Support NeoGAF

[Makura]

Since when did your criteria become the basis for attacking other countries?

I didn't post it as a criteria for going to war. That post was challenging this assumption: That all dictators are equally evil, and because of this fact, it's hypocrisy to take out Saddam but not the other regimes.

 

[videogamer]

I didn't post it as a criteria for going to war. That post was challenging this assumption: That all dictators are equally evil, and because of this fact, it's hypocrisy to take out Saddam but not the other regimes.

Sorry. Maybe I should rephrase it. Your listing doesn't exactly make Saddam more "evil" than, say, Kim Il Jong. My arguments against that list still apply, however.

 

[Makura]

Ever stop and think that they're likely just using religion as a shield?

Obviously, there are as many reasons that people have become terrorists as there are numbers of people who have joined terrorists groups, I'm not going to try to refute that.

But the major figures, those "running the show" if you will, initiating recruitment, influencing young Arab men - these people are doing so not out of revenge or for political reasons, but because they subscribe to a radical Islamic-based ideology.

 

[Slurpy]

Fuck Bush. He'll be gone in a few months, and hopefully his whole damned administration.

And good fucking riddance.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

This thread has officially gone off the rails.

Bigger picture:


Bush essentially says "I had bad information, not my fault" and then says "I would have gone anyway." WTF? Meanwhile, a large percetage of the American people believe that Saddam was involved or responsible for 9/11 and that proof has been obtained WHEN IN FACT IT HAS NOT.

Even those who support the war effort, are anti-Saddam, and pro-Bush-- are you not concerned at the level of obfuscation and/or the gullibility of the (large numbers of) people who believe it?

Yikes.

In 1984, besides the all-seeing cameras and watchful eye of Big Brother, one of the major creepy things was the way the government was perpetually at war with some outside country that was vaguely threatening but vaguely defined. I realize we're not at the state of a fictional Distopia just yet, but the parallel scares me. Meanwhile, we spend like mad, ignore important domestic issues, and generally sow the seeds for future violence against our country. Booya!

 

[Che]

You think it's all a conspiracy? You're aware there are going to be elections right? Do you you think those will be fixed?

WTF? You are aware that the elections are gonna be a joke right? Stop being ignorant, US has invested too much money for the invasion to let the Iraqis elect a goverment that will force US out of the country. They will only allow candidates that they like and if you thing otherwise you're too ignorant. If that's your idea of democracy let me laugh out loud plz!

 

[FightyF]

Learn all about the troubles in Iraq through the eyes of people who already hate America's policies in the Middle East.

Which is pretty much the entire population of the World, minus a few hundred thousand Republican Extremists.

I'm reading a lot about "Islamic Terrorism" right now. There are many organizations that are under the banner of Islam, simply because they feel that they are singled out for being Muslims. Secondly, many of their goals are different. VERY different.

What we should be concerned about is how they plan to achieve those goals, is pretty much the same. Revenge..."an eye for an eye" is pretty much the tactic they all are espousing.

Al Qaeda's biggest goal is to remove American political (and they also hope cultural) influence in the Arab countries. They have clearly said "at all costs" which implies that they are willing to perform actions considered "un-Islamic" to achieve their goals.

On the other hand, the Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades in Palestine's goal is to make Israel non-existant.

Another group fighting for a similar cause, Hamas, has a military wing that is fighting for pre-67 borders, and also said that they wouldn't stop until the 2 million displaced Palestinians are allowed to return to their homes in Israel.

Don't get me started on MILF!

Anyways, what stands out for the most part is firstly, the hijacking of religion to pursue political goals. I say hijack, rather than the phrase "use of religion" because many add-on s and innovations are being made to the religion itself. The concept of Jihad can be attributed to warfare, and when it is, it is used in the context of defense. Yet the suicide bombing of a cafe in Tel Aviv, or the USS Cole, or the WTC towers are clearly not defensive measures. In '98 Osama bin Laden proclaimed a declaration of war against the US, claiming that all Americans are legitimate targets. This contradicts Islamic teachings, obviously. In the Quran and the Bible, there are concepts of revenge and concepts of justice. These are being considered equal in the eyes of terrorists. Ie. to achieve justice you must seek revenge.

