A Conversation I Had...

[punchdrunk]

Originally posted by merphie
Like who? Spain, France, or Germany?

I believe Kerry would have more success bringing a multilateral United Nations force to Iraq.

 

[merphie]

I believe Kerry would have more success bringing a multilateral United Nations force to Iraq.

Those countries have already said they are not going to get involved no matter who is elected. If Kerry has claimed otherwise he is lying.

Bush has a multinational force in Iraq. I am afraid it will not get any more. Kerry has already offended other nations with his comments. So much for bring people in.

 

[punchdrunk]

Welcome to the Forum Rhoadp. Good post.

There were several contacts and they reached up into Saddam's hierarchy. Yes, there is no evidence that the meetings were anything more than little tea parties. I suspect something more sinister because I have qualms about the ethics of both groups.

To me they were attempting to discover how they could be useful to one another in their common fight. That's how I size it up and not anything that confirms Saddam was in any way behind 9/11.

Iraq had UN sanctions promising serious repercussions. For the US, Iraq was as much a part of "the problem", even requiring "no fly" zones. If it was not dealt those serious repercussions, the UN would sooner or later be forced to lift all sanctions and restore Iraq's complete sovereignty, at which point Saddam would have had a green light to proceed with his plans unimpeded.

Anyway, that's how I sized up the situation in the run up to the war. I did, of course, expect to find WMDs. Many nations believed they were there. I can't call what Bush told us a lie. To me, Saddam was being canny. He believed he could outlast the US and the UN and reconstitute his programs. That had to be stopped and if possible, the establishment of another democracy in the region would be huge.

A few months ago I believed that Kerry might have had more success in getting other countries on board. But he has referred to the current coalition as "countries you can buy on eBay." And to the war as "the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place." Who would join him in prosecuting that?

I do agree with you that Kerry is not going to cut and run. I used that term to see if the other posters who were so opposed to Bush embraced that as the correct tactic. I guess I didn't mind him saying that he wanted to bring our boys home within 4 years. It was the comment that he'd start within 6 months that troubled me. I think such comments encourage the enemy. They gain small victories anytime they force us to change directions. Kerry has also said that more troops may be needed. So indeed, he may inflate our troop count before he is able to get us out of there.

I realize he's got to say something to separate himself from Bush but I disagree that he's our best hope based on what he's said so far.

Thanks for the welcome. Obviously, I'm new to posting here. I support the JREF mission, have even donated a little money, and continue to hold out hope that these message boards will provide for rational, civilized discussion, such that you would expect to find on a skeptic site. There is still plenty of chaff to be separated, but it seems better here than most other places

Yes, if the sanctions had been lifted sooner or later, and Saddam was still in power, he would have been free to look towards re-development. Very scary, no doubt. But in my opinion, March 2003 was not the right time to worry about this. We were already in Afghanistan, and had just started the formidible search for Al Qaida operations throughout the globe. Was it really the right time to unilaterally change our tact on Iraq? My take on the situation in Iraq before the war was: yes, we want Saddam out. Yes, he's dangerous; he has used chem and bio weapons against his own people and others, and with no restraint, he will probably do it again. But the sanctions are working now; UN inspectors can find no WMD. Let's stay this course until we solve our most imminent threat: finding and rooting out Al Qaida and related-terrorists; then let's concentrate on Iraq.

I don't want to call Bush a liar. But I do not believe he has been straightforward with his rationale for going to war with Iraq. In a June 2002 speech to West Point graduates, Bush first outlined a new defense doctrine of preemption. In that speech, he said, "For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies."

This was the first and last time, it seems to me, that he gave the real reason for invading Iraq. Since then, he has trotted out the WMD excuse, the Liberate Iraq excuse, and the non-existant 'Saddam-Al Qaida ties' excuse. Why not tell the American people the real reason? Well, because it would be political suicide to advocate a preemptive strike on a sovereign nation, I guess. Or maybe, if the American people knew the real reason for going to war, they would have opposed it. Perhaps Congress would not have authorized the invasion of Iraq. Or maybe they would have; who knows? That's the problem I have with Bush and the invasion; his reasons for going to war have been nothing but smoke and mirrors. He never gave the nation a chance to debate the real reason he went. Kerry's detractors accuse him of flip-flopping, but Bush's behavior has been no better - or worse.

 

[punchdrunk]

Those countries have already said they are not going to get involved no matter who is elected. If Kerry has claimed otherwise he is lying.

I did not say Kerry said otherwise.

Bush has a multinational force in Iraq. I am afraid it will not get any more. Kerry has already offended other nations with his comments. So much for bring people in.

I said a multinational UN force.

