regardless of how you feel about the war,

[velvetgoldmire]

Originally posted by eggmok

9/11 was an attack that was so well planned out that it could not have been prevented.

Actually, the FBI had the information buried under a mound of paperwork. One of their agents found it suspicious when a group of people in Florida paid for flying lessons in cash, and didn't care about learning how to land. He filed a report, but it was deemed as being probably nothing, and got buried under a mound of paperwork on his superior's desk. If they had followed up, that could have prevented 9/11.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by eggmok

9/11 was an attack that was so well planned out that it could not have been prevented.

The attack on the WTC could have and should have been prevented. Some people fucked up.

[eggmok]

are both of you saying that the us had knowledge that terrorists were going to crash planes in the wtc and the pentagon . . .

or more along the lines that an attack on us soil would take place and the to what extent they did not know . . .

for anyone to believe that our intelligence is advanced and sophisticated enough to infiltrate terrorists cells is naive. to this day, no one would even dream of such a terrorist attack, crashing planes into buildings. there is no way in hell that it could have been prevented.

which again is the whole basis of my opinion . . . prevention. if it could have been prevented, what actions would the us take in order to do so. arrest perpetrators here and even worse, abroad. go after bin laden and the terrorists who plotted 9/11, even before it happened? if that is the stance that you are taking, which is clearly for prevention (as in the case of 9/11), isn't it a contradiction to everything you just stated. because clearly the war now is about prevention. i find it very confusing that you believe that 9/11 could have been prevented and should have been. it's always in retrospect that we realize inaction is worse than action.

you just proved my point.

[eggmok]

in addition, i'm not relating 9/11 to iraq, they are two different scenarios, both threaten the security of the us . . .

[Kuro]

Originally posted by eggmok

are both of you saying that the us had knowledge that terrorists were going to crash planes in the wtc and the pentagon . . .

or more along the lines that an attack on us soil would take place and the to what extent they did not know . . .

for anyone to believe that our intelligence is advanced and sophisticated enough to infiltrate terrorists cells is naive. to this day, no one would even dream of such a terrorist attack, crashing planes into buildings. there is no way in hell that it could have been prevented.

which again is the whole basis of my opinion . . . prevention. if it could have been prevented, what actions would the us take in order to do so. arrest perpetrators here and even worse, abroad. go after bin laden and the terrorists who plotted 9/11, even before it happened? if that is the stance that you are taking, which is clearly for prevention (as in the case of 9/11), isn't it a contradiction to everything you just stated. because clearly the war now is about prevention. i find it very confusing that you believe that 9/11 could have been prevented and should have been. it's always in retrospect that we realize inaction is worse than action.

you just proved my point.

I'm saying that the perpetrators were known about and they slipped through the net. Most shouldn't have been allowed in the country at all. 9/11 could have and should have been prevented and that's not just my opinion. And I also say that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with prevention of anything.

And since you brought it up, we should have gone after Al Queda more vigorously before 9/11.

[therunner]

Originally posted by Kuro

And since you brought it up, we should have gone after Al Queda more vigorously before 9/11.

And this is why we are in Iraq now.

If we would have gone into AF before 9/11, we would be hearing the same BS that we are getting now. AF wasn't a threat to us. Or at least not until 9/11. Why wait until another statesponsored terrorist attack occurs. Terrorist attacks will occur, but it is the state sponsored terrorist attacks that kill hundreds and thousands. Low level mid funded terrorist don't have the means to commit world threatening terrorist attacks. But when they have the sponsorship of a country and thier money, they can prove fatal to thousands.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by therunner

And this is why we are in Iraq now.

If we would have gone into AF before 9/11, we would be hearing the same BS that we are getting now. AF wasn't a threat to us. Or at least not until 9/11. Why wait until another statesponsored terrorist attack occurs. Terrorist attacks will occur, but it is the state sponsored terrorist attacks that kill hundreds and thousands. Low level mid funded terrorist don't have the means to commit world threatening terrorist attacks. But when they have the sponsorship of a country and thier money, they can prove fatal to thousands.

