ABC to air "The Path to 9/11", Democrats shriek

Quote:

---

Moreover, some of us don't care that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (I certainly don't).

---

I simply don't understand this mentality. American men and women died because of this exact reason was given to them.

Quote:

---

1- No WMD: What about the massive human rights violations? What about Saddam sponsoring terrorism? (And he did, see: Israel --- our ally)

---

All very good questions.
1. What about the massive human rights violations?
Previous administrations knew about this also, particularly Reagan's and turned a blind eye. Remember, Bush Sr. proclaimed that the Kurds should rise up against Saddam. Shite and Kurdish uprisings which were often supported by foreign intelligence agencies.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

There is also speculation currently about human right violations in Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r...m_Hussein_Iraq

Quote:

---

2- Gitmo: Where should we place prisoners of war? Kentucky? Should we put them in min security? Should we release them back into the field?

---

Gitmo- clearly not Kentucky, but maybe Alabama....:p
Maybe they could go in those not-so-secret-anymore CIA prisons overseas.

Quote:

---

3- The 9/11 documentary: Why was it ok for Michael Moore to completely fictionalize a very serious event but not ok for another group to possibly be wrong on a very narrow issue?

---

I don't recall stating anything of the sort.
Like I said, when dealing with such a sensitive topic as 911, it's important to get the facts right, regardless if it's pegged a drama, or documentary.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I simply don't understand this mentality. American men and women died because of this exact reason was given to them.

---

Simply because you do not understand something does not mean it is wrong. Fact of the matter is that this was not the only reason that was given to the public, there were many reasons given to the public. However, the left and the media only want to focus in on what they can sensationalize not what actually happened and what was actually said. While WMD's were a reason, they were not the only reason and to say that they were the only reason to go to war is tantamount to revising history to suit your own political argument.

To take this further some people, like myself, believe that there are many reasons to go to war. These reasons can include self-defense, economics, pride, power, the ability to combat future enemies. The world is not some happy place where everyone gets along, history has shown us time and time again that nations need to defend themselves. Invading Iraq was highly logical, probably necessary, and if it would have been done correctly from the get go could have been a tremendous boon to our nation and the world.

Quote:

---

All very good questions.
1. What about the massive human rights violations?
Previous administrations knew about this also, particularly Reagan's and turned a blind eye. Remember, Bush Sr. proclaimed that the Kurds should rise up against Saddam. Shite and Kurdish uprisings which were often supported by foreign intelligence agencies.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

There is also speculation currently about human right violations in Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r...m_Hussein_Iraq

---

Just because other Presidents and administrations failed to muscle up and take care of Iraq and it's horrible human right's record does not mean that this President is doing something wrong by taking care of it. Bill Clinton was horrible in addressing human rights issues, in fact his military "policy" tended to cause problems to become worse. See: Yugoslavia.

Unfortunately, the media and the left (or right depending on who the president is) always try to tie human rights in with other interests as if human rights concerns have to exist seperately for them to be valid. This is ludicrious because in every decision any, and I mean any, human makes there are many different interests, pressures, concerns, influences that all play into making a decision.

This goes back to my main point about the WMD argument that you seem to hang your hat on. Just because WMD's were presented as a reason to go to war does not mean that it was the only reason presented for going to war. I remember listening to the President detail his reasons for invading Iraq, there were many reasons, many. These include sponsoring terrorism aside from Al Queda(which you keep avoiding), human rights, etc.

Quote:

---

Gitmo- clearly not Kentucky, but maybe Alabama....:p
Maybe they could go in those not-so-secret-anymore CIA prisons overseas.

---

Im assuming you're being sarcasting here because you have to conceede that we cant be holding prisoners of war and terrorists in the same institutions as our general criminal population.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra

Frankly, I think the media gives the president a free pass much to often.

---

Bwahahahahahaha. You must be joking. If you honestly think Bush EVER gets a free pass, then you totally drunk the kool-aid.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra

In a twisted way, I'm fascinated by Bush's defense of certain things, like phone tapping, lack of WMD's, secret CIA prisons, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib.

---

Lack of WMDs: Anyone who brings this up really has no credibility in my eyes. The entire world had intelligence that Saddam had WMDs. A few years ago, he USED WMDs. Some WMDs *were* found - just not in significant quantities. Thanks to Turkey's attempted extortion, a huge percentage of Iraq's border was exposed, making it easy to get the WMDs out if need be. Put all of this together, and really it is asinine to blame Bush or the USA for the fact that we didn't find huge WMD stockpiles.

Abu Ghraib: This is a perfect example of how the media took Bush bashing to such an extreme extent that they did irreparable damage to our country. Abu Ghraib is actually an example of what is best about the USA. For the most part, we own up to our mistakes, and try our best to make amends. There is a reason the USA is the only country in the history of the world to ever voluntarily pay reparations (after WWII, we paid reparations to the Japaneese we interred).

So a couple of nimrod asswipes in the military got way out of line. What happened? Did we cover it up? Nope. The people involved were tried, convicted, and will get to break big rocks into little rocks for many, many years to come.

But instead of being reasonable about the issue, the Bush hating media ran this story as often as possible, and did enormous damage to our country's international reputation. It also gave the terrorists tons of recruitment fodder. Why? Because embarassing George Bush is more important than the well being of the USA.

It is a shame the left isn't nearly as upset abous Muslims cutting the heads off innocent civilians as they are about Americans (who actually got punished) taking naked pictures of people.

I think I'd rather someone take nude photos of me against my will than have my head sawed off with a dull blade... But hey, that's just me.

