The one & only War On Terror thread

[Guest Ken]

The UN has failed to uphold its own charter. The United States created the UN not as an end in itself but to uphold principles of justice, liberty, respect for human rights, and the rule of law. If the UN is too cowardly to fulfill its obligations, by heritage and by choice, the United States shall.

 

Translation: Yeah, we know the U.N doesn't mean anything, but why not use those resolutions as an excuse to go to war?

 

Continued defiance of over a dozen UN resolutions, human rights violations, support for international terrorism, refusal to account for POWs, refusal to return stolen property, and smuggling are the others.

 

Now we are talking about North Korea, Iran, Iraq? The U.S wants that smoking gun but they just can't find it.

 

That was a small section from an extended series of articles. It didn't back up my case in any way; it merely restated it. I was getting tired of typing out the same fucking thing over and over again for your benefit.

 

Now you know how I feel.

 

 

An unjustified and sordid assumption. Going by the President's own words, the moral principles on which America is founded demand the disarmament of Iraq and its neutralisation as a threat to regional and world peace. Furthermore, after 9/11 we cannot tolerate the existence of any regime anywhere which funds, harbours, or otherwise supports terrorism in any form.

 

Translation: After 9/11 someone was going to cop it, and we still have a but more aggression left, so we might as well go see our old friends in the Middle East.

 

You don't get off that easily, you slimy little rat. Make your argument. We have no need for Iraq's oil. We habout 70% of total imports to less than 15%. There would be no 400% increase in gas prices (as there was in the 1970s) if all Middle Eastern oil were cut off tomorrow (which it won't be, because oil is the only thing that props up that pathetic mockery of a regional economy)

 

Go learn basic economic theory, then come back and talk to me, because your percentages don't mean anything.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Translation: Yeah, we know the U.N doesn't mean anything, but why not use those resolutions as an excuse to go to war?

Wrong. The UN should have meant everything. The UN doesn't have the guts to make itself mean anything, so we are going to do the job it should be doing.

 

Now we are talking about North Korea, Iran, Iraq? The U.S wants that smoking gun but they just can't find it.

Clarify. We have all the evidence we need.

 

Go learn basic economic theory, then come back and talk to me, because your percentages don't mean anything.

The percentages prove beyond all doubt that we are nowhere near as reliant on Middle Eastern oil as we were, and our case against Iraq is in no way predicated on the oil supply. Your "basic economic theory" only applies to the most elementary iteration of an absolutely free market, which does not exist. It is inapplicable and irrelevant when supply is controlled by a cartel. Which it is in the case of oil, by OPEC.

Go learn slightly more advanced economic theory. Like, above the third grade level.

 

Now you know how I feel.

No, I'm still not a morally blind coward and an advocate for appeasement.

[Guest Ken]

Marney, just one question to wrap this all up; how is Saddam a threat to America?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Indirectly, Saddam Hussein is evil and causes great suffering. America should always act to confront and destroy evil; if she does not, the principles on which she is founded are eroded.

Directly, Saddam Hussein has the motive and the means to provide terrorists with biological agents and radiocative material. His refusal to comply with UN resolutions also undermines both the will and the authority of the UN and thus makes it more likely that the United States will have to act on her own both now and in the future, which has inherent risks. We would prefer to be part of a world community, but we should never compromise our moral principles for the sake of that - it is after all a means to enforce justice, preserve liberty, and spread democracy, not an end in itself.

 

When the rules cease to work, you break them. That's how America was born.

[Guest Ken]

1. America may feel it should always act on evil, but it only acts on Anti-American evil. It has propped up more than its fair share of pro-west evil regimes in the past.

 

2. Saddam is not suicidal. He knows perfectly well that if he supplies bio weapons to terrorists he is dead. He would not do so unless he believed that he was going to die anyway, which he would if America invaded. And, realistically, former Soviet satellite states are far more likely to supply chem, bio and nuclear weapons.

 

3. U.N resolutions mean nothing. The U.N security council has issued about 60 resolutions condemning Israel (for example) since 1948, and Israel have abided by none; it has no credibility as a world power.

 

By the way, doesn't it feel better to have a rational, civilized debate, as opposed to dishing out cheap insults?

[Guest DrTom]

The point is, it doesn't matter where the oil actually comes from, the price will be the same. And 10% of oil is still a rather large amount.

