Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[SFC JeffJ]

Just as an aside, every time I see this thread, It makes me think why is anybody still a Republican or a Democrat? Both parties are screwed up, just about different things.

Jeff

 

[heretic888]

Are they attacking Democrats? Or simply stating that we still have a need for security in this country. We can't ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Things like this remind us we need those phone monitoring programs, we need careful surveillance and such things. Notice, these guys were British Citizens. Nothing to say we won't be having American citizens doing the same thing. I'd hate to miss an event like this in the US because some Dem cries "stop listening to me ordering my pizza".

To me, this is a call to arms. A recommitment to our security rather than to politics.

Because nothing screams "safe" and "secure" to me like the leader of the world's most powerful military disregarding his own country's laws because he thinks they're inconvenient.

I realize I'm a young guy and all, but I seem to recall a time when conservatives in this country believed in the rule of law. And fiscal responsibility. And small government. And geopolitical isolationism.

I miss that. . .

Laterz.

 

[Kensai]

Just as an aside, every time I see this thread, It makes me think why is anybody still a Republican or a Democrat? Both parties are screwed up, just about different things.

Jeff

I'll drink to that. It seems to me that politicians the world over are doing their damnest to make life a misery for as many people as possible. And doing a good job of that I might add.

 

[mrhnau]

Because nothing screams "safe" and "secure" to me like the leader of the world's most powerful military disregarding his own country's laws because he thinks they're inconvenient.

touche

Still up for debate on some of the issues though, considering there is precedent in the past for alot of the actions.

I'd love to live in a world where we DON'T need stupid phone tapping. I'd love to live in a world were I can take a Coke on my flights and not be frisked by some guy. Sadly, that world is gone. Does not look like its coming back any time soon either. Thanks Islam! We appreciate that!

Yes, yes... not every muslim is a terrrorist, but it seems most terrorist are islamic.

I realize I'm a young guy and all, but I seem to recall a time when conservatives in this country believed in the rule of law. And fiscal responsibility. And small government. And geopolitical isolationism.

I miss that. . .

Laterz.

Fiscal responsibility: I'm with you on that one. I pretty much think the role of government is simple. Defend the people, provide minimal services when needed (police, firemen, etc). -When needed- provide policies that encourage growth for both individuals and businesses. Other than that, stay out of the way. If people think other causes are critical, then find ways to fund them. There are ALOT of people out there with money that would love to donate for "important" causes. Make them tax deductible if you wish.

Smalll Government: Follows with "Fiscal responsibility". I'm a big fan of small government I'd rather call it "minimal government".

Geopolitical isolationism: Won't work in this world, regardless of your party affiliation. We are too global, and being the lone remaining super-power, it becomes even harder to remain local. I REALLY fear the day that the UN has more power and tries to step into the type role the US is currently playing. I don't like the role the US is trying to do though, the role of judge, jury and executioner. However, since noone else on earth has the guts to do anything, its kind of de facto falls to us. I don't want a world ruled by the UN, but I don't want a world where every little problem falls under the watchful eye of the US. Some of these problems need to be handled locally, when possible. However, problems like Hezbollah in Lebanon show the inadequacy of local governments to take care of deep rooted problems.

 

[michaeledward]

It, and everything else, is very relevant.

We know that he would have had the motive, oppurtunity and means to kill millions of people. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have tried. Maybe we could have caught him before he did, maybe we would have seen a smallpox attack on the US.

Honestly, I am not willing to risk those millions of lives for the rights of a guy with a pattern of behavior like Hussein. He had to go down. We could not intimidate him, we could not reason with him and so we had to take him down.

We KNOW no such thing.

You just keep hoping and believing those things. Because, if he didn't have those things, the blood and treasure is on your hands. To ascribe 'NO DOUBT' to anything that has not happened is to get into the world of 'idealog'.

What I have 'NO DOUBT' of, is that 2,601 American's have died in Iraq. That's 2,601 sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. There is no doubt about those flag drapped coffins.

There is much doubt about what Saddam Hussein might have done in 2004, 2005, 2006 or into the future.

 

[Don Roley]

On the basis of the "threat of WMD's" against the US, why don't you go into North Korea?

Because despite the nuttieness of some things they do, it is pretty clear that North Korea is just working to survive. They do what they do for a reason. They do not have a reason to launch a bio warfare attack on the united states. They use their nukes to deter attacks and get concesions and economic aid. You could not say the same thing about Hussein.

 

[Don Roley]

We KNOW no such thing.

If you would open your mind and admit the facts, you would.

