Iraq is not Vietnam, you say?

[jayjay]

@tdn

And there is irrefutable proof that US officials met with terrorists. What’s your point?

Hell, for decades the IRA was funded in large part by collection of donations in American bars and taverns. Shall we nuke Boston for supporting terrorists? Or is that different for some reason?

[World_Eater]

@Psycho Pirate

And while there is no clear link between Hussein and Bin Laden (no pictures of them holding hands and skipping through the sands of Iraq)

.

As opposed to that nice picture of Rummy shaking SH’s hand. BTW did you know that Detroit gave SH a key to the city in 1980?

Even if Hussein and his regime don’t fit your definition of terrorist, they fit my (and Bush’s) definition of terrorist, that being “If you are a terrorist, or if you support terrorists, you are a target for the war on terror.”

Hmmm, so when are we attacking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan again?

[tdn]

@jayjay

Shall we nuke Boston for supporting terrorists?

Geez, I wish you wouldn’t. That’s where I keep all my stuff!

[World_Eater]

BTW Psycho, say my girlfriend and I are in a bar, and she goes to the bathroom. During that time, a female approaches me and asks me the time. My GF comes out and sees me talking to the girl, and then the girl leaves. My girlfriend can draw several positive and negative conclusions from this sight. A stupid analogy yes, but you get the point. Even if AQ approached SH, we don’t know in what context, and what the result. I would at least like you to acknowledge the possiblity that SH could have said one of two things…

1. “Hey OBL, yeah that sounds great, let me know how I can help”

2. “Are you fucking nuts dude? Get the fuck away from me, I don’t need any more heat on my back”

Context and nuance are two things sorely lacking that will win this war. That’s why we’re destined to lose, because people only see black and white in the situation.

[Merijeek]

@This Year's Model

Well, it puts you in the company of the likes of ralph124c, who liked to type Edward Kennedy (D-Chivas Regal). Is that OK with you?

Well, let’s see. Limbaugh’s youthful indescretions (or however he excused it) are nearly forgotten while Teddy’s fuckup is still quite well remembered.

I’m not a sociopath like Bricker who believes that the ends justifies the means, but I do believe it’s time for the Democrats and their supporters to realize that the means don’t justify the ends, either.

-Joe

[The_Tooth]

@Psycho Pirate

Even if Hussein and his regime don’t fit your definition of terrorist, they fit my (and Bush’s) definition of terrorist, that being “If you are a terrorist, or if you support terrorists, you are a target for the war on terror.”

Your definition of a terrorist is someone who’s a target in the war on terror? And what makes someone a target in the war on terror is their being a terrorist?

I appreciate the symmetry of your thinking.

[World_Eater]

@The Tooth

Your definition of a terrorist is someone who’s a target in the war on terror? And what makes someone a target in the war on terror is their being a terrorist?

I appreciate the symmetry of your thinking.

C’mon now, you know he can’t handle you.

I’ve filled my bad joke quota for the week now.

[cosmosdan]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

According to the link provided by Squink in another Pit thread, it already is a de facto civil war.

In answer to your question “How long were we in Vietnam before most started realizing it wasn’t going to end well?” – it was a gradual shift in public opinion, very much like what we’re seeing now with regard to Iraq. I myself was a supporter of the war in the first year or so, trusting my government to do the right thing.

I lost that trust then and have never regained it.

Whic war are you refering to?

[Frank]

@cosmosdan

Whic war are you refering to?

EddyTeddyFreddy? Probably the Spanish-American.

[Psycho_Pirate]

@tdn

And there is irrefutable proof that US officials met with terrorists. What’s your point?

Are you talking about former meetings with Hussein? If so, I thought he wasn’t a terrorist (at least as far as Giraffe is concerned).

@World Eater

Hmmm, so when are we attacking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan again?

I don’t know, but I know if they commit or support acts of terrorism, they are a valid target. My short answer would be: eventually. Hopefully it won’t come to that, and the democracy in Iraq will help to stabilize the region. And as for your analogy about the girl in the bar, I see your point. But I can’t imagine an innocent context for which al-Qaeda would approach Iraqi officials (I don’t think they were asking the time ;)) I suppose if Iraq said “Are you crazy? We aren’t going to join you. We’re busy killing our own people and shooting at US aircraft.” then you might have a point.

