|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 12/18/2006 : 13:20:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Go find the reasons for going in back in early 2003. It was not to bring democracy to the Middle East. It was only to protect the U.S. from Saddam's alleged WMDs.
Installing democracy was not the reason and the WMD's were, I agree. Installing the deomocracy was the exit stradighy after the WMD's and Saddam were gone. And how many separate international intelligence agencies offered up this alleged WMD program of Saddam's before going to war?
You tell us...
As far as I know, only CIA did. And then MI6, but they started taking orders from CIA once GRU abandoned them when GRU thought they didn't need them anymore.
IAEA inspectors, and UN operatives with Hans Blix repeatedly stated that there wasn't any indication of any WMD, and urged for restraint and more time than idiots Bush and co. started beating the wardrums effectivly sabotaging for the UN in Iraq.
quote:
Because the IC chairmen has influence on how much money is earmarked for intelligence gathering of the said groups. Any prior knowledge of these groups puts a candidate ahead of one who does not have a basic knowledge of these groups. It is common logic in the private sector that merit produces better odds on getting the most qualified and successful candidate for the job. Which is what the American people deserve in the nominee.
Then explain to me why I'm not the CEO of Ericsson, since I know WAY more electronics than he does...
Unless there are other skills that are more important. Like administrative skills and leader skills.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 05:59:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
quote:
And how many separate international intelligence agencies offered up this alleged WMD program of Saddam's before going to war?
You tell us...
The better question is, who did not state that Saddam had an active WMD program?
quote:
As far as I know, only CIA did. And then MI6, but they started taking orders from CIA once GRU abandoned them when GRU thought they didn't need them anymore. IAEA inspectors, and UN operatives with Hans Blix repeatedly stated that there wasn't any indication of any WMD, and urged for restraint and more time than idiots Bush and co. started beating the wardrums effectivly sabotaging for the UN in Iraq.
There was resolution after resolution that Saddam just thumbed his nose at from 1991 through 2003. The UN inspections were a joke. Saddam was playing a cat and mouse game with them. He was funding suicide bombers in Palestine. He was seeking nuclear weapons technology and allowing active terrorist training camps in N. Iraq, at the same time. He was vowing the destruction of the US and Israel. He plotted to assassinate one of our presidents. The fellow was responsible for the blood of 100,000's if not 1,000,000's of Iraqis, Iranians, Kuwaities and Kurds. etc... etc... The dude had to go. This should not even be up for debate. If not Bush then someone needed to take him out. Clinton and Clinton dem's had been speaking of preemptive strikes on Iraq all through 1992-2000. Without 9/11 they could not muster up the support they needed to do so. GWB's Achilles Heel has been his efforts to rebuild a country full of 25,000,000 people who all hate each other, after the task master has been toppled.
quote:
quote:
Because the IC chairmen has influence on how much money is earmarked for intelligence gathering of the said groups. Any prior knowledge of these groups puts a candidate ahead of one who does not have a basic knowledge of these groups. It is common logic in the private sector that merit produces better odds on getting the most qualified and successful candidate for the job. Which is what the American people deserve in the nominee.
Then explain to me why I'm not the CEO of Ericsson, since I know WAY more electronics than he does...
Maybe you will be CEO of a major electronics manufacture someday. Most CEO's are not yanked off the street and thrown into the position without even a base knowledge of the product they manufacture. They work their way up through the ranks. This usually assures that by the time the candidate reaches a leader position he already has a basic knowledge of that which he is manufacturing.
quote:
Unless there are other skills that are more important. Like administrative skills and leader skills.
These skills are useless without a base knowledge of the product they represent..
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 09:02:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
quote:
And how many separate international intelligence agencies offered up this alleged WMD program of Saddam's before going to war?
You tell us...
The better question is, who did not state that Saddam had an active WMD program?
Nice dodge, Slick.
quote:
There was resolution after resolution that Saddam just thumbed his nose at from 1991 through 2003. The UN inspections were a joke. Saddam was playing a cat and mouse game with them.
Of course he was, I wouldn't expect him to do otherwise. He was feeling the UN inspectors were violating his sovereign right to make sure he could defend himself against aggressors. And you know what? You proved him right.
The inspectors also knew he was trying to keep secrets. But he didn't really have anything to shuffle about (and they saw through his guise, otherwise they wouldn't have asked for more time), only made the impression he had as a last grasp for straws in order to make his neighbours think his country wasn't ripe for the picking. Do you honestly think Iran didn't have their eyes in Iraq?
quote:
He was funding suicide bombers in Palestine.