You yourself have tried to say that the bird flu scare was a plot by the admistration. There are a lot less facts to suport that idea than this and other conspiracies you have promoted.

We know that China, France and Russia were set to get lucrative contracts once the UN inspectors and sanctions were done away with. And they were working to get those sanctions lifted ASAP.

We know that Hussein had set up bio warfare programs, even under the nose of the UN inspectors and that the anthrax attacks on the US were never traced back to anyone.

We know that Hussein had ties to terrorists living under his protection in Iraq and had tried stupid stunts to disrupt and attack the US like the asssassination attempt on Bush senior.

With all those facts, it is quite clear that there is a very great probability that once he was free to get his hands on things for bio warfare programs he would have and then used them to attack the US.

You have tried to imply that a briefing in August 2001 that Osama Bin Laden was 'determined to strike' the US somehow should have told us what was going to happen the following month and that we should have done something about it before that. Well, you can't look at the past behavior of Hussein and say he was not eager to strike out at the US. So it is rather hypocritical of you to say we should have gone after Osama based on his drive and yet say that we really do not know what Hussein would have done in the future with his greater wealth and the resources of a goverment behind him.

If this was a court of law, there would not be enough evidence to convict. But if this was a situation on the street, you would be justified in using deadly force against another person with these type of facts. And after we missed 9-11, taking the chance that we would catch a bio weapon attack that kills millions of Americans is a bit more than some of us are willing to gamble with.

 

[Makalakumu]

We know that China, France and Russia were set to get lucrative contracts once the UN inspectors and sanctions were done away with. And they were working to get those sanctions lifted ASAP.

We know that Hussein had set up bio warfare programs, even under the nose of the UN inspectors and that the anthrax attacks on the US were never traced back to anyone.

We know that Hussein had ties to terrorists living under his protection in Iraq and had tried stupid stunts to disrupt and attack the US like the asssassination attempt on Bush senior.

Don

Alot of these claims have been made in other threads in the Study and they were roundly discredited. Hardheadjarhead made mincemeat out of this stuff. I'll see if I can dig up the thread...

upnorthkyosa

 

[Don Roley]

Don

Alot of these claims have been made in other threads in the Study and they were roundly discredited. Hardheadjarhead made mincemeat out of this stuff. I'll see if I can dig up the thread...

upnorthkyosa

Go ahead. The stuff I listed were all reported in the news. They are not claims, they are facts.

 

[Makalakumu]

Go ahead. The stuff I listed were all reported in the news. They are not claims, they are facts.

I've seen those claims on Fox News...:idunno:

 

[Don Roley]

I've seen those claims on Fox News...:idunno:

Nothing I quoted was from Fox news. The contracts that were set to be made once sanctions were lifted, the assassination attempt, the terrorist on the interational wanted list captured when Baghdad fell, the Bio warfare program exposed when Hussein's son-in-law defected.... all of these are public record and reported by multiple sources.

Please try to debate in a more fair manner instead of trying to make fun of others.

Do you think PBS is a rabid, right wing part of the global conspiracy?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

 

[michaeledward]

Nothing I quoted was from Fox news. The contracts that were set to be made once sanctions were lifted, the assassination attempt, the terrorist on the interational wanted list captured when Baghdad fell, the Bio warfare program exposed when Hussein's son-in-law defected.... all of these are public record and reported by multiple sources.

Please try to debate in a more fair manner instead of trying to make fun of others.

Do you think PBS is a rabid, right wing part of the global conspiracy?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

This is from the link ...

[Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. In fact, U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Since the original broadcast, Khodada has not publicly addressed questions that have been raised about his account of activities at Salman Pak.]

This seems to tell me, the 'FACT' presented by the person in the interview is suspect. One might go so far as to call it a 'claim'. Others might say it was a lie told for a political agenda.

I mean, the Iraqi National Congress has proved to be a pillar of integrity, right. What ever happened to the millions of dollars we gave to Ahmed Chalabi? What ever happened Ahmed Chalabi?

Well, I guess this war worked out OK for him, eh?

 

[Makalakumu]

Please try to debate in a more fair manner instead of trying to make fun of others.

I'm not making fun of anyone, Don. I was just pointing out that I've heard those things on Fox News. In fact, the other day, Hannity was STILL talking about Saddam's alleged terrorist ties and Salman Pak. That, as Michael has correctly pointed out from your own citation, has yet to be substantiated...

In my opinion, it is propaganda.

 

[Don Roley]

This seems to tell me, the 'FACT' presented by the person in the interview is suspect.

