Yep, that paragon of leftist virtue once again marshalls the moral equivalence argument for....NO!! It can't be!!!!....and invasion of Saudi Arabia. Hide the women and children!!! Yep, he said it.
Many of us who were against the war in Iraq said it beforehand: The House of Saud had a lot more to do with 9/11 than the House of Hussein ever did.
Nice try, Karl. As usual, Karl isn't reading for comprehension. Or he's deliberately lying by taking my remarks drasctically out of context, which not be unusual for him either. As anyone who, unlike the ever-desperate Karl, actually reads my posts and has even the slightest grasp of context knows, my point was "The Bush administration is only using terrorism as an excuse to conquer Iraq for other reasons because there are much more "guilty" parties involved in terrorism in general and 9/11 in particular than Saddam", not "Hey kids, let's invade Saudi Arabia." Invading SA and occupying Mecca would really be stupid because, while it would likely not result in more immediate casualties than Iraq, it would be the biggest boost to Muslim extremism since the creation of the state of Israel. Control of the oil and the freezing of Wahabbi assets would not compensate for the increase in attacks and the unco-operation of even moderate Muslim governments that would result. I think even Karl's idol Bush is dimly aware of this. Meanwhile, poor Karl is so desperate to ignore the screw-ups of the Bushies before and during the war, the rapidly-surfacing problems involved in consolidating the Amercian conquest of Iraq and the Bushies' abject failures and lack of ideas on domestic issues that he has wasted bandwidth with this thread. I'm sure he's also looking for revenge for my continuous smacking him down in arguments and this is how low he's sunk. Oh well, sucks to be him. At least he has gotten his capital letters fetish under control and we should all be thankful for that.
Karl, Don't mind these insults. There is a typical trick liberals try to pull. Here's how it goes: if you wanted to go to war with Iraq and you mention human rights as ONE of the arguments then you should be in favor of going into other places like North Korea, Iran, Syria, Burma etc. If someone suggests that we should go into any of these places militarily then the liberals call them a war mongerer.
I think this guy is a freemason pretending to be an architect. I especially like that accident with the Kaaba. Blame it on the armenian stiff.
Well, hey, if it's that interesting, then come on over and assume the position. Bring your catcher's mask.
You're like a broken pencil - you miss the point Hey Elderberry, I'm sorry that I embarrass you by constantly pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisies in right-wing ideology and policy. Sucks to be you, I guess. Still, the point is not that the USA should be declaring war on half the globe (despite what Dumbya apparently thinks) but that, when subject to comparison with reality, the reasons ractionaries proffer for their actions, in this case wanting a war, are often not consistent with said reality. I know that you are so desperate to avoid admitting that your boy Bush started the war for reasons other than what he stated that you'll use any dodge, distraction and denial you can, but that's not my problem. If Bush was smart enough to avoid doing things like tripping over himself in his haste to feed his Vice-President's cronies lucrative contracts before the bodies of our brave soldiers are even buried, it would make the skeptics' job much less easy.
I was wondering that also, Dan. Joe wasn't even advocating invading SA, but somehow he get's his own thread! Side note: It's possible for Mike Segroves to get a yellow card?
Re: You're like a broken pencil - you miss the point Regarding your first point. You've posted this at least 300 times to show your intellectual superiority and one sidedness. Your extremely naive to accuse just about everyone on the right of being a reactionary while never criticizing anyone on the Left. If you look back at previous posts you'll notice I had you recant stuff much more than you've had me recant. Now regarding why Bush started the war. If you take fifteen conservatives(or reactionaries that are afraid to read liberal writing otherwise they would be forced to change their minds-as you would say) and fifteen liberals and ask all what their foreign policy views were. You would get many different type of viewpoints. Some conservatives wanted to invade Iraq because of oil, others because they viewed Saddam as a threat to the region and world, others because of human rights. If you ask the liberals that opposed the war why they opposed it? Some were against the war because they were isolationist, others thought the inspectors could do the job while others didn't view Saddam as a threat. I don't know what Bush's overriding motivation was. Frankly, it doesn't matter to much to me what it was. I supported the war and believed their were many legitimate reasons for it regardless of what Bush thought.
This what Bush thought, or at least said. Text from Bush's state of the union speech. Ever wonder why so many Americans thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11? Ever wonder why so many Americans don't think about the sources and extent of terrorism? Joe had a good point. Those were mostly Saudi citizens using Saudi money to their acts of terrorism on 9/11. Why the blind eye? The state of the union speech and Colin Powell's UN speech in February were both very explicit in the amounts and locations of WMD. Why where none found? Is our intelligence that bad? The bottom line is we are being misled. ------------------- Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power. In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon, on a field in Pennsylvania, this nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men; free people will set the course of history. (APPLAUSE) Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation. This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances and by the might of the United States of America. (APPLAUSE) Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility. (APPLAUSE) America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm..... And so on, while he makes his case to invade Iraq.