Draginol Draginol

Al Qaeda's not playing a game, Islamo Fascism is real

Al Qaeda's not playing a game, Islamo Fascism is real

There are real monsters out there

The political season brings out the worst in both sides. Too many people treat real world politics as a game. Not as a computer game, but a game of intellectual exercise. What they forget is that there are monsters out there. And once in a great while, a monster gets loose.

In the 20th century, Hitler and his ilk were allowed to run amok across Europe and besides the 30 million or so who died in actual in the war, another 12 million were executed simply because they weren't the correct race or creed. In Rwanda, nearly a million people were slaughtered for not being of the right tribe. That was only a few years ago.

You would think given these examples and others that people would recognize the obvious - there are monsters out there, and once in awhile, a monster gets a hold of the means to do great harm. Al Qaeda is one such monster. But you wouldn't know that based on some of the things you hear. The bombing in Spain seems to have woken up some people in Europe finally. Which is ironic because what happened in Spain was trivial compared to 9/11.

Luckily, adults are in charge. The kids can go hang out on-line or protest somewhere but the adults are the ones making the real decisions. And for them, they understand what Al Qaeda and its ilk really is. So let me share with you what the goal of Bin Laden is: The complete and total transformation of all the world to Islam. Those who are willing to be subjugated to their laws (Islam's not just a religion, it's a form of government) will be spared. Those who resist will be killed. It's that simple. The United States was attacked because it represents the largest obstacle to that goal.

Some people will say "Well, the US had that base in Saudi Arabia and if we hadn't had that, maybe he wouldn't have attacked." And why were we in Saudi Arabia? Because we were asked to by the government of Saudi Arabia. Why? Because Iraq had recently invaded Kuwait and wanted US presence in the area "just in case". We weren't there as part of some sort of imperialistic crusade. We were there to help protect others. Just like we did in Korea (and South Korea was a rural society in 1949, so don't delude yourself into thinking that was about some natural resource). And it's irrelevant anyway. Sooner or later we would have been targeted. Lucky they had to strike sooner, before they had nuclear weapons, rather than later so that we can begin actively resisting them now.

Al Qaeda makes it clear that it will do anything, and I mean anything to bring about its goals. It will kill innocents wholesale.  We should take them very seriously. Seriously enough to consider how 9/11 might have been with chemical or biological or nuclear weapons. And then perhaps the kids who treat this all as some far off intellectual game might come to understand maybe why Saddam had to be removed from power rather than fixating on whether he had actual stockpiles on hand at the end.

I wasn't willing to gamble the life of my wife and children to placate some college student or some European intellectual in Belgium. I know, and continue to know, that Al Qaeda will use whatever it has to murder people in large numbers to reach its publicly stated goals. And if Iraq didn't have WMD on hand, I don't care, because I do know what his intent was and what it was in the long term. I have always known that which is why I supported the war regardless of whether stockpiles were found. I understood and continue to understand that Iraq was part of the war on terror.

But not everyone understands because to them, it's still just a game. But it's not a game to Al Qaeda. To them, it's serious. Deadly serious.

Consider Bin Laden's own statement to the American people:

The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions....

call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest...

You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator...

You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against...

The full text can be found here.

The first thing Al Qaeda wants is the full conversion to Islam. He makes that clear. This isn't US propaganda. This isn't George Bush trying to scare you. This is what Al Qaeda specifically wants. This is what all the killing has been about. 

You can tell it's a game to some people because the same people who argue against US resistance to Al Qaeda are the people who would suffer the most under the rule of Islam.  The same people who can jump from one discussion supporting gay marriage or telling everyone that was unhappy about Janet Jackson's breast exposure should "get a life" are the ones who will then go on and say that he has a lot of good points.  Huh? They'll post how capital punishment is a "human rights violation" while pretending to understand that to be gay under Islam is to be executed? That usury (that's borrowing with interest) would be banned? You have a mortgage? A car payment? A credit card bill? Forget it.  In Iran, for instance, Janet Jackson would have been executed by the government, if she were lucky. Stoned to death if she were not. But some people will put Al Qaeda and the US on morally equal grounds? Clearly, these are unserious people arguing about serious things.

