i challenge PW & BS to a debate

[BlackSmoke]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

Hey gang,<br />No, the reason I haven't joined in yet is I was in Louisville yesterday getting a tour of the second phase of the new waterfront park. Met Tori Murden, who rowed across the Atlantic (http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/row991203.html). Then came back and watched the Purdue Crew practice, from the coach's motorboat. Fun day. I'll read through these posts and weigh in if I can find something to react to

 

[plywoody]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

You folks have been sold a bill of goods, I think.<br /><br />There is absolutely no evidence Saddam harbored any terrorists associated with 9/11. the same may not be said for Saudi Arabia, or Pakinstan perhaps, but Saddam and Bin Laden have always been enemies.<br /><br />The fact that Saddam may have done something over a decade ago hardly constitutes an "imminent" threat. And the fact that we supplied the weapons under Reagan and Rumsfeld so that he could use them on the Iranians doesn't help your argument either. Or the fact we cannot find any of these weapons now. Either our intelligence is seriously flawed, or someone lied. In either case, it is a problem.<br /><br />But under your rationalizations for this, we could probably justify attacking most of the world. I think Canada should be next!<br /><br />Unfortunately, this Iraq deal has just diverted us from the real fight against terrorist, and it continues.<br /><br />And I feel comfortable in saying that Lake Huron would have been equally secure whether or not we attacked Saddam. Equating him with some sort of world threat is just plain silly.<br /><br />Now of course Saddam is history, and what happens in Iraq and the rest of the mid east is problematic. Time will tell, of course, but if Afghanistan is any example, our problems in the region have only just begun, I am afraid.

 

[neumanns]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

plywoody... I believe you are off track all of this hoopla about WMD etc is secondary to the fact when Saddam overrun his neighbor he was told to dissarm he did not comply and willingly flaunted the missile that were able to fly beyond allowable range. No one disputes he had them not even him, it was not the USA that set these terms but rather the majority of the UN. The fact that your revered Clinton would not enforce this mandate is no reason to blame Bush. Bush simply did what should have been done by the last administration. <br /><br />Now you dont know me and I dont know you and this is not a fight it is a debate so please put your counter to the above facts and I will read and hopefully learn another side to this. Keep in mind you are not likley to change my mind as I think this action was justified by these terms alone but I am Curious to know why you feel it was not. <br /><br />Your Turn!

 

[Cobotr]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

Lest we forget:<br /><br />1983, 241 Marines died in a terrorist attack on their barracks in Beruit.<br /><br />1988, Pan-Am flight brought down by terrorist killing 270.<br /><br />1993, World Trade Center terrorist attack that killed 6 and injured 1040 others.<br /><br />1996, 19 US servicemen died and hundreds injured in a terrorist blast in Saudi Arabia.<br /><br />1998, 2 simultaneous terrorist blasts outside seperate US embassies killed 224, injuring 4500.<br /><br />2000, Terrorist attack on the USS Cole, kills 17 servicemen.<br /><br />2001, September, 11.<br /><br />Just a few examples, by no means all included.<br /><br />Don't you see a pattern here? Terrorists must learn a lesson that this is unacceptable behavior. And those that house and train and provide them their munitions are all accessories to the crimes.<br /><br />It is interesting that those close to Clinton have admitted that he was close to taking the same type of military action as Bush, but backed off because he was afraid that he would loose his popularity with the American public. Saw a "Townhall Meeting" with Albright where even she couldn't explain Clintons' position on the terrorist situation. <br /><br />Sometimes you just have to do what's right!

 

[plywoody]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

I absolutely agree that Saddam did not follow all of the terms of the cease fire agreement. No question.<br />That countries do not follow every facet of every agreement they make is hardly newsworthy. finding one that does follow every one would be.<br />The question is whether there existed an "imminent threat" that war and only war could solve? In my opinion, no.<br />As I have always said, North Korea has not followed their treaties either, and they pose a far bigger threat, and yet we propose to solve this "diplomatically". While I am for a diplomatic solution to NK, I don't at all understand why we expect it to work in NK, and not Iraq.<br /><br />As far as that list of terror acts, I agree. We need to go after the terrorists. I have always said that. We should enlist allies, encourage governments that root them out, and discourage governments that are complacent with them, etc. It should be a priority, and our focus, as it is truly an "imminent threat". Taking out Saddam was a costly diversion and a distraction to this effort-There is no evidence he had anything whatsoever to do with anything on that list.

 

[NOSLEEP]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

Plywood u just say those things to see what kind <br />of response you might get right. <br />How do you spell niev?

 

[ob]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

And how exactly would you propose to encourage the complacent countries that need to be coaxed or compensated for doing their fair share to combat terrorism.You seem to have a solution ,however ,it lacks specific details.Should we pay them?We've already made a few of them billionaires by introducing the technology capable of extrcting the resources of their land and now they would just like us to step aside and let a handful of their greedy dictators reap the benefits and create global disdain towards the proividers.It's like the rich spoiled child syndrome.<br /> <br />On the subject of negotiation,how exactly would you have gone about attempting negotiations or reasoning with Iraq since their only voice eminated from the likes of Sadam?Some of these countries are simply too unreasonable and narrow minded to be capable of rational reasoning in acknowledgement of their own homegrown terrorists.It's that simple.Get a grip on it.These people hate your guts and as far as I see it their hate stems from a learned deep seeded resentment that none of the regions leaders can make understandable to the rational mind.<br /><br />God put it best:<br /><br />Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor<br />Thou shalt not bare false witness

 

[neumanns]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

plywoody...I agree that finding someone that followed all points of a "treaty" to be newsworthy however these weapons were not some detail they were the whole point of it, his response almost complete disregard.<br /><br />As far as "imminent threat" may I go as far as to suggest the Kuwait would make this assertion and these were the events that led to the U.N. ordering sadams dissarmament and his failure to do so that led to this latest action .<br /><br />On N. Korea, yes they disregard treatys and yes they they are a developing threat but as yet they have not attempted to overrun a neighbor or take some other such action (genocide ethnic cleansing etc.) to invoke the U.N to mandate dissarmament.<br /><br /> yes we need to persue terrorist but I must dissagree with your view as Iraq as a "diversion". It is my opinion that Iraq simply recieved what it earned by its own actions and subsquent inactions and this war was in the making long before 9/11 and would have been better served to have taken place when his disregard for the "treaty" became apperant years ago<br /><br />I would also like to make note that of the countrys that supported dissarming sadam and then there support wained when it came time to do the work none stood up and said that they belived he should get to keep the weapons or doubted that he had them what they said was more Diplomacy was needed. I for one am convinced that diplomacy was not working and was never going to work and the time for action was now or even better yet years ago regardless of whos adminastration it was.

 

[plywoody]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

OB,<br /><br />I have never said it would be easy to accomplish our goals. There are fundamental cultural differences between the regions that make communications difficult at best. No question about it.<br />We have, however, made inroads in the last decade or so with many countries in the region, most notably Pakistan, but also Lybia, Egypt, and others.<br />There are no simple solutions to this, I am afraid, and I do not pretend there is. I simply feel that war should be the last resort, and is more likely to be counter-productive to the entire effort against terrorism. <br />Afghanistan was the exception in that as they clearly were the home base for Alqaida, and we were correct in taking them out. What we need to do now in Afghanistan is finish the job somehow, and stabilize the country. That is going to take time, personnel, and lots of money. If we are going to pursue this military strategy, we better be prepared with our pocket books to back this up. So far, we have not. <br />Iran seems to be the latest target, and we will see what happens. I really fear this could easily escalate out of control if we do not tone down the bellicose rhetoric.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

Ebb you troublemaker! LOL<br />in no mood to debate, was on the boat fishin &<br />havin fun all day yesterday.<br />have fun guys <br />M.Y.

 

[SCO]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

Plywoody: "I really fear this could easily escalate out of control if we do not tone down the bellicose rhetoric. "<br /><br />That says it all, and maybe you are right. Maybe all hell is going to break loose. You could also be wrong . Another terrorist agitator, saddam, is no longer a player. We are in place over there, dont need Saudi Oil now as we can buy from the Iraqi people which supplies them money to build a better country and pressures Saudi to get their act together, killing 2 birds w one stone. Lets add another bird. Israel has just agreed to a Palastinian state because we are there to help and Bush is a man that does what he says. It is looking promising, and the cowering in a corner method proposed would ,in my opinion, have brought derision and contempt from those that do not want to give peace a chance, and an agressive, emboldened and continued buildup and escalation against us.

