Zoolander, you get an "A" for effort, and an "F" for fact checking. Your entire argument is invalid, especially after today's two blockbuster stories are proving the Bush team's initial assertions about Iraq to be correct. Firstly, the British have found documents in Iraq confirming the link between Iraq and Al Queda. This invalidates your claim that we pre-emptively attacked Iraq. The Congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq specifically stated that Iraq's support of Al Queda was considered an attack against America, and the President was authorized to defend our people against the immediate threat from Iraq. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html Secondly, France was briefing Iraq on the private conversations, which include Security Council business, between France and the United States. This invalidates any credibility that you give "world opinion" in your post. In fact, I don't see how we can ever engage the UN again unless the configuration of the Security Council is changed. Someday you will learn to value current events as much as history. Until then- I am here for you man.
johnheath, I'd like to take this oppurtunity to tell you that you are one of the reasons that people hate america. You are proudly ignorant and unwilling to accept any viewpoint other than your own no matter what kind of logic is used in attempts to sway your viewpoint. You are incapable of ever admitting that you are wrong and you cling to any scrap of evidence, that in your eyes matches your goals, and present it as incontrovertible truth no matter how absurd it may be. Basically, what I'm trying to tell you is that you have no soul johnheath. Anyways, that was a very well thought out post MacBeth and I agree with quite a few of your points.
Thanks for proving my point. Don't ever post LMAO or a , because you have proven time and again that you are incapable of any humor other than your own right wing hystrionics.
Heretic, you are the one incapable of learning. Do you really think that MacBeth's post is well reasoned? Like Napoleon we risk betraying the ideals upon which we were founded for the sake of pragmatism...like the Roman Republic we are lessening our individual rights and becoming pre-emptively aggressive to other nations in the name of safety. I said that our fear and anger was such that it could easliy be used to invade nations that we have issue with, irrespective of theor connection with 9-11. It is symptomatic of the job Bush et al have done on the nation that I was ridiculed for my fears then, and by many of the same people who now support just those actions. we are too filled with fear for our comfortable way of life, too willing to betray the principles others have died for because of it, too filled with a sense of national self-righteousness and superiority, too willing to turn a blind eye when our leaders lie to us, betray the principles of self-determination by telling others how to live or that of global will checking aggression of individual powers, and too ready to do so in the name of freedom and safety while sacrificing the one in the name of the other. Heretic, since we now have evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Iraq aided Al Queda, then how on Earth does MacBeth's post make any sense at all? His entire argument is based on the idea that we, as the world's lone superpower, have attacked another country based on the POSSIBILITY that they one day may threaten us. He makes this argument despite the fact that a. the President and Congress specifically stated that we would attack Iraq because of an Al Queda connection and Iraq's non compliance with Blix and the inspectors...and.. b. plenty of evidence existed that the Iraqi had a relationship with Al Queda. MacBeth even adds to his overt hysteria my comparing the Bush Administration to the early years of Hitler's Nazi Party. Go ahead and tell me that I have no soul. I am content with knowing that I have a brain.
john heath, guess you didn't read the part about "The documents do not mention whether any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials, the newspaper said." You're arguments are baseless, and you are just a blind human being.
What the government releases to the press and what really happens behind closed doors is another matter. Sometimes the cold hard truth is too much to handle for "commoners." Why? Well, sometimes it gets blown out of proportion by the media. Other times it's better to kill your enemy (fanaticism) before they kill you (prevention), rather than letting your enemy kill you, and then retaliating. There is no way the *rightwing* will let the later happen. No way! Period! Thus, hard decisions will be made that few will understand (seems inhumane, doesn't it?). In the end, preservation of the "American way of life" will be done using prevention as the means. Yes, that's right. Self-interest. Plus, terrorism (fear) hurts capitalism. So, the *rightwing* will stop anyone at all cost if economic attack occurs as well. If we end up being wrong (no WMD), then we'll pay later (foster more hatred; seen as injustice). The *leftwing* will say, "I told you so." And the *rightwing* will say, "It was price we had to pay to insure peace (albeit temporary) and freedom." And that's "peace" and "freedom" in the most basic form of the words. Not metaphorically. johnheath, please don't pretend you are an angel; you're romanticizing the situtation. People make mistakes. And so does your govementment. A resonable person will see the whole picture, and then make their decision (calmly and sensibly). An unreasonable person will pretend the govement is *never* wrong or the government is *always* wrong. What's my take? American should *not* live in fear (from terrorism). Period! It wouldn't be America if that was so. But, at the same time, American should *not* abuse its power. It's a balance.
I have a somewhat inconsequential question to ask you. If we believe that the evidence in the Iraqi Intelligence Ministry is valuable and contains links that prove Bush's points, then why are journalists allowed to search through it? If it's such valuable political information then I would think that our Intel people would want first shot at it. This policy does not go along with the Bush administration's reluctance to release intel information. It's inconsistencies like this that make me hesitant to believe everything I see. You have a brain, but so does Corky.
Put it this way... I don't mind conspiracy theories...(they make people think and say, "Hmmmm...."). But be prepared to be called a "conspiracy theorist."
So, are you saying that the left wing doesn't care about our economy and safety? What in the hell is your point? Maybe you should address some specific points in my posts, instead of generalizing to the point of silliness. So, who are you supporting here? Do you always sit on the fence like this so you don't have to think too hard? You are insinuating that I think my government is never wrong. That is pure garbage, and the lowest form of attack debate. Prove a point. Tell me where America has abused its power during this Iraqi crisis?
Heh heh...you are an absolutist. All or nothing, right? Can't think for yourself? Need a group to belong to? I wonder where you were during the civil rights movement (regarding sitting on the fence)? Yes, you come off like you feel the government is never wrong. I said, American should *not* abuse it's power. There are situtaions here and there (and liberals may point them out; checks and balances); show of force, but it was *not* abuse in the grand scheme of things. But, the future holds unknowns. The world see our presence in the Middle East as a "abuse" of power. The world sees our actions as the only superpower, and it maginfies everything we do. Militarily or economic, we "show" that power. The mere fact that we can "ask" the UN if we can go to war, have them say no, and then we do it anyways, is a form of "abuse." It doesn't matter if it's just or not. Perception is reality. Now, you can say, "Who cares about what the world thinks!?..." Ok, you do that (narrow-minded think). It has an affect on the perception of "abuse of power." Get it?
I'm a firm believer in using the C.I.A. and Delta Force to kill suspected terrorists rather than using an armored division. It's more effective, and it's better to stay in the shadows anyways.
Are you talking about, "What the people do not see, will not hurt them?" Just messing. Not all would agree with you. But it does have less of a "show of force" effect on the world, than a "war." It's less noisy and brash.
Man, people would rather get into a b****fest with johnheath than discuss the reign of Louis XIV? The future looks bleak.