And don't forget that paranoid Jew hating thrown in there, just to make sure that there's no mistake about the would-be Fuhrer's intentions are.

But some people see all this is just another playing card in their game of philosophical objection to the United States or its leaders. So soft and so naive that they write from their places of luxury as if there really are no monsters out there. To them, George Bush is "the monster" even though they have no understanding of what real monsters would do to them.  They think it's all part of some quest for oil or <insert natural resource X here>. Or imperialism or whatever. It's not. It's about our way of life. Our existence outrages them.

These people want to eliminate our way of life. They find our way of life appalling.  They find it immoral and dishonorable. And they plan to make us change it either by voluntarily converting ourselves to their way or by killing every man, woman, or child that resists or may resist them. We're not just fighting some ideology or some far away concept. We're fighting for our lives.

You can't negotiate with a side whose primary demand is that you cease to exist. You can't ignore people who are working towards gaining the means to kill increasing numbers of people. You can't wait until it's a mushroom cloud over your city to act. Al Qaeda and its ilk were not created by the CIA or some American group as some smug yet ignorant people seem to think. I say smug because it demonstrates an arrogance -- that other peoples are incapable of putting together such a movement and such an organization on their own. They believe in what they're doing. They believe they're doing God's work and the only way they'll be stopped is if someone stops them.

Thankfully, the adults are in charge. Regardless of who wins in November, don't kid yourself that the US will change its course. Both candidates, luckily, know that there are monsters out there that have to be dealt with.

34,975 views 126 replies
Reply #76 Top
cgarrett,

To say that these people have been, "denied functioning democracies" as a result of actions taken by the United States is nothing but a false statement. For that to be true Iraq would have gone to a democracy right after the war ended. These people don't want a democracy, they want a theocracy, the current situation in Iraq exemplifies that. It's all about religion. Also, to say that oil is the result of our problems in the middle east is also wrong. Sure it has played a major role, but Westernization as a whole is the real problem. There are no specifics to, "why they hate us." But, when U.S. companies crashed their society in the 1970's, which thrived on the Islamic principles of simplicity, with Coke ads and a fast paced lifestyle, there was a problem. Instead, the majority of Arabs and Persians who hate the U.S. because our culture has clashed with theirs. I need to wrap this up by saying that calling the American population "ignorant" is a gross and unfair generalization. I'm American, and the above post will show that ignorance is not an American trait.
Reply #77 Top
Oyster: Give him a insightful everybody.

cgarrett: Awesome. The 'perpetual war' reply was among and amongst. I'm going to go check your blog out for cracks and original finish. We got something here bloggers, check out this 'cgarrett'.
Reply #79 Top
Good link Nazgul, heres a quote:
"The ayatollah was right, you know. America is the Great Satan (whose twisted helpers are cynical evangelical Christians flapping their truthless lips in support of their monstrous Zionist masters), and now the whole world knows it,"


Saddam won 3% of the popular vote in Iraq_Overall that's_ 6th in Iraq's Staged Puppet Elections.

" The war is a disaster, the occupation is a disaster" Spains Prime Minister Zapatero said he'd withdrawl troops in Iraq, Al queada has influenced the popular vote who never wanted the illegal, American war...
How do you quantify grief, Brad? Whats 200 people when 3000 were killed in one day on US soil_thanks to US's involvement in " covert operations" or thuggery.
It's easy to lump everyone into one category "anti-War" " environmentalist" " socialists" The way America has united ( Osama, Saddam, Afghanis...) terror groups world wide_in their hatred of Western Dominance.



