Is this the real reason we are at war? Maybe not, but it sure looks bad...

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by tradesilicon *
** And Stoid, please let us know when you think congress does and does not do their job, and why they would allow Bush to get a way with the conspiracy. Please. **

First, did I say Congress does not do their job? Their job is to do what we want them to, how many times am I going to have to go over this?

As for “allowing Bush to get away with the conspiracy”, are you suggesting that IF a conspiracy were to happen, it would be laid out as such for Congress to agree to? Of course not! It would be wrapped in all kinds of good intentions and hidden, hello. “Gee, we gotta do X in order to keep the country safe! We gotta do Y to get the terrorists!” when in fact, the purposes behind X and Y might be very different.

Presidential administrations have put plenty over on Congress over the years.

stoid

[Hamish]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**What I don’t understand is so many people, who consider themselves leftists, are so against getting rid of the Taliban, a truly evil regime. My GOD, imagine what it would be like to be a woman living in Afghanistan. Not that the Northern Alliance is much better, though. **

I for one, would be quite happy to see the Taliban fall. They disgust me. But our support of the Northern Alliance removes any credibility from the idea that we’re fighting for a free Afghanistan. And my worry is that the ordinary people of Afhghanistan, those who do not become a statistic of “collateral damage” of this war, will exchange one awful tyranny for another.

I don’t think Bush planned this war, and that’s not what the OP suggested. It questioned Bush’s objectivity, which is a perfectly legitimate concern. Certainly, there would have been <i>some</i> response to these attacks, but would it have been <i>this</i> response? This quickly? This region?

Gods! Have we really gotten to the point where the slightest questioning of an elected political leader is actually regarded as treason or a betrayal of the dead? A democracy can’t function if people aren’t allowed to question your leaders, and debate the danger of corruption.

[Scylla]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stoid *
**

My point has been: pay attention. So far so good, just do not turn a blind eye. Don’t get so caught up in revenge, fear, patriotism, whatever, that we forget that our government has been known to do things it turned out later we weren’t so happy about, in the name of protecting us. Let’s not make that mistake again. With that in mind, here’s some interesting information.

stoid **

::Channeling George Michael::

…And all we have to doooooooo now, is take these lies and make them true suh-uh-uhmhow…
Arrr, methinks your ship is goin down, filled with holes as she is.

I don’t think anybody’s buyin’ it, and me be wonderin’ if this be your official response or just something ye hacked together fer the interim until ye could come up with sommmat’ better?

Why not just be admittin’ yer whole OP is a mere haphazard framework to give yerself the opportunity to engage in a little gratuitous Republican bashin’ as a therapeutic endeavor, and as such you didn’t bother to have it make any sense? It’s a lot less embarrasin’ that way.

Ye be remembrin’ now that the Dread Pirate Scylla takes no prisoners, ok?

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**And I’m not sure I can bring it back on course, but I’ve been wanting to say this for a while and I feel it’s more on-topic than a sea shanty.

I believe the U.S. Government should release ALL the evidence they have against the Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden to the general public. If it is as damning as Tony Blair believes, then it will get some of the other countries off the fence and put all these conspiracy theories(well most of them, there will always be people who will believe the evidence was faked, cf Apollo Hoaxes) to bed. More than ever I believe this needs to be done in an objective manner and with full disclosure. Real names, everything.

**

Arrr, a fair and intelligent point, rationally put. Normally this would be a good idea, but the problem here Matey is we can’t be givin’ out the the names of our spies and sources now can we?

Why that Scurvy Dog Bin Laden, and his rowdy band of Talibinese are likely to take a look and say “Hey, look Fred’s a spy!”

That wouldn’t be a very nice thing to do to Fred after he helped us out and all now, would it?

[Monty]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
My point has been: pay attention.

Bullshit. Your point, as you made it so obvious by both the title of this thread and your OP, is that the President got us into a war for his own profit.

