Author Topic: Da speech...  (Read 2184 times)

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Da speech...
« Reply #45 on: October 09, 2002, 06:36:53 AM »
I fly F-16's for the CIA.

Offline Dowding (Work)

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Da speech...
« Reply #46 on: October 09, 2002, 06:40:49 AM »
Yeah? And I'm Kate Winslet's bikini line waxer. Everyone knows that the CIA only flies F-22s, you fraud!

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Da speech...
« Reply #47 on: October 09, 2002, 06:43:01 AM »
I feel a brain tumor coming on.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Da speech...
« Reply #48 on: October 09, 2002, 09:12:58 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by funkedup
Dear Sandman,


Yeah... it's a funny poster. Think I even posted it for Udie to enjoy.

There's just one flaw in it... the part about protecting America. A great number of the populace are unconvinced that Hussein can threaten America.

It's a fine poster to wave around at the timid before we dropped down and smashed the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. They had it coming.

I do not trust Dubya's motives WRT Iraq. I am unconvinced of the threat. I am unconvinced that there is a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
sand

Offline Kanth

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2462
Da speech...
« Reply #49 on: October 09, 2002, 09:25:41 AM »
That's probably just gas.


Quote
Originally posted by funkedup
I feel a brain tumor coming on.
Gone from the game. Please see Spikes or Nefarious for any Ahevents.net admin needs.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Da speech...
« Reply #50 on: October 09, 2002, 10:02:13 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by funkedup
I feel a brain tumor coming on.


Could be confused with the bite of a particular species of Arkansas scorpion.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Da speech...
« Reply #51 on: October 09, 2002, 10:41:40 AM »
I have  yet to be convinced that Iraq has done anything that would justify a unilateral attack by the United States with the stated goal of removing their present government. In short, I have seen nothing that would be cause for "just war".

OTOH, I see Iraq as a very "clear and present danger" to the United States population, to use Tom Clancy's description. I see it as a training ground for terrorists (I have yet to see anyone come up with any other explanation for the civilian aircraft mockup at Salman Pak and the testimony of the Iraqi officer in charge of that operation). I see it as a probably supplier of C/B/N weaponry to Islamic terrorists that would (obviously) give more than their right nut to strike a major blow against the US. I think they are sheltering members of the Al-Qaeda organization.

Now, given those two "beliefs" what do I think?

Without specific UN authorization, the US has no business attacking Iraq with the goal of replacing its present government. Sorry, but if we did that without UN sanction, we'd be no different than any other tin-pot dictator taking a place like, say, Kuwait and removing its government.

So, I think we have to wait for a UN consensus to replace Hussein by force.

The ugly side of this is that I think it is inevitable that the US will be struck with a C/B/N weapon of mass destruction by Islamic terrorists. I am also nearly certain that Iraq will be the most likely supplier of such a weapon. But after that attack, it won't matter.

Because I think the American people will finally have had enough and there will be an overwhelming change in our world outlook.

From that Guardian article in the other thread:

Quote
But I wonder if the rest of the anti-Yank set have thought it through. When they squeak about America’s warmongering but think the UN’s the perfect vehicle to restrain it, you know they’re just posing, and that, though they may routinely say that ‘Bush frightens me’, they’re not frightened at all. America could project itself anywhere and blow up anything, but it doesn’t. It could tell the UN to go diddly itself, but it’s not that impolite. Imagine any previous power of the last thousand years with America’s unrivalled hegemony and unparalleled military superiority in a unipolar world with nothing to stand in its way but UN resolutions. Pick whoever you like: the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, the Third Reich, the Habsburgs, Tsarist Russia, Napoleon, Spain, the Vikings. That’s really ‘frightening’.



I personally believe that AFTER a C/B/N attack on the US, the American attitude and willingness to engage will be radically altered. Blood will cry out for blood, and not just Saddam's. I think our mindset will be that if we are finally forced to act, we'll act against ALL those we consider threats. We'll settle this once and be done with it. And it'll be done in the fastest most efficient manner, exposing our troops as little as possible. In short, I think we'll reply in kind.

As the writer of the Guardian article said, "That's really 'frightening'.

So would it be best to demonstrate our resolve and perhaps head this scenario off by attacking Iraq?

I just don't know. But I sure as heck don't like either option.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2002, 12:24:44 PM by Toad »
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline H. Godwineson

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 551
Da speech...
« Reply #52 on: October 09, 2002, 10:45:53 AM »
Midnight,

Arkansas does have scorpions but they are seldom a threat to anyone...they don't live long enough.   The gnats eat 'em.


