OT: No turning back now with Iraq

[AgPete]

So much for religious reasons being enough to keep extremists away from Iraq. While I agree that moderate activists can be kept separate, a killer is a killer, and Bin Laden has already proven himself a hypocrite in the worse ways so it's not surprising that he is now publicly announcing:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/11/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html

There have been rumors for weeks that Bin Laden and Hussein had an informal alliance. I just hope that they haven't been planning terrorist attacks with Hussein's weapons and funding while the U.S. has been dealing with the U.N.

Self-fulfilling prophecy with our stance on Iraq or was it bound to happen anyway?

- Al Qaeda and Iraq are public friends now.
- Recent intelligence is finding the most specific info on terrorist attacks since 9/11.
- NATO is falling apart.
- Israel has given up on the peace process.

Is anyone else worried as hell about the future? I can see another Vietnam, I can see the U.N. going the way of the League of Nations, I can see America by herself....I pray our leaders are making the right decisions.

[rkmsuf]

I can't understand how the American people think everyone here is lying and everyone in the Middle East is telling the truth.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by rkmsuf
I can't understand how the American people think everyone here is lying and everyone in the Middle East is telling the truth.

we have ulterior motives. they do not.

[rkmsuf]

right...

[Drake]

Originally posted by rkmsuf
I can't understand how the American people think everyone here is lying and everyone in the Middle East is telling the truth.

Have you not watched television, man! We know the people here lie to us. Because we're optimists, we choose to believe that there must be someone out there who won't lie to us. Those people happen to be Middle Eastern.

If you take this away from people, you make the world a very dark, cold and ugly place.

[Marmel]

The longer we wait, the more prepared they become........

[Drake]

The longer we wait, the older their children live to be.........

[Marmel]

.....the older their children are, the more of them there are to kill our children.......

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Marmel
The longer we wait, the more prepared they become........

Couldn't agree more. If we're going to do it, do it now before they can take advantage of the Iraqi WMD we're about to eliminate.

[Drake]

If more Christians had prayed for Saddam Hussein to be assassinated like all those e-mails I received asked them to, we wouldn't even be making this decision.

[Drake]

dola...

So, I gather that the Biblical precedent for praying for another human being's death comes from those bits in Psalms where David prays for God to kill his enemies. Does anyone have a good chain reference where I can tie these Psalms to actual Israelite victories in war (as opposed to those annoying stories where David and/or his armies ride into battle and get skullfucked because they might have been doing not-so-Godly sorts of things like praying for the Divine thwacking of their enemies)?

Just curious.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Marmel
The longer we wait, the more prepared they become........

As soon as the bulk of the heavy equipment gets there, they will go. :(

I will stand by those men and women who have to go in and do the dirty work, but I have to say that I have a very, very bad feeling about this whole mess. I think it's going to hurt, and hurt bad. Sorry, but I'm feeling very pessimistic about the whole thing.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by rkmsuf
right...

No, its true. We want to go to war so we can force them to accept Long John Silvers Family Fish Restaurants. They just want to keep living in peace.

[rkmsuf]

Kind of a reverse Babu Bat.

[Marmel]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Long Johnsons.

[Ben E Lou]

What cracks me up is why in the world did they feel the need to just flat-out LIE this morning and say there was no such tape??? Then, a few hours later, they publish the tape. Once again the U.S. is proven to be telling the truth, and Al-Jeerza (sp??) is proven to be just telling lies for the sake of telling lies. Geez.

[Drake]

Originally posted by Fritz
No, its true. We want to go to war so we can force them to accept Long John Silvers Family Fish Restaurants. They just want to keep living in peace.

Stop it, you boob. With arguments like that, you're going to convince these chuckleheads that war is bad. We're supposed to be the warmongerers. Is that so hard to remember?

[Drake]

Originally posted by Marmel
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Long Johnsons.

I know you did not just "mmmmmm" somebody after I "mmmmmm'd" your pretzel comment in that other thread.

[Samdari]

I don't understand what the big deal is about this tape. From the story linked here, all it says is Bin Laden encourages Muslims to band together against US agression. He has been saying this since roughly the birth of Christ. Unless the CNN.com story linked here leaves a great deal out, this tape is mere Al Queda rhetoric and not evidence of some link between Baghdad and Al Queda.

We're going to war, and I am not going to speak out actively against it, but to try to use this as justification for an attack? That is laughable. Just because Bin Laden encourages all Muslims to fight the U.S. if it attacks Iraq, does not mean that Iraq supported Al-Queda. While I think it is probably 97% likely that Iraq supports terrorism, this tape does not constitute evidence of that.

