13-06-2005 15:11									#151
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Oh really? If Tony knew that the whole "WMD" and "al_Qaida link" rationale for the invasion was a scam why did he go along with it? Doesn't that make him a sort of co-conspirator? Didn't you guys just re-elect him?

Absolutely, he is. And I certainly didn't vote for him...with the opposition available it almost looks more like he won by default...

	13-06-2005 15:18									#152
	Inflate your Upload Space

If Dear Leader sold the war on democracy and freedom, there probably would've been at least slightly more emphasis on insuring that the invasion would result in democracy and freedom. From at least from the Dems, if not the Administration itself. There might actually have been a plan (trusting Chalabi to take over doesn't constitute a plan, nor was it particularly democratic or free). By intentionally conflating Saddam and Osama, you squash public debate over the nature of the occupation.

	13-06-2005 15:28									#153
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison Absolutely, he is. And I certainly didn't vote for him...with the opposition available it almost looks more like he won by default...

Tony Blair's party received only 37 percent of the vote. It was only because of the way districts are drawn that he was able to retain a majority in Parliament. Similar to the way Bush was able to win an electoral college majority in 2000 without a majority of the vote.

	13-06-2005 17:21									#154
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison Absolutely, he is. And I certainly didn't vote for him...with the opposition available it almost looks more like he won by default...

I didn't vote for Bush either. The Republican dirty tricks (the "swift boat" whatever) squad took care of Kerry.

	13-06-2005 17:26									#155
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo If Dear Leader sold the war on democracy and freedom, there probably would've been at least slightly more emphasis on insuring that the invasion would result in democracy and freedom. From at least from the Dems, if not the Administration itself. There might actually have been a plan (trusting Chalabi to take over doesn't constitute a plan, nor was it particularly democratic or free). By intentionally conflating Saddam and Osama, you squash public debate over the nature of the occupation.

I'm not certain that if Bush had offered "democracy and freedom" as the reason for invading Iraq that the majority would have accepted it. I think the consensus would have been that US forces should be reserved for the war on terror. Others would have suggested that the Sudan or even some other area should have had higher priority.

	13-06-2005 17:58									#156
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Sikander This memo doesn't seem to add anything to what we already know. It seems more of an excercize in keeping people angry about what they cannot change. Consider that both Blair and Bush were both recently re-elected for instance.

Yep people don't seem to give a stuff.

	13-06-2005 18:16									#157
	Got spare money?

quote: Getting Saddam is actually an offensive foul and the shot doesn't count. Terrorism gets two technical foul shots and Al Queda gets to take the ball out of bounds. So -2 there, with the chance for a basket now we're up to -4, or -5 if they make the 3 pointer. "Hurting Al Queda" doesn't count because we didn't have a valid pretext to go invade Afghanistan, until 9/11. So Bush didn't do crap, pre-9/11, so that gives him 0 points there. Any President would have invaded Afghanistan, probably would have even gotten Bin Laden. So really it's a -2 or -4 to 0 according to your silly game.

This entire post is made worthless by the fact that you turned it into a basketball analogy. What kind of man are you?

	13-06-2005 19:44									#158
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Wow, you almost got me to respond to you, Aggie. Quality work. I might've done it if I didn't think discussing politics would ruin our friendship...

Hey man, it's business and not personal.

You're still #1 Engrish teacher in my book, and will remain so despite your weird Nebraskan politics.

	13-06-2005 19:48									#159
	Re: Why isn't there more talk of the smoking gun memo? Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Could this "fact fixing" be the indication of a pattern?

I told you that four years ago.

	13-06-2005 19:50									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: I'm not certain that if Bush had offered "democracy and freedom" as the reason for invading Iraq that the majority would have accepted it. I think the consensus would have been that US forces should be reserved for the war on terror. Others would have suggested that the Sudan or even some other area should have had higher priority.

I was responding to Dan et al.'s premise that how Shrub justified the war doesn't matter at all. I quite agree, if the war were made on freedom and democracy, perhaps there could've been a consensus to intervene in a region where human rights concerns were far more pressing, such as in Darfur (or Burma, etc.).

	13-06-2005 20:33									#161
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin It's not like he was just lying about getting a blow job. He lied about his desires to go to war then deliberately decieved everyone in order to go on his personal crusade. What's worse is he knowingly doctored the evidence and now tries to blame the CIA for his own actions.

So did Clinton in order to invade Yugoslavia.

	13-06-2005 20:48									#162
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Yeah, we just sat back while Al Qaeda attacked the WTC,

9/11 occured in 2001. AQ never attacked the WTC before then.

	13-06-2005 21:07									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Why is it taking FOUR years to find one person, anyway?