Now I have two questions for you:
[list=1][li]Exactly what did you miss from the news on September 11? You certainly must’ve seen something about a few buildings being destroyed with people in them![/li]What schools did you attend so the rest of us can make damn sure our children don’t get the incredible lack of thinking skills you display?[/list=1]

[Jackmannii]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by elucidator *
**

The fine old traditions, eh? As Churchill had it, “buggery and the lash”.**

Ye be confusin’ us with the Royal Navy, boy.

Not surprising for one so backward in his Greek mythology.

Besides, the womenfolk are flocking to tag along on our enterprise. Susan Sontag has volunteered to be strapped to the bow, for a-scarin’ off sharks.

[Mtgman]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**
I believe the U.S. Government should release ALL the evidence they have against the Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden to the general public. If it is as damning as Tony Blair believes, then it will get some of the other countries off the fence and put all these conspiracy theories(well most of them, there will always be people who will believe the evidence was faked, cf Apollo Hoaxes) to bed. More than ever I believe this needs to be done in an objective manner and with full disclosure. Real names, everything.
**

Arrr, a fair and intelligent point, rationally put. Normally this would be a good idea, but the problem here Matey is we can’t be givin’ out the the names of our spies and sources now can we?

Why that Scurvy Dog Bin Laden, and his rowdy band of Talibinese are likely to take a look and say “Hey, look Fred’s a spy!”

That wouldn’t be a very nice thing to do to Fred after he helped us out and all now, would it? **

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
In reality this conflict is so one-sided it’s not even funny. Even if every one of our sources of inside information was exposed by this release of information, how much of a difference could it really make? And how long would it take to get more insiders? Get our agents out, or offer insiders asylum and then release the evidence.

I’ve never said let the agents/informants names out without doing something to protect them. Your response is exactly like what everyone else is saying. We can’t release detailed(read complete and convincing) evidence without comprimising our sources.

Wah.

A fitting analogy of this conflict would be a duel to the death between someone armed with a super soaker and a highly-trained commando armed with a M-16. Sure, you could take a nasty squirt in the eye if you back off or “comprimise” your “sensitive” information, but ultimately the outcome is damn certain. So, back off, get our “sources” out, occasionally pound the Taliban if they start mobilizing, and release the damn evidence. Your case is not bulletproof until you do. It doesn’t really even matter what other governments think, the US Gov’t has a responsibility to inform and justify their actions to their citizens. If only a half dozen people in the top of the military and another couple dozen in the security branches of the house/senate comittee strucutre are really privy to this information(and I bet even those reports have lots of blank/marked out areas) then our being a representative government pretty much flies out the window.

I simply don’t believe that the intelligence agents could not be pulled out or that the stream of info is so critical that we can suspend the responsibility of the American Government to it’s citizens.

I’m going to do what might look like a backpeadal, but it’s really not, all I really ever wanted was absolute proof that Bin Laden/Al Qaeda(can’t spell that damn thing, but that’s ok because anything in the ASCII character set is a rough approximation anyway ) was behind the 9/11 attacks. I’m not asking for release of evidence which could comprimise investigations into terrorist cells which have not yet been broken up, but a very complete report of the investigation of the attacks, which clearly lead to Bin Laden, need not include this information. I have no doubt that they have already busted the cells directly implicated by that investigation, so any missing data which would jepoardize current investigations would be like the outer pieces of a puzzle, nice to have, but not necessary to understand the picture.

I got into a bit of a disagreement with a co-worker the other day, he’s a bit bipolar and sees everyone as either a flag-waver or a flag-burner :rolleyes: Anyway, it happened that a couple other co-workers were witness to this event. I defended myself by saying "I’m afraid John and I have one major difference that is at the root of our disagreements on political issues. He believes the government should shepherd(can I say that word in a response to Scylla without causing him discomfort? ) and I believe the people should shepherd(ooh! I said it again!) the government. I think it’s rapidly approaching, if not past, time we got our canes out and demanded to see the evidence.