Please point out any articles you can find that show Kerry has offended other nations with his comments. I would really like to see those. thanks

 

[merphie]

I did not say Kerry said otherwise.

I wasn't trying to suggest you did.

I said a multinational UN force.

We already have like 15 countries.

Please point out any articles you can find that show Kerry has offended other nations with his comments. I would really like to see those. thanks

Atlas mentioned it earlier.

I found it here
Source

 

[DavidJames]

Atlas mentioned it earlier.

I found it here
Source

Great source Undocumented quotes, no details, just opinions. But it supports your belief system so, it's good

 

[merphie]

Great source Undocumented quotes, no details, just opinions. But it supports your belief system so, it's good

Give me a break. It was a quick google. The first link given was to a news media site, but I couldn't get it to come up.

There was plenty of articles if you would actuall search. I don't have the time at the momment.

The belief system is yours.

 

[DavidJames]

Give me a break. It was a quick google. The first link given was to a news media site, but I couldn't get it to come up.

There was plenty of articles if you would actuall search. I don't have the time at the momment.

The belief system is yours.

If I would search, lol. Maybe you should just stick with the bush forums, I suspect they would be more understanding. The bar is a little higher here.

 

[merphie]

If I would search, lol. Maybe you should just stick with the bush forums, I suspect they would be more understanding. The bar is a little higher here.

Oh, so this is the thread where proof is not required. Opinions only? I can change my tactics and fit right in!

Yes you search, sometimes you have to look for something although you may not like it. I suppose it is much easier to be spoon fed information by the Kerry Campaign.

The quote I referred to was made at the Boston Convention by John Kerry.

An news article that quoted it was listed on this Web site

 

[Ion]

...
I suppose it is much easier to be spoon fed information by the Kerry Campaign.
...

But you are an example of being spoon fed by the Bush's campaign.

For example when not recognizing that Powell and Bush they lied in UN in February 2003 about 'knowing' of Iraq's WMDs, in contradiction with the world's knowledge at that time about the lack of WMDs in Iraq.

So, you the spoon fed by Bush the failure, you are lecturing Kerry's people about spoon feeding?

Grow up, merphie.

 

[DavidJames]

An news article that quoted it was listed on this Web site

Do you actually read your links? That article had the exact same information as the other one, the exact same quotes also without sources.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, he was opposed to them operating independently on his soil without his authorization. He didn't set out to crush it as part of his own pan Arab inclination. He used religion when it suited his purpose, he would not tolerate an alternate form of authority in his domain.

Exactly. All Al Qaeda and Iraq had in common was that they didn't like the USA. There is absolutely no evidence they were in bed together in any significant way.

There never was a monolithic conspiracy, and there still isn't.

Sorry to be vapid. I'll try to be less so. I was asking for you input. What do you think? You hadn't noticed that I had asked for you alternative and attacked me in an earlier post. I offered my take so you could explain where we differ. I guess that was a mistake. Perhaps you can tell me Kerry's position and yours - so we can move beyond vapidity here.

I was criticising you for offering empty speculation, slanted as a criticism of the presidential candidate you don't like. Realistically there is no alternative to a continued US presence in Iraq.

I believe that wartime events are horrible to contemplate. The news covers these pretty well. They don't always offer a context. And some of the posters here see every act of America as diabolical. I see our enemy as diabolical, it is a destroyer of civilization. I believe deep in my heart that it must be stopped. I know I take a "big picture" view of this and lump terror states, and radical Islam, and the mideast "problem" together.

How is that any different from a kook conspiracy theory? Where's the evidence that your laundry list of "threats" is a cohesive whole, as opposed to a bunch of unrelated issues that are being run together as the US government's Boogeyman Of The Week?

It is a region that has steadily increased ability to disrupt and destroy over the last several decades. It is at "war" with the west at several levels.

...but on on the level of actual war, of course. Is it absolutely necessary for you USians to call everything a war? Could we please have The War Against Calling Things Better Dealt With In A Civil Fashion Wars?

As I mentioned above I do run the cross currents of the middle east together in a single stream. When Palestinians "martyr" themselves destroying Israelis Saddam and Saudi Arabia gave money to the murderers's family.

Lots of people don't like Israel. This isn't news, nor is it a conspiracy to get at the USA except to the extent that Israel acts as a proxy for US policy.

But I do believe it is a disorganized conspiracy. And I do look at it like it's a global threat. Terrorists who have sprung up in the region and received state support have mounted attacks in North Africa, Europe and the US. They have tried to topple governments in Pakistan, Russia and elsewhere. I think it can be seen as unrelated threats but only by the myopic.