	13-06-2005 23:33									#164
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Why is it taking FOUR years to find one person, anyway?

Yeah, they should have sent a Texas Ranger to the Afghani-Pakistani border area (only one - two or more would be unfair). He would quiclky find him, catch him with his lasso and bring him back to justice humming "I'm a poor lonesome cowboy".

	13-06-2005 23:45									#165
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer Tony Blair's party received only 37 percent of the vote. It was only because of the way districts are drawn that he was able to retain a majority in Parliament. Similar to the way Bush was able to win an electoral college majority in 2000 without a majority of the vote.

When Labour won in 1997, a landslide victory and certainly the largest post-war majority, they only got 43% of the vote. The governing party almost never gets the majority of the vote under the first past the post system.

	14-06-2005 00:38									#166
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The only "lie" I see exposed by this memo is that oft repeated statements by the amdinistration that they had not yet chosen war as THE option until early 2003. Of course, I never onjce bought that. so I am not particulalry shot.

That post-war planning was a joke should have also been evident from day one.

These memo's carry no surprises anywhere for those who never once trusted this imbecilic administration.

As for Drake's notion of Bush remaking a crumbling status quo...WHAT ENDANGERED STATUS QUO? I am sorry, but AQ was not in 2001 nor is today, nor shall be, a threat to the global Status Quo. AQ has never had the power to overturn ANY secure middle eastern dictatorships. They simply don't. That they can plan immense crimes is not the same as saying that they are a threat to the global status quo, anymore than the waves of anarchist assasinations from the 1880's to the 1900's ever trully shook the global status quo.

As for Saddam- even if the sanctions regime around his fell, he simply was not a threat to the local balance of power, and would not be for years, and even then, he would probably not have ever been able to threaten the more secure Iranina regime, nor the better armed and increasingly more populous SA.

In 4 years Bush has done little if anything to reshape the world status quo for the beenfit of the US. The war in Iraq has given AQ an opening simply because while they would never have been able to bring down Saddam, the US did it for them, and was not capable of pluggin the whole well enough. Our poor example in Iraq makes the likelyhood of more "humanitarian wars" much more difficult. The fact is Bush has discredited significantly the idea of using direct military force to end dictatorships by his utter imcompetence in running the Iraq war, and the problem is, Iraq was by far the easiest target open.

Having "ideas and vision" is secondary to being competent. This admin. has many "visions", but they are not up to the task of carrying any of them out. And in their half assed attempts they have made things less stable in the world without adding stability anywhere.

	14-06-2005 00:53									#167
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Donegeal Ok, even if this memo is real, and the info fixed (in the american sense of the word), does it change the fact that the removal of Saddam was a good thing? Don't get me wrong, if all this memo stuff proved to be true, I will most likely change my quote to "2004: Bush "

Given the current state of Iraq, and what we've discovered during the occupation about the state of Iraq's WMD capabilities (i.e., there were none, thus no urgent need to invade), can you honestly say that the removal of Saddam and the results we've achieved so far has been worth 1700 American dead, a number of allied military forces dead, 200 American civilians dead, over 10,000 American wounded, and 200 billion dollars?

Can any Bush supporter honestly say at the time the US committed to go into this war, the result we have achieved 27 months after the invasion is what we expected back then, and the result we collectively signed up for?

This war is a FUBAR, and it shows absolutely no signs of being anything but a FUBAR into the future.

	14-06-2005 00:56									#168
	Support Apolyton

I am sorry, but the diffciult questions about IOraq's political future have not yet been put on the table for discussion between Iraqi's yet. It's taken over 2 years to get to that point, and this is the most dangerous point of all because it is now that the factions must put up and compromise on their deepest wishes and aims.

	14-06-2005 01:25									#169
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara 9/11 occured in 2001. AQ never attacked the WTC before then.

How quickly people forget...

	14-06-2005 01:28									#170
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Who were the guys that attacked in 1993? Did they even have an affiliation?

	14-06-2005 01:36									#171
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara 9/11 occured in 2001. AQ never attacked the WTC before then. How quickly people forget...

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin Who were the guys that attacked in 1993? Did they even have an affiliation?

According to the BBC, who maintains a section on their website about the organization, the connection is unclear except to say that they sought out the planners of the bombing. al Qaeda was founded in 1988 btw.

	14-06-2005 02:19									#172
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DanS How quickly people forget...

That's the nice thing about al Qaeda. We currently define it as just about any group that doesn't like us. "Omar al-Shitheed of the Islamic Assahollahs of Doom once drove by the site of a training camp once run by a guy whose cousin saw one of bin Laden's bodyguards at a distance ten years previously, so obviosly the Islamic Assahollahs of Doom are a part of al Qaeda."