Another thing that stands out is the nature of these political greviences. Much of it has to do with concepts such as colonialism and nationalism (these people feel they are combating nationalism that exists in the Arab countries). They feel they are fighting those who colonized them and in their minds, "screwed them over" (to put it in a crude way). The invasion of Iraq sends a message that groups like Al Qaeda have been right in their assertion of the States. Essentially, Bush's actions have "proved" Osama right, in the eyes of Muslim observers.

Note that Islamic Terrorism hasn't existed 50 years ago. It is a recent phenomenon, especially recent considering Islam's 1400+ year history. Thus I consider it something that can be eliminated as fast as it arrived. Note also, that concepts such as Christian Evangelism and Zionism, in many ways equally dangerous as Islamic Terrorism, have grown within the last 50 years as well. Thankfully Evangelists don't have a safe haven, as Al Qaeda did in Afghanistan, which in many ways controls their capabilities and their radicalism.

 

[Cooter]

GAF 12:00 PM-6PM CST Bush Gone Wild [Rerun] Learn all about the troubles in Iraq through the eyes of people who already hate America's policies in the Middle East.

That's good.

Fuck Bush. He'll be gone in a few months, and hopefully his whole damned administration.

And good fucking riddance.

Bush will win. Sorry Slurpy, he's not going anywhere.

Who's going to beat him, the walking corpse?

 

[videogamer]

North Korea has been responsive and willing to negoitate. NK is desperate for aid and protection, they have no intention of truly threatening us IMO. And they don't seem to have a history of expousing and supporting the ideals of Islamic terrorists - the ones that have declared a "holy" jihad against us.

North Korea is listed by the State Department as one of the countries that sponsors terrorism. I'd argue that it's not necessary to support Islamic terrorism to be a threat. While Saddam might have been paying suicide bombers in Palestine, North Korea does have a history of possibly being involved in terrorism. Take a look at the bombing of Korean Airlines Flight 858 or their support of the Japanese Red Army (which tried to attack the US embassy in Kuala Lumpur). These things really have yet to be resolved.

BTW, when you say that NK has been responsive and willing to negotiate, what do you mean? you know, most people would consider NK's "negotiations" to be pretty useless... They have launched missiles over other counties (Japan) and continued to develop nuclear weapons. If these talks are focused on anything, it would be on the WMDs, not on civil rights for North Koreans.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2082385

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cach...01-cojh.html+north+korea+assassinations&hl=en

 

[Drensch]

Who's going to beat him, the walking corpse?

No, Cheney is his running mate.

 

[videogamer]

That's good.



Bush will win. Sorry Slurpy, he's not going anywhere.

Who's going to beat him, the walking corpse?

Yeah slurpy, don't be too confidant. However, my little hope is that by 2008, there will be even more people sick of Bush and then we can have President Hillary Clinton.

 

[Cooter]

No, Cheney is his running mate.

Cheney might not raise his voice very often but at least he has more than 3 facial expressions.

Yeah slurpy, don't be too confidant. However, my little hope is that by 2008, there will be even more people sick of Bush and then we can have President Hillary Clinton.

I used to think Hillary had what it takes to win a presidential election but after watching her speech at the DNC I don't think she could beat a worthy Republican like Gullani (sp) or McCain.

 

[TekunoRobby]

Hilary becoming president? NO, PLEASE NO. KERRY IS BETTER, DEAR GOD NO.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

And because they happen to be Islamic extremists doesn't negate the possibility that their actions aren't politically motivated.

Religion is politics. Religion is just a weak cover to get followers for cheap. Power and control is the real issue here.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

AWESOME, go Bush!!!!!!!!