[Marmel]

Originally posted by Drake
I know you did not just "mmmmmm" somebody after I "mmmmmm'd" your pretzel comment in that other thread.



Here is your quote:

Mmmm. Pretzels.



and now mine:

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Long Johnsons.



12 more M's. Big difference, pal.

[Drake]

Not according to the bot. You know who I mean. ;)

[Marmel]

I love the bot. I miss the bot. I am going to go say hi to the bot right now, in fact. *insert thoughtful tears smiley*

[Drake]

That is a stupid ;) smiley. I mean, am I the only one who thinks that the ;) smiley should be a little more, I don't know, sarcastic looking or something? I'd even settle for conspiratorial.

This ==> ;) doof just looks like he's got a lazy eyelid.

This needs some definite mod attention. It is the sort of thing that could be a dealbreaker for a board, especially right after the big move and all.

[Marmel]

Drake, don't joke on lazy eyes.

[AgPete]

Originally posted by Samdari
I don't understand what the big deal is about this tape. From the story linked here, all it says is Bin Laden encourages Muslims to band together against US agression. He has been saying this since roughly the birth of Christ. Unless the CNN.com story linked here leaves a great deal out, this tape is mere Al Queda rhetoric and not evidence of some link between Baghdad and Al Queda.

We're going to war, and I am not going to speak out actively against it, but to try to use this as justification for an attack? That is laughable. Just because Bin Laden encourages all Muslims to fight the U.S. if it attacks Iraq, does not mean that Iraq supported Al-Queda. While I think it is probably 97% likely that Iraq supports terrorism, this tape does not constitute evidence of that.

In the first Persian Gulf war, Bin Laden was more worried about U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. I don't remember him publicly supporting Iraq during Bush Sr.'s administration. I wish the U.S. had more evidence linking Iraq with Al-Qaeda because it would certainly help with foreign relations. Right now, the U.S. looks like a paranoid overreacting nation in the eyes of the world.

What I'm hoping is that the U.S. has intelligence that they can't release right now. They've claimed this all along and could not release critical evidence because of fear that it would reveal the sources. Hopefully, after the invasion, the U.S. will reveal some intelligence that will shock our critics.

[Drake]

Originally posted by Marmel
Drake, don't joke on lazy eyes.

My wife has a lazy eye. It's actually one of the things that I find very cute about her because when she starts to feel amorous, it gets a little droopy, and well...

What I'm saying is that I have a hard time concentrating when that smiley looks at me like that when I'm at work.

Thanks for opening me up to public ridicule, Marm. :P

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Drake
What I'm saying is that I have a hard time concentrating when that smiley looks at me like that when I'm at work.



Ick!

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by Marmel
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Long Johnsons.

Please keep your homoerotic thoughts to yourself Marmel. After all, this is a thread about military action; thus the "don't ask, don't tell" policy applies.

[HornedFrog Purple]

This boils down to many things:

1. Do you support preemptive strikes? In other words, do you think it is necessary to put out a potential fire while its still a flame. There are people who contend there is no flame to begin with.

2. This idea that it will take 3 days and a cloud of dust is shaky at best. It is safe to assume the Republican Army has learned from the last conflict and if this is not supported by the UN, this means less ability for the US to strike everywhere at once simply for lack of support and lack of bases to engage. Any country including the US forced to defend as many flanks as Iraq did will inevitably lose.

3. What role will Israel play in this? Sharone is old-school and I find it unlikely President Bush can keep him out of this if Israel is attacked. My best bet would be Hussein will try again to get Israel provoked. This is bad news. President Bush last year put Sharone in a catch-22 regarding concessions of land for the Palestines.

4. At what point does national security take a backseat to public disclosure? This is a grey area. People want a smoking gun. There will never be a smoking gun at this point because all the opposition has to say is "fabrication". Does it take a strike from Iraq against US interests or embassies? Maybe so, but that all relates to pre-emptive striking.

Colin Powell believes there is sufficient evidence. It is safe to assume he has much more viable information that he simply cant disclose for a number of reasons. This leads to two possiblities:

1. He has been entirely misled.

2. He is in on the "coup".

After 9/11 not more than two weeks afterwards, President Bush publicly pointed out Iraq and said "we are watching you". The question arises why would he single-handedly point out Iraq (Afghanistan wasnt even on the map at this point) when we at the time had no idea who was actually behind 9/11. I dont know.

