Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,238
- 136
As a contrast this article from the CS Monitor describes Zarqawi a bit differently. Clearly he is a POS that needs to be shot, and involved with all sorts of nefarious activities, but the only known link to SH is when he visited Baghdad once to get his leg cut off. His only strong assoc has been with Ansar al-Islam, a terror group, but hardly the Iraqi gov't.
Was he doing anything good with CN, No. That's not where I was going. Its mere presence doesn't necc constitute ill-intent. A man who owns gun isn't necc an assassin, and an assassin armed with a sling-shot isn't a grave threat. If this is the best the gov't can put forth as proof of WMD and justification of invasion, then their judgement is lacking and they have commited a historic blunder.
500+ dead Amercans are not worth relieving one nut of a small amt of CN. If this is they way we are going to run the war on terror, than we are going to lose. Damn fools burned down the house to kill a fly.
Edit: A little extra info on this guy: (from CS Monitor)
"Zarqawi's ties to Al Qaeda are also a matter of debate among European and US intelligence agencies. Where once he appeared to be something of a free agent, he seems recently to have identified himself more closely with Mr. bin Laden."
"Even as European investigators continue to pursue his lieutenants, Zarqawi himself seems safe for the time being, intelligence experts say, if he stays in his reported refuge in Iran. "He would be a great feather in the cap of the intelligence community if he were captured," says Dr. Ranstorp. "But he is one part of the great intelligence game, and unless Iran is offered an enormous tangible incentive, I doubt we will see him handed over." "
Was he doing anything good with CN, No. That's not where I was going. Its mere presence doesn't necc constitute ill-intent. A man who owns gun isn't necc an assassin, and an assassin armed with a sling-shot isn't a grave threat. If this is the best the gov't can put forth as proof of WMD and justification of invasion, then their judgement is lacking and they have commited a historic blunder.
500+ dead Amercans are not worth relieving one nut of a small amt of CN. If this is they way we are going to run the war on terror, than we are going to lose. Damn fools burned down the house to kill a fly.
Edit: A little extra info on this guy: (from CS Monitor)
"Zarqawi's ties to Al Qaeda are also a matter of debate among European and US intelligence agencies. Where once he appeared to be something of a free agent, he seems recently to have identified himself more closely with Mr. bin Laden."
"Even as European investigators continue to pursue his lieutenants, Zarqawi himself seems safe for the time being, intelligence experts say, if he stays in his reported refuge in Iran. "He would be a great feather in the cap of the intelligence community if he were captured," says Dr. Ranstorp. "But he is one part of the great intelligence game, and unless Iran is offered an enormous tangible incentive, I doubt we will see him handed over." "
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
Does anyone remember how many DEADLY biological weapons the Americans did not attempt to secure when they stormed Baghdad? Their centers for disease control contained these bioweapons just like ours do.. but the labs were broken into and the items were stolen.. where did they go?
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,511
- 575
- 126
OK...lets take all of our nukes and divided them equally to all the nations of the world...cuba gets some, north korea get some, china gets some, libya, iran all of the countries in africa...everybody...then lets see what happens...
if we are just going MYOB then lets MYOB in the economy and in humanitarian aid...it might hurt for a while but heck...it will reduce the surplus population...that will make you enviro-liberals-ultra-happy
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,511
- 575
- 126
Originally posted by: Hafen
As a contrast this article from the CS Monitor describes Zarqawi a bit differently. Clearly he is a POS that needs to be shot, and involved with all sorts of nefarious activities, but the only known link to SH is when he visited Baghdad once to get his leg cut off. His only strong assoc has been with Ansar al-Islam, a terror group, but hardly the Iraqi gov't.
Was he doing anything good with CN, No. That's not where I was going. Its mere presence doesn't necc constitute ill-intent. A man who owns gun isn't necc an assassin, and an assassin armed with a sling-shot isn't a grave threat. If this is the best the gov't can put forth as proof of WMD and justification of invasion, then their judgement is lacking and they have commited a historic blunder.
500+ dead Amercans are not worth relieving one nut of a small amt of CN. If this is they way we are going to run the war on terror, than we are going to lose. Damn fools burned down the house to kill a fly.
