Saddam challenges Bush to televised debate

[Guest JMA]

And why not? Who would know more? Who is built to fight them? The Israelis are the authorities when doing this. They've infiltrated numerous terrorist cells and fought them since the 40's.

 

So tell me why they wouldn't be a good source.

Because they've done some questionable stuff as well.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

This is about as serious (and has as much chance of happening) as Bischoff's challenge to Vince to fight him at Slamboree. Even so, imagine the buyrate for this on PPV? To steal a line from Leno: "The Butcher of Bahgdad vs. The Butcher of the English Language".

[Guest BDC]

Because they've done some questionable stuff as well.

 

And of course, them doing their job makes them questionable. It's written into the Israeli constitution to allow for things like assassination because if the Israelis lose, they're done.

[Guest JMA]

And of course, them doing their job makes them questionable. It's written into the Israeli constitution to allow for things like assassination because if the Israelis lose, they're done.

Exactly. There's so determined to get rid of the Muslim extremists. Desperation makes one do things that would normally go against one's conscience. Basically, right now Israel sees the end as justifying the means. I wouldn't put it past them to give false information.

[Guest DrTom]

Because they've done some questionable stuff as well.

Classic moral relativism. The "questionable" things they've done happen because they're surrounded by a billion or so people who would love to see them eradicated off the map.

 

I wouldn't put it past them to give false information.

Mossad and Shin Bet are both first-class organizations.

[Guest Some Guy]

Sigh. I really wish Bush Sr. would have taken out Saddam when he had the chance. He probably would've won the election if he did (not that I'd want him to). Anyways, Bush Jr. could gain a lot of credibility with voters if he doesn't take ANY oil from Iraq. That would guarantee him more votes.

I would be pissed if we didn't get a good oil deal out of this. It will cost billions to fight this war and to rebuild Iraq and most importantly t will cost American lives. We should get oil out of this deal, if we didn't I would lose respect for the Pres. We need a reliable sourse of oil and post-Saddam Iraq is a good place to get it. This is of course secondary to our security and that remains the primary reason to go in and take out Saddam.

[Guest treble charged]

But, bin Laden was the figurehead, so to speak, of 9/11.  People wanted his head on a stake, and, so far Bush hasn't done that.  However, saying, 'Hey look, I got rid of Saddam!' could very easily take people's minds off of bin Laden.

To expect us to publically display his head on a stake for all to see is unrealistic. Yes, he was the figurehead. But what people don't understand is that if he's dead, nothing will change. Someone else will just take his place. So to focus all our attention on one man is rediculous.

 

Who's to say he's not dead and buried under rubble and that all these messages we get are fakes? With all the bombs we dropped in Afganistan, we can't say with 100% accuracy who's dead and who's alive - but most are dead.

I realize this, but I think that most of the general public would rest easier if they had proof that bin Laden was dead. He was the face that most people linked to 9/11, and to most people, the object of the war was to have him dead. We may have succeeded, we may not have. All I'm saying, Bush can now go after Saddam and either have him killed or taken out of power and try to get people to forget about the fact that bin Laden still may be out there.

[Guest Some Guy]

TC, do you think that America has stopped looking for him? It's not like we're ignoring Afghanistan and their problems. Karsai was at the White House yesterday or the day before. Right now bin Laden and his group are at a very weak point, we killed or arrested many of their troops, froze many of their funds, and took out their primary shelter. They are not as potentially dangerous right now as Saddam is.

[Guest treble charged]

I know they just haven't gone, 'Oh, forget bin Laden, we're going on to Saddam now', but they've realized that they may not be able to get him now, so they've turned Saddam into public enemy #1 to try and get people to forget about bin Laden, possibly because they think Saddam is easier to get rid of.

[Guest Some Guy]

Well Saddam might be easier to find but I think you're mssing the point. Saddam has been publci enemy #1 on and off for the last 12 years, Milsosovic (sp?), Adeid (sp?), bin Laden, John Ashcroft, and a few others haev taken his place for a short time, but Saddam has been and remains the biggest known threat to humanity in the world for the last 12 years. It's well beyond the time that we should have taken him out, but the time is now, we have teh proper administration in place and we're going to do it. All teh while still doing small missions around the Middle East looking for terrorists and OBL.

[Guest treble charged]

It just to me, at least (and I'm sure to a lot of other people, too) that Bush couldn't get bin Laden (and by that, I mean proof that he's dead or in captivity somewhere), so now he's going after Saddam as a way of saving face as now he's replaced bin Laden with Saddam as the symbol of the war on terrorism.

