White House Approved Tourture

actually yes it was, to stop Al-Queda's terrorist group and other terrorist groups, and now the US is in Iraq changing their government.

 

Please take not that there is a difference between what we are doing and Afghanistan and what we are doing in Iraq. We went to Afganistan to punish terrorists for 9/11. We are punishing terrorists in Iraq becase, well, they are terrorists. And terrorism my friend, is wrong. Not because they bombed the world trade centers. Yeah we changed their governemnt. So what? We ousted a brutal dictator. So now that we ousted the dictator and they no longer have any government we have 3 choices.
1. replace the dictator
2. pull out and let Iraq fight their own bloody civil war. In which case it is almost certain that we end up with another dictator.
3. we give them a stabalized government which they can ammend once we have pulled out.

Hmmm choices choices...

 

yes but now lets go to the beginning. Saddam was not part of any terrorist groups, and yes he was bad but he was not a threat to the U.S. No WMDs were found either. But since Bush fucked it all up, I think that the U.S. has to go fix the govt, but it shouldnt have been a problem to deal with in the 1st place.

 

Saddam was not part of any terrorist groups, but he provided a safe haven for Abu Abbas (leader of the hijacking of the ship Achille Lauro and the murder of the elderly American passenger Leon Klinghoffer), for Abu Nidal, and for the 1993 World Trade Center bombmaker, Abdul Rahman Yasin.

Don't you think there is anything wrong with this?

 

What does that have to do with the U.S. attacking Iraq now?

 

Another grasp for PB as he desperately continues to try to defend liars and abusers of power in the White House.

By your logic then, Washinton gave safe haven to all of the 911 hijackers as well as Omar Abdel-Rahman (mastermind behind the first WTC bombing) and General Mahmoud Ahmad (the financier for 911) who actually met with Bush admin officials and other key names such as Porter Goss (Cheney's right hand man and in line for the top spot in the CIA) prior to the day of infamy.

Being the devout little Bushbot you are, though, im sure youve some further dodge prepared to evade any necessary intellectual honesty in this regard. Heaven forbid you should have to draw your logic out to its final conclusions and admit youve been spun into supporting an admin which sells emotive justifications for its criminality and betrayal of the American public even as it plunders its way around the globe.

Meanwhile of course their quite comfy with other fine upstanding monsters like Karimov (who only boils his opponents alive and sends kids to forced labor camps), all necessary evil to your warped morality im sure.

 

West Point, you can't have a war on terror, as much as i would like to rid the world of terrorist groups, it just will never happen. Look here in the USA, the KKK and CIA are here, two big terrorist organizations that we do nothing about, but of course when a terrorist group is over in Iraq, with oil underground and money to be made for halliburton and the carlyle group, they will go there and use terrorism as a pretext. If you think the Bush administration and Bush Family HATE terrorism, you are sadly mistaken, they have been supporting terrorism since the 70's, and supplying the terrorists with their weapons. Bush isn't out to rid the world of terror, he's out to make his own personal gain in the Middle East.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

And to fund and arm other despots and unstable countries which can be later claimed as a threat to launch the next war, as the cycle has been at least once every decade. And the sheepish warmongers are easily fired up all over again because they can't be bothered to pay attention to how systematically events and policies are linked.

If you want to fight a war against terror, put an end to the MIC which fuels it and the MNC's which seek greater hegemony and profit from it and begin to make substantive changes to world trade and development that will give the developing world the hope and opportunity required to diminish the power of extremist thought.

Those who live by the sword will die by the sword, including even our smug self assured nation.

 

Deep thoughts, man.

You are not a criminal until you commit a crime. Therefore no save haven. That you would resort to such absurd logic only adds to the increasing sense of panic pervading your posts. Are you afraid the sky is going to fall before you can convince the world of your PNAC conspiracy with its remote controlled airplanes?

 

I am not the one need panic. Time and events have vindicated those of us who rightly have warned from start what your heros were up to and the lies they have used to justify their abuses of power.

If you think a very well documented and quite existent PNAC is a fringe theory, you truly DO have you head buried in the sand.

Bah bah bah little sheep!