Steven

[Scylla]

Mtgman:

Surely you see that spies aren’ merchandise from Kmart. You can’t just return them, and you can’t just by more. It doesn’t even have to be spies.

Say that somehow we’re intercepting communications between Osama and the Taliban.

Never mind how we got it, if we were to release the information we got, than that would prove to them that their communications are not secure.

Once they know that their communications aren’t secure they’d change the way they do things and we’d lose an irreplaceable stream of information.

Or, let’s say somebody in his organization is a spy. If we get that guy out and reveal the information how are we supposed to get another spy in place?

I don’t think we’d just be able to sneak somebody in from a temp agency, do you?

You don’t blow working and valuable intelligence sources to satisfy somebody’s curiosity.

Now I know why you’re worried, but the cool thing is that there is senate and congressional oversight on these things to make sure nobody’s making things up, and you can sure as hell bet that the intelligence sources will be examined quite carefully once all is said and done.

What we have done should be enough. We’ve revealed enough compelling evidence to key people to prove our case

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by Jackmannii *

Not surprising for one so backward in his Greek mythology.

Don’t quite get the point of your slur, so its rather wasted on me.

As to Ms. Sontag, why not toss them Ann Coulter and poison the buggers!

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by Hamish *
**
I don’t think Bush planned this war, and that’s not what the OP suggested. It questioned Bush’s objectivity, which is a perfectly legitimate concern.

Gods! Have we really gotten to the point where the slightest questioning of an elected political leader is actually regarded as treason or a betrayal of the dead? A democracy can’t function if people aren’t allowed to question your leaders, and debate the danger of corruption. **

How lovely to have you join us, Hamish. Welcome.

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
The fine old traditions, eh? As Churchill had it, “buggery and the lash”.

‘Rum, sodomy and the lash’ – you missed the most congenial element.

Include me out as cabin boy.

[Scylla]

Hamish ya salty old cuff, clearly yer’ chimin’ in is a welcome lifesaver thrown into a storm tossed sea as far as Stoid is concerned.

Unfortunately ain’t nobody saying she said Bush started the war, so I’m not sure how your rebuttal helps.

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *

‘Rum, sodomy and the lash’ – you missed the most congenial element.

Actually, London, to my way of thinking, I left out the only congenial element

{jeez, I guess the French were right about these guys…)

[elucidator]

“It questioned Bush’s objectivity, which is a perfectly legitimate concern.”

That’s how the rest of it reads, Scylla. You really gotta read it all, you know. If your lips get tired, take a little break.

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by Hamish *
**

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**What I don’t understand is so many people, who consider themselves leftists, are so against getting rid of the Taliban, a truly evil regime. My GOD, imagine what it would be like to be a woman living in Afghanistan. Not that the Northern Alliance is much better, though. **

I for one, would be quite happy to see the Taliban fall. They disgust me. But our support of the Northern Alliance removes any credibility from the idea that we’re fighting for a free Afghanistan. **

Hey-no arguments from me. But I think it’s sad that some people are suggesting that we deserved the attacks, or that Bin Laden is against us because of our foreign policy. No, Bin Laden wants to make the world into another Taliban. BUT, there are many people who are in favor of Bin Laden in the Mid East who think that we deserve it, and that it is because of our foreign policy.

NO, we didn’t deserve it-NO ONE deserves that kind of thing.

And NO, it wasn’t exactly because we support Israel, or something like that. BUT, we DO need to start looking at the situation more carefully-and to stop being so gung-ho over Israel, and realize that this is a multi-faceted situation. It’s extremely complicated. We do need to look at the way we do business-but not because of what happened, but because it is the right thing to do.

We also need to look at what turns people into terrorists. My guess-poverty, lack of education/opportunity, very little exposure to different sorts of people, a climate of extremism, fanaticism.

Etc etc.