Reply #80 Top
Wow,
very busy thread. Lots of nice counter discussions going on. I think I'll wade into a few of them ;)

a) Did the US government suggest Saddam was link to 9/11
Of course they did! They linked Saddam to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda to 9/11. Then stated that they would attack countries involved in terrorism. Brilliant classical population control. Anyone who fails to see this has no respect for the intelligence of the US government. They pulled the wool over the eyes of the US public and achieved the support they needed. Respect to them!

b) "The war was sold on the basis that Iraq had proven time and time again that it wasn't upholding its part of the bargain from 1991 on and after September 11th we no longer had the luxury to dick around with them so he had to go."
No it wasn't. This may have been WHY the US went to war, but the war was SOLD on WMD and terrorism. Again beautiful piece of intelligent work. What would people support as a cause for war? Convince them that is the reason. War! If only the WMD had turned up everything would have been perfect.

Why do people keep insulting the intelligence of the US administration? Face it, they knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it. They waged a propaganda war against the US people and won. Only the lack of WMD dented an otherwise brilliant strategy.

Paul.
Reply #81 Top
shades, nothing you quoted from Bush said that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Brad said that Bush never linked Saddam/Iraq to 9/11. He didn't say that Saddam was never linked to Al Quida


I'm not sure how much clearer the connection could be than saying that the US can use force against nations "who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations." This wasn't a document giving random authority to attack anyone, it was the law that allowed for the use of force in Iraq. What more do you want...Congress and the President said that force could be used because of September 11th. I also quoted that "President George W. Bush sent Congress a formal justification for invading Iraq Wednesday, citing the attacks on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001...the White House spokesperson Sean McCormack who said the reference is to Iraq. Bush has said Iraq has links with al-Qaeda, the organization blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington."


When people like you Shades can't even be bothered to make the distinction between Saddam having links to Al Qaeda and Saddam being involved with 9/11, why should I bother to be overly concerned whether you think my writing is fair or not?


I have total disdain for the people who are more interested in making witty retorts and trying to sound clever than wanting to actually deal with the real world problems.


Brad, first of all, I said I didn't respect your argument, not that I didn't respect you. So please, let's lose the personal attacks. Disagree with me fine...but I am as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. Also, as I said above in this post, the Administration attempted to link Iraq and September 11th--the intent is clear--at least in my eyes. Did Bush later withdraw the claim emphatically? Yes, in fact he did. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that he used it in the first place. Also, I'm not sure that I understand your comment about witty retorts rather than dealing with world problems...are you trying to tell me that your blog is going to solve world terrorism while my supplying facts is going to hinder that process??? Please, these blogs are no more than a place for people to air their opinions (some witty, some not so much). No public policy is being made off of JoeUser, you aren't influencing any governments. However, you are educating people to your point of view, and as I said before, you are usually very good at showing your side of the debate...
Reply #82 Top
If I bring up how many Iraqi citizens died because of US sanctions, would you care?


Matt: I'm intrigued by this quote...from my experience a lot of the anti-war movement was also opposed to the sanctions, and had been for many years. Are you saying that there is an element of the pro-war movements whose motivation was the lifting of the sanctions? I think the sanctions could have been lifted without the war--though it would have been exceedingly difficult with Saddam in power. I had never really thought about the idea that being against the sanctions would be a reason to be for the war. Thanks for bringing up an interesting point.
Reply #83 Top
Actually I think the concept of 'we must remove Saddam so we can stop sanctions' is a good one.

I would have respect for Bush if he had admitted that sanctions were killing Iraqi's but were not hurting Saddam. If he admitted that sanctions had limited Saddam's external threat but failed to defeat him. That the US would never remove sanctions while Saddam remained in power and that therefore he needed to be removed so that the Iraqi people could be freed.

Respect, not necessarily argreement. Would at least have been an honest reason for invading Iraq.

Paul.
Reply #84 Top
I keep thinking about the "arguing on the internet..." poster, with the retarded kid smiling, but anyways...

The US sanctions angle (which I imagine are really UN sanctions, but I'm too tired to look it up) is one of many many angles that were part of the run-up to the war. Anyone who reads the numerous UN resolutions about Iraq will also get an enlightening trip down memory lane.