 

You want to go back to the begining? Ok I'll take you there. On september 11th terrorists with origins in afghanistand bombed the world trade centers. As a result, America declared a war on terrorism. So, we owned afghanistan. Then we turned our sights to Iraq. But why Iraq you ask? Three reasons. First we believed that they possesed WMD's and possed a threat to our nation. Wether or not they possed a threat, we don't know. WMD's have been traced from Iraq, were they saddams? Were they to be used agains us? We don't know. There is evidence supporting both cases. We simply do not know. Second, Saddam WAS a terrorist. I think that the way he treated his people would qualify as terrorism. Third, Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorism. We then proceede to own Iraq. We out a terrorist dictator, we find that there are either A) there never were any WMD's or B) the WMD's were already shipped out to saudi arabia and africa. And we are currently fighting a war against the terrorists that Iraq is harboring.
So now that you are all caught up on current events, do you still think that we should "fix" the Iraqi government. Because to fix, implies to repair what we have broken. And that would mean installing another dictator. Maybe you're all about dictatorships, I dont know. But I for one, think we should give them their own government, one for the people.

 

So by what your saying Amerika is an imperialist country. Going into a country that did not belong to the country that is moving in, and "owning" the country as you say, is imperialism.

so if there were WMDs in there, and Bush knew where they were, then why doesn't the U.S have them? If Bush believed they were transported to other countries, then Amerika would have invaded those countries also.

Saddam may have been a terrorist dictator, but there has been no proof that he was a threat to the U.S, which is another one of Bush's reasons for the war.

Maybe I am all about dictatorships. Hmm I don't know.
If you want to give the people a government for the people, then why kill the people that you are trying to liberate. Like, more than 10,000 of those people. Your ignorance is astonishing, you obviously dont care about anyone other than yourself or your country. You say you want the Iraqis to have a democracy, so then why does Bush have them killed?

 

Fuck! I pretty much wrote an entire god damned essay in response, hit the backspace button, then for some damned reason it takes me back to the previous page. so now my essay is fucking gone. I'll write it again tommorow.

 

First off it's spelled America. The least you could do is spell my country right. Second, I thought you might be different than the rest of the close minded republican bashing left wingers here and I was hopeing that you would be a bit more open minded. But judging by your closeing comments on this post and you calling me a "warhawk" I was obviously wrong. Sahme, I was hoping to have conversation that wasn't laced in hate in these "peace loving" forums. No matter, you come to expect it. On with the debate.

Let me give you the deffinition of imperialism.

im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.

1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Did we go into Iraq and make it the 51st state? No, we didnt. We went in, ousted mr. so-damn-insane fought off war clans the prevent them from acheiving the status of dictatorship and gave them a "beta" constitution in and effort to prevent civil war, and are now slowly handing the nation back to them. No, we are not imperialists.

Did I ever say that Iraq had WMD's and that bush knew where they were? Sorry buddy, read my posts I didn't say it. And no we wouldn't invade other countries. They are no longer in the hands of someone likely to use them. And at this point, it is not worth the lives or the money, especially if they are in Saudi Arabia.

Yes ONE of the reasons we invaded Iraq. And as I said before, wether or not saddam was a threat, we simply do not know. there is evidence to support both cases.

Maybe you are in favor of dictatorships. I don't know. Believe it or not it really is not that uncommon, I have debated with people ranging from communists to anarchists. So I am not about to pass judgements. However you seem to have no problem doing so. I don't care about anyone but myself and my country? You mean I don't care about anyone but myself and 300 million other people from diverse cultures all over the world? Well aren't I a Nazi . And thank you once again for the psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud. Take personal note of this fact: I care for all citizens of the world, with the exception of select individuals such as saddam and osama. But it would be accurate to say that I care for my country more than others, just as I care for my family more than yous. I care for the well being of all men. That is why I want republic and capitolistic societies around the world. In case you didn't know, power and responsibility go hand in hand. America has power, and we have a responsibility. If we see millions of people oppressed and terrorized by a dictator, and we have the power to stop it, it is our responsibility. You are responsible for the crimes you did not prevent. And Bush is not having them killed. The president gives the army the ok and the generals and commanders in the field carry it out. If such an order as to kill civilians was given, It was not given by bush. The blood of the innocent is more on the hand's of the generals and commanding officers than Bushes. Now I'm going to give you a choice, 10,000 dead civilians dead, 7,000 of which America is responsible, or millions under the rule of a dictator wishing they were dead, and the actual death rate is slowly, brutaly, and steadily rising. Is Iraq worse off now than it was under saddam? Probably. But we are fighting for their future, so that they may live in a free land like us. The US during world war II was worse off than it was before, but they were fighting for freedom, for the future. You must look past the evils and fear that is brought about by war, and see what the future may bring once the hardships are over. War is a tool to save lives, not to destroy them. And we are saving lives.