It's pathetic, really, because we've got an enemy who can be defined any way we want to justify our policy of the moment, and a way to make sure there's never an end to this "war."

	14-06-2005 02:26									#173
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: As for Drake's notion of Bush remaking a crumbling status quo...WHAT ENDANGERED STATUS QUO? I am sorry, but AQ was not in 2001 nor is today, nor shall be, a threat to the global Status Quo. AQ has never had the power to overturn ANY secure middle eastern dictatorships. They simply don't

I don't see why folk don't realize the blindingly obvious. AQ wanted the US to invade Afghanistan so that they could do to the US what the mujahadeen had done to the USSR. At least the US played it smart in Afghanistan, but then ruined it by giving AQ exactly what it wanted in Iraq.

Why do you think 9/11 happened in the first place?

	14-06-2005 02:26									#174
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin Who were the guys that attacked in 1993? Did they even have an affiliation?

The senior Omar Abdel Rahman is an Egyptian Islamic fanatic. Ten years after the WTC attacks, two of his sons were caught, one in Afghanistan and one connected with, but not part of, the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad. One kid is an AQ operative, one apparently just a random Afghan-Arab jihadi, so we reach back through the looking glass and proclaim that the earlier attack was an AQ operation, just as the presence of a few Afghan-Arab fanatics/mercenaries suddenly and conveniently put an AQ imprint on the results of our bungled interference in Somali clan warfare with TF Ranger in UNISOM II.

Both patently bullshit, but we have to build up the enemy to justify the perpetual war.

	14-06-2005 02:28									#175
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: As for Drake's notion of Bush remaking a crumbling status quo...WHAT ENDANGERED STATUS QUO? I am sorry, but AQ was not in 2001 nor is today, nor shall be, a threat to the global Status Quo. AQ has never had the power to overturn ANY secure middle eastern dictatorships. They simply don't I don't see why folk don't realize the blindingly obvious. AQ wanted the US to invade Afghanistan so that they could do to the US what the mujahadeen had done to the USSR. At least the US played it smart in Afghanistan, but then ruined it by giving AQ exactly what it wanted in Iraq. Why do you think 9/11 happened in the first place?

Because they hate freedom.

	14-06-2005 02:48									#176
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap The only "lie" I see exposed by this memo is that oft repeated statements by the amdinistration that they had not yet chosen war as THE option until early 2003. Of course, I never onjce bought that. so I am not particulalry shot. That post-war planning was a joke should have also been evident from day one.

Having read the memo I likewise agree with both these sentiments. Further I read the "But..... Fixed" phraseology in the memo as a means to imply the to then glaring holes in intelligence (both on the part of the Americans and WMD inspectors) on the activities of Sadaam that were being fixed in summer 2002. Or so they were being told

	14-06-2005 03:32									#177
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin Who were the guys that attacked in 1993? Did they even have an affiliation?

Egyptian Islamic Jihad. These are the guys who killed Sadat. In 1993, they were mostly killing tourists in Egypt and a cell in the U.S. attacked the WTC. Ramsey Yusef, the planner of the attack, later joined al Qaeda, but he is not believed to have been a member in 1993.

From Wiki:

quote: Note: Al-Qaeda does not have a habit of taking credit for actions, resulting in a great deal of ambiguity over how many attacks the group has actually conducted. In addition following the U.S. declaration of the War on Terrorism in 2001, the U.S. government has made a great effort to connect as many groups and actions as possible to al-Qaeda, which might result in erroneous attributions.

More about Yusef
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef

	14-06-2005 03:37									#178
	Increase Your PM Length

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4086380.stm

I thought this was kinda relevant to the thread as it is a US senator saying that he now believes the whole weapons of mass destruction was a lie?
He was the guy who pushed for the renaming of french fries to freedom fries, and was very pro the war.

	14-06-2005 03:40									#179
	Got spare money?

I'm still a bit unclear how a clear family involement from a part of the world where family is everything isn't meaningful. Can you you please explain?

	14-06-2005 04:13									#180
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I haven't been around here for awhile. But I clearly remember all the discussions about the Iraq war, especially those discussions we had before the attack started (about freedom fries, wezils and so on).
Now, this thread really surprises me. I'm counting at least three posters who seem to have completely changed their mind about the Iraq war. And even more, one of these formerly die hard pro war posters is now carrying George Galloway in his avatar.
( to Ted Striker btw)
Actually I think this is a good thing. But generally I don't expect that anyone in an internet forum would ever be able to change his point of view. So what happened? There isn't even really new information on the table.