@The Tooth

Your definition of a terrorist is someone who’s a target in the war on terror? And what makes someone a target in the war on terror is their being a terrorist?

No, that isn’t my definition. A terrorist is someone who uses terror or terrorist tactics against their enemies. The war on terror is against those who either commit, support, sponsor, or give safe harbor to terrorists.

[tdn]

@Psycho Pirate

Are you talking about former meetings with Hussein? If so, I thought he wasn’t a terrorist (at least as far as Giraffe is concerned).

And according to you, he is. We’ve also had friendly dealings with bin Laden. And Ireland. We harbored Timothy McVeigh. We let terrorists drive cabs in this country.

Just because Mohammed Atta was in Boston doesn’t mean that Boston is a terrorist city. Yes, Al-Qaida was in Iraq. They were also in Germany, France, Britain, Canada, and the US. That in itself doesn’t implicate those nations.

(Of course, if France had oil…)

[World_Eater]

@Psycho Pirate

I don’t know, but I know if they commit or support acts of terrorism, they are a valid target.

Well I’ll tell you two things I wish the Bush admin had done.

1. Found a more nuanced way to threaten all the bad guys out there. Perhaps something to the effect of “we’ll go after any terrorists that threaten us”. By making some blanket condemnation that any country that supports these guys will be dealt with, we’ve tied our hands to hypocrisy. When we threaten Iraq, who at best had a tenuous link to AQ, while 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, we look pretty stupid.

2. Acknowledge that 15 of the fucking hijackers were SA, and tell the country this is a huge concern that concern that must be dealt with.

My short answer would be: eventually. Hopefully it won’t come to that, and the democracy in Iraq will help to stabilize the region.

We should assume it won’t.

And as for your analogy about the girl in the bar, I see your point. But I can’t imagine an innocent context for which al-Qaeda would approach Iraqi officials (I don’t think they were asking the time ;))

Of course AQ wasn’t asking the time, they wanted help blowing us the fuck up. This isn’t the point.

I suppose if Iraq said "Are you crazy? We aren’t going to join you.

Which could be a possibilty, because SH had his own agenda, and probably had enough problems already. The guy isn’t stupid.

We’re busy killing our own people and shooting at US aircraft." then you might have a point.

Which we have rightly held against him, because they’re proven. Conspiring with AQ hasn’t been proven. Hold him responsible for what he’s done, not what he hasn’t done.

A terrorist is someone who uses terror or terrorist tactics against their enemies.

This is far too vague to be useful. I bet the Iraqi civs were shitting their pants over this “Shock and Awe” bullshit, does that make us terrorists?

The war on terror is against those who either commit, support, sponsor, or give safe harbor to terrorists.

Again, way too vague to be of any use. Didn’t the 9/11 hijackers live in the US for several years? By your definition almost every planet on the globe “supports” terrorists.

[Psycho_Pirate]

@World Eater

Again, way too vague to be of any use. Didn’t the 9/11 hijackers live in the US for several years? By your definition almost every planet on the globe “supports” terrorists.

Okay, how about knowingly supports known terrorists. That clear enough for you? I mean, it’s not like Atta and his buddies identified themselves to the US, explained their plot, and the US responded “sure we’ll harbor you”. C’mon World Eater, you are smarter than that.

[World_Eater]

@Psycho Pirate

Okay, how about knowingly supports known terrorists. That clear enough for you? I mean, it’s not like Atta and his buddies identified themselves to the US, explained their plot, and the US responded “sure we’ll harbor you”. C’mon World Eater, you are smarter than that.

Well that’s a huge qualifier, and that’s the point. It now falls on providing evidence that SH said “sure we’ll harbor you”, something that hasn’t been proven to this day. If like the US he wasn’t aware of their presence, or told them to buzz off, he shouldn’t be held responsible for them.

BTW, I’m not defending that asshole, just trying to defend common sense.

[World_Eater]

One more thing. I’ll wager 75% of the country isn’t aware of your qualifier, something I hold the admin accountable for not making clear. It makes a huge fucking difference.

[Giraffe]

@Psycho Pirate

Yes it is what they were. What would you call someone who gassed his own people, engaged in torture such as beheadings and rapings of his own people, and who funded suicide bomber attacks agains Israel? That person is a terrorist, regardless of what you think. And while there is no clear link between Hussein and Bin Laden (no pictures of them holding hands and skipping through the sands of Iraq) there has been evidence that Iraqi officials met with al-Qaeda members.

Bullshit. There is no evidence whatsoever that a collaborative relationship ever existed or would have existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. What’s more, there is a raft of evidence that Saddam was strongly opposed to militant Islam, and viewed it as a threat to his control of the country. So even if he had weapons of mass destruction, it’s unbelievable to think he would have risked letting them out of his control at all, let alone given them to a group of radical Islam extremists.

With no link to al-Qaeda, it’s foolish and destructive to equate Saddam Hussein to the terrorists out there right now who have successfully attacked civilians in the U.S., England,and elsewhere. We need to focus on the people who are actually trying to attack us, not play semantic games to pretend going after an easy target like Saddam Hussein will accomplish anything in that fight. Saddam’s killing the Kurds 20 years ago was a horrible act, but was not a threat to us right now by any stretch of the imagination. Deluding ourselves so we can pretend we’re making progress is a luxury we can’t afford.

[Psycho_Pirate]

@World Eater

One more thing. I’ll wager 75% of the country isn’t aware of your qualifier, something I hold the admin accountable for not making clear.

Well, I’m not going to defend the administration’s communication skills. And sadly, there are those on both sides of the aisle who only hear what they want to hear.

Giraffe, Iraq was in flagrant violation of many UN Resolutions. What’s more, they were constantly firing on US planes as they patrolled the no-fly zone. It isn’t that great a logical leap for me to think that they wouldn’t confine their attacks to small weapons fire if they had larger weapons available.

[Merijeek]

@Psycho Pirate

Giraffe, Iraq was in flagrant violation of many UN Resolutions. What’s more, they were constantly firing on US planes as they patrolled the no-fly zone. It isn’t that great a logical leap for me to think that they wouldn’t confine their attacks to small weapons fire if they had larger weapons available.

Exactly! And if I had a trillion dollars…oh, wait, I don’t.

Of course, by your logic Pat Robertson should be in custody for assassinating Chavez since, if he had a dedicated team of ninjas, Chavez would be dead.

Amazing how the UN is useless and irrelevent - unless it’s an excuse to do what you wnat.

-Joe

[mhendo]

@This Year's Model

Well, it puts you in the company of the likes of ralph124c, who liked to type Edward Kennedy (D-Chivas Regal). Is that OK with you?

I can’t speak for Merijeek, but even as someone who quite likes Ted Kennedy, i thought that was pretty funny.

Also, the issue was Limbaugh’s hypocrisy, his constant railing against drugs while a drug addict himself.

As far as i know, Ted Kennedy has never called for banning alcohol, or criticised people who drink.

[World_Eater]

@Psycho Pirate

Well, I’m not going to defend the administration’s communication skills.

Oh no buddy, you’re not getting off that easily. You backtracked on your original stance that anyone who harbors terrorists is a valid target, by adding an important qualifier…

"Okay, how about knowingly supports known terrorists. That clear enough for you? I mean, it’s not like Atta and his buddies identified themselves to the US, explained their plot, and the US responded “sure we’ll harbor you”."

Now this qualifier seems to work against us in the case of Iraq, because as mentioned a million times, there was no evidence of cooperation. Do you agree or disagree?

Lastly the admin has not chosen not to clarify this qualifier, and that is counter productive to catching actual terrorists. To be able to make the distinction that in some countries the leadership is aware of their presence, and in others they aren’t, is a pretty damn important distinction.

Of course admitting this would blow our Iraq invasion reasoning to further shit.

And sadly, there are those on both sides of the aisle who only hear what they want to hear.

Giraffe, Iraq was in flagrant violation of many UN Resolutions. What’s more, they were constantly firing on US planes as they patrolled the no-fly zone. It isn’t that great a logical leap for me to think that they wouldn’t confine their attacks to small weapons fire if they had larger weapons available.
[/QUOTE]