Cite evidence please.
quote:
He was seeking nuclear weapons technology
Who isn't?
Both Iran and North Korea where far closer than Iraq.
quote:
and allowing active terrorist training camps in N. Iraq, at the same time.
If there were terrorist camps in N. Iraq, cite evidence that he was actively allowing them there.
quote:
He was vowing the destruction of the US and Israel.
HAHAHA! And that really makes you shit in your pants? The Gulf War of 1991 really kicked his ass.
He was no threat to neither USA nor Israel (even his scud-missiles were a joke), but foremost to himself and the Kurds who really suffered under his rule. But then, the liberation of Kurds wasn't American objective for the invasion.
quote:
He plotted to assassinate one of our presidents.
Neither Bush's would have been a loss to the world.
quote:
The fellow was responsible for the blood of 100,000's if not 1,000,000's of Iraqis, Iranians, Kuwaities and Kurds. etc... etc... The dude had to go.
Yeah, but that wasn't the stated reason for the invasion. The American government invented the WMD-threat in order to go in and secure the oil.
By the way, why don't you cite the claim for millions?
The liberation claim came after the truth about the non-existence of WMD to cover up the lies of your government. And you have obviously bought the lies lock stock and barrel...
Iraq was a sovereign nation, and America invented a reason to make the invasion look like it was something else than what it really was: A war of aggression.
quote:
If not Bush then someone needed to take him out.
No. Saddam was slowly driving his country to collapse, leaving them be would have been the best solution. Discontent was brewing under the surface, and a revolt would have broken out sooner or later without US intervention. There had already been assassination attempts at him, and he was getting paranoid. Those are the first signs.
quote:
Clinton and Clinton dem's had been speaking of preemptive strikes on Iraq all through 1992-2000.
Yes, but Clinton was smart enough to listen to advisers who told him it would be a bad idea.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 11:26:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
He was feeling the UN inspectors were violating his sovereign right to make sure he could defend himself against aggressors. And you know what? You proved him right.
He gave up that right when he agreed to the cease fire in GW one.
quote:
The inspectors also knew he was trying to keep secrets
As did everyone.
quote:
. But he didn't really have anything to shuffle about
How do you know this?
quote:
(and they saw through his guise, otherwise they wouldn't have asked for more time),
More time! They had been playing this cat and mouse game since 1991. Time was up.
quote:
quote:
He was funding suicide bombers in Palestine.
Cite evidence please.
I don't need to. Saddam made public claims, all the time, of $25,000 going to the families of a suicide bomber. I am surprised you were not aware of this.
quote:
HAHAHA! And that really makes you shit in your pants? The Gulf War of 1991 really kicked his ass.
He was no threat to neither USA nor Israel (even his scud-missiles were a joke),
His Scuds would not be a joke if they had a chemical or biological agent on the warhead. I guess he took serious our threat to flood Baghdad if he used either in GW one.
quote:
Neither Bush's would have been a loss to the world.
The names of global politicians you could add to this list would be endless.
quote:
quote:
The fellow was responsible for the blood of 100,000's if not 1,000,000's of Iraqis, Iranians, Kuwaities and Kurds. etc... etc... The dude had to go.
Yeah, but that wasn't the stated reason for the invasion. The American government invented the WMD-threat in order to go in and secure the oil.
How much of the oil that America consumes comes from Iraq?
quote:
By the way, why don't you cite the claim for millions?
I never made the claim. If not, is the same thing as saying, possibly. Example: 100,000's possible even millions. What makes any difference anyway?
quote:
The liberation claim came after the truth about the non-existence of WMD
The WMD's were the reason we went in, but to claim there was no talk of liberation before the invasion is simply wrong. GWB spoke of liberation on the eve of the attack for Pete's sake.
quote:
to cover up the lies of your government.
As well as the lies of all the other international intelligence agencies who said the same thing.
quote:
And you have obviously bought the lies lock stock and barrel...
As did the entire congress, who saw all the evidence, and then choose to authorize war.
quote:
Iraq was a sovereign nation,
So was Kuwait. Besides, Saddam gave up much of that sovereignty when he agreed to the cease fire of GW One and the sanctions that came with that, which he never kept his word. Hence we had GW two, which was really only a continuation of GW one, because of the failed word of Saddam. Had he kept his word no GW two.
quote:
and America invented a reason to make the invasion look like it was something else than what it really was:
Memo: You have been watching to many Michael Moore movies.
quote:
A war of aggression.
