed out on the guided tours as we had flown in late from Venice the day before so we hopped a train to Caen, rented a car and did it ourselves.

The first stop we made was the D-Day museum right outside Caen (I needed to get maps as I had no clue where to go). The museum itself was rather interesting, you could see how, even 60 + years ago, the french were cowardly/capitulating/appeasers (there is an actual recorded phone message between the french foreign minister and a german SS official where the frenchmen promises immediate surrender if the germans will stop bombing frances beloved architecture&#33.

One section of the museum which I originally found aghast, was called "The Inadequacies of the Democracies," and was based on the collective thought that the democratic countries in Europe saw this coming (the rise of the SS) a mile away but didn&#39;t do a damn thing about it.........and eventually paid a heavy price.

Too bad our foolish "allies" choose not to learn from history&#33;

[jets5ever]

Come Back -


They DID learn from history. They learned that they can do whatever they want and that when the going gets rough, the USA and Britain will fight their battles for them. They&#39;ve learned that they can trade and profit from our enemies with impunity.

The oil line is so amazingly stupid...especialyl since the same international community that opposed the war was the ones illegally profiting from Saddam&#39;s regime&#33; The USA has not been profiting from Iraqi oil for 12 long years, and France and Germany and Russia have been. Yet WE&#39;RE the oil barons. Laughable&#33;

I have to do some work....

[Come Back to NY]

Originally posted by jets5ever@Feb 4 2004, 03:08 PM
Come Back -


They DID learn from history. They learned that they can do whatever they want and that when the going gets rough, the USA and Britain will fight their battles for them. They&#39;ve learned that they can trade and profit from our enemies with impunity.

The oil line is so amazingly stupid...especialyl since the same international community that opposed the war was the ones illegally profiting from Saddam&#39;s regime&#33; The USA has not been profiting from Iraqi oil for 12 long years, and France and Germany and Russia have been. Yet WE&#39;RE the oil barons. Laughable&#33;

I have to do some work....

In that sense you are correct so the biggest fools are the ones in this nation who feel relationships with our "alllies" have been damaged and that its&#39; a bad thing&#33;

[jets5ever]

It&#39;s true CBTNY.

One of Bush&#39;s biggest acheivements in foreign relations, IMO, to change the way the game is played...the international diplomacy game, that is.

These are two GREAT articles about the subject:

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson062703.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson013103.asp

[tailgators]

Originally posted by jets5ever@Feb 4 2004, 03:18 PM
One of Bush&#39;s biggest acheivements in foreign relations, IMO, to change the way the game is played...the international diplomacy game, that is.

Yeah, just ask the families of the 500+ soldiers who&#39;ve been killed in Iraq over the last year how well that new George W. Bush foreign relations paradigm is working out?

[jets5ever]

Tail -

Would you support or not support the Iraq War if not a single American life was lost during it?

Would that change your view? How about if 25 soldiers had died, as opposed to 500...would that change your view?

Personally, my number is 600. Anything less than or equal to 600 deaths and I support the war. As soon as the 601st death occurs, however, I will join the "Bush lied" crowd, because that&#39;s precisely how my mind works.