I think I made it pretty clear when I said that it doesn't really matter. Bulbousheads reply kinda sums it up for me:

"In other words, your big selling point is a report by a UN inspector. So why did we rush to invade Iraq when the President cried that the UN inspections were accomplishing nothing?"

We start the argument with WMD existence in Iraq, and when I point out hard evidence of their devleopment (we already know they existED, and as someone else pointed out they are missing, not gone.) the argument shifts to the endlessly tiresome "rush to war" argument. Bulb doesn't care about anything but arguing forever. If I pointed out the long list of UN Resolutions stretching back over a decade, or the many reports (including by Mr Kay "I believe there are no WMD in Iraq" himself) stating the extent of deception in and by Iraq - he would shift targets again to some other argument.

Just one time, I would like to hear someone admit that they might not be right. Shades came close by at least saying my point was "intruiging" but in the end that's just not enough. I find myself thinking of myself as a "hard-liner" solely because if I do not set hard lines, I get lost in the dizzying whirlwind of shifting targets and lopsided evidence.

Is anyone here interested in finding the truth? Can anyone admit that their sources are biased - either left or right or such? Are there nothing but Zealots? It's all so tiresome.
Reply #85 Top
Are you saying that there is an element of the pro-war movements whose motivation was the lifting of the sanctions?


Ironically, what tipped me over the line into being a hawk was hearing a vehemently anti-war friend describe the horrors of sanctions. From a purely humanitarian point of view, the war makes a lot of sense. You can put me in this category, and a couple other people I know. (Not that it is my *only* reason, but it's a big one.) It always bothered me that the anti-war people would tell the hawks that they needed to think of the Iraqi people, but they would never come up with a way to alleviate the suffering that the Iraqis were undergoing.

Like it or not, but sanctions were effective--they're the reason Iraq wasn't able to reconstitute its weapons programs. Lifting the sanctions while Hussein was in power would have been utterly unacceptable--we would have faced a nuclear Iraq within a couple years. The status quo was unacceptable--hundreds of thousands of people were dying because of the sanctions, and the economy of the country was collapsing. To my mind, that left removing Hussein from power as the best option for everyone involved.
Reply #86 Top
That's how I feel about it. Let's say that even if Bush was indeed responsible for 9/11, was Satan himself, and lied about the reasons to go to war just so he could get oil. It's still better that Iraq has a chance at real freedom than those loving French who wanted to keep Hussein in power so that they could profit from his continued cruelty.
Reply #87 Top
Just one time, I would like to hear someone admit that they might not be right. Shades came close by at least saying my point was "intruiging" but in the end that's just not enough. I find myself thinking of myself as a "hard-liner" solely because if I do not set hard lines, I get lost in the dizzying whirlwind of shifting targets and lopsided evidence.


Matt: I don't think that someone else has to be wrong for you to be right. I'm not wrong simply because I hadn't thought of something the same way you have. I was intrigued by your point about the sanctions because I hadn't heard them used as an excuse for war. But that doesn't make my opinions wrong, or yours wrong or right. It just means that I can learn from other people's perspectives--I find that's a rare thing around here. This issue of Iraq isn't black or white, if it were, there would be no reason to discuss it at all. There's so many different angles and facets and each individual places different levels of importance on the different aspects of the debate.

I understand the UN sanctions--they are UN, not US--if you trust me enough you could just take my word for it, or you could look it up --as I said, I've been following them for a while--they've brought a lot of hardship to Iraqis citizens, especially children. But in the run up to the war, I don't recall any Government citing the hardship of the sanctions on Iraqi citizens as the impetus for going to war--feel free to prove me wrong

vincible: I agree with your points on the sanctions--the sanctions were a quagmire. And if the war had been about the sanctions, I probably would have supported it--but the lifting of the sanctions were simply a benefit of the war, not it's intended conclusion. I also think that there were other alternatives for the UN to peacefully work to oust the Hussein regime, stabilize the region, lift the sanctions, and try Saddam in the ICC. I don't believe that taking up arms is the best way to solve international problems.
Reply #88 Top
That's how I feel about it. Let's say that even if Bush was indeed responsible for 9/11, was Satan himself, and lied about the reasons to go to war just so he could get oil. It's still better that Iraq has a chance at real freedom than those loving French who wanted to keep Hussein in power so that they could profit from his continued cruelty.