It's not a large amount at all. We could easily pick up the slack by getting oil from South America, Alberta, and Russia. That would easily make up for what we get from the Middle East, and we wouldn't have to deal with a cartel that represents a bunch of fanatical fuckheads in the process. We make out better NOT getting oil from the Middle East, but since too many people in Washington still believe the Saudis are our friends, we'll still be dealing with them for a while.

 

And in any case, you know as well as I do that oil is a key motivation.

It's not a key motivation at all. See the above paragraph for the reason.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

America may feel it should always act on evil, but it only acts on Anti-American evil.

Better than nothing. This line of "reasoning" is disingenuous and stupid and morally bankrupt. Because we don't solve all the world's problems at once, we shouldn't ever try to solve even one? Fuck off. We do what we can when we can. Be grateful, shut up, and sit down.

 

Saddam... knows perfectly well that if he supplies bio weapons to terrorists he is dead.

Bullshit. Even the terrorists themselves might not know who was supplying them if he kept himself far enough away from the deal. Saddam Hussein need only maintain plausible deniability, which should be easy enough since fuckheads like you fall for even implausible deniability and trip over your own feet in your eagerness to suck him off and condemn America instead.

 

former Soviet satellite states are far more likely to supply chem, bio and nuclear weapons.

Former Soviet satellite states have no ideological motives, only financial. History has demonstrated time and time again that ideological motives are less predictable and far more dangerous than financial motives.

 

U.N resolutions mean nothing... The U.N security council... has no credibility as a world power.

Well now. Isn't that what I've been saying for a very long time? Yet you've been insisting that America should submit to UN authority and take no unilateral action. It took the opportunity for you to attack Israel to make you blunder into accidentally telling the truth. As for the resolutions condemning Israel, they should be ignored since the UN is controlled by anti-American and anti-Semitic blocs. Just goes to show that irrelevance and evil aren't mutually exclusive.

 

By the way, doesn't it feel better to have a rational, civilized debate, as opposed to dishing out cheap insults?

You're dishonest, backpeddling, hypocritical scum. You abandon points without admitting you were wrong and you try to shift the debate as soon as it no longer suits your purpose to keep parroting the words of proven liars and probable traitors. Rational, civilised debate? You haven't yet begun to debate. You've only thrown out submoronic anti-American pre-chewed pap, been refuted, restated the same idiotic claims over and over again, and been refuted over and over again. You haven't addressed a single question of substance; you've only made bald assertions which are flatly contradicted by every credible authority I can think of - the Secretary of Defense, the Department of State, the IISS, Iraq's own official documents, and every ex-inspector other than Ritter, for a start, not to mention the White House and the President of the United States.

 

Serious debate requires substance, and you have shown none. I'm not debating you; I'm just slapping you around. When my hand gets tired, I'll stop.

[Guest Ken]

Better than nothing. This line of "reasoning" is disingenuous and stupid and morally bankrupt. Because we don't solve all the world's problems at once, we shouldn't ever try to solve even one? Fuck off. We do what we can when we can. Be grateful, shut up, and sit down.

 

It isn't that you are not solving all the worlds problems, it's that you support regimes that are tyrannical, yet want to crush others. The moral bankruptcy of America is that it is being perfectly willing to support evil regimes when they are on America's side, and wishing to destroy them when they are not. It would be acceptable if they had attacked America, but to give criteria for attacking a country that another pro-American country easily meets, is hypocritical. And ask yourself, why are there only 2 countries in the world supporting invasion? Saudi, Turkey, Jordan, etc. don't regard Saddam as a huge threat. And also, after 12 years, why has Iraq blown up into a crisis just out from your Congressional elections?

 

Bullshit. Even the terrorists themselves might not know who was supplying them if he kept himself far enough away from the deal. Saddam Hussein need only maintain plausible deniability, which should be easy enough since fuckheads like you fall for even implausible deniability and trip over your own feet in your eagerness to suck him off and condemn America instead.

 

There is no way he could keep himself far away from the deal. America has that many different eyes on Iraq that he would surely be seen, in any case, the risk would be too high for him to consider doing so.

 

Former Soviet satellite states have no ideological motives, only financial. History has demonstrated time and time again that ideological motives are less predictable and far more dangerous than financial motives.

