Author Topic: The Campaign of Hate and Fear (Read 1603 times)

Hortlund · « **Reply #15 on:** December 16, 2003, 04:48:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
A person might say that the lives lost in Iraq were wasted in regards to the war on terror.

So under Saddam, there was NO LINK between Iraq and terroristm?

Hortlund · « **Reply #16 on:** December 16, 2003, 04:54:12 PM »

the link is here btw

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004435

Those are not my words airhead, talk to the author of the article I quoted.

Pongo · « **Reply #17 on:** December 16, 2003, 05:05:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
So under Saddam, there was NO LINK between Iraq and terroristm?

About the same as between Britain, France, Russia, or America and terrorism. All these countries have supported "thier" insurgents against other countries.

They were definatly supporting the Palistinian uprising but there is no other link shown that would in any way justify an invasion. The palistinians at the time were not 'terrorists' in the US dictionary.

But anyway. Scott feels that every country that can be invaded under the guise of fighting terrorists..should be invaded. That is a very extreme view and I can see why he feels disenfranchised by the current republican leadership candidates.

Hortlund · « **Reply #18 on:** December 16, 2003, 05:12:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
About the same as between Britain, France, Russia, or America and terrorism. All these countries have supported "thier" insurgents against other countries.

[/b]
Please list the number and names of terrorist organizations supported by Britain or the US in the 2001-2003 time period.

Quote

They were definatly supporting the Palistinian uprising but there is no other link shown that would in any way justify an invasion. The palistinians at the time were not 'terrorists' in the US dictionary.

[/b]
Oh yes they were. Hamas and Hezbollah and Al Aqusa Martyrs Brigades were all listed as terrorist organizations by the US before the invasion of Iraq. And...incidentally, all these three organizations recieved both financial and other support from Iraq.

If we are talking about a war on terror, then how can the lives lost in Iraq be wasted (your words, not mine) when we have removed one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism? One of the key features on the war on terror is to remove the nations that support terrorism...well, with Iraq and Afghanistan finished, its two down, five to go.

Airhead · « **Reply #19 on:** December 16, 2003, 05:28:38 PM »

Steve, I noticed the link is "Opinion." That's OK, I just disagree with that opinion based upon my personal experiences in Viet Nam training ARVNs.

Toad, I'll check it out, thanks for the recomendation.

midnight Target · « **Reply #20 on:** December 16, 2003, 05:36:37 PM »

It worked in Somalia, and in Viet Nam.....

Why Oh Why is Lebanon never mentioned in this little list?

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #21 on:** December 16, 2003, 05:50:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
No he is supporting the war in Iraq and dissing the Democratic leadership as traitors.

Ah, ok - must have mixed Hortland up with someone else.

Still too much to read for me - Im convinced I have ADD.

Pongo · « **Reply #22 on:** December 16, 2003, 06:11:02 PM »

Did terrorism begin in 2001? Maybe in sweden.

No the PLO has not been a terrorist orginization in the US lexicon again till quite recently. Period.

Iraq was not one of the biggest or even a big state sponsor of terrorism. So you point is mute. Keep saying it if you like.

Sandman · « **Reply #23 on:** December 16, 2003, 06:15:56 PM »

I guess Card's opinion makes some sense as long as you agree that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with terrorism.

I don't believe that it did.

Toad · « **Reply #24 on:** December 16, 2003, 06:31:30 PM »

Air,

Here's a publisher's blurb.

Quote

Book Description
Neglected by scholars and journalists alike, the years of conflict in Vietnam from 1968 to 1975 offer surprises not only about how the war was fought, but about what was achieved. Drawing on authoritative materials not previously available, including thousands of hours of tape-recorded allied councils of war, award-winning military historian Lewis Sorley has given us what has long been needed-an insightful, factual, and superbly documented history of these important years. Among his findings is that the war was being won on the ground even as it was being lost at the peace table and in the U.S. Congress. The story is a great human drama of purposeful and principled service in the face of an agonizing succession of lost opportunities, told with uncommon understanding and compassion. Sorley documents the dramatic differences in conception, conduct, and-at least for a time-results between the early and the later war. Meticulously researched and movingly told, A Better War is sure to stimulate controversy as it sheds brilliant new light on the war in Vietnam.

You won't agree with everything in the book; I didn't.

However, the book does make one THINK and his documentation is superb. The footnotes alone are very interesting stuff.

It certainly challenges the "pat answer" about VietNam. As I said, it'll make you think.

I enjoyed it.

Hortlund · « **Reply #25 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:19:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Did terrorism begin in 2001? Maybe in sweden.

[/b]
Did the world change in 2001? Anyway, I see you neglected to list any terrorist organizations supported by the US or UK since 2001... Does this mean that you admit you cant?

Quote

No the PLO has not been a terrorist orginization in the US lexicon again till quite recently. Period.

[/b]
Who said anything about PLO? If you look back at my post you will note that I was talking about Hamas, Hezbollah and Al aqcsa martyrs brigades. For the record I dont think PLO is classed as a terrorist organization now even. Although it should be.

Quote

Iraq was not one of the biggest or even a big state sponsor of terrorism. So you point is mute. Keep saying it if you like.

Eh, no, my point is not mute. My point is only mute if you distort the truth or ignore huge chunks of it. To say that Iraq was not a big state sponsor of terrorism is just about as dumb as saying that Syria isnt right now. It only shows that you dont know what you are talking about.

Hortlund · « **Reply #26 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:23:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I guess Card's opinion makes some sense as long as you agree that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with terrorism.

I don't believe that it did.

And you would be wrong too...just like Pongo.

If one of the effects of the invasion of Iraq is that three of the top 10 terrorist organizations in the world lose one of their biggest supporter, backer and funder... Would that fall into the category "this has got nothing to do with terrorism" in your world?

Eh...what? Look at that sentence again...

According to Sandman, removing one of the biggest supporter, backer, funder for AT LEAST three terrorist organizations has got nothing to do with terrorism?

Your Bush hate is consuming you, it has reached the logical center of the brain now. Fight it...there is still good in you, I know it.

Pongo · « **Reply #27 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:29:07 AM »

Spin it all you like hortland. Terrorism against isreal was not terrorism in the US eye till very recently. That is exaclty why Bush didnt make a big deal about the link between Sadam and those orginisations until several months into the invasion.
spin away. have fun.
It speaks to the centeral issue of the war on terror. Our freedom fighters are another countries terrorists. If you cant see that I will just opt out of your little rant..

Sandman · « **Reply #28 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:29:13 AM »

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031215/usnews/15terror.htm

AKIron · « **Reply #29 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:31:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Spin it all you like hortland. Terrorism against isreal was not terrorism in the US eye till very recently.

Please define recently.