There is a difference between Iraw and Afghanistan. I personally thought that we should taken action in Afghanistan in '98 when I first heard of Al Queda and the Taliban. The difference there is that Al Queda is an organization that openly declares itself our enemy and says that it will attack US interests, including civilians, at every opportunity. The ruling government of Afghanistan allowed this organization to operate and train in their country. That is not the case with Iraq. There are plenty or reasons to take action in Iraq but people keep spouting off bullshit ones because they sound better to the public. By the way, what proof do you have of any sort of state sponsership for the attack on the WTC? That attack did not require state sponsership. Most of the attackers were Saudi and all the funding they needed was easily acquired through individual supporters.

[therunner]

Originally posted by Kuro

There is a difference between Iraw and Afghanistan. I personally thought that we should taken action in Afghanistan in '98 when I first heard of Al Queda and the Taliban. The difference there is that Al Queda is an organization that openly declares itself our enemy and says that it will attack US interests, including civilians, at every opportunity. The ruling government of Afghanistan allowed this organization to operate and train in their country. That is not the case with Iraq. There are plenty or reasons to take action in Iraq but people keep spouting off bullshit ones because they sound better to the public. By the way, what proof do you have of any sort of state sponsership for the attack on the WTC? That attack did not require state sponsership. Most of the attackers were Saudi and all the funding they needed was easily acquired through individual supporters.

So you don't think Iraq supports terrorist organizations that target the US. Well let me enlighten you "Ansar Al Islam" MEK - Mujahedin-e Khalq, Abu Nidal, Palestine Liberation Front, and a direct quote from Saddam, "The world will be free of infidel Jews and Americans, praise Allah, and Arabs and Muslims will be free to live."

[Kuro]

Originally posted by therunner

So you don't think Iraq supports terrorist organizations that target the US. Well let me enlighten you "Ansar Al Islam" MEK - Mujahedin-e Khalq, Abu Nidal, Palestine Liberation Front, and a direct quote from Saddam, "The world will be free of infidel Jews and Americans, praise Allah, and Arabs and Muslims will be free to live."

A meaningless quote sinse Hussein doesn't give a shit about Islam. And if Hussein's support of all of these organizations is supposedly the reason for this invasion, then why have none of them been mentioned?

[eggmok]

Originally posted by Kuro

And since you brought it up, we should have gone after Al Queda more vigorously before 9/11.

like therunner, what would the us do and what action would they take. go into af and after al queda because they are a threat to us prior to 9/11 . . .

then you agree, any threat to the us should be confronted . . .

unless you feel iraq and saddam is not a threat . . .

[Kuro]

Originally posted by eggmok

like therunner, what would the us do and what action would they take. go into af and after al queda because they are a threat to us prior to 9/11 . . .

then you agree, any threat to the us should be confronted . . .

unless you feel iraq and saddam is not a threat . . .

How you define a threat? In the case of Afghanistan I would have described them as an outright enemy actively engaged in hostile activities against the US. I would not describe Iraq that way. And to answer your question I would not have described Iraw and Saddam as a threat to the US.

[eggmok]

Originally posted by Kuro

How you define a threat? In the case of Afghanistan I would have described them as an outright enemy actively engaged in hostile activities against the US. I would not describe Iraq that way. And to answer your question I would not have described Iraw and Saddam as a threat to the US.

that's the fine line that separates you and i, because if iraq is truly a threat then the disarmament is justified in your eyes . . .

[funkyfreshdc]

what i don't understand is why it is acceptable for the US to have a huge military arsenal and use it in attempts to overthrow foreign governments, but for any other country it is not.

what are the reasons for invading iraq? despite keeping up with the news reports and speeches, i'm still not clear on this. is it really because Saddam has developed weapons which it's not allowed to by a UN resolution?

the US has made it clear that it has the most powerful military in the world, so by its own admission we know that the US has developed weapons capable of even worse destruction. should the US be invaded and the government overthrown because another country views us as a threat?

i'm not forgetting 9/11, i just don't see the correlation. but i was agast when bush gave his 48 hour speech and told iraqi citizens not to destroy their oil fields. how much more blatant would he like to make it that its a war for oil?

the "remember 9/11" justification has become widely abused. buy weed and you support terror. speak out against the government, you support terror.

i think not.

[eggmok]

the us military are like jedi's, badass mf'ers out there to keep the peace . . .

[velvetgoldmire]

Originally posted by eggmok

the us military are like jedi's, badass mf'ers out there to keep the peace . . .

Except Jedi's only use their powers for defence. The preemptive strike is a move worthy of the Empire.