 

You have gravely underestimated human nature, if you believe that they would not supply WMD for money. In any case, many of those countries hate America also.

 

Well now. Isn't that what I've been saying for a very long time? Yet you've been insisting that America should submit to UN authority and take no unilateral action. It took the opportunity for you to attack Israel to make you blunder into accidentally telling the truth. As for the resolutions condemning Israel, they should be ignored since the UN is controlled by anti-American and anti-Semitic blocs. Just goes to show that irrelevance and evil aren't mutually exclusive.

 

I've been saying that if America wishes to act upon and enforce U.N resolutions, they must not do so on a pick and choose basis.

 

And as for your "sources", I will just say this. Propoganda is alive and bigger than ever.

[Guest DARRYLXWF]

And as for your "sources", I will just say this. Propoganda is alive and bigger than ever.

 

100% correct...if you're talking about the propoganda in Iraq.

 

But couldn't that also apply to your "sources"?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Or anywhere else on the globe.

 

75% of what we hear is bullshit.

[Guest DARRYLXWF]

Is that what the latest Census told you?

 

Some day the enterprising statistician will figure out the time lost in compiling statistics.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

No, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

[Guest DARRYLXWF]

I agree with you, I hate people who read one article from a newspaper/magazine and immedietely believe it to be true, which is speaking for the majority of the public, which I guess is what makes propoganda the most powerful weapon. Anyway, I don't mind all the anti-Iraq sentiment today, unlike Ken.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

It isn't that you are not solving all the worlds problems, it's that you support regimes that are tyrannical, yet want to crush others.

We did this during the Cold War too. We've always done this. Big deal. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils, and an autocrat like a Shah is a better idea than a Council of Guardians.

 

There is no way he could keep himself far away from the deal. America has that many different eyes on Iraq that he would surely be seen, in any case, the risk would be too high for him to consider doing so.

Wait wait wait, this just gets better and better. Are you saying that we'd be able to tell if Saddam Hussein gave a briefcase to an agent and sent him to the northern border (across which thousands of tonnes of illegal goods pass daily) to meet with an Al Qaeda terrorist? I'm flattered by your opinion of the CIA, but we're not quite that good. It would be a toss-up at best and even if we did have proof idiots like you would shriek "circumstantial" and "hearsay."

And first, we couldn't invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein is a desperate and dangerous man; now, he's so worried about risks that he won't risk doing his dirty work by proxy?

I'm not sure if this fact has seeped through your skull yet (I've only said it a couple of times) but IRAQ FIRES ON ALLIED JETS REGULARLY. Saddam Hussein isn't scared of retaliation. He's betting that we'll continue to work through a toothless UN.

 

Could you at least try to keep your absurd lies internally consistent?

 

You have gravely underestimated human nature, if you believe that they would not supply WMD for money.

I don't discount that possibility for a moment. But as I said, we can control them because their motives are financial, not ideological. We can demand, and have demanded, that they keep tabs on their weapons. We can cooperate in (read "fund") monitoring and accounting programmes to make sure they do. These programmes have worked in the past and I see no reason to assume that they won't in the future.

In any case, many of those countries hate America also.

Not nearly to the degree that Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries do. Not nearly enough to risk destruction.

 

I've been saying that if America wishes to act upon and enforce U.N resolutions, they must not do so on a pick and choose basis.

Why on earth not? Would you like us to enforce instead condemnations of massacres that never occurred? Most of the UN's pronouncements are either worthless or blatantly anti-America and anti-Israel. We'll enforce the ones which are correct and ignore the others, precisely as we should. The UN has no moral authority. It spent its last pennyworth of credibility a long time ago.

 

as for your "sources", I will just say this. Propoganda is alive and bigger than ever.

Tell me why I should believe that the government and the administration (of which I am a part) are lying to me and the rest of the American people, tell me how they have managed to so thoroughly conceal their lies from officials with high FBI security clearances (and explain why you're willing to take Generals Scowcroft's and Clark's word at face value, but not General Powell's), tell me what evidence you have to prove any of your allegations, and tell me where, how, when, and from whom you got your evidence.

 

Shrill accusations of "propoganda [sic]" are not proof. They are baseless slander and nothing more.

[Guest Ken]

We did this during the Cold War too. We've always done this. Big deal. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils, and an autocrat like a Shah is a better idea than a Council of Guardians.