Edit: A little extra info on this guyfrom CS Monitor)
"Zarqawi's ties to Al Qaeda are also a matter of debate among European and US intelligence agencies. Where once he appeared to be something of a free agent, he seems recently to have identified himself more closely with Mr. bin Laden."
"Even as European investigators continue to pursue his lieutenants, Zarqawi himself seems safe for the time being, intelligence experts say, if he stays in his reported refuge in Iran. "He would be a great feather in the cap of the intelligence community if he were captured," says Dr. Ranstorp. "But he is one part of the great intelligence game, and unless Iran is offered an enormous tangible incentive, I doubt we will see him handed over." "
I thought we were in a war on terror, not just a war on terror only if they have links to saddam
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,238
- 136
"I thought we were in a war on terror, not just a war on terror only if they have links to saddam"
My thought exactly. I'm far more worried about the beloved patriot scientist Khan giving nuclear secrets to every unstable regime around the world. Now that is a threat to national security. Who the hell is Zarqwi with a bag of CN (actually, only a bag of CN in a house thought to may have once been his...but I digress) when you've got NK moving closer to the bomb?
Does it seem odd to anybody that the only hit showing up on Google news search under "cyanide salt" is the FoxNews report?
I'd wait and see until this is corroborated by other sources than Rupert Murdoch's "reliable" 10 O'Clock News sources.
I'd wait and see until this is corroborated by other sources than Rupert Murdoch's "reliable" 10 O'Clock News sources.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
HardWarrior
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 4,400
- 23
- 81
Sorry, I don't drink THAT flavor of Kool-aid either. Other nations can take care of their security needs without me having to pay for it. I don't think you've noticed this, but being part of the nuclear fraturnity tends to have a calming affect. Something else to consider when you aren't thinking the US is the King of the World, every nation has a right to self defense. Every single one. And the US hasn't be elected internationally to the role of super-cop or ultra nanny.
We make things, other people buy them, and vice versa. That's commerce and has NOTHING to do with what you're trying to say. As far as humaniarian aid, your sarcasm aside, you have the right idea. If American's want to give their money away as individuals then fine. But the fed has NO constitutional authority to take money out of MY pocket, under pain of jail and financial ruin, and give it to someone who's to stupid to feed himself. Sorry, the world isn't a pretty place, and we aren't making it better with all these excesses.
Tempted as I am to stoop to ad hominem remarks, I'll refrain..
First, the WTC was bombed in 1993, not 1998. If you remember that far back, the man in the white house also had the name Bush.
Second, Clinton DID know. Despite his and his staff's best efforts to convey the importance of Al Queda to the incoming administration, the Bushies frickin ignored it! They also ignored the Hart-Rudman report!
ASSUMING that in the worst case, the only involvment of the right wing was simply a lack of action on their part (i.e. taking off our tin-foil caps, on both sides of partisan lines), then the Bush administration put partisan politics (or personal/business connections) above the security of this country.
Why was it again that Ashcroft was told to stay off commercial airlines in July 2001? Was it because the administration didn't think there was any threat, or was it because they had a threat but were unwilling to act upon that information in a way to benefit the citizens of this country?
Oh there's plenty of blame all right. You've just misplaced it.
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,511
- 575
- 126
Actually....Clinton was president in 1993....all the way through jan 2001. He had eight years to take care of al queda and iraq and israel...didnt get it done ...to busy boozin...smokin joints and havin sex to pay any attention to the real threats of this country.
After the USS Cole was attacked in 2000, Clinton should have declared war on Al Queda, Bin laden and all of his supporters....he could have made a statement to the nation and the world and at that time 9/11 probably would have been prevented.
Gore would have probably won the election in a landslide stating at this time of trouble are nation need continuity in leadership.
Al Queda was treated as a law enforcement problem, not a military problem.
Al Queda terrorized our nation and its allies for 8 years and little was done....they played their trump card...and now two nations have been removed from power and another has submitted to give up its own WMD's....
You are correct, my apology for not doing math before typing.Was he having too much sex to pay attention to the country, or were the self-righteous fundie neo-con's paying too much attention to him having sex, thus distracting him from paying enough attention to the country?(and yes, I deliberately am letting the assumption of lack of attention stand)
Do you actually mean "declare war", as in congressional approval?
