CDIH

don't worry the color coded chart says that a terrorist attack isn't gonna come, maybe, who knows?

Quote:its not about the WMD's its about combatting terrorism. you think Saddam wasn't helping terror cells around the world attack America and their allies?

No. There's no evidence at all to back up the claim that Saddam Hussein was working with any terrorist group against the US. There's a pretty good interview with Al Qaeda expert Peter Bergen in TPM which I think, gives a good picture of how Al Qaeda works and how claims that AQ and Iraq were working together were unsubstantiated.

Part One Of Interview

Part Two Of Interview

Quote:But, you know, I spent years researching my book on al Qaida, and one of the striking things is how few Iraqis there are in the organization. I mean, everybody has an alias in al Qaida. They're called al Misri, which means you're from Egypt, or you're called al Jazeera, which means you're from Algeria. Very few are al Iraqi. The only one who is significant is a guy called Mahmud Salim who's actually in prison, and has been in prison since '98, who was a significant player in the leadership of al Qaida.

But obviously bin Laden is a Saudi, most of the top leadership is Egyptian, rather than Iraqi. And if you do a breakdown of who went through the training camps, the overwhelming numbers, from the Arab world at least, would be Saudis, Yemenis, and Algerians. Those would be in the top three. Iraqis really would have come down [the list]. And also, no one from Iran. There were no al Iranis in the groups.

TPM: Now that would be at least a sectarian divide?

BERGEN: Actually there's more evidence for al Qaida playing footsie with Hezbollah in the early '90s. You know, if you look at the model, the al Qaida model is the Hezbollah model. And this goes back to the question du jour--which is, what's happening in Iraq?

If you accept the fact -- and it is a fact -- that bin Laden modeled al Qaida's tactics on Hezbollah in Beirut in the mid '80s, when the bomb went off and we withdrew, and also on Mogadishu, where 18 Americans were killed and then we also withdrew ... If you accept that as their model, then that's the model they're going to apply in Iraq. That would explain the Jordanian embassy, the UN Headquarters, and the future attacks there are undoubtedly going to be against US soldiers there.

Quote:TPM: ...getting rid of Saddam had its own immediate advantages (non-conventional weapons, threat to his neighbors, and so forth) but that changing the government in Baghdad could basically trigger a kind of domino effect in the region.

BERGEN: I just saw that as a sort of theological position.

TPM: Yeah, there was that position and then the contrary position, saying it's going to domino the other direction.

BERGEN: I'm going to firmly sit on the fence, because I think all we can say about the events of the Iraq war is the following: We speeded up history, right? Because we volunteered for this, we really didn't have to do it. There wasn't an imminent threat, you know there was no link to 9/11. Saddam's a horrible human being, but there are plenty of those around. So we volunteered essentially, and we basically sped history up. I know that you're a professional historian. When you speed history up, to say [with] rose-tinted spectacles, it's all going to be great, there's going to be democracy around the Middle East and everyone's going to love us, I mean that is as wrong as saying this will be the biggest disaster of all time. We just don't know.

I think only time will tell if what we did in Iraq was re-ignite hatred for America or assumed control over a region ripe for terrorists.

I agree with one thing michael moore said

the biggest lie has a large kernel of truth, that saddam was an awful man who was terrorizing his people and had weapons. But so do many other countries, like india and pakistan whom openly admit to having nuclear weapons and are a larger threat maybe not to us but are at eachothers throats. But was saddam a larger threat now than he was 13 years ago or 13 months ago?

If not for 9-11 Bush never pulls off the iraq invasion cause somehow Bush managed to morph saddam into bin laden and placed the blame of 9-11 on Saddam without ever openly saying it.

The point in my other thread about bowling for columbine, while to people who have researched it know our sordid past with bin laden and saddam, yet sadly many do not. Saddam only had the weapons and resources to make them cause we supplied him, then supplied iran, then supplied him again. Not to mention the training of peoples who became al quaeda including bin laden.

Yet somehow the goverment wants to make it seem like they popped outta the sky.

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS RETURN

Interesting article. Lots of truth to it.

Mad is the new teenweek, welcome old friend.

At the risk of further TeenWeeking this thread...

Christian Science Monitor has a nice section devoted to our beloved Neocons.

Neocons: Empire Builders

You can take the "Are you a Neocon" quiz (I'm an isolationist, apparently).

Learn about how Bush's foreign policy, like everything else in the world, can be blamed on the Jews.

Actually, in all seriousness, CSM is about the most unbiased source you'll find. It gives a very fair and accurate (not fair and balanced), non-partisan view of what the Neo-conservative agenda is all about.

Quote:Isolationist

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists…

Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character
Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge

Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan

Same here I could give a fuck about the rest of the world. The US should stay the hell out of other country's affairs. Bring all of the troops home and start protecting our borders first and foremost.

Toss the UN out on their asses and stop all foreign aid. Get back to the Constitutional mandates, no more, no less.

Any politician that does not agree should be given a trial for treason and hung when found guilty.

stick your head in the sand and get your ass blown to bits.

Keyser Soze Wrote:stick your head in the sand and get your ass blown to bits.

War is business.

Follow the money. Look at who is benefiting from this current 'conflict'. Then go back in history and follow who 'gets' the money.

You'd be surprised at what you'll find.

Sex shapes the world not politics, not money, not oil, not war. They are only means to an end. The end however has no purpose other than reproduction. We fart along fucking, fighting and arguing but we don't see or care to see the truth. Our overlords are faceless. Bush is a puppet. We are all puppets. The real power is within the bush not within Bush.

diceisgod Wrote:Sex shapes the world not politics, not money, not oil, not war. They are only means to an end. The end however has no purpose other than reproduction. We fart along fucking, fighting and arguing but we don't see or care to see the truth. Our overlords are faceless. Bush is a puppet. We are all puppets. The real power is within the bush not within Bush.

I concur with the great philosopher DIG.

so does this mean Bush, Saddam, and Bin Laden just don't get laid enough?

It means they are wasting their time. The more people fight each other, the less they think, the more they are bound. The overlords win. It's really quite a beautiful system. It's a mouse trap to the power infinity. Welcome to the Matrix motherfuckers.

:bow:

I disagree on one point, isolationism is a horrible policy. I don't mean that we should just look after our own home and not care about our neighbors. That was our policy after WW1 when peopl cried out that we had no business getting involved. That's why america did not get fully involved in WW2 until pearl harbor and then we only declared war on the empire of Japan, the war against the Nazi's didn't fully start until 1943, a full 4 years since the war officially began and 7 years after Hitler's reign of terror began.

Also one point is that Mad is correct, there is no bigger business than the machine of war. FDR's alphabet soup programs helped us ease out of the great depression slowly but it wasn't until the war and after the war that we fully got out of it. Plus the whole boom of the 50's which carried this nation into unseen prosperity was a direct result of the great War.

So war is not strictly a "in the goverments" pocket deal, while the goverment does see a great deal of prosperity, so do the people of that country.

I question the recent "wars" which are being fought on a small kernel of truth and spending ungodly amounts of money for others prosperity while our country is suffering. I am not only speaking of the homeless and the economic droughts but we are just a mess, we need reforms here and not in iraq. Plus Bush needs to quit the whole act as if he is on a mission from God and has his backing, this is not the crusades.

Bush made a good speech during his state of the union on all his plans and reforms but most of them either fell through or recieved a small percentage of monies he promised, mostly due to him caving to senators from his home state of texas.