On the question of "What to do about Saddam?" :  I am interested in hearing some of our more liberal cousins' ideas on how to handle that situation.  Do they suggest that we follow the path of Chamberlain?  Do they seriously deny that the man is a threat?  Do they recommend anything other than the imposition of more sanctions?  Do they think that we should simply wait until he actually uses one of them against us?  He has already used biological weapons against the Kurds, what makes them think he wouldn't use them against us?  Should we wait for another 9/11 before taking action against him?  For those still critical of our actions during the Gulf War:  Was it in our best interests to allow one of our worst enemies to control a major portion of the world's oil supply?  Do you seriously believe he would have stopped with Kuwait?  What would have been the impact on the U.S. economy if our Middle Eastern oil supplier was a hostile Saddam Hussein?  Do we not have an obligation to stop hostile actions against our fellow men, whether they are Kuwaitis or not?  Are we not our brothers' keepers?

What purpose is served by sitting on our hands and waiting?

Regards, Shuckins

Offline N1kPaz

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
i find....
« Reply #53 on: October 09, 2002, 10:54:26 AM »
all the euro criticism of US leaders hilarios.. especially coming from a bunch of pot bellied video game freaks (of which i am a card carrying member LOL) that could not even begin to do the job Bush or Rumsfeld do.

gosh...if you guys are so hip on politics and know how to run the world, do us all a favor and use your freedom (at the expense of the US taxpayer BTW) to run for office..

where would all you american hating euros be if the US had not spent billions defending your tulips from the USSR in the cold war. How about spending some of your own money on your OWN DEFENSE...and then maybe you will have military might enough to project YOUR will on the world...until then..


WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! :( :( :( :( :(


these armchair politicians are comical....

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Da speech...
« Reply #54 on: October 09, 2002, 11:33:05 AM »
I got no problem with squashing Hussein like the bug he is, just lets be sure this is necessary. (short version of what Toad said above).
 

OTOH, linking Al Quaida with Saddam seems to me like mixing oil and water. Saddam's version of Islam is completely at odds with Bin Laden's. They should be mortal enemies. Has there been any credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Quaida?

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Da speech...
« Reply #55 on: October 09, 2002, 12:37:22 PM »
Quote
Has there been any credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Quaida?




I'll not present these as "irrefutable evidence", rather these are places to begin you own research in order to resolve that question for yourself.

*******

"Palestinian born Director of External Operations for Iraqi Intelligence, the new  Ambassador to Turkey, Farouk Hijazi, traveled to Kandahar, Afghanistan in December, 1998 and met with  Osama Bin Laden.

"Terrorist cells belonging to the network organized by Osama bin Laden...are ready go into action in the countries of the Persian Gulf and Europe...The list of targets is ready. It was agreed in Kandahar 21 December by Osama himself and Farouk Hijazi... The new recruits, together with the veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Bosnia, form the secret army that is expected to use its weapons against all those who oppose the rais of Baghdad. In order to make them even more dangerous, traditional training has been supplemented with training in the use of chemical weapons, toxins and viruses."  [Corriere della Sera, February 1, 1999 (Italia)]

************

"The Abu Nidal Organization (Fatah Revolutionary Council, Arab Revolutionary Brigades, Black September, Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims) split from the PLO in 1974. carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries. The leader, Abu Nidal, relocated to Baghdad in late 1998. Iraq had never admitted Abu Nidal was in the country until reports of his death in Baghdad emerged."
 
*********

"Iraq supports and supplies  the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, known to be completely controlled by Iraqi intelligence within Iraq's borders. "

**********
 

"The Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), led by Abu Abbas, is one of three factions of the original PFLP that split up in 1977. They reject the middle east peace process and use terrorism in their quest to establish an independent Palestinian.  Following the attack against the Achille Lauro ship in October 1985, Abu Abbas was expelled by the Tunisian authorities and established his headquarters in Baghdad."

*************
 

"On October 14, 2000, A London-bound Saudi airliner was hijacked.  They landed in Baghdad where the passengers were released. Saddam granted the hijackers asylum. The Iraqi regime rebuffed a request from Riyadh for the extradition of two Saudi hijackers. Disregarding its obligations under international law, the regime granted political asylum to the hijackers and time on Iraqi television to vent their criticisms of alleged abuses by the Saudi Arabian Government, echoing an Iraqi propaganda theme."


*************

Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the WTC bombing in 1993 entered the US on an Iraqi passport, originating his flight from Iraq. His intelligence file in Kuwait was altered by Iraqi officials during the occupation of Kuwait. Abdul Yasin, also involved in the bombing returned to Iraq and is living in Baghdad.  
 