This was not a war of aggression. If the US military was to act aggressive, as in Hitler aggressive, we would have the entire middle east on lockdown at this point and almost the entire world would be buying oil from us.
quote:
quote:
If not Bush then someone needed to take him out.
No. Saddam was slowly driving his country to collapse, leaving them be would have been the best solution. Discontent was brewing under the surface, and a revolt would have broken out sooner or later without US intervention. There had already been assassination attempts at him, and he was getting paranoid. Those are the first signs.
That whole scenario had been going on for 30 years and Saddam was still in power.
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/19/2006 11:31:13 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 13:00:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I am not a Bush apologist, so attacking the pubs will not divert me from the topic of the thread.
It already has.quote:
I never said one person decides the whole budget. So I agree, that's ludicrous. Never the less, the leader would still decide, or at least influence, whether to start the negotiating at one or twenty billion, correct?
No, the start of negotiations is with whatever number the President puts forth in his budget.quote:
quote:
You know, you really should understand the basic functionality of the government before you make a big stink about one guy
Why do you hold me to these standards (basic understanding of the issues), while chatting on a backwoods internet forum, when you seem to defend this (not having a basic understanding of the issues) when it comes to our elected officials and their nominated positions?
I expect everyone in the government to be aware of how the government operates and about their own jobs. The question for you, asked several times in different ways, without any substantial answer from you yet, is: how is knowledge of Middle-East terrorist groups necessary for the performance of the job of chariman of the House Intelligence Committee? And that's mostly rhetorical, because while you've shown yourself to be able to make stuff up and present it as a possible answer, you obviously don't know the real answer. Yet Pelosi's choice horrifies you based on your own fabricated job requirements.quote:
So why not just throw a monkey in there?
Because a monkey will pound the gavel at the wrong times and throw feces at the subpoenaed witnesses.quote:
Installing democracy was not the reason and the WMD's were, I agree. Installing the deomocracy was the exit stradighy after the WMD's and Saddam were gone.
Ousting Saddam wasn't even one of the reasons for going in.quote:
And how many separate international intelligence agencies offered up this alleged WMD program of Saddam's before going to war?
Two? Out of how many?quote:
Why did Clinton and Clinton dems speak of preemptive strikes on Iraq from 1992-2000?
You tell me, and then tell me how it relates to Pelosi's choice for IC chairman.quote:
quote:
A solid strategy shouldn't have failed.
I agree, but your claim was that they had no strategy.
Stop playing the semantic games, Bill: I clearly wrote that they had no solid strategy. For you to just drop the adjective and pretend I never wrote it is ridiculous.quote:
I pointed out that they had a strategy, but it was a failed one.
Yes, and in doing so you missed the point.quote:
So what exit strategy did Bush give to congress before they signed off on his war?
Good question. Why don't you ask any of the Dems who did sign off on it.quote:
Lost to what, sectarian violence? The whole country is.
Lost to the U.S. military. They cannot operate in Anbar effectively. For every town they gain control of, they lose control of two or more.quote:
Franticly? Stop it, just stop it. Your making me laugh. Try defining it, rather then moving it. Least you bring up the guy from down the street, who beat up his wife, as an example of how Bush, and his homeland security, have failed to prevent a terrorist attack on US soil.
No, you said, quote:The fact that we have not been attacked again since 9/11... And you simply can't admit you were wrong to make such a blanket statement. I won't play your silly semantic games of re-naming "moving the goalposts" as "defining it," because it amounts to the same thing. The U.S. Homeland has been attacked since 9/11, period. If you want to add all sorts of qualifiers, like "major" and "by Al Qaeda," you're not "defining" your earlier claim, you are changing it. Even if we ignore the attacks overseas, "we have not been attacked since 9/11" is simply not true.quote:
quote:
the anthrax attacks happened after 9/11,
You don't know that this is not just a disgruntled government employ.
Does that somehow not make it an attack?quote:
quote:
and just because Reid's attack failed doesn't mean it wasn't an attack
The results of a failed attack and no attack are the same.