It's a misconception to think that anti-war was pro-Saddam. Just because people and governments didn't support the use of force, doesn't mean they supported the Hussein regime. There were options for the UN other than war, options that were not fully realized because the US didnt' allow them to be.
Reply #89 Top
lifting of the sanctions were simply a benefit of the war, not it's intended conclusion


Certainly I agree with you there. But I don't think it's practical to wait for good intentions before seeking good results. Certainly not in politics.

I also think that there were other alternatives for the UN to peacefully work to oust the Hussein regime, stabilize the region, lift the sanctions, and try Saddam in the ICC


Like what? I guess I didn't think of any other option as realistic, given Hussein's total control of the country. Feel free to try to convince me though.
Reply #90 Top

Right, the anti-war people are just anti-action. Like I said, I have no respect for the position of the "anti-war" people.  They just want to make it tougher for the adults who have to make tough decisions.

We always hear about "other options". Yet, amazingly, other options aren't provided. The inspectors had been kicked out in 1998 and no one seemed to care about inspections until the US made them an issue again.

You have people like Boulbushead seemingly incapable of understanding the rationale of why we went to war. I don't mean that he just disagrees with that rationale, I mean he seems incapable of understanding it. "Why would we believe we needed to deal with Iraq now if it weren't an 'imminent' threat?"

The practical effect of the anti-war people was that they were pro-Saddam. Just like those who were anti-war in World War II were in effect pro-Hitler. But that's okay, many of us on the other side are used to people who are "anti" things being essentially people unwilling to take on the responsibility of doing any action. That's why those of us who do take on the responsibility to perform action tend to be the ones in charge whether that be in politics or business.

Leadership requires coming up with a plan and carrying it out. Curling up into the fetal position under your desk may seem like a "position" but it's not. It's simply the absence of a position. Being against something without being for something instead is not a position. It's the absence of a position.

After 9/11, most Americans had enough common sense to recognize that we couldn't go on indefinitely letting Saddam violate his agreements and be an open enemy of the United States. We didn't have that luxury. We knew this because 9/11 showed us that the Islamofascists would use any weapon they could get ahold of, including civilian airliners, to murder Americans. And since Saddam was an open enemy of the United States, we knew that he had every incentive to provide weapons to Al Qaeda. Maybe not imminently but at some point. So after Afghanistan it made sense to deal with Saddam before Al Qaeda could effectively regroup. And so we did.

The arguments, if they can be called that, to remove Saddam were always incredibly weak in my opinion. And the results already justified the action. Saddam is captured. By Boulbushead's argument the legitimate government of Iraq is controlled by the United States. And it was all done with only a few hundred casualties total. Simply amazing. But the anti-war people are so lame that they fixate that we didn't find stockpiles of chemical weapons. Big deal. I for one never considered stockpiles of chemcial weapons to be a significant threat. It was the future threat that Iraq posed -- i.e. a POST-sanctions Iraq posed that I was worried about. Better to deal with Saddam now while we had a reasonably good excuse to do so than later when it would be politically more difficult.

Reply #91 Top
Like what? I guess I didn't think of any other option as realistic, given Hussein's total control of the country. Feel free to try to convince me though.