 

[Slurpy]

That's good.



Bush will win. Sorry Slurpy, he's not going anywhere.

Who's going to beat him, the walking corpse?

Well, I'm willing to place a wager. If that fucker gets another 4 years, I will never post on this board again, under any username. The mods can also ban my ip so that I can't even view the board.

Yes I realize its a stupid wager, but probably the only one worth anything in this case.

I know the American people are better than that. I really do.

 

[Shinobi]

If Americans were better, they wouldn't have gotten duped like fucking sheep to begin with...

- How many of those dictators have invaded other countries?
- How many of those dictators have used chemical weapons on their own people?
- How many of those dictators support and sympathize with Islamic extremism?
- How many of those dictators praised the 9/11 attacks?
- How many of those dictators have violated as many UN resolutions as Saddam did?

- How many of those dictators received US backing in a major clash?
- How many of those dictators used chemical weapons sent to them by the US?
- How many countries sympathize with a nation that refuses to make a region a state and keeps them holed up with tanks?
- How many wars are launched simply because a man offered his own opinion?
- How many times has the US and Israel told the UN to fuck off?

We could go back and fourth all day, but it isn't gonna make the US look very good.

Wasn't the US going to try and get some guy named Bin Laden? What ever happened to him.?

Didn't you hear??? The man deemed responsible for the 9/11 attacks doesn't matter anymore!!

You're equating a systematic campaign of brutality at the hands of a dictator to what appears to be an anomaly in US military behaviour?

I guess Vietnam was make-believe...

As far as being safer, I'd agree that were less safe and MORE people hate us now. But this was inevitable IMO. Of course it's going to inflame the terrorists more whenever we act, but what would you have us do?

Priceless...

Oh BTW, thanks for that FBI link to their most wanted men. Check bin Laden's page and tell me what you think is missing.

You think it's all a conspiracy? You're aware there are going to be elections right? Do you you think those will be fixed?

After the last election, who could blame him?

Our chance to let 9/11 be the gruesome apex, after which terrorism would decrease was lost the moment the White House adopted the "Our Way, or the Highway" approach to international cooperation in the "war on terror."

A-fucking-men.

100% serious. The idea that Americans care about Iraqis is retarded. We never have and we never will. I don't feel bad that Saddam's people were killing Iraqis in their homes and I don't care that US troops are killing Iraqis in their homes. It's all the same to me. They don't have any day to day impact on our lives. Bottom line. Look at some of the countries in Africa or hell even Haitii scores of people are dying there everyday because of repressive govenments and thugs. Do you really care? I know I don't not really. As long as I can get my tv, my microwave food, in my car, catch a paycheck and watch some porn I am oblivious to the rest of the world. MAYBE on 9/11 I paid a bit of attention but, after that I went back to the same old same old as I assume 90% of the US population did.

He's right you know...at the end of the day, most of us only give a shit about ourselves. Hell, most people couldn't give a shit what happens next door, let alone what happens on the other side of the world in an area that's been completely fucked up for years. At least Slick is man enough to state his feelings.

Fuck Bush. He'll be gone in a few months, and hopefully his whole damned administration.

And good fucking riddance.

You know the sad thing about this seemingly positive outcome? I'm not convinced that Kerry will be any better.

 

[Xenon]

Which is pretty much the entire population of the World, minus a few hundred thousand Republican Extremists.

Dude when you say shit like this it makes me question your ability to think rationally. Considering it would be safe to say that more than half the world's population doesn't even know American's policies and their effects.

When arguing a point stay away from generalities. You'll get pounded every time. I learned this from my wife.

Well, I'm willing to place a wager. If that fucker gets another 4 years, I will never post on this board again, under any username. The mods can also ban my ip so that I can't even view the board.

Well that just clinched it, I'M VOTING FOR BUSH!

Who's going to beat him, the walking corpse?