Maybe. There is no shortage of hits when you google "Iraqi Terrorist training camps" but this one guy may be lying.

But the contracts that China, etc were to get, the assasination plot, the bio warfare program, the terrorist Abu Abbas captured after Baghdad fell, the training of the Feyadeen.... all these and others are facts reported in the mainstream media and not part of some propaganda plot by the right wing.

I can admit that there is doubt about this guy. Why can't you and upnorth admit that the facts as I laid them out are clear and that Hussein was a threat?

 

[Kensai]

Because despite the nuttieness of some things they do, it is pretty clear that North Korea is just working to survive. They do what they do for a reason. They do not have a reason to launch a bio warfare attack on the united states. They use their nukes to deter attacks and get concesions and economic aid. You could not say the same thing about Hussein.

There is MUCH more to this planet than the United States. They have weapons of mass destruction. That was the premise used to go into Iraq. You can't turn round and say "we'll let you have WMD's, but not you". Who are they using their nukes to deter attacks from? South Korea? They could throw nuclear hand grenades, they don't need missiles.

Part of the problem here is the selective use of force. The selective use of force for means of corporate and political gains. This has NOTHING to do with a "threat to the United States".

Don Roley wrote:

We know that China, France and Russia were set to get lucrative contracts once the UN inspectors and sanctions were done away with. And they were working to get those sanctions lifted ASAP.

Of course, and the US stands to gain nothing from any of this? All of this boils down to the US trying to preserve it's place in the world pecking order. US foreign policy, intwined with corporate America has its fingers in many, many foreign pies. THAT is what's getting your fingers burned. The UK is the same, it's precisely our allying with the US that is causing us problems. The sooner B-liar is voted OUT, and the special relationship severed, the better for the UK. That's the general consensus of most Brits. We've had enough too.

 

[Don Roley]

There is MUCH more to this planet than the United States. They have weapons of mass destruction. That was the premise used to go into Iraq.

Did you read what I wrote about what would happen if Bush gave a statement laying out the need to get rid of Hussein with complete honesty?

In case you missed it, here it is again.

But I don't think you should expect the president to say these reasons out loud. Can you imagine the politacal hell that would follow if he went on the air to announce the following?

Quote:
My fellow Americans. I have decided to launch an attack on Saddam Hussein because there is reason to believe that France, Russia and China will let him get out of the sanctions he has now due to their lust for the money he has promidsed them. At that point, he will probably try to redevelop the bio- weaponos program he was running even under our noses and then he may use terrorists living in Iraq to deliver them to the US. So I am going to take the turkey out before he gets the chance.

You can imagine how that would go over in Moscow, Paris and Beijing.

If we went after anyone with WMD, we would have to go after France, Russia, India and a whole lot of other nations. The level of threat and the ability to deter or disuade them by means other than violence is a very important part of the consideration.

France has the ability to use biological weapons. But no one is saying they will use them on a strike on the US. So even though they have WMDs, they are not a threat to the US.

North Korea may be a threat. But there is still the hope that things can be resolved without us nuking their capital, because that is what it would take to remove them as a threat. Until all other options are off the table, I would prefer to not use violence. But in Hussein's case, there were no other options to prevent a very real threat of a biological attack.

 

[michaeledward]

P.S. And apparantly, the Bush Administration had been regularly updated concerning the pending British arrests since Sunday, August 6th. (Good Cooperation from the British) Ken Melhman and Vice President Cheney were out meeting with the public, drumming to the Democrats are weak beat on defense on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, knowing the arrests were going to happen.

The tin foil hat crowd has been saying almost from the beginning, that the language of Vice President Cheney, NRC Chair Melhman, President Bush's hasty press statement (with no press present) in Minnesota, and Mr. Rove's call to Senator Leiberman, were part of a conspiracy of timing. That all of the language about 'al Qaeda types' used against Democratic Senate Candidate Lamont was because of the foreknowledge of the upcoming arrests.

Tonight, there are reports that the United States Goverment pressed the British to make the arrests earlier than the Brits wished. There is commentary that the British do not have much respect for the Bush Administration's ability to handle sensative information. While the Brits have been monitoring this terror cell since December, the United States was only informed two weeks ago.

There is legitimate concern that Vice President Cheney's comments from Tuesday might very well of tipped off the terror cell of the investigation. The Brits may well have had to make these arrests before they desired because of comprimised security by the Bush Administration.

 

[Don Roley]

There is legitimate concern that Vice President Cheney's comments from Tuesday might very well of tipped off the terror cell of the investigation. The Brits may well have had to make these arrests before they desired because of comprimised security by the Bush Administration.

