Pre-emptive Strike in Iraq

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by spillmind, Sep 23, 2003.

  1. janeeng
    Online

    janeeng Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    oooohhh! boo hoo! I should sit in a corner in cry! he refers to me as a dog! but let's see if this waste of life has the BALLS, which I think you have none! can post a picture of yourself, I had no problem!!!!

    whine whine!!! bitch bitch!!! I have to excuse myself to get a tissue and wipe the tears from my eyes!!!!! hahaha, you pathetic little excuse for a human, YOU LITTLE TROLL!!!!
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +249
    And yet another link:

    http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

    Each page I have found lists 10-20 links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

    It doesn't matter to Bry whether or not it is from British Intelligence, American intelligence, former diplomats, former operatives... I guess it won't be believable unless Saddam came out and admitted so himself.

    Where there is smoke there is fire.
     
  3. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +546
    I've read as much history as you, and probably more, and am well aware that America was split into three approximately equally numbered camps - Patriots, Loyalists, and the undecided.
    You are right, the French navy did a lot more than the fledgling American Navy in the Revolution. In case you didn't notice, the US Navy was founded in 1775, in the middle of a war - not a lot of time to build warships to fight against England's armada.
    As far as the Americans never taking part in anything besides 'guerilla harassment,' I beg to differ. While the French fought alongside us, Americans fought several significant battles that ultimately led to the independence of the colonies.
    And if the ones who had the most to gain, both in terms of money and power, fought for independence, then those who had the most to gain by keeping the status quo fought for the Crown. So your whole corrupt-motives theory is a double-edged sword.

    And by the way, pal, I don't need my mother to read to me. I have a history degree from West Point - probably more than you will attain to educationally.


     
  4. Bry
    Offline

    Bry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +3
    Dear Jimnyc,

    I have a certain respect for you, apart from the other posters here that seem to share your ideology. You are the only one that bothers to share links to "information". I found the information supplied in this most recent offering interesting, and no doubt it would support your argument emmensely if a few of the assertions were found to be true. However, upon arriving at the end of the article, I was excited about the prospect of finding a list of sources and dates, but alas I was disappointed. From their introduction appealing to "A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994." they were unable to elaborate, give dates, or discuss reliablity of sources. I did find at the conclusion of the article, however, this important link to a sponsor:

    http://www.gm.com/flash_homepage/

    If the truth were half as damning as the assertions suggest, Bush would be plowing full steam ahead with his claims of a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq. The hypothesized money trail alone would be enough. As it is, even insiders are portraying Cheney as a rottweiler with one thing on his mind. Now, I ask you: why is this information squirreled away to the back pages of a tech-sector magazine which counts General Motors among it's sponsors? Why is a tech sector magazine devoting itself to titles like Iraq-Alqaeda links and terrorism? Why is it not on the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington post? Both newspapers were instrumental in marshaling public opinion in support of the war. You suppose they suddenly have lost interest in publishing the very information that would prove them right?

    As for the sources, which you say I would be quick to reject: which would you say has presented a consistent and unswerving argument for the infamous connection? British Intelligence? We should all be familiar by now with the scandals that that upstanding institution has produced since the war. American Intelligence? Have you been keeping up with the latest tit for tat exchange between Tennet and Bush's administration? This article in TCS which you touted, what do they mean exactly by "government reports and congressional testimony? news accounts from "major newspapers"? Are these the same government reports and congressional testimonies which so many (including the CIA) are now saying were exaggerated and over-emphasized, circumstancial and spotty?

    Obviously, I don't know what the truth is. I only know that there is too much we don't know for you to argue that the invasion was justified because we knew of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It is patently obvious that the WMD evidence was over- blown and that by waiting a few weeks to clarify the case and bring the International community on board, we would not have risked anything. To the contrary, we would not be in the impossible situation we now find ourselves with regard to the reconstruction.

    Which brings us back to the announced topic of this thread: pre-emptive strikes. Justified? You won't be surprised to learn: not for me. Afganistan provides an excellent case of nothing having been accomplished. Oh, well, the opium trade did get a big shot in the arm, so to speak. There is no difference between Afganistan now and Afganistan under the Soviet Union. There is no security, there are vast tracts over which the central government has not the slightest control or influence. And the war there only served to create a new and more volatile generation of orphans who surely will succumb to the hate and resentment which the American occupation will inevitably engender. Which I suppose leaves us where we started: an irreconcilable difference of opinion and a raggedy e-paper trail of inconclusive articles. It is not all for naught. After all, I was introduced to the exciting world of the Hindustaan times!

    Sincerely,
    Bry





     
  5. Bry
    Offline

    Bry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +3
    I hope you will forgive my defensive reference to your reading skills and to your mother. It only seems in line with the gloating tone most of the posts here assume.

    My reading of this exchange is the following: I responded to mtnbike's gross and uncritically nationalistic symplification with my own gross and unnationalistically critical symplification. You came to his defence, and I gave you the argument which necessarily proceeds from my oversymplification. That our founding fathers, to an extent, had good intentions, I do not personally disagree with. That someone would raise the American Revolution as the paradigm example to which all nations should aspire I find insulting and absurd. As a history student at West Point, I'm sure you are familiar not only with the rough data, but also to the perspectivized versions and counter-versions to which these facts are subject in the hands of a "historian". You should be familiar with the old idea of the "historian" as a curator of facts, and you should also be familiar with the more modern acknowledgement that history is inherently perspectival: the trappings of "objectivity" priveledge the historian's analysis with a claim to truth, a claim which more often than not is less than irrefutable. History, in the end, is inseparable from ideology.

    This might lead us into fruitful discussions about the use and abuse of the word "terrorist". Who gets defined as terrorist in history depends solely on who is writing the history. It is similar to your well-taken point that in the Revolution, some people would have benefitted from an "American" loss just as some people did benefit from the victory. History is inherently a double edged sword, as you so nicely pointed out.

    If you are interested, my own field of study was not history, but philosophy. It's nice to meet you gop_jeff.

    Sincerely,
    Bry
     
  6. Man of 1951
    Online

    Man of 1951 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    wow i must say, those were quite impressive replies. :) :clap:
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +249
    Nice job of ass kissing! :) :clap:


    Just kidding! Just thought that would be funny since a few jump all over us for agreeing with one another.
     
  8. Man of 1951
    Online

    Man of 1951 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    well either way those were good responses. And ass kissing??? how is that ass kissing? if someone poses a good point, and expresses it respectfully, and appreciating that is called ass kissing, there must be something wrong with this forum.



    EVERYONE GO TO: http://www.countercurrents.org\http://www.countercurrents.org
    http://www.countercurrents.org
    http://www.countercurrents.org
    http://www.countercurrents.org
    http://www.countercurrents.orghttp:...tercurrents.orghttp://www.countercurrents.org
    http://www.countercurrents.org
    http://www.countercurrents.org
    http://www.countercurrents.org


    very good site....very intellectual people write the articles (at least the ones ive read).
     
  9. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +249
    Please tell me you're not THAT dense and you saw the part where I wrote "just kidding".
     
  10. janeeng
    Online

    janeeng Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    ah, who you kidding! no you weren't! hahahahahahaha! WUSS!
     

Share This Page