Would the nation and the world have believed him, or would the right wing and (as if) the media have convinced or tried to convince the general populace that Clinton was:
a. trying to make one last stand for an entry in any history book not required to be sold in an adult novelty shop.
b. trying to saddle the incoming administration with another Somalia (tit for tat, if at that point we also presume he expected a Republican successor)
My personal opinion is that points a. and b. above would influence voter turnout of the typical non-voting opposition party more than it would cause non-voters to rush to the polls and vote for Gore.
More to the point, as we can see with the current "non-nation-building" president, the opposition party could have said whatever it wanted to garner votes. If the situation had demanded it from a polling perspective, the Repub. candidate could have said (even assuming a Clinton hard-line action) that Clinton wasn't trying hard enough. That, arguably, might have prevented 9-11 regardless of who gained office in 2000.
The point isn't to engage in the hypotheticals of a Gore presidency. Personally I find the guy extremely likeable, even though his horrorshow busybody wife kept me from voting for him(and that's kinda sad, really). Nonetheless, if 9-11 had happened on his watch, after he had told his administration to start flying private - but neglected to offer civilians any precautions, you can be sure I would be placing the blame on him. So would most of the people who are still supporting Bush, I suspect.
My county PD doesn't have Tomahawk missiles
I agree that not enough was done, but Clinton got the ball rolling, yet obviously (re: Ashcroft's flight choices), even with new information rolling in, Bush dropped that sucker.
.. which has nothing to do with who should shoulder the blame for 911, arguably has greatly *increased* the terrorist threat to our country, unnecessarily cost many U.S.soldiers their lives (and even more civilians, but they don't count if they don't have a U.S. passport, right?), cost us billions, involved us inextricably (in the political, if not literal, sense) in the middle east, and yielded us, thus far, one 7 pound bag of salt for our efforts.
edit: as for Janet Reno, I used to think she was the antichrist... Then Ashcroft came along, and I saw that she was a two-bit player from purgatory.
Over the new year I was speaking with a self-declared Republican, a blue-collar kind of guy from Tennesee, and he said: "I just want to be able to piss off my back porch without anyone interfering" I agree with his sentiment wholeheartedly, but I just don't see how it leads to one wanting to be a Republican, given the current situation.
How did Bush treat Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11? Did he declare war on Al Qaeda as soon as he came to office? Did he make a statement to the world? Or was he too busy cutting taxes and building star wars? You can now return to your regularly scheduled "Blame Clinton" programming.
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,511
- 575
- 126
Originally posted by: myusername
Was he having too much sex to pay attention to the country, or were the self-righteous fundie neo-con's paying too much attention to him having sex, thus distracting him from paying enough attention to the country?(and yes, I deliberately am letting the assumption of lack of attention stand)
Many were to blame for 9/11...but remember this...the Clinton administration was very uncooperative to the new Bush Administration during the transition...remember Bush was only president for six full months before 9/11 happened. And he wanted to have a US government that was less involved in "foreign medalling". Of course 9/11 changed that.
He was working on domestic issues tax cuts, education, etc...but when our nation was attacked, national security took full focus.
Has everything gone perfectly? No...one can never expect it to. I honestly think the announcement of the end of major combat operations was a big mistake...I felt good about it at first, but realize many people took that as the war being over...which it wasn't...what the president should have said is that we are not going to bomb the H#LL out of them anymore.
Nothing to do with this topic but here it is:
Members of the Clinton Administration vandalized the White House.
Members of the Clinton Administration stole from the White House.
The Clintons stole from the White House, of which they had to return.
Do you actually mean "declare war", as in congressional approval?
Would the nation and the world have believed him, or would the right wing and (as if) the media have convinced or tried to convince the general populace that Clinton was:
a. trying to make one last stand for an entry in any history book not required to be sold in an adult novelty shop.
b. trying to saddle the incoming administration with another Somalia (tit for tat, if at that point we also presume he expected a Republican successor)
YES - Actual congressionally approved war. That attack should have been the final straw.
My personal opinion is that points a. and b. above would influence voter turnout of the typical non-voting opposition party more than it would cause non-voters to rush to the polls and vote for Gore.
More to the point, as we can see with the current "non-nation-building" president, the opposition party could have said whatever it wanted to garner votes. If the situation had demanded it from a polling perspective, the Repub. candidate could have said (even assuming a Clinton hard-line action) that Clinton wasn't trying hard enough. That, arguably, might have prevented 9-11 regardless of who gained office in 2000.
