Throughout its campaign the ADF has been provided with weapons and funding by the Islamist government in Sudan, one of more than half a dozen states Washington accuses of sponsoring terrorism.
So why aren't we invading Sudan? Or is that on the Wolfowitz/Pearle list of "countries to invade in the next little while"?
But wait a sec ... if we are going to target leaders who have sold arms to Islamic terrorists, why aren't we bombing Ronald Reagan's compound in California? Or has the statute of limitations ran out on whining about Iran/Contra?
Honestly, let's try and bring some perspective to all this. Bush and Co., when first trying to sell the war against Iraq to the American people, tried to tie Saddam with Ossama and September 11. It didn't stick, and they had to move on to the WMD argument. Tying Saddam to various groups like Hamas and Hezbolla and now the ADF will not be hard, but we shouldn't forget the initial move -- bunching Saddam, Ossama, and September 11 together in people's minds.
Unless you think discovering that Saddam gave what sounds like minor funding to an obscure terror group in a corner of Africa justifies the near destruction of a country and the deaths of thousands?
Any man who hates small dogs and children can't be all bad.
It's call revisionest history. Since what was thrown against the wall prior to the war didn't stick, now just try to find somethingm anything that will make the war acceptable.
Originally Posted by GavintzuUnless you think discovering that Saddam gave what sounds like minor funding to an obscure terror group in a corner of Africa justifies the near destruction of a country and the deaths of thousands?
I don't have an issue with your argument, really, but let's not exaggerate. Iraq has not been nearly destroyed, and those parts that were are being rebuilt at the expense of the country that destroyed them. Furthermore, there is always a cost in blood to remove a tyrant. It isn't nice, but it also isn't avoidable. Again, what happened when the Shia rose up? We left them out to dry - no, let me rephrase that - we chose peace, and thousands died.
"May God bless our country and all who defend her."
Originally posted by messenoirIt's call revisionest history. Since what was thrown against the wall prior to the war didn't stick, now just try to find somethingm anything that will make the war acceptable.
I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans found the war acceptable.
Originally posted by GavintzuOr has the statute of limitations ran out on whining about Iran/Contra?
Oh, man, that'd be sweet! Also, whining about the Clinton presidency, also whining about the "stolen" 2000 election, also whining about the "in the crease" goal.
Originally posted by GavintzuSo why aren't we invading Sudan? Or is that on the Wolfowitz/Pearle list of "countries to invade in the next little while"?
Because it was not politially expedient to do so. Besides, the Sudanese government was starting to at least pay lip service to help us.
Remember; they did offer OBL on a platter to Clinton.....
Originally posted by GavintzuBush and Co., when first trying to sell the war against Iraq to the American people, tried to tie Saddam with Ossama and September 11. It didn't stick, and they had to move on to the WMD argument. Tying Saddam to various groups like Hamas and Hezbolla and now the ADF will not be hard, but we shouldn't forget the initial move -- bunching Saddam, Ossama, and September 11 together in people's minds.
And it looks like they were right....
Originally posted by GavintzuUnless you think discovering that Saddam gave what sounds like minor funding to an obscure terror group in a corner of Africa justifies the near destruction of a country and the deaths of thousands?
Thousands of whom?....and incidentally, when you consider that this terror group was affiliated with other terror groups, it's not real hard to connect the dots.
Originally posted by messenoirIt's call revisionest history. Since what was thrown against the wall prior to the war didn't stick, now just try to find somethingm anything that will make the war acceptable.
I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans found the war acceptable.
Public Rallies Behind President on Iraq But Still Wants Major Role for United Nations
Supports UN Governing Post-War Iraq Taking Lead With North Korea and Iran
Says US Should Not Feel More Free to Use Military Force Without UN Approval
College Park, MD: A new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll finds that a strong majority of Americans has rallied in support of the President's decision to go to war with Iraq, despite the lack of UN approval. Nonetheless, the public feels that in the future the UN should play a major role in international affairs, including governing post-war Iraq.
Seventy-five percent say they support the President's decision to go to war with Iraq, with 54% saying they agree with the decision and 21% saying they support the president even though they do disagree with the decision.
But Americans do not appear to believe that the US should regard the choice to go to war without UN approval as a precedent. Asked, "Do you think that in the future the US should or should not feel more free to use military force without UN authorization?" only 29% said that it should, while 66% said that it should not.
Steven Kull, director of PIPA comments, "While the public is ready to give the president a pass this time, it appears that in the future, two-thirds will still insist on getting UN approval for the use of military force."