Are you claiming that "attempted murder" shouldn't be a crime?quote:
U |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2006 : 13:46:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The inspectors also knew he was trying to keep secrets
As did everyone.
My god you have to be a losy poker player.
Yes the purpose of showing that you have a secret is to make your opponent uncertain of what that secret might be. Since there weren't any WMD, Saddam had to count on the fear that there might be WMD to reduce the risk of neighbouring countries provoking a war. Who knew G.W Bush would be insane enough to actually go to war?
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The inspectors also knew he was trying to keep secrets
As did everyone.
Yes, but the UN inspectors were there, on site, in Iraq! They were in the best position to assess the situation. And they said "hold it, we don't have probable cause yet".
quote:
quote:
. But he didn't really have anything to shuffle about
How do you know this?
Because despite 5 years of searching, US troops (or any other for that matter) have still failed to find anything. Actually finding WMD would be the greatest political victory Bush could ever claim.
Of course, the absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, but it does make a convincing circumstantial evidence.
quote:
quote:
(and they saw through his guise, otherwise they wouldn't have asked for more time),
More time! They had been playing this cat and mouse game since 1991. Time was up.
Bullshit! Bush was spoiling for a fight. They were asking for more time to keep Bush's itching fingers, and because of that absense of evidence thing. By excluding places to hide equipment, they were working on establishing that there really wasn't any WMD to start with.
quote:
quote:
quote:
He was funding suicide bombers in Palestine.
Cite evidence please.
I don't need to. Saddam made public claims, all the time, of $25,000 going to the families of a suicide bomber. I am surprised you were not aware of this.
I've heard rumours, but actually never saw any concrete evidence. So you refuse to back up your claim? Ok, then I'll dismiss your charge.
quote:
quote:
HAHAHA! And that really makes you shit in your pants? The Gulf War of 1991 really kicked his ass.
He was no threat to neither USA nor Israel (even his scud-missiles were a joke),
His Scuds would not be a joke if they had a chemical or biological agent on the warhead.
But they didn't.
quote:
I guess he took serious our threat to flood Baghdad if he used either in GW one.
Right, so why the second invasion?
We know that the WMD-threat was invented lies to get public support for the war. The shithead that is your president deserves to be in prison for war crimes.
quote:
quote:
Neither Bush's would have been a loss to the world.
The names of global politicians you could add to this list would be endless.
True. Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe have terrorised their citizens and violated human rights. But where are American troops?
Oh, sorry, they were guarding the Iraqi Ministry of Oil while looters were ransacking the National Museum for artifacts that in a World Humankind Historical perspective were priceless!
They didn't even bother to guard the munitions depot for the Iraqi army. Looters stole tons of munitions and explosives by the truckload after the US military forces located it, but ignored it to protect the refinaries there weren't going anywhere.
quote:
quote:
quote:
The fellow was responsible for the blood of 100,000's if not 1,000,000's of Iraqis, Iranians, Kuwaities and Kurds. etc... etc... The dude had to go.
Yeah, but that wasn't the stated reason for the invasion. The American government invented the WMD-threat in order to go in and secure the oil.
How much of the oil that America consumes comes from Iraq?
I don't care. What pisses me off is that the conflict has pushed the gas prices to new heights, and Bush's buddies are making billions out of it. I pay about $5.5/US-gallon of gas. It used to be more, but US Dollars are a bit lower now than it used to be a year ago.
quote:
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/19/2006 15:24:28 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 06:10:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
quote:
I am not a Bush apologist, so attacking the pubs will not divert me from the topic of the thread.
It already has.
Your right. I gave it my best effort, but the repeated off topic tangents and ramblings about GWB on this forum proved to much to over come. No matter what the subject it always seems to come back to GWB. At least I tried to introduce you guys to objectivity.
quote:
No, the start of negotiations is with whatever number the President puts forth in his budget.
So then the IC leader can agree, or negotiate, correct?
quote:
The question for you, asked several times in different ways, without any substantial answer from you yet, is: how is knowledge of Middle-East terrorist groups necessary for the performance of the job of Charmin of the House Intelligence Committee?
Do we, or do we not, gather intelligence on Middle East terrorist groups?
quote:
And that's mostly rhetorical, because while you've shown yourself to be able to make stuff up and present it as a possible answer,
Give me an example.
quote:
you obviously don't know the real answer. Yet Pelosi's choice horrifies you based on your own fabricated job requirements.