And who exactly is voicing these "concerns" other than rather partisan folks on the internet? The papers in Japan are saying that they pounced because of an intercepted phone call from Pakistan that indicated they were in the final preperations to make their move.

Here is a link to a story that gives some of the same details.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060813/ap_on_re_eu/britain_terror_plot

A senior Pakistani security official told The Associated Press that Rauf's arrest prompted an accomplice in the southern city of Karachi to make a panicked phone call to a suspect in Britain, giving the green light for the airliner plot to move forward urgently.

"This telephone call intercept in Karachi and the arrest of Rashid Rauf helped a lot to foil the terror plan," the official said.

A second intelligence official, who described the accomplice as "inexperienced," also said the caller "alerted his associates about the arrest of Rashid Rauf, and asked them to go ahead."

So, it looks like an arrest in Pakistan caused the phone call to speed up the plot and that caused the British to pounce. Not anything the veep said.

 

[Kensai]

Did you read what I wrote about what would happen if Bush gave a statement laying out the need to get rid of Hussein with complete honesty?

In case you missed it, here it is again.



If we went after anyone with WMD, we would have to go after France, Russia, India and a whole lot of other nations. The level of threat and the ability to deter or disuade them by means other than violence is a very important part of the consideration.

France has the ability to use biological weapons. But no one is saying they will use them on a strike on the US. So even though they have WMDs, they are not a threat to the US.

North Korea may be a threat. But there is still the hope that things can be resolved without us nuking their capital, because that is what it would take to remove them as a threat. Until all other options are off the table, I would prefer to not use violence. But in Hussein's case, there were no other options to prevent a very real threat of a biological attack.

Correct. You'd also have to "go after" yourselves. As, let's face it, you're the only country to have used nukes? Some of the largest stockpiles of WMDs are within the borders of the United States themselves.

I wonder what it would take to remove the United States as a threat....? If you look at problems such as these as "them and us" what makes you correct? YOU are the threat to Islam as they see it. With the "American Dream" tm, which I might add, there are huge swathes of the world, who don't want it. Enforced democracy. That's another.

How about a public statement from the leaders of France, Russia and China, "We have decided to veto the attacks on Iraq, as we think that prat George "Dubya" couldn't tie his own shoe-laces up without assistance. It is our sincere belief that he makes all of his decisions based on what a sock puppet tells him". I went to war in '03 for nothing more than corporate America, and a mis-intelligent moron of a preseedeent, got shot at, had a good mate killed. Total, waste of time. This war was NOT started for altruistic reasons, nor was it started to bring democracy to Iraq. It was started for a variety of reasons, but they were not it.

There was a pretence of WMD's, there was a pretence that Hussein was a bad man (cept of course when he was "best buddies with the good ol' US of A) , so is Robert Mugabe, nothing done there eh? As mentioned, when it appears that you weren't listening, you CANNOT selectively go round choosing who can have WMDs, and who can't. Those countries that do not recognise the right of the US to be cop, judge and jury, will not accept it. They may NOT have any desire to attack the "US", but if you treat everyone as enemies, then they will also see you as the same. What's required here is masses of common sense and calm wisdom, something in my opinion that is in short suppply in this US administration.

 

[michaeledward]

And who exactly is voicing these "concerns" other than rather partisan folks on the internet? The papers in Japan are saying that they pounced because of an intercepted phone call from Pakistan that indicated they were in the final preperations to make their move.

Here is a link to a story that gives some of the same details.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060813/ap_on_re_eu/britain_terror_plot



So, it looks like an arrest in Pakistan caused the phone call to speed up the plot and that caused the British to pounce. Not anything the veep said.

The arrest of British citizen Rouf, took place over the objections of the British law enforcement professionals. British officials wanted to arrest Rouf on British soil. British official were willing to be patient, to gather evidence, such as, oh the terrorists having purchased airplane tickets, such as, the terrorists having passports. (It's damn difficult to blow planes on international flights without a passport or ticket, you know).

The United States, as impatient as they have proven incompetent, had threated to 'RENDER' Mr. Rouf ... yep, abduct him of the streets of Pakistan, flown to a tourture friendly place, and interrogated in a way that is quite probably a violation of the Geneva conventions and United States law ... Despite President Bush's signing statements.

The British intelligence services observed how the Bush Administration has handled such classified and highly sensative information during the past three years of Valerie Plame's life - political points to be scored regardless of the cost. The Bush Administration's comments, the manner in which they were made, were all so very cavalier, and political.