 

I'm actually a fan of democracy but we'll have to agree to disagree here. The "deal" is, you give reasons for attacking Iraq, but as other regimes meet those stated criteria, they clearly not the real reasons.

 

 

Wait wait wait, this just gets better and better. Are you saying that we'd be able to tell if Saddam Hussein gave a briefcase to an agent and sent him to the northern border (across which thousands of tonnes of illegal goods pass daily) to meet with an Al Qaeda terrorist? I'm flattered by your opinion of the CIA, but we're not quite that good. It would be a toss-up at best and even if we did have proof idiots like you would shriek "circumstantial" and "hearsay."

And first, we couldn't invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein is a desperate and dangerous man; now, he's so worried about risks that he won't risk doing his dirty work by proxy?

I'm not sure if this fact has seeped through your skull yet (I've only said it a couple of times) but IRAQ FIRES ON ALLIED JETS REGULARLY. Saddam Hussein isn't scared of retaliation. He's betting that we'll continue to work through a toothless UN.

 

It would be impossible for Iraq to keep its hands completely clean. Also, the Allies fire on Iraqi installations regularly, so you would have to agree it is a two way thing.

 

I don't discount that possibility for a moment. But as I said, we can control them because their motives are financial, not ideological. We can demand, and have demanded, that they keep tabs on their weapons. We can cooperate in (read "fund") monitoring and accounting programmes to make sure they do. These programmes have worked in the past and I see no reason to assume that they won't in the future.

 

It is likely you will find out who did it, but the chances are it will be a group of individuals, not a government. And in any case, you will most likely find out after an attack, not before.

 

Why on earth not? Would you like us to enforce instead condemnations of massacres that never occurred? Most of the UN's pronouncements are either worthless or blatantly anti-America and anti-Israel. We'll enforce the ones which are correct and ignore the others, precisely as we should. The UN has no moral authority. It spent its last pennyworth of credibility a long time ago.

 

Look at it from Iraq's perspective. Maybe they see the 12 U.N resolutions against Iraq as "incorrect" ones, and they feel that they should ignore them?

 

Tell me why I should believe that the government and the administration (of which I am a part) are lying to me and the rest of the American people, tell me how they have managed to so thoroughly conceal their lies from officials with high FBI security clearances (and explain why you're willing to take Generals Scowcroft's and Clark's word at face value, but not General Powell's), tell me what evidence you have to prove any of your allegations, and tell me where, how, when, and from whom you got your evidence.

 

Anyone who mindlessly follows their government without question is an idiot. They tell you what they want you to hear. And tell me why, after 12 years, has Iraq become a "crisis"? I can't tell what has happened just recently that makes them such a huge threat. And isn't it a massive coincidence this all happens 6 weeks from Congressional elections?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'm actually a fan of democracy but we'll have to agree to disagree here.

No. If you support institutions like the Council of Guardians over autocrats like the Shah, who enforced tolerance, you are an advocate for mob rule rather than democracy. Democracy is only virtuous when tempered by liberty and justice. Some peoples are simply not ready to govern themselves and must be educated before they can do so.

 

The "deal" is, you give reasons for attacking Iraq, but as other regimes meet those stated criteria, they clearly not the real reasons.

Wrong again. Other regimes may meet the criteria but there may be other factors that make an attack on them inadvisable. And even if those factors are ignoble, it makes no difference to the case for an attack on Iraq.

 

It is likely you will find out who did it, but the chances are it will be a group of individuals, not a government.

Whereas in Iraq it's more likely to be a government rather than a group of individuals.

And in any case, you will most likely find out after an attack, not before.

And that is the case for attacking Iraq now.

 

Look at it from Iraq's perspective.

No, thank you.

Maybe they see the 12 U.N resolutions against Iraq as "incorrect" ones, and they feel that they should ignore them?

Too bad. They lost the war.

 

why, after 12 years, has Iraq become a "crisis"?

It is not yet a crisis. If it were a crisis we would be there now instead of wasting our time with the General Assembly. We are working to prevent it from becoming a crisis.

 

I can't tell what has happened just recently that makes them such a huge threat.

We've finished dealing with the more pressing problem of Afghanistan. Now we are turning to other problems. After Iraq, we shall continue to turn to still others. Nothing will have "happened just recently" to make those tertiary problems "such a huge threat" either. It is purely and simply a matter of priorities.