Phone tapping: I hate that this is going on. But this trend is far bigger than George Bush. We've been moving in this direction for the last 15 years. I actually think trying to pin this on GW is a dangerous thing because it actually TRIVIALIZES the issue. It will make people think it is less of a problem if a Democrat becomes the next President.

This is a humongous issue for which both parties are at fault. We the People need to rise up on this issue or we are going to be living in an Orwellian 1984-like world sooner than you might think.

Gitmo: I think all the innocents that got their heads cut off would much prefer getting "3 hots and a cot" in some prison where they are allowed to observe all their religious traditions and ceremonies. 50 years in Gitmo beats 50 minutes with the Muslim terrorists. There is so much oversight right now in Gitmo its ridiculous. There's nothing to criticise there.

Secret CIA Prisons: Good.

The above examples are the exact reasons that nobody takes you seriously Kestra. Once again you trotted out the moveon.org talking points... WMDs, Abu Ghraib, and Wire Tapping? Good lord... are you directly cutting and pasting?

And what you don't seem to grasp is that it doesn't have to be specifically moveon.org. Moveon.org is just a convenient term that symbolizes the whole crazy, super-radical, America-hating left that cares more about furthering a socialist, Bush-hating agenda than doing anything that is good for America.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra

Gitmo- clearly not Kentucky, but maybe Alabama....:p
Maybe they could go in those not-so-secret-anymore CIA prisons overseas.

---

Another example of why nobody takes you seriously.

Instead of conceding the point when you have no rational response, you decide to be glib and make a sarcastic reply.

Not surprisingly, you also make a defamatory remark about the American South. That is another CLASSIC Moveon.org-style tactic. They think everything about the South is barbaric and stupid, and you just demonstrated the exact same bigoted attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
Not surprisingly, you also make a defamatory remark about the American South. That is another CLASSIC Moveon.org-style tactic. They think everything about the South is barbaric and stupid, and you just demonstrated the exact same bigoted attitude.

---

But but but but but...the south is just hicks and rednecks and mud farms! It's a place where the entertainment is getting your tractor stuck in a field and having to pull it out with your truck!

Quote:

---

Not surprisingly, you also make a defamatory remark about the American South. That is another CLASSIC Moveon.org-style tactic. They think everything about the South is barbaric and stupid, and you just demonstrated the exact same bigoted attitude.

---

Oh please......another failed attempt at labelling. Continously repeating a claim doesn't make it any more true than the first time it's said.
I find a southern accent on women to be extremely sexy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Oh please......another failed attempt at labelling. Continously repeating a claim doesn't make it any more true than the first time it's said.

---

How is it "a failed attempt" when you blatantly did exactly what I stated: You made a snarky, derogatory comment about the South, completely out of the blue and out of context, just because you thought it would be clever. The funny thing is, you apparently did it so subconsciously you are having trouble realizing what you did.

If you don't like the after-effects of employing Moveon.org style tactics, then stop doing it.

Doesn't it make more sense to stop behaving in a certain way than to try and be mad at people who observe your behavior and call it for what it is?

What makes the label more true isn't me repeating it. What makes the label more true is you repeating the behavior.

Wrong again. What this is, is an attempt to layer another label upon me as someone who thinks the south is barbaric and stupid. Another baseless claim. The comment was blatently obvious as a silly joke. This is not a -tactic-. One can discuss WMDs, Abu Ghraib, and Wire Tapping without being affiliated with one particular website.

Until you can prove your moveon.org claims, you lose credibility for that claim.

Kestra,

I think what everyone else is getting at is... what is your solution (among other points)?

You do not like secret CIA-run prisons. That is perfectly valid. Where do we put prisoners of war? Should we have full Red-Cross monitored transparency at these hypothetical prisons (bearing in mind that American prisons do not even necessarily have such things)? Should they or should they not be supermax security prisons, bearing in mind that the term "supermax" typically implies one hour or less of sunlight per day, no windows in your cell, and essentially 24 hour-a-day solitary confinement minus your yard time? What sort of amenities should we permit these prisoners?

These are the logistical problems that you have to provide a solution for, it is not enough to disapprove of essentially secret POW prisons.

Further, you -have- to recognize that the presence or lack thereof of WMD is not the only reason America went to war. It is a tired point to beat up on when it is used to the exclusion of all others.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
That makes you (and possibly Savaric) the only person(s) here without military experience, unless you meant the remark in a general fashion and not specific to Gillan's comments.

---

I was in the navy for 5 years and only as an aircraft mechanic (safety/survival systems). I've been happily out for the last 2 years.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
I, personally, agree with Gillan in that if we should engage in a campaign against a foreign nation that it should, at the very least, be conducted with not just adequate force, but overpowering force. If Iraq had essentially been buried under American martial law for the first year or two postdating the occupation while the new Iraqi police and military stood up, I believe that a significant portion of the problems we are now having would be negated.

---

That's a solid statement and we're paying dearly for not doing just that. Rumsfeld comes to mind. If anyone heard, a number of generals spoke out against Rumsfeld after he retired. I know how the military works and you just don't knock the people you work for- even if they are douche bags. Now that I'm out of the navy there's a lot of things I'd like to tell the assholes I had to work with that just wasn't feasible when I was in. So when I heard this about the retired brass speaking out I knew something was up with Rumsfeld. It makes me wonder what the collective opinion on him really is and why (well, we know why). Apparently he rejected a number of calls from ranking generals for more troops and a larger occupying force at the start of the war. That's a big deal and a huge blunder.

For some reason these off-topic threads are always the most entertaining, lol.