1. If we can't tell right from wrong then how do we justify not liking Saddam because he's wrong? His torture, genocide is wrong. I think we can tell right from wrong. Please don't say I'm advocating being nice to AQ. I've never said that at anytime. I'm not even talking about AQ(close to half the time anyway). What I am saying is either classify people in detention as POW's or put them into the criminal justice system. Neither of those is being nice to AQ. Why don't you go visit the prisoners who went through the criminal justice system after the initial WTC attacks, and the man who was foiled in his attempt to blow up LAX. Ask them if what happened to them would be considered being nice. Not advocating torture and believing we should stick by the principles our nation was founded is not the same thing as being nice to AQ. 2. What AQ does or doesn't do shouldn't force our nation to give up our principles and our ideas of what is right and wrong since we founded our nation. 3. The invasion of Iraq was not started in self defense. Gulf War 1 wasn't even in self defense.
Not true. Terrorists had been attacking on our soil for many years. There were many civilians killed by attacks on abortion clinics, and many killed in the terrorist bombing of OK City. There was also the initial WTC bombing. 9/11 was far from the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
Yawn. You only get me a little with the WTC. That was small fries compared to 9/11. I agree all are terrorists, but I'm talking about the ones who are indiscriminately killing Americans on American soil. No terrorist gets sympathy from me, but I do recognize their differences, too.
You lump Bush and Saddam together and, in some ways, even call Bush worse. Bush's political and military actions were controversial; history will judge them. Even though you don't approve of them, you can't deny a 30-odd nation coalition no matter how badly you try to de-ligitimize it. It is too early to make that call. As he said today, once upon a time Japan was our mortal enemy having inflicted an egregious secret attack on us. Now they are our friend. Whoda thunk it? Saddam's 30-year record was horrid and without controversy-- everybody outside of his select circle agree on that. Now they are gone. What will the future hold?
The bombing of the OK City fed building indiscrimantly killed Americans on American soil. The bombing during the Olympics in Atlanta also indiscriminately targeted Americans on American soil Bombs set off at the abortion clinics, that were followed by secondary devices intended to kill police and rescue workers who responded to the first attack also indiscriminately kill Americans on American soil. I don't understand why you would yawn at that. Those attacks didn't net as many as 9/11, but I didn't realize that there was a certain amount of deaths that had to be reached before we took it seriously. I'm surprised that the hundreds that died in OK city didn't meet that mystical threshold needed to take things seriously. And if only major attacks like that should be considered before taking things seriously, then Israel shouldn't really be taking suicide bombers seriously at all. Spain shouldn't be taking the AQ allied terrorist groups responsible for the bombings in Madrid seriously either. And again if we are talking about terrorists that indiscriminately kill Americans on American soil, guess how many of those were a threat to us that were being in any way supported from Saddam in Iraq? The answer is ZERO. So terrorists related to the OK city bombing, abortion clinics et. al were all more of a proven threat to us than Saddam and Iraq were. There are still abortion clinic attacks that aren't solved yet, so those folks have attacked us, and haven't been caught. Saddam never attacked us, and didn't have the capability to do so. If indiscriminate killing of Americans on American soil is what you are worried about then right wing, Christian groups presented a bigger threat to us than Saddam's Iraq did.
We are talking about the war on terror with the Islamofascists not the anti-abortion zealots or the white supremecists. That's why "yawn." Why do you want to lump them together when they are so different in their nature?
I don't call Bush worse than Saddam except in the department of honesty linking to the invasion of Iraq. In 2000 I would have laughed if someone told me that I would be saying that at some point. But the evidence shows that to be the case. I haven't seen any evidence that contradicts it. Overall Bush is worse than Saddam, and I would never claim otherwise. In fact I am the one who believes we can tell right from wrong, you were the one who said it was too early to tell. I do know that torture, murder, and rape are wrong. They were wrong when Saddam was doing it. They were wrong when some of our military did it, and other govt. officials were justifying it. Bush did start a war that wasn't a last resort, lied and fixed the intel around the policy of that war, invaded a nation that was not a threat to the U.S. and never supported any terrorists that were a threat to the U.S. I do know that is an illegal and immoral war. I do know that anyone who claims Christ as a role model, and then starts all of this death and destruction despite the fact that it isn't necessary might want to rethink who he claims as a role model. I do know that Wolfowitz was wrong when he said that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. I do know that Wolfowitz and company were wrong when they talked about the reception would get from Iraqis. I do know that military commanders who said we'd need more troops and were forced to retire, or said we didn't have enough even after Rumsfeld claimed the military had all the troops they asked for, and was forced to resign, and demoted were correct in what they had been saying. Again those who had the forethough and were correct were punished. Those who were wrong, and/or lied were promoted or not admonished. You may claim that you can't tell right from wrong, but in this case I can. It is wrong to use war as anything other than self defense or as a last resort. It is wrong to torture, murder, imprison without charges or giving the imprisoned a chance to clear his name, and deprive innocents of liberty and subject them to torture and death. It is wrong to attempt to justify those acts. I am confident in saying those are wrong, and it saddens me that you can not join me in saying those things are wrong. In fact, I wonder if I had asked you in 1999 if you thought those things were wrong if you would have agreed that they were. Think about it, and if you would have answered they were wrong, then think about whether you are changing your view of right and wrong to clear a particular person, or out of a contrarian spirit to those who see as not being supportive rather than just examining the issues, and deciding based on those facts alone.
I lump them together because they are all terrorists. Because one claims Islam and the other claims Christianity doesn't make either less of a threat. I don't really see how they are different. They both kill innocent civilians. In fact the right wing fanatical groups have a much easier time blending in to society, and might therefore have an easier time carrying out their attacks. Why do you seperate them based on what holy book they happen to carry? What matters is that they both will kill civilians without regard. I don't really see them as different in their nature at all. Sure one group has customs that are more foreign to you, and are easier to demonize, but in deeds they aren't different. And if we are talking about Islamofascists then why is it in a thread about Saddam and Iraq? He wasn't an Islamist, he didn't support fundamentalist attacks against the U.S. and didn't really have the means to do anything to the U.S. on his own anyway. As I said there were many nations that were more of a threat, and other groups inside our own borders that were more of a threat to us than Saddam was.
Yeah it is. That should be Saddam is worse than Bush. I should be a little more rested before I'm allowed behind a keyboard.
Dunno. Perhaps modern day Christian fundamentalists are not as violent. But with industrial-military complex acting on their behalf, they don't need to be violent.
The thread is about Zawahari (a known terrorist) being in Saddam's Iraq. Sorry but it is a low blow to suggest that I am demonizing them because their customs are different. I am demonizing them because the scale of their effort is different and I am their target merely by being an American-- so are my four children. I agreed that all are terrorists and all get no sympathy from me, but I am left gasping when you try to equate Eric Rudolph with Usama bin Laden. Do you think Saddam regretted the Islamofascist attacks against the US? Was he part of that outpouring of sympathy felt around the world? I doubt it.
Take no offense, I didn' tmean any. I just couldn't think of anyting else quicklly that would be mildly insulting...
Because someone isn't sorry when bad things happen to your nation isn't a justifiable excuse to start a war. Of course I doubt Saddam was sorry that the U.S. was attacked. That has little to do with anything. I'm not saying that OBL is the same as Eric Rudolph, but I am saying that they are both a threat, and both terrorists. I don't think that they have a similar number of followers, but they both have a deadly intent. They are both zealots.