 

And isn't it a massive coincidence this all happens 6 weeks from Congressional elections?

This is inexpressibly amusing. No, it isn't a coincidence. Why, pray tell, should we not make action on Iraq's disarmament an election issue? Why shouldn't Republicans make national security an election issue? Why shouldn't we force the Democrats to tell the public where they stand, and why shouldn't we tell the public where we stand, and let the American people make the decision? President Lincoln campaigned solely on the issue of war. FDR felt that the nation shouldn't "change horses in the middle of the stream." And what could be more serious, what could be more vital, than the security of the nation and the stability of government?

For a self-proclaimed "fan of democracy," you certainly don't have a very good idea of how it works.

 

Anyone who mindlessly follows their government without question is an idiot. They tell you what they want you to hear.

Anyone who mindlessly disbelieves the government of the United States in spite of any and all proof that we are telling the truth is knee-jerk reactionary anti-American filth and an idiot. You are all of the above and a coward and a liar to boot. One more time:

 

1. Explain your claim that the government and the administration are lying to me and the rest of the American people.

a) Explain how such a vast conspiracy could be coordinated in the first place.

b) Explain why you believe such a vast conspiracy is being coordinated. (See 3 for something that will be considered inadmissible.)

c) Explain how long this conspiracy has existed, who you believe is responsible for it, and how it is being funded and sustained.

 

2. Explain how the government and the administration have managed to so thoroughly conceal their lies from presumably trustworthy officials with high FBI security clearances.

a) If you don't believe General Powell, explain why you believe Generals Scowcroft and Clark.

 

3. Make explicit the evidence you have to prove your allegations. Appellate illogic will not be considered; "You know it's all about oil" is neither an argument nor evidence.

a) Cite sources for your evidence.

 

You are a twit on an Internet message board with an unjustifiably smug attitude, a penchant for quoting traitors and media whores and backtracking dishonestly when you're called on it, and no grasp of foreign affairs. Hell, you didn't even know that OPEC controls the oil supply. Have you ever heard of the SPR? Pop quiz: what's its maximum effectiveness, what's its current status, what's its purpose and how well is it projected to perform in a state of war as compared to its expected opposition, and over what period of time?

Did you even understand the question? No? What a surprise.

 

And you expect me to take your word that you are more credible than my government? Excuse me, but are you out of your fucking mind?

 

No more evasions. No more disjointed bullet points. No more abandoning your positions to start new but equally stupid arguments each and every time you're called on the carpet for an old one. Address the questions in boldface, above.

Put up or shut up, Kenny. Cards on the table. It's time.

[Guest Ken]

1. I never said that the Administration was lying. I said that they are trying to create a war and win the support of the American people for that war when it is not justified, in order to gain political success.

 

2. In times of war, the people are more likely to stick with the leader they know, as they consider it risky to go with an unknown. It is also a major tactical advantage as people opposed to war can be called "unpatriotic", and being "soft on terror" by people like yourself. I take seriously the words of General's Scowcroft and Clark because Powell just says what Bush wants him to say.

 

3. It is pretty basic. "Elections coming up. Need to win. Possible issue we can gain advantage: War with Iraq. Also, having control of an extra 20% of the world's oil can't hurt." It is undeniable logic.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

1. You accused the administration of spreading "propaganda," which strongly implies falsehoods. You said that it is folly to believe the government without explaining yourself. You are still lying.

Serious action is justified. The case has been made by Iraq's own actions. The decision to go to war has not been made.

 

2. So, you take more seriously the words of ex-officials who have less information than the words of current officials who have more. Fine. Seems backwards to me, but people can form their own conclusions.

 

3. An invasion of Iraq and a total occupation of Iraq with control over its oil supply are two different things. One, the American people are in favour of by at least a twenty-point margin (Gallup polls, 9/13/02). The other, the American people would never countenance. Your logic would track clean if the United States were an imperialist nation. We aren't.

[Guest EricMM]

I'm getting sick of people stating "Oh well the U.S. set up violent movements INCLUDING Iraq and Bin Ladin in the past, how can they turn around and try to stop them now?"

 

mae, the point is the past is in the past. Just because we made a mistake at one point doesn't mean we can't do the right thing now. How does this possibly make any sense to you?