LOL! Wtf was up with the botox? What kind of vain bitch is he? How can a man run a country when he is worried about how people think he looks? I guess that is one of the main problems I have with Mr. Kerry. He just doesn't have the confidence and personality of a leader. I remember after his speech last week that he looked a little lost while everyone was celebrating like he wasn't sure what to do.



How many of those dictators received US backing in a major clash? Only the ones who were fighting against countries being supplied by the russians during the cold war. Not saying it was the right thing to do, but it answers the question.

- How many of those dictators used chemical weapons sent to them by the US? see above for reason Yeah this was a fucked up thing to do and there is no defense for it. But just because we gave him the weapons doesn't mean we have no right to make sure he lived up to his agreement after the first gulf war. He had no proof he desposed of the chemical weapons. This is the most flimsy argument against the war.

How many countries sympathize with a nation that refuses to make a region a state and keeps them holed up with tanks? Why is it that most of the time when they start to engage in talks Hamas strikes. Maybe because its not about peace or just giving the Palestinians a state. Maybe its just a cause someone latched on to for credibility....


eh I have to go...

tbc

- How many wars are launched simply because a man offered his own opinion? ?

- How many times has the US and Israel told the UN to fuck off?

 

[Che]

If Americans were better, they wouldn't have gotten duped like fucking sheep to begin with...





- How many of those dictators received US backing in a major clash?
- How many of those dictators used chemical weapons sent to them by the US?
- How many countries sympathize with a nation that refuses to make a region a state and keeps them holed up with tanks?
- How many wars are launched simply because a man offered his own opinion?
- How many times has the US and Israel told the UN to fuck off?

We could go back and fourth all day, but it isn't gonna make the US look very good.





Didn't you hear??? The man deemed responsible for the 9/11 attacks doesn't matter anymore!!

I guess Vietnam was make-believe...





Priceless...

Oh BTW, thanks for that FBI link to their most wanted men. Check bin Laden's page and tell me what you think is missing.





After the last election, who could blame him?





A-fucking-men.




He's right you know...at the end of the day, most of us only give a shit about ourselves. Hell, most people couldn't give a shit what happens next door, let alone what happens on the other side of the world in an area that's been completely fucked up for years. At least Slick is man enough to state his feelings.





You know the sad thing about this seemingly positive outcome? I'm not convinced that Kerry will be any better.

MOI (Major Ownage Inside). And btw I agree 100% with you Shinobi.

 

[Shinobi]

How many of those dictators received US backing in a major clash? Only the ones who were fighting against countries being supplied by the russians during the cold war. Not saying it was the right thing to do, but it answers the question.

Oh of course...I just hope Makura realizes that there's a flipside to every story.

- How many of those dictators used chemical weapons sent to them by the US? see above for reason Yeah this was a fucked up thing to do and there is no defense for it. But just because we gave him the weapons doesn't mean we have no right to make sure he lived up to his agreement after the first gulf war. He had no proof he desposed of the chemical weapons. This is the most flimsy argument against the war.

There's no proof he had the chemical weapons, which (as since long been established) was the flimsiest reason for the war. When someone can show me how you prove you've turned something into nothing when nothing is all there is to see, let me know.

How many countries sympathize with a nation that refuses to make a region a state and keeps them holed up with tanks? Why is it that most of the time when they start to engage in talks Hamas strikes. Maybe because its not about peace or just giving the Palestinians a state. Maybe its just a cause someone latched on to for credibility....

I've got no time for either side...both of them are just stupid beyond reason. But I think Israel's gotta be more willing to make concessions here, since they're the ones that are in the driver's seat. Truth be told though, I'm not convinced that would end the bloodshed...2500 years of conflict isn't gonna be wiped away by some border shift or proclaimation of a state in a half hour cermony.

 

[Che]

 

[Xenon]

There's no proof he had the chemical weapons, which (as since long been established) was the flimsiest reason for the war. When someone can show me how you prove you've turned something into nothing when nothing is all there is to see, let me know.