Horrifies? You sure do like to appeal to dramatics, Dave. I never once said the nominee was not qualified for the job. I said at the minimum, one, who was more qualified, was passed over for the job with no explanation given. That's my only point. I then was bombarded with GWB can't tie his own shoe posts.
quote:
Because a monkey will pound the gavel at the wrong times and throw feces at the subpoenaed witnesses.
And this is different from their normal activities how?
quote:
Ousting Saddam wasn't even one of the reasons for going in.
But in order to get rid of the WMD's that would mean going through Saddam, in effect, ousting him.
quote:
quote:
Why did Clinton and Clinton dems speak of preemptive strikes on Iraq from 1992-2000?
You tell me,
Because all the intelligence pointed towards an active WMD program and Saddam refused any meaningful inspections of his WMD programs, as he agreed to in the cease fire of GW one. Just as he continued to do through 2002.
quote:
and then tell me how it relates to Pelosi's choice for IC chairman.
It doesn't. It relates to your tangent.
quote:
Stop playing the semantic games, Bill: I clearly wrote that they had no solid strategy. For you to just drop the adjective and pretend I never wrote it is ridiculous.
You did say "solid." I missed that and apologize for the error. Never the less, if they did have no "solid" strategy for leaving then what did they sell to the congress as their exit strategy before congress signed off on the war? Or did the congress sign off with no solid exit strategy in place?
quote:
Good question. Why don't you ask any of the Dems who did sign off on it.
Which is almost all of them. Sure. I'll give them all a call tonight and see what they have to say for themselves. Meanwhile, you can call all the pubs. We will get to the bottom of this.
quote:
Lost to the U.S. military. They cannot operate in Anbar effectively. For every town they gain control of, they lose control of two or more.
They lose control because their goal is still a democratic Iraq. If the US military went into Iraq with full force and all gloves off the entire country would have been under US control, to do as we please, since 2003.
N quote:
o, you said, quote:
The fact that we have not been attacked again since 9/11...
And you simply can't admit you were wrong to make such a blanket statement.
The mistake was making the blanket statement to you, oh master of technicalities and semantics.
quote:
I won't play your silly semantic games
Your too busy playing your own.
quote:
of re-naming "moving the goalposts" as "defining it," because it amounts to the same thing.
You forced me to define it least you point out battered wives as an example as terrorist attacks that have occurred on the homeland.
quote:
The U.S. Homeland has been attacked since 9/11, period. If you want to add all sorts of |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 08:42:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott...
Word games and semantics.
You shouldn't try to pass the responsibility for your deficient communication skills onto other people, Bill. It's dishonest, and you're not very good at it. If you'd learn to communicate more effectively, you wouldn't have to stoop to that transparent tactic of "defining" your terms after the fact (in other words, moving the goal posts).
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 08:59:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott...
Word games and semantics.
You shouldn't try to pass the responsibility for your deficient communication skills onto other people, Bill. It's dishonest, and you're not very good at it. If you'd learn to communicate more effectively, you wouldn't have to stoop to that transparent tactic of "defining" your terms after the fact (in other words, moving the goal posts).
Of course when context is taken into consideration your point becomes null and void. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 09:36:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Unless there is a crack-down on islamic extremism in mosques in the USA, such an attack could happen anywhere in the USA at any time.
I agree. However, the problem is as soon as this happens our good friends down at the ACLU will file a lawsuit claiming racial profiling, or some such crap.
quote:
I would agree that there have not been any really major terrorist attacks in the USA since 9-11.
Now how come you were able to comprehend my statement in context while the Info Junkie struggled here?
quote:
However, when saying that the homeland security has done a good job you imply that there also have been attempts. Sure, there have been threats made, but have those also resulted in attempts?
I believe, since 9/11, we have severally crippled Al Queda abroad. This has severely hampered their ability to mount another attack. Their new found fame is also their worst enemy. We will never take our eyes off of them again, thanks to 9/11.
quote:
At this point, with all the attention of the muslim world aimed for a large part in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say that despite a lot of threats, no real attempts to something big have really been made. At this point, they have a war to fight at homefront.
I pretty much agree, and that would mean that the war in Iraq has made the US homeland more secure against the likes of Al Queada. They are too busy getting killed in Iraq.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 09:53:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill Scott:
I pretty much agree, and that would mean that the war in Iraq has made the US homeland more secure against the likes of Al Queada.