[therunner]

Originally posted by velvetgoldmire

Except Jedi's only use their powers for defence. The preemptive strike is a move worthy of the Empire.

And that's how the crew got all fucked up un the second movie. If they would've stuck the empire first, and put thier asses in place there would have been no sequels or prequels. But thats' hollywood.

[therunner]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/hrdossier.pdf#xml=http://www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/xml.txt?query=ahmad+ibrahim&pr=default&order=r&id=3e52834c2

[MadamMillie]

Originally posted by velvetgoldmire

If we continue to bully around the rest of the world with a "join us opr die" attitude, it'll only piss off the rest of the world and incite more people to wish another disaster upon us. History has proven that pushing people around to do what you want, just because you have the power and means to, only causes rage and, eventually, destruction.

join us opr die

[kramadas]

Originally posted by eggmok

like therunner, what would the us do and what action would they take. go into af and after al queda because they are a threat to us prior to 9/11 . . .

then you agree, any threat to the us should be confronted . . .

unless you feel iraq and saddam is not a threat . . .

Actually, when has Hussein ever said he wants to attack the US? To this day, I've been asking pro-war people this question, and I haven't received a response. When has he ever threatened the secuirty of this nation?

Just because Bush thinks that at *some* point in the future he *might* attack the US is no reason to go to war with a country.

Not saying Hussein and his sons shouldn't be taken out, but engaging in an illegal war is not the way.

[sauvee88]

Who said it was illegal???

[kramadas]

Originally posted by sauvee88

Who said it was illegal???

No UN authorization...attacking a sovereign nation, unprovoked. Doesn't sound too legal to me, according to international law.

I could be wrong though.

[shadygroovedc]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Just because Bush thinks that at *some* point in the future he *might* attack the US is no reason to go to war with a country.

Sometimes inaction is more dangerous than action. We've been pussies for too long. One of the reasons Bin Laden has attributed to his bold moves of attacking the US was that the US was no longer a superpower. That we were big pussies when it came to casualties within our armed forces. Peace is nice. War is never good. But sometimes, you gotta show everyone the size of your dick so they won't fuck with you again.

If we had given in and not enforced 1441 and gotten bogged down in more diplomacy, sure, maybe we could've disarmed Sadaam peacefully. But on the other hand, how many chances do we give someone before we look like pussies again? And if we don't take action, how many more people out there get more courageous about killing us knowing that we're not gonna do jack about it.

To me, it's not about Iraq potentially attacking us or not. It's about telling anyone else out there that the days of walking over us are over.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by shadygroovedc

Sometimes inaction is more dangerous than action. We've been pussies for too long. One of the reasons Bin Laden has attributed to his bold moves of attacking the US was that the US was no longer a superpower. That we were big pussies when it came to casualties within our armed forces. Peace is nice. War is never good. But sometimes, you gotta show everyone the size of your dick so they won't fuck with you again.

If we had given in and not enforced 1441 and gotten bogged down in more diplomacy, sure, maybe we could've disarmed Sadaam peacefully. But on the other hand, how many chances do we give someone before we look like pussies again? And if we don't take action, how many more people out there get more courageous about killing us knowing that we're not gonna do jack about it.

To me, it's not about Iraq potentially attacking us or not. It's about telling anyone else out there that the days of walking over us are over.

That's horseshit. The terrorists will attack whether we're a super power or not (and it's ridiculous for anyone to say they don't think we are). The whole reason behind terrorist tactics is because it's the only way to really strike at a super power. And super power status certainly didn't stop Bin Laden and co. from fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Everyone knows what the US is capable of. Hell, the Clinton administration sent our military into action all over the place (while at the same time reducing our forces).

[cookiegirl]

Sorry to do this. . .

Shady - I liked the old weather sig better. I rely on you!

[sauvee88]

Hey raver - I may have missed something - but I don't recall the UN saying anything about this being illegal - or the fact that we missinterpretted the resolution that was put forth and voted for unanimously... I beleive it was left ambiguous so that something like this could happen.

Yes it was unprovoked and that's not good. But as far as the legality of the war - unless the UN comes out and blatantly states that the Coalition missinterpretted the resolution then there really is no basis for the legality argument. Just because there are more countries against the war than for it doesn't mean that there is basis for calling it illegal.