I'm talking about the ones Iraq already admitted having. They are gone and there is no record of them being destroyed. Maybe they were but we don't know. Its hard to just take their word for it.

 

[EviLore]

They are all one loose network of religious nutjobs

Enjoy living in your fantasy world? Don't make ignorant assumptions. As has been said in this thread, extremist organizations in the same regions may use similar means, but their goals are largely unrelated.

I disagree regarding the idea that revenge fuels terrorism

LAWL.

Here, read this NY Times article, maybe gain some insight. No longer free at NYtimes.com, but a copy googled here:


http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=4265&CategoryId=5

 

[Shinobi]

I'm talking about the ones Iraq already admitted having. They are gone and there is no record of them being destroyed. Maybe they were but we don't know. Its hard to just take their word for it.

I don't dispute that, but that's hardly cause for starting a fucking mess. Bush and his cronies love to go on about the American way, about democracy and freedom, and instilling such values in others. Well part of that includes their courts of law, which states that a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. And they had NO proof that Saddam was guilty of harbouring WMD's...it's as simple as that.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

I have a kurdish friend, they mostly inhabit the northern part of iraq because their country was split into 3 parts i believe part in turkey , part in iraq and part in iran. At this point all i wanted to know was did he think it was a good idea to go into iraq and remove saddam hussein from power. and he said yeah, and after the stories he could tell me wow, we went in for the wrong reason but removing saddam from power was a good thing to do, bush just needed to be upfront and say the guy was an asshole not that he was some imminent threat. I dont think anyone bought that. I believe he was an indirect threat yeah because he had the money to have his and in many things but direct haha he would never chance it imo. ANd besides saddam was a lackey at one point, on the payroll just like noreaga in panama its not like we didnt give him weapons and what happened when noreaga said "no" to the US? his ass is probably saddams cell mate.

 

[Che]

I have a kurdish friend, they mostly inhabit the northern part of iraq because their country was split into 3 parts i believe part in turkey , part in iraq and part in iran. At this point all i wanted to know was did he think it was a good idea to go into iraq and remove saddam hussein from power. and he said yeah, and after the stories he could tell me wow, we went in for the wrong reason but removing saddam from power was a good thing to do, bush just needed to be upfront and say the guy was an asshole not that he was some imminent threat. I dont think anyone bought that. I believe he was an indirect threat yeah because he had the money to have his and in many things but direct haha he would never chance it imo. ANd besides saddam was a lackey at one point, on the payroll just like noreaga in panama its not like we didnt give him weapons and what happened when noreaga said "no" to the US? his ass is probably saddams cell mate.

Hey I'm with you. The only problem is that USA is using double standards according to their interests even with the Kurds. In the 90s the Turkish goverment burnt to the ground hundrends of Kurdish villages. What USA did against Turkey (who is still partly controlled by militants who are USA's puppets)? Nothing! Instead they named PKK (a resistance Kurdish group) "terrorists" and helped Turkey. Your point my friend although legit, proves nothing.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Why on earth would you remove 9/11 from history? September 11th change life and foreign policy as we know it. You are exactly right about not having the political muscle to remove Saddam before 9/11. The attacks on our homeland are why we can't stand around and wait for more. We must be on the offensive, remove threats and change attitudes of the people dedicated to change our way of life.

The events of September 11, 2001 were horrible... but an aberration. That a few dozen men killing a few thousand people and destroying some huge buildings within the space of a few hours could cause the foreign policy of a country of ~300 million people to become so much more aggressive for an indeterminate number of years doesn't sit well with me.

Cheney might not raise his voice very often but at least he has more than 3 facial expressions.

I dunno, man, as far as I can see it's either the smirk or the scowl.

 

[Slurpy]

Anyone just watch the 5th estate on CBC?

Damn. I don't think anyone would have had anything to say about the credibility of the evidence if the US decided to go after Saudi arabia. I mean shit. I makes the iraq 'evidence' linking to Al-Qaeda look all the more ridiculous.