The point isn't to engage in the hypotheticals of a Gore presidency. Personally I find the guy extremely likeable, even though his horrorshow busybody wife kept me from voting for him(and that's kinda sad, really). Nonetheless, if 9-11 had happened on his watch, after he had told his administration to start flying private - but neglected to offer civilians any precautions, you can be sure I would be placing the blame on him. So would most of the people who are still supporting Bush, I suspect.
My county PD doesn't have Tomahawk missiles
I agree that not enough was done, but Clinton got the ball rolling, yet obviously (re: Ashcroft's flight choices), even with new information rolling in, Bush dropped that sucker.
Your couny PD probably doesnt have Tomahawks but many attacks were investigated by the FBI and the 1993 bombers ended up in jail....I should know, we had one in town for years.
.. which has nothing to do with who should shoulder the blame for 911, arguably has greatly *increased* the terrorist threat to our country, unnecessarily cost many U.S.soldiers their lives (and even more civilians, but they don't count if they don't have a U.S. passport, right?), cost us billions, involved us inextricably (in the political, if not literal, sense) in the middle east, and yielded us, thus far, one 7 pound bag of salt for our efforts.
The terrorist threat to country has been high since 1993.
As for soldiers dying, I will leave that up to Gunny:
"Some of you will not come back. But always remember this:
marines die, that's what we're here for! But the Marine Corps lives forever. And that means you live forever!"
edit: as for Janet Reno, I used to think she was the antichrist... Then Ashcroft came along, and I saw that she was a two-bit player from purgatory.
You haven't heard about Ascroft killing people like at Waco
Over the new year I was speaking with a self-declared Republican, a blue-collar kind of guy from Tennesee, and he said: "I just want to be able to piss off my back porch without anyone interfering" I agree with his sentiment wholeheartedly, but I just don't see how it leads to one wanting to be a Republican, given the current situation.
Its all about freedom
Zorba
Lifer
- Oct 22, 1999
- 15,613
- 11,254
- 136
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Except when the plant explodes like it did this summer.
This summer wasn't the Cyanide plant, it was AirGas, though. (The have at least 4 or 5 plants in Tulsa). The cyanide plant did blow-up out at the Port about 2.5 years ago. Since then the Port has been trying to get them to move out.
that is right, it was 1993 and not 1998(it was clinton citing existing UN resolutions as pretext to attack iraq in 98 with the hearty approval of the rest of the dems), that gave clinton(who was president in 1993) 5 more years to do something about it...
Moonbeam:
This place gives many of us 'queer thoughts" 'cause were dealing with people who think a President wouldn't lie, who think evolution is "just another theory", who think war is better than peace, who think Jews are to blame for everything, who think it is better to spend $200 billion to fight a war than a few hundred million on Pell Grants, who think it's ok for mothers to live under bridges with their children, who think it's bad for SH to have WMD but ok for the U.S. to have them, ad nauseam.
Yeah, I've got 'queer thoughts'.....
But it's probably the water, not the boneheads....
-Robert
This place gives many of us 'queer thoughts" 'cause were dealing with people who think a President wouldn't lie, who think evolution is "just another theory", who think war is better than peace, who think Jews are to blame for everything, who think it is better to spend $200 billion to fight a war than a few hundred million on Pell Grants, who think it's ok for mothers to live under bridges with their children, who think it's bad for SH to have WMD but ok for the U.S. to have them, ad nauseam.
Yeah, I've got 'queer thoughts'.....
But it's probably the water, not the boneheads....
-Robert
Originally posted by: chess9
Moonbeam:
This place gives many of us 'queer thoughts" 'cause were dealing with people who think a President wouldn't lie, who think evolution is "just another theory", who think war is better than peace, who think Jews are to blame for everything, who think it is better to spend $200 billion to fight a war than a few hundred million on Pell Grants, who think it's ok for mothers to live under bridges with their children, who think it's bad for SH to have WMD but ok for the U.S. to have them, ad nauseam.
Yeah, I've got 'queer thoughts'.....
But it's probably the water, not the boneheads....
-Robert
Robert that person that you mention that believes what YOU typed does sound despicable, but then of course putting words into the mouths of the other side is IMHO a despicable tatic in a discussion.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter