AttackBeta

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4476098.stm

Nice little follow-up.


How manypeople will denounce him as a US puppet?

The guy said that the torture isn't as widespread or as bad as under Saddam. What did you interpret the article to mean?

Spamzilla [TotalFark]

I said to say we must "understand" our enemy is a little too close to appeasement for me

What the fark does that even mean?

Man, this thread is nothing but the usual self-absorbed & self-righteous 'experts' typing out the Daily Kos talking points to each other.

Oh, and they're angry too!


What a giant circle jerk.

unstoppable_voice

Man, this thread is nothing but the usual self-absorbed & self-righteous 'experts' typing out the Daily Kos talking points to each other.

Oh, and they're angry too!


What a giant circle jerk.

It was totally void of content until you showed up. Thanks!

spamzilla
okay, so you propose that we forget about trying to get any kind of clue as to what our enemy wants to do? this is basically a hang-up on the word "understand," which you assume means that we are somehow sympathetic, so here's the definition per dictionary.com

understand v. To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of; grasp.

so you would propose that we go about this blindly? you cannot develop a strategy without first having an understanding. you may not like the word, but it's what we have to do if we're going to win. understand what al qaida is trying to do and how they intend to do it, and then we must stop them.

basically, you're parroting the republican campaign line that democrats want to "provide therapy" for the enemy. that is what i take offense to. i just happen to think that the republicans have no f*cking clue what they are doing in the war on terror.

WP is not a WMD.

Do you consider WP a chemical weapon?

Spamzilla: If understanding motives and goals is too close to appeasement for you then perhaps you're misunderstanding the meaning of one or both key words.

Good intelligence cannot come without such understanding, save from serendipity.



I know what you're thinking. 'Did he make a point or not?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excrement I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is FARK, the most powerful website in the world, and can blow your mind clean out, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel serendipitous?' Well, do ya, dude?

ah bullshiat, a few hundred people in a secret prison is nothing compared to the tens of thousands Saddam and his buddies murdered.

But we have the power to stop the secret prisons, doodler --- thats the point of dissent.

doodler: ah bullshiat, a few hundred people in a secret prison is nothing compared to the tens of thousands Saddam and his buddies murdered.

A few hundred? Where did you get that number? Being secret prisons I assumed the number imprisoned would be, well, a secret.

milk_plus: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke
Here's one.

There are three classes of phosphorus-chlorine compounds, phosgenes. which are classified as chemical weapons and the link seems to point to the use of them by Hussein.

White phosphorus is a different weapon.

doodler

ah bullshiat, a few hundred people in a secret prison is nothing compared to the tens of thousands Saddam and his buddies murdered.

So long as you're only a fraction as bad as Saddam, it's okay. It's all relative (morally).

CarlofET: "Is it worth anything that now, a guy like this can stand up and talk about the abuse and try and change it, whereas with Saddam, he would've been dragged out back and disposed of?"

It's a pretty safe bet that this guy doesn't show his face in public without a huge security team and that he and his family spend their nights in some fortified compound somewhere.

doodler

Few hundred???/

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/051116/w111692.html

unstoppable_voice: Man, this thread is nothing but the usual self-absorbed & self-righteous 'experts' typing out the Free Republic talking points to each other.

Oh, and they're angry too!

What a giant circle jerk.

Gee, that's easy.

/never been to Daily Kos
//been to the freeper site though, what a fcukin hoot that was

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke, what does it matter if Saddam Hussein used WP or didn't use it. It is still a poison used to kill people, isn't that wrong enough?

heh, money well spent.

They were interviewing that old fella that was embedded for CNN during gulf war 2. He was yacking on for a while, then at the end he was asked, what did find most troubling. He proceeded to say how hated america was in the world. How he's been all over the place and america is the most hated country in the world, and how striking that was to see. I was waiting for him to say "universally hated" but he stopped short.

Still it was shocking for any honesty to sneak out on broadcast news.

Hitler and the Nazis.

You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike.
And, you detect the familiar aroma of troll.

I can't believe that I once supported Bush and the Iraq invasion.

Is it just me, or does BushCo seem to be rotating through their reasons for invading Iraq? None of which has any basis IMO.

Are intelligent people who argue with idiots really that intelligent?

Tinymidget: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke, what does it matter if Saddam Hussein used WP or didn't use it. It is still a poison used to kill people, isn't that wrong enough?

Recap of sub-thread: Satyagraha: said that the US used chemical weapons in Iraq and when asked, stated: chemical: white phosphorus, which is inaccurate. Using WP in battle is not illegal. Using chemical weapons is. And WP is not a poison, it's an incendiary. If you want to say it doesn't make difference, that's fine, but don't complain when the Chemical Weapons ban is dropped because Tinymidget: says it's all the same.

If WP is a 'chemical weapon', than so is gunpowder.

jason103

I found stickers that have something like that. Some say WRONG, some say WORST, some say WARMONGER.

/needs to stock up on constitution party stickers

WP has two purposes: screening and gassing/burning. If you're trying to tell me that despite the fact that it was widely accesible in artil brigades it was never used for the latter I'm going to call your bluff...dipshiat. It is an incendiary as well, catalyzed by, you guessed it a chemical. I'm not too sure if you see the logic here, but if you don't get soemone to fire a cansister at you and try to breathe/live in that enclosed room. At least we'll be one idiot short of the millions there are today. I'm going to go with fact here:
White phosphorus is a highly caustic and volatile substance producing severe burns with even limited exposure, it's smoke has highly toxic effects (potentially lethal), and it was deemed a CW by the United States and by the Hague Convention when used against personnel. Face it, CWs were used, and it's ironic because good soldiers fought and died under the impression they were trying to rid of WMDs and CWs...hypocritical? Very.