 

[Makura]

-How many of those dictators received US backing in a major clash?
- How many of those dictators used chemical weapons sent to them by the US?

I already addressed the whole 80's thing. The only one responsible for Saddams actions are Saddam.

- How many countries sympathize with a nation that refuses to make a region a state and keeps them holed up with tanks?

The U.S. government actually doesn't sympathize with any notion that there should be no Palestinian state.

- How many times has the US and Israel told the UN to *** off?

I doubt as many times as Saddam has.

At any rate, you failed to address the orginal point of posting that list of questions. It was a list of cumulative actions that I think made Iraq a very pertinent and apporpriate target compared to other dictatorships.

Didn't you hear??? The man deemed responsible for the 9/11 attacks doesn't matter anymore!!

Does hyperbole add anything to this discussion? I think you know full well thats not how our government feels about Usama.

I guess Vietnam was make-believe...

I not going to defend past and present infractions by the U.S., but it still doesn't put the U.S. military and Saddam's regime on the same level as I believe Che was suggesting.

After the last election, who could blame him?

I don't subscribe to the 2000 election conspiracy, so I'm not going to get into that.

 

[xsarien]

Does hyperbole add anything to this discussion?

Bush's words (almost, the exact quote is only a Google search away), not his.

 

[Makura]

Bush's words (almost, the exact quote is only a Google search away), not his.

Yeah, I've read and listened to the entire interview. It's easy to see Bush suggested no such thing.

 

[Makura]

Enjoy living in your fantasy world? Don't make ignorant assumptions. As has been said in this thread, extremist organizations in the same regions may use similar means, but their goals are largely unrelated.

Actually it's not based on ignorant assumptions, it's based on the 9/11 commission's report. And I already agreed that terrorists goals and ideas vary.

 

[xsarien]

Yeah, I've read and listened to the enitre interview. It's easy to see Bush suggested no such thing.

...Right.

 

[MIMIC]

Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from [Osama bin Laden]. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. -President Bush, March 2002

 

[Makura]

...Right.

Have you watched the entire conference and seen his comments within their original context?

 

[Makura]

Taking the quote out of context for a second time doesn't change my opinion MIMIC.

 

[MIMIC]

Taking the quote out of context for a second time doesn't change my opinion MIMIC.

So, in "proper context," he's saying he really IS truly concerned about him and that he really IS at the center of a command structure?

 

[Makura]

So, in "proper context," he's saying he really IS truely concerned about him and that he really IS at the center of a command structure?

Stop playing games, this isn't black&white. Why don't you find the entire text from the conference and read it for yourself.

 

[MIMIC]

Stop playing games, this isn't black&white. Why don't you find the entire text from the conference and read it for yourself.

Uh, I've LINKED to the conference in my previous post (the White House's transcript).

You know, it would be different if you actually had some backing for your contextual grievance, but all you did was call a foul without explaining why.

Take this time to explain how that statement is "taken out of context."

 

[xsarien]

Taking the quote out of context for a second time doesn't change my opinion MIMIC.

The original context is there. He was asked about the fact that we hadn't caught Osama bin Laden, and he answered with that (asinine) response.

What context isn't given, did he have his fingers crossed or something?

 

[MIMIC]

The original context is there. He was asked about the fact that we hadn't caught Osama bin Laden, and he answered with that (asinine) response.

What context isn't given, did he have his fingers crossed or something?

The "out of context" bullshit is invoked by many conservatives. It's to be expected every time Bush says something incredibly stupid that jeopardizes a conservative's argument.

I see it on a daily basis on other boards.

 

[Makura]

Well if you have the link than you don't need my help. I'm not going to play games with you guys. I think you're so eager to demonize Bush, you can't see the point he's making.

 

[Makura]

The "out of context" bullshit is invoked by many conservatives. It's to be expected every time Bush says something incredibly stupid that jeopardizes a conservative's argument.