The contention that oil has everything or nothing to do with this is also shaky at best. I believe we have a vested interest in Iraqi oil. Why? One reason is the Caspian Sea region which was supposed to provide billions and billions of barrels. Many US companies invested in this region with the prospects of obtaining in the neighborhood of 300 billion barrels of oil, the estimates have shrunk to 20 billion with some of it nothing more than sludge. It is quite true we have many reserves, but potential reserves that would supplement the Middle East are simply not coming into fruition.

When it comes to something like this with conflicting information, its usually a safe bet that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but where in the middle does "war" (I use this term loosely) lie?

Beats me.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by AgPete

- Israel has given up on the peace process.



You mean the peace process they have been taking a rejectionist stand towards since the countries inception?

[The Afoci]

Yeah, i guess if people were walking into my country and blowing themselves up I would do anything to make peace with them because it is all my fault...

[astralhaze]

If it were as simple as that I would agree with you. Unfortunately it is not. Occupied territories, as in, military occupation.

[The Afoci]

dola, (if i can type quick enough)

i am actually not sure on my last statement...i understand there is a past with israel that isn't the nicest thing ever, but if someone can tell me how anyone can blame them for what is happening to them right now with all the terrorism... to me it is like blaming us for 9/11 because we meddle to much in the world... so with that logic, you meddle, it is fine for us to do whatever to harm you, then you look bad and must give up what you have for peace with us who are pretty much declaring war on you. please correct me if i am wrong

[The Afoci]

damn you beat me too it...now i don't have alot of knowledge on the area, but if i am correct the military occupation was from a war that was declared on them and put in place to secure the country from aggressors??? like i said, i am not sure, but my middle east recent history ie not ancient is pretty weak.

edit...now i get my dola...

[astralhaze]

It's not a matter of meddling or their past history, it is about their continued military occupation of territories they siezed in a war 36 years ago. They refuse to withdraw despite repeated condemnations and resolutions from the United Nations. The brutality towards the residents of the occupied territories is no secret. Nelson Mandella stated that it was worse than apartheid. No one in their right mind supports or condones suicide bombings, but by focusing solely on them misses a great deal of the picture.

[astralhaze]

Actually, Israel attacked Egpyt and Syria in the '67 war. Their justification was that they were going to be attacked imminently. Whether this was the case or not is debatable, but what is not up for debate is that Israel fired the first shot.

[The Afoci]

thanks astralhaze, like i said, i have limited knowledge on the area.

On a different subject, I assume Nelson Mandella is against what is going on in the occupied regions, but i have heard him say he is against going into iraq. now no matter what are intentions are, by doing so, we would be greatly reducing the brutality towards the iraq people by saddam. so does nelson mandella not backing israel have anything to do with a jewish country backed by the US in the middle of a bunch of arab countries.

[astralhaze]

You are comparing apples and oranges.

[The Afoci]

Maybe I am, but how. Is the suffering of Iraqis by there "leader" any different the suffering of those by a foriegn occupier? All I was trying to see is if Nelson Mandella has some sort of tie to something that would allow him to turn his back on the Iraqi people, but condemn Israel.

[astralhaze]

No, the suffering is not neccesarily different, but the response to that suffering is different. For Saddam to be removed from power and end the suffering of the people, the people would either need to overthrow him or have outside intervention. To end the suffering of the Palestinians, all it would take would be Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories.

I have no idea of Nelson Mandella's position on the plight of the Iraqi people, but it isn't really relevant to what we were discussing. The effects and legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine should be discussed on its own merits.

[Bee]

To end the suffering of the Palestinians, all it would take would be Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories.

Do you really believe that statement or is it somewhat misworded?

Serious question, not trying to bait you.

[astralhaze]

Since I was refering to the effects of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, yes, that is all it would take.

[Bee]

I guess what I was getting at is do you believe

1) If Israel were to withdrawal it would end the suffering of the Palestinians caused by the Israeli occupation.

or

2) If Israel were to withdrawal it would end all the suffering of the Palestinians.

Reading the initial statement I understood it to say #2. After reading your response I think it meant #1. Am I correct?

I think statement #1 goes without saying. You could also say, if the Palestinian terrorists stopped terrorist attacks, the Israelis would no longer suffer from terrorists attacks by Palestinians.

I think statement #2 is a stretch because the Palestinians throughout history have suffered a great deal from the treatment of other Arabs and even if they were to come to a peace with Israel, they have a long and tough road ahead of them dealing with things like that and are far from ending their suffering.

Edit:

Sorry if this looks like nitpicking, that statement just caught my eye and I was trying to understand what angle you were coming from.

[astralhaze]

Yes, I meant number one.

[Bee]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Yes, I meant number one.

Ah ok. I agree with that. :D