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

hello btw, i'm still not back from my absence (i really don't want to be here, just lurking mostly)<br /><br />However, i think i should have the little post here and there...<br /><br />PW, i still see in your posts that you're giving intermittant counterpoints, (although) you still haven't explained why:<br />- you are so adament on the "imminent threat" posture<br />- why the "imminent threat" posture- is the only reason for fighting; Given that we were attacked on 9/11.<br /><br />i do understand worrying about usa going after other countries. i do understand criticism of usa on double standards. i also understand that being nice to a neighbor when you think they are an a$$hole doesn't mean when it comes time to kick their a$$ they will get special priviledges... does this make sense? taking care of our own country is important - but don't you understand we've got to think outside of the box sometimes?

 

[BlackSmoke]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

ebb, I think I understand why PW is concerned with the "imminent threat" posture. Because that was the president's argument for going to war, and it turned out the "imminent threat" of WMDs and a 9/11 connection did not exist. So, the question is, why was it so important to deceive the world in order to "justify" a military invasion of Iraq?

 

[Carphunter]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

Have we forgotten that Iraq possessed WMD, and used them in the form of a chemical attack on their "so-called" enemies. Nobody wants war, but what are we supposed to do?........Wait until this evil dictator became so powerful that we had to live in constant fear of a WMD attack! I don't think so. Its easy to criticize, because we have no idea what we have prevented from happening in the future. All I know is that one evil dictator is out of power, and his armies have been dismantled. I no longer fear what Saddam can do to us. <br />I do not believe for a minute that President Bush deceived anyone. I don't care if no connections were found that linked Iraq to 9/11, Saddam needed to be over-thrown before he became an even larger threat to the world. If we would have thought, like we do now about this "immenent threat" back in the late 30s and early 40s, maybe we could have prevented Hitler from becoming so powerful! <br />I am so glad we have had a Republican President in office during these trying times. Can you imagine Gore as President now.........what a mess it would be.<br />Oh...and by the way....when is Alec Baldwin gonna move out of the country like he said he would if Bush became President....I was just wondering.

 

[SCO]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

Yeabut Blacksmoke, Plywoody, you are making a bunch of assumptions and concluding them to be fact leading up to deception by the President??? All the leadup and pressure on Saddam certainly had them working overtime figuring ways with terrorist connections to strike us.

 

[BlackSmoke]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

Wait a minute, guys, these aren't assumptions on our part. This is what the president said, not us. He said we needed to invade with or without UN support because Iraq currently possessed WMDs and was currently harboring Al Quaida. We have not found any remainding WMDs, and the only terrorist camp was one Saddam was opposed to, not in support of.<br /><br />Saddam was not becoming more powerful, he was becoming weaker. In fact, the head of his nuclear program said he thought internal forces would have ousted Saddam in a couple years, anyway.

 

[plywoody]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

Precisely, Blacksmoke.<br />And comparing Saddam to Hitler? Now that's a stretch. Hitler had a military, industrial production machine set up, and was getting stronger by the day. Saddam was getting weaker by the day. There is absolutely no comparison.<br /><br />As far as Saddam having missles that exceeded the limits, as I understand it, they exceeded the range limits by some 6 or 10 kilometers.<br /><br />Whether war with Iraq was wise in this case is at this point in time is probably a debate for historians. What I want to know is exactly what criteria do we now use to attack other soverign countries. It has changed dramatically with this action in Iraq, and I would like it defined.

 

[BlackSmoke]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

I read an article, Friday, describing the uproar in the international community over a statement by Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz. He admitted the WMD and Al Quaida arguments were used because the Bush administration thought they would give the best chance for justifying the invasion, not because they were factual.

 

[Cobotr]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

Do you believe everything you read?

 

[plywoody]

Re: i challenge PW & BS to a debate

I don't necessarily believe anything this administration says, but I do believe the Vanity Fair reporter in that he said it.<br /><br />Quote on><br />"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of an interview with Vanity Fair.><br /><br />It is precisely what I have been suggesting in that this war was inevitible, and the only thing fluid about it was the reason for the war, which seemed to change depending on what they could "sell"<br /><br />According to the weekend talk shows, the Senate is putting together a "bipartisan" comittee to investigate these seeming intelligence errors. We'll see, perhaps.