Summary:
The war sucks, like every war does
Iraq was better under Hussein because 200000+ people didn't get killed on a biannual basis
Bush is an idiot
CW is a chemical weapon if used the way the U.S. used it in Fallujah
Satyagraha and DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke are both idiots and should promptly be encased in a room together and have WP fired at them

doodler

ah bullshiat, a few hundred people in a secret prison is nothing compared to the tens of thousands Saddam and his buddies murdered.

Ah, so let me see if I can use another situation to describe your argument:

Hitler is defeated, and is replaced with another leader. The Nazi party has been "officially" outlawed, so he comes from a new recently-formed party. He goes about killing Jews, but only kills 100,000. That's okay, then, because it's at LEAST not the number that Hitler killed (about 6,000,000)!

Take your moral relativism and shove it. How can you even attempt to justify this shiat?

cryspi


Are intelligent people who argue with idiots really that intelligent?


Personally I'd rather not match wits with an unarmed person. ;)

Even though things may be bad, the truth is in the long run this is for the best; With Saddam, there was no chance to ever resolve these issues - with the United States calling the shots, we're going to have to endure this for a bit more until the Iraqi people start carrying their own weight.

We went in and did the hard work, it's just a matter of them stepping up and doing what they promised (Where's the resistance leaders who were going to step up to the plate?)

It's grim now; but the future is bright. That could not be said under Saddam. This isn't about WMDs, it's about millions of people embracing freedom for the first time in their life. They're going to have to fight for it like we did though.

This isn't about the Republicans or President Bush - The truth of the matter is they attempted to convince President Clinton via the Policy for the New American Century to invade Iraq back in the '90s. So no, if Clinton was to lead this type of war, you would not see Republican party line resistance. The Neo-Republicans have been pushing for this policy for a decade; they'd have 110% supported Clinton in the mission to free Iraq from Saddam's terror.

Sure, we didn't find WMDs, but how do we know he didn't move them during the build up to war? We all acknowledge he had them at a time, and we can all acknowledge how utterly corrupt and incompetent the United Nations was (Oil for Food scandal.) As far as I see it, if we didn't go in there, we may have had a major city knocked out with a WMD by now; Sure, it's possible nothing would have happened, but that's a risk our President thankfully wasn't willing to take.

It's easy to complain on here while you're not affected by it. But if a nuclear weapon was to go off in your home city, killing everyone you love and know, who would you blame for inaction? The President. He's admitted many times that he knows he won't be looked upon favorably in the short-term; but his legacy is going to be one that sets the history books on the modern American President (All though I do wish he was as elequent as Clinton, but, can't have your cake and eat it too.)

Alexandra
Is it just me, or does BushCo seem to be rotating through their reasons for invading Iraq? None of which has any basis IMO.

Maybe Bush should admit the war was a mistake. It would be nice to see the morale of the troops destroyed. Maybe we can spit on the troops too.

Ebenezer, the point was of my post was to say using a WMD to kill innocent civilians is always wrong. Sorry if I wasn't being clear.

I took the poison statement from Chain's post:

The U.S. National Safety Council states that "White phosphorus is a POISON . . . If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life . . . It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes. The EPA has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.

A casualty is a casualty no matter how he/she dies; don't support the use of killing because it isn't a crime.

use of weapons*

Nuup:

This isn't about WMDs, it's about millions of people embracing freedom for the first time in their life. They're going to have to fight for it like we did though.


Well, that's what it's about now is it? Save it for someone who wasn't listening during the run up to war.

Understand can mean sympathize if you choose. I do not. Willful ignorance is contemptible. Do you understand that?

Thanks, Nuup.

Mija, no thanks.

Golic: Maybe Bush should admit the war was a mistake. It would be nice to see the morale of the troops destroyed. Maybe we can spit on the troops too.

Yeah, too bad more are going to die and you don't seem to care.

Tiny midget, if you burn a small pile of newspaper in a confined space you will die too.

Golic

Maybe Bush should admit the war was a mistake. It would be nice to see the morale of the troops destroyed. Maybe we can spit on the troops too.


Verbatim quotes from when Clinton was committing troops to Bosnia:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
---Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
---Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
---Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
---Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
---Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W Bush (R-TX)

BlueGargoyle, we'll be out of Iraq before we're out of Bosnia.

Golic: Maybe Bush should admit the war was a mistake. It would be nice to see the morale of the troops destroyed. Maybe we can spit on the troops too.

ohok, since my son is fighting in this war maybe Bush should SAVE the lifes of our troops and bring them home instead of equating patriotism with unquestioning loyalty to a crazed leader. That is, if he really cares about the soldiers. Bush IS spitting on the troops by expecting them to DIE for his lies. The only freedom my son signed up to fight for is Americas. Not Iraqs. Let Iraq fight and die for themselves. You're so gung ho. Hop a plane and go fight. No one is stopping you.

Dinki, you bring up a good topic - people dying.

A lot of people in Iraq are enraged at the idea of a free society that is not organized around the Koran, as Islam dictates that it must.

The whole notion is blasphemy to them.

Also, alot of people in Iraq hate each other. Well they hate Israel, the U.S. and a lot of other people too but that's beside the point.

Now, given the fact of this secret caging & abuse of Sunnis by the faction that they keep running homicide bombs into, it seems to me that the debate can now be summed up simply:


If we 'admit it has all been a horrible mistake', put Saddam back in power (Sarcasm) and leave, will MORE people be killed or will FEWER people be killed?

Which one?

Its my contention that doing what so many people are screaming for us to do will result in a catastrophic version of what they've been screaming about in the first place.

Iraq is a mess and nobody but nobody is arguing that it isn't.


Giving up them now will make it much worse irregardless of wheteher or not we should have ever gone there.

It can be well argued now that it was a mistake.

Giving up now is a much bigger mistake.