Well, I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure I'll be able to convince you--just as I wouldn't expect war supporters to be able to give me a detailed invasion plan. But, many a government has been toppled by non-violent resistance. Gandhi was successful, as were others. Some examples include:


1. Poland (1980), workers went on strike to win the right to organize trade unions and insist on fuller rights, and when Walesa's Solidarity took power, no one was killed.
2. South Africa (1980), blacks used boycotts and strikes until apartheid lost outside business support which compelled the president to negotiate
3. Serbia (2000), the military refused the orders to the dictator after a nonviolent protest.

Also, Jack Duvail writes (in Soujourner Magazine) that:
In 2002, an Iraqi opponent of Saddam said he liked nonviolent resistance, but that Saddam was like Stalin—therefore it wasn’t possible. He was asked what would happen if 5,000 people demonstrated in Baghdad. He said they’d all be shot. What if 20,000 should demonstrate? Same result, though much bloodier, he said. But what if 100,000 Iraqis should protest, demanding that Saddam go? He hesitated. Well, if that happened, he said, then things might go differently. Why? Because if that many Iraqis were determined to resist, the dictator’s defenders would realize that fear as an instrument of power no longer worked—that Saddam had lost control of the country. Suddenly an impervious regime had been reduced in this Iraqi’s mind to a strategic problem.

I'm not saying that a nonviolent overthrow would be easy, it most certainly would not. But I think a nonviolent overthrow would reap benefits in the post-Saddam era. Jack DuVail goes on to say "When nonviolent movements mobilize people to use strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, and other disruptive tactics—through a strategy to subvert an unjust regime’s power—democracy ensues more often than when violence is used. If we disregard the costs of regime change through terror or war, by not comparing them to the risks and opportunities of nonviolent conflict, then we are issuing a blank check to the belief that liberation is always violent."

Is it a perfect plan, no...I'm sure there would be bugs as with any plan, but in my opinion it beats war every time.
Reply #92 Top
Why would we believe we needed to deal with Iraq now if it weren't an 'imminent' threat?


And yet, no answer to this question is given.


The practical effect of the anti-war people was that they were pro-Saddam.


Normally, you're at least intelligent-sounding when you write this drivel, but this one is too much. This is stupid.


Maybe not imminently but at some point.


So the inspectors could have stayed a bit longer and it wouldn't have hurt us (because the threat was not imminent, by your own admission).


So after Afghanistan it made sense to deal with Saddam before Al Qaeda could effectively regroup. And so we did.


You're right. It's a good thing we rushed into Iraq and took care of al-Qaeda. They'll never be able to bomb Spain now! Oh, wait...


The arguments, if they can be called that, to remove Saddam were always incredibly weak in my opinion.


Agreed! But I think you made a typo...


And the results already justified the action. Saddam is captured.


No, the results are the results; if you didn't want Iraq invaded, you didn't want Saddam captured.


By Boulbushead's argument the legitimate government of Iraq is controlled by the United States. And it was all done with only a few hundred casualties total. Simply amazing.


How is this amazing? The United States of America, richest and most powerful country in the world, home of the most advanced technologies and the best-trained military forces, vs. Iraq? Was there any possible outcome except total victory for the US? No one is impressed by the American ability to topple governments on a whim.


But the anti-war people are so lame that they fixate that we didn't find stockpiles of chemical weapons. Big deal.


I wouldn't have minded not finding the weapons if I hadn't been promised by the President that they were there.


Better to deal with Saddam now while we had a reasonably good excuse to do so than later when it would be politically more difficult.


How could it be any more politically difficult than it was this time around? It divided sharply a nation that was more united than ever (thanks to September 11), and it seriously strained our relations with just about all of the rest of the world.
Reply #93 Top
Brad:

I would love to debate with you, but I'm not going to allow you to be-little me or insinuate that I am a stupid child who needs to be lead by you. If you are a leader, you should know better than to resort to childish name calling. You are in fact 100% wrong when you say that antiwar is the same as pro-Saddam. Being anti-war doesn't mean you are not for anything. I was pro- UN action to remove Saddam, preferably by non-violent means, and pro-ICC trial of Sadam for human rights violations. In my opinion, war is the easy way out, people resort to violence when they can't think of any other solutions. Like I've said before, feel free to discuss the issue, but you need to understand that other people are not going to agree with you all of the time.