Well, I tend to think the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist. Where's actual evidence of a coordinated program? Where's the evidence of an urgent global threat?

 

[Skeptic]

I joined this forum to pull teeth from pro-war chickenhawks like you, Lister, Drooper, Skeptic & other primitives of your kind.

My teeth are getting loose, but it's from laughing so hard...

 

[Tmy]

We already have like 15 countries.

[/URL]

Isnt this "coalition forces" thing really a joke. The whole operation is basically the US and Britain.

What % of the money and % troops are the other 13 countries throwing in??

 

[punchdrunk]

Isnt this "coalition forces" thing really a joke. The whole operation is basically the US and Britain.

What % of the money and % troops are the other 13 countries throwing in??

I don't have the exact troop numbers as of right now, but it's something along the line of: US - 130,000; UK - 9000; Italy - 4000; etc.

 

[merphie]

Do you actually read your links? That article had the exact same information as the other one, the exact same quotes also without sources.

Perhaps you should read the title. The web page was quoting a published article.

A CONTINENT DIVIDED: HALF OF EUROPE IS LEANING TO KERRY. BUT IT'S THE WRONG HALF
by John O'Sullivan
National Post
August 23, 2004

 

[merphie]

Isnt this "coalition forces" thing really a joke. The whole operation is basically the US and Britain.

What % of the money and % troops are the other 13 countries throwing in??

So it's all about numbers? France and Germany didn't send anything. Do you Think Kerry would get them onboard?

 

[DavidJames]

Perhaps you should read the title. The web page was quoting a published article.

I read the title, I read the article. I will type this slowly so maybe you will understand.

There are no details on how Kerry is doing this, nothing specific, quotes are provided without sources, no evidence supporting their claims.

You are being completely obtuse.

 

[merphie]

I read the title, I read the article. I will type this slowly so maybe you will understand.

There are no details on how Kerry is doing this, nothing specific, quotes are provided without sources, no evidence supporting their claims.

You are being completely obtuse.

No detail he is doing what? The article was a quote reference to something he said at the Boston Convention.

The web site refers to the printed article. The article referrs to what was said, where it was said, when it was said, and who said it. It also provided the context. What more do you want?

 

[Atlas]

Response to posting by Kevin_Lowe
How is that any different from a kook conspiracy theory? Where's the evidence that your laundry list of "threats" is a cohesive whole, as opposed to a bunch of unrelated issues that are being run together as the US government's Boogeyman Of The Week? The terror tactics arise from this region. They appear to utililze the same techniques. Car bombs. Suicide Bombings, Children as shields, Children as bait, the perpetrators seemingly have the same trainers. Much of the horror ties back organizations like al Queda. Much of the support for terrorism is state sponsored, coming from Iran, Syria and some time ago Libya. I guess if you deny that then what I spout is a kook conspiracy theory.

...but on on the level of actual war, of course. Is it absolutely necessary for you USians to call everything a war? Could we please have The War Against Calling Things Better Dealt With In A Civil Fashion Wars? Fair enough. I don't like the war on poverty or the war on drugs, it's political rhetoric. But 9/11 and the more that 1000 Americans killed in combat situations in Afghanistan and Iraq make this use of the word war appropriate.

Lots of people don't like Israel. This isn't news, nor is it a conspiracy to get at the USA except to the extent that Israel acts as a proxy for US policy. No but pan-nationalism, militarism, expansion through war, racial/spiritual superiority combined with blind hatred of the Jews should at least raise a red flag.

Well, I tend to think the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist. Where's actual evidence of a coordinated program? Where's the evidence of an urgent global threat? I think the Iran/Syria and previously the Iraq/Syria connections are evidence of a coordinated program. Both Iraq and Iran have tried to become Nuclear powers while using the UN nonproliferation treaty as cover. Both have used terror tactics outside their borders. I did not use the word urgent - but I did call it a global threat. My point is that free peoples should take both the shadowy organizations and the states who sponsor them seriously when they issue their declarations of war against the west as they have. Although I believe that Osama is already dead, a charismatic leader in the region might be all that it takes to turn this nascent movement into the ignition for another world war.

As long as the chaos bringers like Arafat succeed in making peace impossible the world is a more dangerous place. The Middle East has many currents but peace and good will do not seem to be more than trickles in the torrent.

You've said that as a conspiricy theorist I should bring evidence but much of the collaboration of Hamas, Fatah, HizBollah, Iran, Assad, Saddam, al Queda is public record. They may not collaborate with each and every part but they certainly collaborate and trade monies and weapons. Do you agree with that statement? Kevin, if you have an argument against Middle East collaborations and conspiracies, I'll listen. I kinda hold these things to be self evident.