And no, I don’t think that we shouldn’t be allowed to criticize Bush. No way. BUT, I don’t think it’s quite that he’s all fired up about this war because he’s gonna make money. If you ask me-the man is scared shitless. He’d be crazy not to be. And I have to say, he IS doing better than I expected-which is NOT to say that I like him. No, I do not. I do not support the Republican party.

But I’m not going to look for conspiracy theories unless there is a credible evidence of one. Why go on a witch hunt?

I guess I’m saying-be careful, be observant, but for god sakes, be sensible, people. (Not directed at anyone here, just people in general).

I guess it’s just that it’s a hell of a mess, and it’s not very easy.

[Jackmannii]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
…are you suggesting that IF a conspiracy were to happen, it would be laid out as such for Congress to agree to? Of course not! It would be wrapped in all kinds of good intentions and hidden, hello.

Aha! That’s why we haven’t seen a shred of evidence that Big and Little George are planning to fatten their wallets through a war with the Taliban. It’s the sinister lack of evidence that proves the point! “It’s quiet, too quiet. I don’t like it.”

As elucidator so eloquently put it, there may occasionally be a role for a “natural-born shit disturber.” But it helps if one is actually uncovering a stench, and not just leaving a pile of one’s own.

And since you asked, elucidator, my reference to your deficiency in Greek mythology relates to your previous jocular inquiry to Scylla as to whether Scylla was the one that sucked down Greek sailors (actually it was Charybdis, the whirlpool).
It’s curious, considering your political views, that you apparently consider imputing homosexual orientation to be a devastating insult. Maybe you can explain that sometime.

[Scylla]

Aaarrrrrr!

It’s surprisin’ to be sure, but I’m beginnin’ ta thinks that maybe I’ve turned invisible to certain particular people.

Concernin’ the transparency of the OP methinks this oddly fittin’.

Sailing a flying dutchman, an invisible ghost ship destined to be ignored.

And what be the name o’ this ship?
Reality.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**“It questioned Bush’s objectivity, which is a perfectly legitimate concern.”

That’s how the rest of it reads, Scylla. You really gotta read it all, you know. If your lips get tired, take a little break. **

Arrrr, I didn’t contradict it, as I don’t take issue with it. I may be a pirate, but I’m an honorable one, and I always remember The Law of the Fish.

Why should I question or rebut something I don’t take issue with?

The problem here is we ain’t questionin’ objectivity we’re torturin’ it in direct contravention to the laws of the sea (and the Geneva convention.)

Yer’ usin’ the mere speculative possibility of a future infarction as an excuse to go pronouncin’ sentence and engage in all kinds of flights of paranoid fantasty.

Once again at least us rancid and scurvy Republicans had the decency to wait until Captain Bill got his BJ before we started slingin’ the mud.

[elucidator]

Well, I certainly wasn’t going to bring that up again. Nonetheless, the actual insult suggested the sucking down of Greek seamen. Rather better, don’t you think?

Looking back, it is clear that he is only guilty of confusing Scylla with Narcissus.

As to sexuality as it relates to politics, I beg off. I prefer to discuss politics, which makes sense, comparatively speaking. The modern world of polymorphous perversity is no place for a country boy, and besides, I blush easily. I would rather go steady that go to an orgy. But, hey, freak freely!

I cannot help but note, however, that when the Log Cabin Republicans (comprised of homosexual men) offered a campaign contribution to Dole, he refused it for no other reason than thier sexual orientation. And THEN he does Viagra commcials to openly discuss the lack of rigor in his member!

Now, thats pervo, in my book.

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
I cannot help but note, however, that when the Log Cabin Republicans (comprised of homosexual men) offered a campaign contribution to Dole, he refused it for no other reason than thier sexual orientation. And THEN he does Viagra commcials to openly discuss the lack of rigor in his member!

Now, thats pervo, in my book.

GAH!!! Thanks for putting a picture of Dole’s member in my mind!!!

Excuse me-I have to go scrub my eyes with clorox.