I see it on a daily basis on other boards.

Taking quotes out of context is a favorite past time of every side of the political spectrum.

 

[Makura]

<--------

cocky, but not funny

LOL. Oh man, that's great. (Even though if you met me you wouldn't think that)

 

[MIMIC]

Well if you have the link than you don't need my help. I'm not going to play games with you guys. I think you're so eager to demonize Bush, you can't see the point he's making.

If you can't explain how the statement was taken out of context, then just say so. It would be so much easier on yourself.

 

[Shinobi]

I already addressed the whole 80's thing. The only one responsible for Saddams actions are Saddam.

Yeah, just ignore the chemical weapons that the US gave to them. Guess we'll just ignore the money Saddam gave to the families of the suicide bombers.

The U.S. government actually doesn't sympathize with any notion that there should be no Palestinian state.

Nope, but it does sympathize with the notion that Isarel can cross many lines to protect their own interests.

I doubt as many times as Saddam has.

Probably in the same ballpark though.

At any rate, you failed to address the orginal point of posting that list of questions. It was a list of cumulative actions that I think made Iraq a very pertinent and apporpriate target compared to other dictatorships.

That's because your point is nonsensical and inconsequential in light of the reality of the situation.

Does hyperbole add anything to this discussion? I think you know full well thats not how our government feels about Usama.

How the fuck should I know? Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, they pulled most of the troops out and started a needless war in Iraq. Hardly the way a normal force acts when they're going after the most wanted man since Adolf Hitler.

I not going to defend past and present infractions by the U.S., but it still doesn't put the U.S. military and Saddam's regime on the same level as I believe Che was suggesting.

You don't have to...just don't act like the shit in Iraq are isolated incidents. History laughs at that notion.

I don't subscribe to the 2000 election conspiracy, so I'm not going to get into that.

I don't neccessarily suscribe to that election being a conspiracy...but I do suscribe to it being a crock.


As for the whole "taking it out of context" thing, I guess Bush's infamous "bring it on!" quote was also taken the wrong way.

 

[Journeywalker]

I think the most ironic thing that could happen would be that the United States government sets up truly independent, fair, democratic elections, and, through this process, an anti-American Shiite wins the election.

I think it was rather naive of the Bush administration to assume that a democratic Iraq would actually desire to have constant United States influence. Did nobody think to ask the question, "What if, by the democratic process, Iraqis choose not to have a democratic process, or at least one in the model (and control of) the United States?" I think the most important ally in this fight for peace is the moderate Iraqi, and we had the nerve to make their minds up for them. "They will be better off..." we say. Why didn't we ask them?

 

[FightyF]

I think the most ironic thing that could happen would be that the United States government sets up truly independent, fair, democratic elections, and, through this process, an anti-American Shiite wins the election.

I think it's a given that any anti-American party will be considered terrorists and will be jailed. I wouldn't be saying this if Iraqi papers weren't being shut down because of content Americans considered "anti-coalition".

It's no different than anti-Saddam parties being persecuted.

Actually it's not based on ignorant assumptions, it's based on the 9/11 commission's report.

Have you considered that perhaps the 9/11 commission's report itself is based on ignorant assumptions? Wasn't the Commission lamblasted by American Muslim groups for this reason?

 

[Demigod Mac]

Demigod Mac arrives to drop a bomb on thread.

Enjoy.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/

They Knew...
Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak

 

[Slurpy]

Well if you have the link than you don't need my help. I'm not going to play games with you guys. I think you're so eager to demonize Bush, you can't see the point he's making.

You have your back stuck against a fucking wall. At least be man enough to admit it.
I watched him say that quote. There is no 'context'. It means exactly what it says. If you want to prove otherwise, go ahead and do it instead of beating around the bush like a pussy.

And DemiGod, yeah that article is kind of stating the obvious. But really, I dont think most americans give a fuck either way.