[Guest danielisthor]

I'm getting sick of people stating "Oh well the U.S. set up violent movements INCLUDING Iraq and Bin Ladin in the past, how can they turn around and try to stop them now?"

Not that i agree with this arguement (nor do i believe that you do) but i will say if we did put them in power or empowered them and they go on to do evil, however small or large, then it is our god given right and responsibility to go in and stop/kill them by any means necessary.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Absolutely. If it's our fault, we should clean it up. Much like Iraq, the more the liberals talk, the stronger they make the case against themselves.

[Guest Ken]

1. You accused the administration of spreading "propaganda," which strongly implies falsehoods. You said that it is folly to believe the government without explaining yourself. You are still lying.

Serious action is justified. The case has been made by Iraq's own actions. The decision to go to war has not been made.

 

Propaganda can mean many different things. In any case, it is generally opinions and viewpoints rather than pure fact. I did say that unquestionably believing the government (as many Americans do) is an extremely bad approach.

 

2. So, you take more seriously the words of ex-officials who have less information than the words of current officials who have more. Fine. Seems backwards to me, but people can form their own conclusions.

 

The reason Powell's opinion isn't worth much, in this particular issue, is that he is simply a mouthpiece for Bush. Anything he says is what Bush wants him to say. If you find me an ex-military man with a contrary opinion to Scowcroft and Clark I'll be happy to listen to it.

 

3. An invasion of Iraq and a total occupation of Iraq with control over its oil supply are two different things. One, the American people are in favour of by at least a twenty-point margin (Gallup polls, 9/13/02). The other, the American people would never countenance. Your logic would track clean if the United States were an imperialist nation. We aren't.

 

It doesn't mean you won't set up a puppet government to run Iraq by proxy though. You aren't by definition an imperialist nation, but it would be fair to say that you like to have a large amount of control over other countries.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

unquestionably believing the government (as many Americans do) is an extremely bad approach

You have a very distorted image of American governance. Our executive, legislative and judicial branches do nothing but question each other constantly and exactingly. There is a fundamental and immitigable tension between them.

 

Powell's opinion isn't worth much... he is simply a mouthpiece for Bush

What a crock. Why even have a Secretary of State? The President expresses his views through the White House Press Secretary, Mr Ari Fleischer, and the Deputy Press Secretary, Mr Scott McClellan. General Colin Powell is neither the Press Secretary nor the Deputy Press Secretary; he is the Secretary of State and a military professional. Your criticism is unfair, baseless, and scurrilous. What, no official who answers to the President can have any credibility whatsoever? In that case, why are you still arguing with me?

Besides, even General Scowcroft didn't say what you claim he said. 9/9/02, on CNN: "The direction the President is taking is exactly the right direction: to reach out; to get our friends, to get our allies, to get the UN involved. I'm not saying 'Don't go after Saddam.' I'm saying, let's put it all in perspective, and remember that when we go after him, we need to have the support of the world community behind us because we need that support for the war on terrorism."

 

It doesn't mean you won't set up a puppet government to run Iraq by proxy though.

So now your argument rests on a postulation of future crimes... boy, Spielberg should've hired you instead of Tom Cruise. Could've saved him a few million dollars.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

"The direction the President is taking is exactly the right direction: to reach out; to get our friends, to get our allies, to get the UN involved. I'm not saying 'Don't go after Saddam.' I'm saying, let's put it all in perspective, and remember that when we go after him, we need to have the support of the world community behind us because we need that support for the war on terrorism."

 

I like that man.

 

I think I put on a fascade that I don't want to go to war at any cost simply because war sucks n'stuff. However, if war is necessary (and I'm yielding to those who know more than I do on that basis), I don't believe we should run into Iraq like Rambo and, with no support, try to take over a country. On the other hand, that's just my (and Gen. Scowcroft's) opinion.

[Guest Ken]

unquestionably believing the government (as many Americans do) is an extremely bad approach

You have a very distorted image of American governance. Our executive, legislative and judicial branches do nothing but question each other constantly and exactingly. There is a fundamental and immitigable tension between them.

 

The unfortunate thing is, on this issue, they appear to be in complete agreement.