Honestly, I need what it is you are smoking. On the other hand, naaaaaaa.... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 11:58:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Bill Scott:
I pretty much agree, and that would mean that the war in Iraq has made the US homeland more secure against the likes of Al Queada.
Honestly, I need whatever it is you are smoking. On the other hand, naaaaaaa....
"At this point, with all the attention of the muslim world aimed for a large part in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say that despite a lot of threats, no real attempts to something big have really been made. At this point, they have a war to fight at homefront."
So you disagree with tomk80 here? How so?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 19:52:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Bill Scott:
I pretty much agree, and that would mean that the war in Iraq has made the US homeland more secure against the likes of Al Queada.
Honestly, I need whatever it is you are smoking. On the other hand, naaaaaaa....
"At this point, with all the attention of the muslim world aimed for a large part in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say that despite a lot of threats, no real attempts to something big have really been made. At this point, they have a war to fight at homefront."
So you disagree with tomk80 here? How so?
Just how does fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq make us safer from attack from Al Qaeda? Since there was almost no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before the war, and since most of the Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq are part of the Sunni insurgency, made up of Iraqi Sunni's, who were not Al Qaeda before the war, how does it follow that we are now safer from Al Qaeda?
One of the things we have accomplished with our war in Iraq was to make possible the expansion of the Al Qaeda organization into Iraq. And while those Al Qaeda may or may not be too busy to attack us here says nothing about Al Qaeda in general. Also, how long are we going to keep them too busy?
We are less secure because of this war, not more secure…
My disagreement is with your statement Bill, that we are now more secure because of the war in Iraq, and not with tomk80's statement. He did not make the assertion that you made…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2006 : 23:56:38 [Permalink]
|
Denial is an amazing thing. Everytime I ask a Bush supporter if they are satisfied with the mess we now have and I get all sorts of responses of denial. "We're still better off than if Gore or Kerry were elected." "We haven't been attacked" Blah blah blah...
Last night Bill Kristol tried to tell Jon Stewart the Iraq war was one of Bush's correct decisions because it made us safer. Stewart called him on it. Kristol tried to use the "We haven't been attacked" denial. Stewart brought up the fact we went longer under Clinton without being attacked. Kristol brought up the embassy bombing in Nigeria and the Cole. Stewart said if you want to count those then you better count the Spain and England bomb attacks as well. WE AREN'T SAFER. Anyone who thinks we are is in denial.
Kristol claimed it was our show of strength by attacking Iraq that stopped attacks here. [Filthy's laughing smilie man][/ROTFLMAO] Right, that scared 'em off. Sure!  |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 12/20/2006 23:57:30 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/21/2006 : 06:21:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Just how does fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq make us safer from attack from Al Qaeda?
One reason was given by tomk80, Al Queda has focused it's attention on the battle in Iraq. They are unable to fight a two front war of attacking America, and fighting democracy in Iraq, at the same time.
quote:
Since there was almost no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before the war,
How do you know this?
quote:
and since most of the Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq are part of the Sunni insurgency, made up of Iraqi Sunni's, who were not Al Qaeda before the war,
Then why has the US military ID'ed 1000's of dead FOREIGN fighters killed in combat in Iraq?
quote:
how does it follow that we are now safer from Al Qaeda?
See above.
quote:
One of the things we have accomplished with our war in Iraq was to make possible the expansion of the Al Queda organization into Iraq.
Or as Tomk80 has put it, they have diverted AQ into Iraq, and then have killed them by the 1000's.
quote:
And while those Al Qaeda may or may not be too busy to attack us here says nothing about Al Qaeda in general.
So, if AQ is too busy trying to fight us in Iraq to be able to make any attacks on our homeland, then what does that say about Al Qaeda in general?
quote:
Also, how long are we going to keep them too busy?
Me, I would have declared victory after Saddam was booted from power and all possible WMD cites were blown from the dessert. I would then leave the region and allow our attack aircraft sitting in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qtar to take care of any terrorist training camps that might pop up in the aftermath. The first thing the Bush team needs to realize is their dream of installing a functioning democracy in Iraq, while a noble cause, is unrealistic.
quote:
We are less secure because of this war, not more secure…
Not if Tomk80's assessment is correct. And you have at least acknowledged that maybe it is.
quote:
My disagreement is with your statement Bill, that we are now more secure because of the war in Iraq, and not with tomk80's statement. He did not make the asse |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
