This is what we call playing to their base. The GOP's gonna need the foolish. They're down 12 to Kerry and 10 to Edwards.
This is really the point. With Saddam in place, religious fundamentalism was not possible. Saddam ruled with an iron fist and as such, those extreme elements did not have a chance to take root. If we were going to attack Islamic fundamentalists, we went after the wrong target.
Yeah...that's the other idiotic aspect of this 'article'. He is prasising us for having achieved a state where there is no discrenable connection between others actions and our reactions...where we are a loose cannon capable of going off against anyone, if we are attacked. Of being unpredictable. Problem is; other people and other nations are able to moderate their behaviour towards you on the basis that there is a predictable cause and effect. If that is taken away, you have ceased to have any real effect on them. They won;t live in fear of not provoking you if what provokes you is unpredictable and beyond their control. Like a coach or parent or coworker who yells and gets upset all the time, and with no connection to what youre doing, you might take a bewildered step back in the short run, but in the long run you will either tune them out altogether, or work harder against them for your own sake. Idiotic. Intentional irrationality as sabre rattling...God, brinksmanshp brought to new lows.
Exactly. So eleimiate that common factor, as it does not exist, and what you are left with is....say it with me....rhymes with 'race'...
you're damn right it's a radical view of the world. 9/11 was a radical event. the unilateralist canard just doesn't stand up. i'm sure the brits, spain, the poles, etc. would object to their contributions being minimized like this. "unilateralist" is code for "not endorsed by the UN" which in reality means, not ok'd by france. and how are the administration's anti-proliferation efforts working? what just happened in libya? in Pakistan? in Iran?
really? answar al-islam operated freely w/ saddam in place. abu nidal lived in baghdad. one of the WTC '93 bombers took refuge there. it's nonsense to say islamic terrorists had no place in iraq. Saddam paid the palestinian suicide bombers of Hamas! would you claim they're not islamic fundamentalists?
you're ascribing rational behaivor to psychopaths. 12 years of reasoning with saddam didn't work. 8 years of feeling ossama's pain brought us 9/11. what would you have us do?
1) 12 years didn't work? Upon what do you base that, considering that in that time he had neither attacked a neighbour, nor developped WMDs? I think an objective observeor would conclude just the opposite; what we were doing BEFORE the invasion had done pretty much what we wanted it to do; neitralized him as a threat. Or do you have new info that Kay's replacement should be made aware of? 8) When, exactly, did we 'feel Osama's pain?" Osama's objections to the US are based entirely upon US forces in Saudi Arabia. He said, prior to the first Gulf War, that if S.A. let troops in, they would A) Not leave afterwards, as they were promising to do, and b) Be eventually used for subsequent attacks on Islamic nations n the ME. Hmmm...Lucky guess. But I missed the part where we tried to reason with him...Not saying we should have, just don't know what the hell you're implying here. 3) Lack of an alternative is the worst possible rationale for irrational behaviour. I donlt have a cure for cancer...I'm not going to try nuking people who are afflicted because I can't think of anything else to do...
basso, "canard"? Over 95% of the world = "France"? Do you really think a few nations kept our actions from being truly unilateral? I'm amazed, and I mean that. We said "you're with us or with the terrorists!" and a few nations came forward to say "okay boss." That in no way keeps it from being unilateral. You think Poland has just been barely keeping themselves from invading Iraq for the last 10 years? Defend our unilateral approach, as the neoconversative heavyweights do with great eloquence, but please don't play a poor version of semantic special olympics, again. Please?
Feeling Osama's pain? He was the first guy in years to have the President officially target him for assisination.
I retract what I said about Muslims. I admit that it was pretty unacceptable. Sorry. The rest of my post I think is reasonable though. If somebody hits you and you don't hit back, that is like accepting the hit. In this case, its hard to hit terrorists. Iraq was easier. And it sends a message. BTW RM - I wasn't whining about the movie as much as about the double standard.
Basso; Name one nation other than the US whose population supported an invasion of Iraq pre-war. No, better still, name one nation whose population wasn't firmly against the invasion of Iraq, pre-war. We paid and threatened a few governments into giving nominal support, most of whom are now under fire within their own nations for corruption because of same. You call that real multilateralism? Wow.
What message, exactly? That if you attack us, you'd better be damned sure that we will attack other nations who have little or nothing to do with you, and in many ways oppose you? I'll bet AQ is sorry as hell about 9-11 since we opened Iraq up to them.
MacBeth, you tell the slain soldiers from Britain, Australia, Japan, etc that they aren't contributing to the effort in Iraq. Your assertion that this war was unilateral is just laughable. Bush shot that argument down with his State of the Union Address. Can't believe your trying to bring it back up again. You can't polish a turd, MacBeth.
What message does it send? Osama bin Laden is still out there and there have been reports of the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan. Great message there.
I can't remember the last time I tried to polish any of your posts, T_J, but thanks for the warning, and I'll keep it in mind in the off chance the urge ever strikes me. And this ad hominem is so weak, it hardly deserves a breath to blow it over. The soldiers died because their government sent them to the war. Their governments did this in opposition to the population of their respective countries. Bush's SOTUA is admitted to be a disaster, even by usually pro-Republican polotocal analysts. Only those who will cheer and strike up the band if he farts see any merit in what he said. He named several countries who have refused to send troops, some who even refused to send money, and even a couple who were bewildered at their inclusion, if memeory serves. Nice retort.
Yeah, Saddam liked them because they kept threatening to overthrow him. I wonder what the Iraqi families of those killed by suicide bombers this year think about the idea that terrorism is on the decline? Ishfdgkjhkjhiuiuhkjlk (of course) kjhdfjhsdjfk KJHKJH kjhkjsqw, dhd!