 

 

Powell's opinion isn't worth much... he is simply a mouthpiece for Bush

What a crock. Why even have a Secretary of State? The President expresses his views through the White House Press Secretary, Mr Ari Fleischer, and the Deputy Press Secretary, Mr Scott McClellan. General Colin Powell is neither the Press Secretary nor the Deputy Press Secretary; he is the Secretary of State and a military professional. Your criticism is unfair, baseless, and scurrilous. What, no official who answers to the President can have any credibility whatsoever? In that case, why are you still arguing with me?

Besides, even General Scowcroft didn't say what you claim he said. 9/9/02, on CNN: "The direction the President is taking is exactly the right direction: to reach out; to get our friends, to get our allies, to get the UN involved. I'm not saying 'Don't go after Saddam.' I'm saying, let's put it all in perspective, and remember that when we go after him, we need to have the support of the world community behind us because we need that support for the war on terrorism."

 

As he is employed by the President, Powell will say what the President wants him to say. As for Scowcroft's comments, I'd be interested to hear what he has to say today. As for arguing with you, you are hardly General Powell, are you? (At least I'm led to believe that's not the case)

 

It doesn't mean you won't set up a puppet government to run Iraq by proxy though.

So now your argument rests on a postulation of future crimes... boy, Spielberg should've hired you instead of Tom Cruise. Could've saved him a few million dollars.

 

Happened in Afghanistan, didn't it? What makes you think it won't happen again.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The unfortunate thing is, on this issue, they appear to be in complete agreement.

Unfortunate? No. I'd say it's telling.

 

As for arguing with you, you are hardly General Powell, are you? (At least I'm led to believe that's not the case)

Of course I'm not General Powell. I have no military rank and I'm not a member of the cabinet. But I do answer to the President. So, once again: if you think everything General Powell says is worthless, based solely on the fact that he serves the President, why are you bothering to argue with me?

 

Happened in Afghanistan, didn't it?

Excuse the FUCK out of me? We're exploiting Afghanistan?! Who's giving who hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild roads, feed and educate people, pay people, train a national army... fuck it, this is just ridiculous. You're so intent on making America the bad guy, you don't even try to make sense.

[Guest Ken]

As for arguing with you, you are hardly General Powell, are you? (At least I'm led to believe that's not the case)

Of course I'm not General Powell. I have no military rank and I'm not a member of the cabinet. But I do answer to the President. So, once again: if you think everything General Powell says is worthless, based solely on the fact that he serves the President, why are you bothering to argue with me?

 

Even though George comes and consults with you on a daily basis, because you are not a high ranking official, or a respected commentator, to be blunt, no-one in the general public really cares what you think; or what I think for that matter.

 

Who's giving who hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild roads, feed and educate people, pay people, train a national army... fuck it, this is just ridiculous. You're so intent on making America the bad guy, you don't even try to make sense.

 

The reason you're not trying to exploit Afghanistan is that there is nothing really to exploit. And don't get me wrong, what the U.S has done in Afghanistan has been beneficial for that country.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The President does not consult me on a daily basis. The general public does not get the benefit of my professional opinions; I give my advice and my analyses to those who do speak to the public.

And you have not answered the question. If you don't care about what Secretary of State Colin Powell says, why do you care about what I say? We both answer to the same man. If answering to the President destroys a person's credibility, I'm the last person you should be arguing with, as I am clearly part of your postulated conspiracy.

[Guest EricMM]

Not that i agree with this arguement (nor do i believe that you do) but i will say if we did put them in power or empowered them and they go on to do evil, however small or large, then it is our god given right and responsibility to go in and stop/kill them by any means necessary.

 

Of course.

 

What I mean is this:

 

Person A: We should go stop Iraq from doing this this and this.

Person B: How hypocritical, America created Iraq.

Person A: ...So?

Person B: AMERICA IS TEH EVIL!!!

 

The fact that America funded Iraq in the past, or messed around in Panama, or any negative thing that we did in the past is relatively... IRRELEVANT, compared to the current events. If we've done something bad in the past, call it Panama, Grenada, anything, that has no bearing on whether or not we should stop Hussein.

[Guest Ken]

You are worth arguing with for the simple fact that I enjoy arguing. The fact that Powell works for the President dictates he won't give an independent opinion, it will just be what Bush wants him to say. If he was retired I would be most interested in what he has to say. Because he is a mouthpiece of Bush I'm not. Also, just because I reject his opinion doesn't mean I not willing to argue the point.