There was more to my little essay, but I have forgotten some. Hopefully I will remember later. And hopefully you will take the time to read this.

 

its a free country isnt it? haha oops forget about that, but I will spell Amerika the way I want to spell it, 1st Amendment buddy

Did Great Britain make the African countries they occupied as colonies? Yes they did, but they mainly did it to rob the countries of their natural resources. Sound familiar? *cough war in iraq cough cough*

actually yes you did, post #32. let me refresh your memory:

you say right there that they posed a threat. so are you calling yourself a liar? its right there, you said it......

so its worth the lives and the money to continue fighting in Iraq? yes, lets just kill more people, if they dont come from outside Iraq it wont be a problem.

you say you care about all individuals, but you say that civilians being killed because of what you think is right and should be everywhere? Yes maybe democracy should be everywhere, but at the cost of all these lives? jesus christ man.

So its Amerika's responsibility to make the world just like Amerika? thats what it sounds like your saying. Thats kind of greedy, isnt it?

two wrongs dont make a right, but why does Bush care about the Iraq people anyway? He doesnt. They arent Christian, not yet anyways, so why would Bush like them? He doesnt give a shit about the people over there, he has a grudge against Saddam and the oil would look might good if it was sitting under an Amerikan flag, wouldnt it?

Amerika could not have prevented Saddam going into power. And even if they could, is it their fault he is in power? No.

quite the future all those civilians can look forward to, being dead and all.....

well what will this war to for Amerika's future? Bring us cheaper oil? and atleast 7,000 civilians killed by Amerikan troops, what the lifesavers we are.

 

This is the fundamental lie of the supposedly anti-war movement. We killed a lot of French civilians in the process of liberating France in WW 2. So were there people like you at the time saying "what lifesavers we are - killing innocent french civilians to save them"? Probably, fortunately (for us and the french) we didn't listen to them.

What you really want is for the US to leave so the killing can continue and almost certainly escalate into a full scale civil war. But at least it would be off your TV screens and as long as it isn't "our fault", who really cares how many Iraqis get killed?

So stop pretending you have the best interests of Iraqis at heart when you obviously couldn't care less.

And please provide me with evidence we have "robbed" Iraq of its oil. Or could it be that is just a nice sounding but completely empty slogan?

 

Dont bust that "OMG first ammendment!!" crap on me. For some odd reasons left wingers tend to believe that the first amendment is their ticket to be an asshole. It give you the right to be one, that does not mean you should exercise your right to be an ass. And I didn't try to supress you're speach, I tried to get you to show a little respect. I don't know if you know the sybolism of that k in america, or if you mispelled out of ignoracne. either way the k youve substituted in is disrespectful.

No it doesn't sound familiar at all. Point break already covered your "it was for oil" claims. Is that oil better in the hands of America, or better in the hands of Saddam that used the money produced by oil to gas the kurds?

Actually no, I didn't. Luckily for me you aren't very good at lieing with quotes. According to you I said that they had WMD's and they were a threat and then in the very next scentence I said that we dont know if they had WMD's and possed a threat. Look buddy, if your going to edit my quotes so that you can throw false accusations at me do it right.
Just so that you know what I really said here is the exact quote you edited from begining to end: "First we believed that they possesed WMD's and possed a threat to our nation. Wether or not they possed a threat, we don't know. WMD's have been traced from Iraq, were they saddams? Were they to be used agains us? We don't know. There is evidence supporting both cases" Hmmm left out some key points didn't ya buddy? I did not say "they had WMD's and possed a threat" like you claim I did. And you know that. Or did you accidentally edit my post? If I said that America believed that they had WMD's and possed a threat it does not mean that they knew it. If thats what I thought I would have used the word "knew". But I didn't I used the word "believed". Which means that we did not know, but we thought it was a great possibility. Which is a fact. Tell me what the point is of throwing out an arguement that you know is based on lies? Lies that you yourself knowingly created? Allow me to take the roll of sigmund freud know. It appears you have a severe case of excessive pride.

Yes it is worth the lives and money to continure fighting in Iraq. We cannot take on all the corrupt and evil places in the world at once. War is much to ugly and degrading to do that. I remind you again, that we are fighting to save lives. To save generations of people from terroristic corrupt ruleing and suffering.