[Guest Some Guy]

I'm sure it does seem that way to you and many others. How many of those people support the President? How many are lookig for any reason to question him and to hurt his popularity? How many of those people want to avoid taking Saddam out at any cost?

 

I can understand your point, I disagree with it though. In teh first full Cabinat meeting after 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld said something along the line of, "is this the time to go after Saddam?" The response from most of the Cabinet was, "no, al Qeada first and then we'll deal with Saddam." This has been 12 years in the making, al Qeada is for the most part crushed, now it's Saddam's turn.

[Guest JMA]

Classic moral relativism.

I don't see anything wrong with moral relativism.

 

The "questionable" things they've done happen because they're surrounded by a billion or so people who would love to see them eradicated off the map.

So are the Muslims. They hate and villainize each other. There are extremists on both sides who care not if they kill innocent men, women, and children. We know for a fact that some Muslim countries support terrorists on their side. How do we know Israel doesn't do the same?

[Guest JMA]

I would be pissed if we didn't get a good oil deal out of this. It will cost billions to fight this war and to rebuild Iraq and most importantly t will cost American lives. We should get oil out of this deal, if we didn't I would lose respect for the Pres. We need a reliable sourse of oil and post-Saddam Iraq is a good place to get it. This is of course secondary to our security and that remains the primary reason to go in and take out Saddam.

That will just reinforce views about the war being for oil. I don't think the US should even take a thimbel full of oil from Iraq. We take Saddam out and just leave. End of story.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

President Bush said the War on Terror would be a long task for the United States.

 

What terrorist groups could the Isreali's support. It sure has hell isn't any Muslim Group.

[Guest SP-1]

I would be pissed if we didn't get a good oil deal out of this.  It will cost billions to fight this war and to rebuild Iraq and most importantly t will cost American lives.  We should get oil out of this deal, if we didn't I would lose respect for the Pres.  We need a reliable sourse of oil and post-Saddam Iraq is a good place to get it.  This is of course secondary to our security and that remains the primary reason to go in and take out Saddam.

That will just reinforce views about the war being for oil. I don't think the US should even take a thimbel full of oil from Iraq. We take Saddam out and just leave. End of story.

But wouldn't cutting off an export from a developing country be counter-productive to helping them get back on their feet? As a country that could become a potential financian ally of whatever new government comes to power, taking outselves out of doing business with them over oil might not be such a good idea either. I'm not an expert, but that came to mind.

[Guest JMA]

President Bush said the War on Terror would be a long task for the United States.

 

What terrorist groups could the Isreali's support. It sure has hell isn't any Muslim Group.

Feb.03.2003 Israeli Terrorists Kill 72 Palestinians, 24 Children

 

According to Dr. Ahmad Ashibi, the Palestinian Minister of Health, at least 72 Palestinians, including 24 children were killed on January 2003 by the Israeli terrorist units of the occupation army.

 

38 of the martyrs were from Gaza, including 13 children, and 34 from the West Bank, including 11 children. Ali Taleb Aziz, 8, from Rafah was the youngest to be killed.

 

The Israeli terrorists have escalated their brutal attacks against defenseless Palestinians by mounting large-scale military operations, incursions, storming and reoccupying of towns and refugee camps, demolition of houses and abducting hundreds of civilians, in addition to the Israeli operations of liquidation and assassination.

 

Minister Asshibi indicated that 6 Palestinians were liquidated by the Israeli occupation troops, while 9 martyrs, including two mentally ill, were subjected to torture, and their bodies had been deformed by terrorist Israelis.

 

Moreover, as for the wounded Palestinians in the same month, they tallied 790, including 602 of the West Bank’s citizens, 150 of the Palestinian captives in the Israeli concentration camp of Ofra, who were beaten and bombarded by gas-canisters.

 

On the other hand, the Israeli occupation troops stormed on Sunday the Negev Concentration Camp, wounding at least 60 Palestinian captives, some of them sustained serious injuries as they had been exposed to attacks by gas-canisters, incendiary and sound bombs.

 

In Hebron 22 Palestinian residential buildings were demolished by the Israeli army of occupation in the biggest Israeli drive to pave the ground for further Judaization of the area.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

^^^^^ Link/Source for that please?

 

See, this is the oil thing:

 

The US plans to run Iraq for a few years before making a government.

 

It is assumed then that once a government is in place and the oil is put up for sale, American companies will be practically guaranteed over countries like Japan or Russia or what have you offer. Because not doing so leaves fear they may have hurt somebody's feelings and the rebuilding process is slowed or left on their nickel.

 

The big Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy beyond all this is, of course, that a LOT of people in this Administration have ties to oil companies.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

That's a reliable source? Palestinians have been known to lie about what Isreal does. Innocent people are killed. That's more the fault of the terrorist who but them in harm's way.