Reply #94 Top
a non-violent overthrow of Iraq would not have been possible. One of Hussein's aids said that during an economic meeting in the mid-eighties, Hussein looked up and asked what the population of the country was. When they answered, he said something to the effect of "I think we could get by with about half that much".

This is someone win no qualms about killing hundreds of thousands of people at a time, possibly millions if need be. He got where he was by killing dozens of his friends. You don't need WMDs to put down a non-violent revolution, all you need is a political machine willing to commit mass murder. Hussein certainly had that. Had there been a means of non-violent change in Iraq, the revolutionaries wouldn't have been hiding in the US and Europe. They knew full well that once you were known to be in opposition, you were dealt with.
Reply #95 Top
This is someone win no qualms about killing hundreds of thousands of people at a time, possibly millions if need be. He got where he was by killing dozens of his friends.


Exactly the same goes for Kim in North Korea, and he does have WMD. Why wasn't he the priority?
Reply #96 Top

 If you are a leader, you should know better than to resort to childish name calling

You mean like calling someone childish? Isn't that what your complaint was? That I implied that the anti-war people weren't adults? And yet you explicitly label those who oppose you as behaving "childishly"?

Frankly, I don't really care whether you want to debate with me or not. Who says that you're worth my effort? What concrete points have you added to this discussion? What alternatives have you presented? What courses of action have you sugested?

I am uninterested in whether people agree with me or not. By their very nature, those who are anti-action don't really matter because they're not proposing anything.

Let me use an analogy: There's a starving person. 3 people are offering advice. The first person says "Go to this restraunt and buy a meal." The other says "Go to your refrigerator and make yourself a sandwich." and the third person says "You shouldn't waste your money on that restraunt and your refrigerator's food isn't good enough either." Which person is irrelevant in that discussion?

The people proposing the real possible actions are the ones who matter. The person just saying they shouldn't do those actions is ultimately pointless.

 

Reply #97 Top

Exactly the same goes for Kim in North Korea, and he does have WMD. Why wasn't he the priority?

So what course of action do you propose?

Reply #98 Top

1. Poland (1980), workers went on strike to win the right to organize trade unions and insist on fuller rights, and when Walesa's Solidarity took power, no one was killed.
2. South Africa (1980), blacks used boycotts and strikes until apartheid lost outside business support which compelled the president to negotiate
3. Serbia (2000), the military refused the orders to the dictator after a nonviolent protest.

It is ironic that you chose 3 examples that actually demonstrate that without US involvement those things would have been pointless. Do you think that Apartheid was lifted due to protests? Really? Do you really think the military refused orders purely on protests? Or maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with US military action?

Hey, while you're at it, throw in Libya giving up its WMD plans and claim that was due to peaceful negotiations and not because of US action. Do you really believe what you write or are you just trying to see if we know our history?

Reply #99 Top
Frankly, I don't really care whether you want to debate with me or not. Who says that you're worth my effort? What concrete points have you added to this discussion? What alternatives have you presented? What courses of action have you sugested?


I have suggested other courses of action, but you are clearly not listening to them. The name calling I was referring to was calling anti-war people pro-saddam. Apparently, I've hit a nerve with you. You can dismiss my arguments, but you can't say that I haven't made any. What concrete points have you added? Give me a break Brad. You really believe that you are better than other people here, don't you. Clearly, I'm wasting my time, and I have finished trying to have a civilized discussion with you. I hope that someday you realized that there are other opinions that you could learn from...the sound of your own voice must get lonely sometimes!
Reply #100 Top
You mean like calling someone childish? Isn't that what your complaint was? That I implied that the anti-war people weren't adults? And yet you explicitly label those who oppose you as behaving "childishly"?


oh yea...just for the record...in the construction of that sentence, the childish refers to the name-calling , not you...but one would suppose that you already knew that.