Americans also do not believe that UN's failure to authorize going to war with Iraq has undermined its future importance. Only 26% anticipate that in the future the UN will have a less important role in the world while 71% said that it will be at least as important as before the war.
Asked who should govern Iraq in the aftermath of the war, only 30% said it should be the US, while 52% said it should the UN, and 14% gave other answers.
Strong majorities want the UN, not the US, to take the lead in dealing with North Korea (72%) and Iran (63%). Steven Kull comments, "There is no evidence that the majority of Americans believe that the UN has become irrelevant."
Americans show a moderate level of confidence that the decision to go to war was the right one. Asked to answer on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being certain that it was the wrong decision, 10 being certain that it was the right decision, and 5 being unsure, 59% gave a score above 5 and 27% gave a response of 10. The mean score was 6.32.
Many more Americans believe that the US going to war with Iraq will have negative consequences for US foreign policy than believe it will have positive consequences. More believe that it will increase the likelihood that that North Korea will make nuclear weapons, that feelings in the Muslim world toward the US will worsen, that the risk of terrorist attacks will increase, and that it will be harder for the US to get cooperation from other countries.
A strong majority (63%) favors trying to limit the number of Iraqi civilian casualties even if this means the war would last longer.
Though only a minority would prefer to see the US govern post-war Iraq, an overwhelming majority (85%) says the US has the responsibility to remain in Iraq until there is a stable government, which the median respondent estimates will take 2 years. An overwhelming majority (86%) thinks it is important to bring democracy to Iraq and a strong majority (63%) believes this will eventually occur.
It does not appear that the support for war with Iraq has generalized to become broader support for a confrontational approach with North Korea and Iran. Almost four out of five respondents--79%--said "the US should deal with the government of North Korea primarily by trying to build better relations," while only 15% said the US should emphasize an approach of "pressuring it with implied threats that the US may use military force against it." Asked the same question about Iran, an overwhelming 80% thought the US should deal with the Iranian government by trying to build better relations, and just 16% preferred to pressure it with implied military threats.
The poll was conducted with a nationwide poll of 795 American adults over March 22-25, 2003. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5%. The poll was fielded using by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this methodology go to <http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp>www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.
Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
Also, since this an international "war" the international response matters. You'd be hardpressed to find a majority of the international community supports this "war".
The simple fact is: Bush and co tried as hard as possible to link Iraq to Al Qaeda and have found no credible evidence to support this. The fact there is some evidence now to link Hussein to other terrorist organizations doesn't make Bush's primary allegations true.
It'd be like someone murdering some random person on the street and getting pardoned because that random person was a murderer. If the reasons behind an action are faulty, the action is faulty.
Originally posted by CRZOh, man, that'd be sweet! Also, whining about the Clinton presidency, also whining about the "stolen" 2000 election, also whining about the "in the crease" goal.
Don't forget Jesus!
-- Asteroid Boy
Wiener of the day: 23.7.02
"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." "Was he no-selling?"
Originally posted by CRZOh, man, that'd be sweet! Also, whining about the Clinton presidency, also whining about the "stolen" 2000 election, also whining about the "in the crease" goal.
Don't forget Jesus!
Maybe that'd shut those bleeding heart Neanderthal Rights people up, too. Okay, so we killed off another species of humans. It was, like, a hundred thousand years ago!
Kansas-born and deeply ashamed The last living La Parka Marka
"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Originally posted by Gavintzu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Or has the statute of limitations ran out on whining about Iran/Contra? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, man, that'd be sweet! Also, whining about the Clinton presidency, also whining about the "stolen" 2000 election, also whining about the "in the crease" goal.
Ah ha! Paraphrasing Our Great Dictator will flush him out from lurking in the reeds. This information will be verrry useful, should a regime change be necessary in the future.
Seriously though, I don't buy it. The world doesn't reinvent itself every morning when we wake up and eat our Weetabix. Events in the past have repercussions through the years, and if people stop whining about things in the past that have gone wrong, those events and their repercussions don't disappear.
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." -- some Wiener or another, not talking about the New Protectorate of Iraq, nope that was years ago, talking about something completely different.
(Also ... Bret Hull's skate was in the fucking crease. All year they had been calling back goals on replay because of skates in the crease ... just because it was in the third overtime and the Stars flooded the ice in celebration they threw out the fucking rulebook? The Sabres got screwed. Waaaa waaaa waaaa.)
Any man who hates small dogs and children can't be all bad.
If we can justify a war on one country because they supported terrorists who may have known other terrorists who may have known other terrorists and so on and so forth until we finally get to the group that attacked us, then we should be declaring war on a fair amount of the current administration.