[Guest EricMM]

oh man, where did you get that news report? It doesn't sound very unbiased to me....

 

Here's the thing. If the Israelis give the Palastinians freedom, someone comes into a Jewish area and blows themselves up. This has been documented. This is because many Palestinians want to conquer Israel, etc. They want to kill every single Jew in the middle east.

 

When you're dealing with that, what can you do? The Palestinian terrorists live in cities, they make their weapons in cities and they attack in and from cities. If the Israelis are to defend themselves, they need to go into cities.

[Guest JMA]

^^^^^ Link/Source for that please?

http://www.jerusalemites.org/news/english/...h/feb2003/3.htm

[Guest JMA]

When you're dealing with that, what can you do? The Palestinian terrorists live in cities, they make their weapons in cities and they attack in and from cities. If the Israelis are to defend themselves, they need to go into cities.

Are you saying terrorism is justifiable if the people hate you?

[Guest Olympic Slam]

It just to me, at least (and I'm sure to a lot of other people, too) that Bush couldn't get bin Laden (and by that, I mean proof that he's dead or in captivity somewhere), so now he's going after Saddam as a way of saving face as now he's replaced bin Laden with Saddam as the symbol of the war on terrorism.

Bin-Laden is such a non-issue. He's the figure-head of 9/11 because the media and the president needed a villain and neither of them wanted to come out and say "we're going to war against radical Islam."

 

And so what if we catch Bin-Laden? That's like killing one rat and expecting the rat problem in your basement to be over with. There's thousands of little Osama-Bin Laden's being born, trained, and brainwashed in that part of the world everyday. The solution? Get a cat to sort things out. Afghanistan is a good start (methinks we didn't solve much as the Northern Alliance is still pretty crazy) and Iraq is the logical step up.

[Guest treble charged]

It just to me, at least (and I'm sure to a lot of other people, too) that Bush couldn't get bin Laden (and by that, I mean proof that he's dead or in captivity somewhere), so now he's going after Saddam as a way of saving face as now he's replaced bin Laden with Saddam as the symbol of the war on terrorism.

Bin-Laden is such a non-issue. He's the figure-head of 9/11 because the media and the president needed a villain and neither of them wanted to come out and say "we're going to war against radical Islam."

 

And so what if we catch Bin-Laden? That's like killing one rat and expecting the rat problem in your basement to be over with. There's thousands of little Osama-Bin Laden's being born, trained, and brainwashed in that part of the world everyday. The solution? Get a cat to sort things out. Afghanistan is a good start (methinks we didn't solve much as the Northern Alliance is still pretty crazy) and Iraq is the logical step up.

I'm not denying any of that, I'm just saying that most people saw bin Laden as the 'face of terrorism', so to speak, and since he hasn't been caught yet, that title has been transfered over to Saddam and we're going to go after him, instead.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

I don't see anything wrong with moral relativism.

Are you kidding me?

[Guest JMA]

I'm not denying any of that, I'm just saying that most people saw bin Laden as the 'face of terrorism', so to speak, and since he hasn't been caught yet, that title has been transfered over to Saddam and we're going to go after him, instead.

TC has a point. Bush may just be going after Saddam because of his failure to capture Osama.

[Guest JMA]

Are you kidding me?

You know the answer to that. No, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I'm not denying any of that, I'm just saying that most people saw bin Laden as the 'face of terrorism', so to speak, and since he hasn't been caught yet, that title has been transfered over to Saddam and we're going to go after him, instead.

TC has a point. Bush may just be going after Saddam because of his failure to capture Osama.

So what? You guys are just making cute little conjectures that have no value. Messing up America hating countries and dictators is MUCH better than catching some rich guy in a cave.

 

Bush not catching Bin-Laden might hurt him politically though as the uninformed public masses have been told that Bin-Laden is the key to the war on terror.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

I'm not denying any of that, I'm just saying that most people saw bin Laden as the 'face of terrorism', so to speak, and since he hasn't been caught yet, that title has been transfered over to Saddam and we're going to go after him, instead.

Just a thought to consider:

 

Not that I'm arguing this as an excuse or saying that bin Laden shouldn't be killed... but wouldn't it stand to reason that getting rid of the 'face of terrorism' would cause the public to relax too much, thinking the worst is over?

[Guest treble charged]

Bush not catching Bin-Laden might hurt him politically though as the uninformed public masses have been told that Bin-Laden is the key to the war on terror.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. It looks bad to most people that he couldn't get bin Laden, so he goes after Saddam to save face. That's what I've been saying all along.