To just let the corrupt nations be will cost more lives than the spread of democratic and republic nations.

No I don't think that it it Americas responsibility to make everywhere else like America. Once again thats your own gross twist on my words. If that was our responsibility we would be invading canada. But being among the most powerfull nations in the world, I think it is our responsibility to help those in need. I find it selfish that people like the U.N. will simply shun the people of Iraq and let them get their ass whooped by a dictator, because helping the people of Iraq will hurt THEMSELVES too much. Selfish, just downright selfish.

Bush does'nt care about the Iraqi people because they aren't christian? That's a pretty hefty judgement to be passing on both Bush and the Christian religion. And frankly, I don't see how you are qualified to make such judgements. But then again you do have history of making unqualified judgements. As for your oil comments, Pointbreak and I have already adressed them.

When I sadi that "You are responsible for the crimes you did not prevent." I meant that if saddam is over there killing, torturing, and terrorizing his people, and we have the power to emancipate them, but we neglect to. We share responsiblity for those deaths along with saddam. Do you agree?

And the rst of your comments have been adressed...

 

I subsitute the K in there because I have no respect for this country's government, and the person running it for that matter. I have always spelled Amerika with a K, when I was young I was read Abbie Hoffman books by my aunt. I have no respect for this country, not only for the things that it had done, but what it is doing today. maybe if the amerikan governemnt would stop thinking that it is the best country in the world and stop trying to change the world because of what they think is right, then i will spell amerika with a C.

thats imperialism man. how do you know thats where he got the money from? saddam did lots of things to make money, more illegal things. it is not amerika's oil, and they shouldnt have control of it.

haha oops, I did mess that up, but not on purpose. and where the fuck are you getting this pride thing from? im not the only person in amerika that believes this war is wrong, and Im not the only one to argue thats its wrong, either

those are words of a warmonger. "lets kill innocent people to get rid of the terrorists, they are not actually deaths just collateral damage." what a fuckin disgrace to this country.

the U.S is really proving that, aren't they?

and just how do you know that they will hurt themselves too much. Saddam is out of the country now, there is a new govt, the amerikan troops should leave the damn country. but no, the killings of innocent people continues.

Bush has said before that a good base for democratic government is the Christian religion. I will find a quote for this, but I remember him saying it and reading it on the internet.

hmm yea good point I agree on that one, but why must the U.S. bomb residential areas trying to find his weapons caches? only the U.s is responsible for those deaths, not Saddam


this is getting really hard to do, im kind of having fun debating with you, its not like i have anything else to do.

 

I see that you're anti-American roots run deep so I don't think I have a prayer at changeing those ideals. But may i ask, do you live in America? If so why? I dont think that America is forcing our Ideals on the world as you seem to believe. What is so wrong about trying to change the world because of what we thing is right? We did it with slavery, naziism, and communism. And in Iraq we are attempting to add oppression to that list.

We are not reaping Iraq of it's resources. To me the Idea that we went there for oil is simply absurd. Not only that, Pointbreak and I have already adressed the Oil claim. Oil is one of Iraq's biggest sources of income if not the biggest. You can be assured that Saddam used the money to gas the kurds.

I really do hope that miss quoteing was an accedent.

Enough with the warmonger BS. Seriously it's insulting. and now you're just recycling arguements that I have already trashed.

We, dont need to prove it, it has already been proven. Think back to the 1930's-1945

What do you mean how do i know they will hurt themselves too much? It's common sense, war causes damage. And they won't sacrifice for the good of others. If our troops left Iraq right now it would be civil war. the war clans in Iraq still have too much power and the Iraqi government is not stable enough. not to mention they have absolutely no military.

The christian religion IS a good basis for a democratic government. Our founding fathers realized this. So does bush. Now do misteak that for a democratic government being run by christianity. Seperation of religion and state is vital in this country.

 

Yes, but we have more technology then we had back then. We have ways of locking on to a target very precisely and bombing it. Thus lowering the number of civilian deaths. We dont need to be killing all of these civilians but we continue to everyday. Why?...because we bomb without gathering sufficient information. And we continue to use primitive and unprecise killing tactics like useing machine guns. If we are going to do this war right (a war that i dont belive in) then we should precisely bomb targets that we can positivily identify without question are terrorist hideouts, terrorist bunkers, wmd's, ect. ....or we should just stop bombing!!!
Also we should get rid of the machine guns and train more snipers so we can shoot the person planed and not the civilians around them.