*************
In November 2001, two defectors from the Iraqi intelligence services said that Iraq had used Salman Pak, a camp south of Baghdad, to train Islamist radicals in the techniques of terrorism, including training on a Boeing 707 fuselage in the desert.

Salman Pak: An Iraqi Lt. general and Captain Sabah Khodada defected from Iraq and emigrated to the US in May, 2001. In separate New York Times interviews, they described Salman Pak, a highly secret terrorist training camp south of Baghdad. The trainees were Iraqi, and non-Iraqi Arabs.

*************  
 
Saddam has openly and vigorously supported Palestinian suicide bombers, paying families of suicide bombers $25,000 and building a Baghdad memorial to the first woman suicide bomber.
 
***************

Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish Islamic extremist group, has terrorized the northern Iraq Kurd safe-haven over the past fourteen months. The group has had al-Qaeda associations since 1989. The Iraqi government provided cash and training to Ansar, in a bid to destabilize the safe haven and weaken armed Kurdish opponents.

************

Qassem Hussein Mohamed who is being held in a Kurdish prison, was a Mukhabarat intelligence officer for 20 years. In an April interview by the Christian Science Monitor in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, he said that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has supported Ansar al-Islam for several years.

"Ansar and Al Qaeda groups were trained by graduates of the Mukhabarat's School 999 -- military intelligence," says Mr. Mohamed."

"My information is that the Iraqi government was directly supporting [Al Qaeda] with weapons and explosives," he says. "[Ansar] was part of Al Qaeda, and given support with training and money."
 
*********

Mohammed Atta, leader of the 911 terrorists, met with an Iraqi Intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic in early April, 2001.

The Czech's claim to have photos of this meeting.

**********


These items come from :

COMMON CAUSE

I can't vouch for them but they are a good starting place to do a little research on your own. That's what I'm doing, anyway.

Does seem to me that there's an awful lot of smoke for there not to be some fire, though.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Da speech...
« Reply #56 on: October 09, 2002, 01:45:10 PM »
Sandman I'm just busting your balls.

Your skepticism about the war is understandable.

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
Da speech...
« Reply #57 on: October 10, 2002, 01:00:17 AM »
I prefer the simple words someone else from this forum said on the topic.


(America's) action today will be conventional. Tomorrow's reaction will be nuclear.

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
Da speech...
« Reply #58 on: October 10, 2002, 03:25:05 AM »
Kudos on yer straight up call, Toad.

"Without specific UN authorization, the US has no business attacking Iraq with the goal of replacing its present government. Sorry, but if we did that without UN sanction, we'd be no different than any other tin-pot dictator taking a place like, say, Kuwait and removing its government.

Let me paraphrase this, and let me know if I get this wrong... (though no, I don't think so).

"If Bush does attack Iraq without UN sanction, then  Bush is a tin-pot dictator who is no different than Hussien and his attack on a foreign country."

That makes things interesting doesn't it, Toad?

I'm sure all of us would rather the people of Iraq rise up and deal with the problem of their tin-pot dictator, and spare everyone else the trouble. And death. And though it's understandable under the circumstances, it's still frustrating that they don't.

Given that....

If Bush attacks Iraq without UN sanction, Toad, what would you be willing to sacrifice.... what would you be willing to do... in dealing with your own tin-pot dictator? (you said that, not me).

Notable is the fact that y'all pride yerselves on your guns for this very situation. Hunting? Sure... ok whatever...  but first and gawdamn foremost is your argument that the framers meant for folks to pack heat in the event of a government gone mad. It's in the constitution or something.

Yegads the irony of this, if anyone stops to notice, is rich beyond belief.

A "tin-pot dictator" slowly (nay quickly!) and methodically stripping y'all of yer rights, freedoms, and privacy... And you... Republicans.... supposed keepers of the faith... cheering him on at every step. Embracing it! Suckling on the hairy nipple of that which you profess to hate.

Somehow the bizzare toejam in history.... the things where you go "I can't fathom how that came to be... how'd they get duped like that... how'd they let that hapen to themselves?" seems a lot more... cripes... real.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2002, 03:34:24 AM by Nash »

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Da speech...
« Reply #59 on: October 10, 2002, 03:39:51 AM »
Quote
Pick whoever you like: the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, the Third Reich, the Habsburgs, Tsarist Russia, Napoleon, Spain, the Vikings. That’s really ‘frightening’.


It's truly an article from the Guardian ... Great Britain is missing from the list ...