Spain PM-elect: Troops out of Iraq

[Gab]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Gab: he's a warmonger and a liar. He lied about WMD to get America into a war without approval from the UN. I'm sure many leaders don't like Bush, they just simply aren't going to go out and say that.

There is no proof that Bush lied about WoMD. He may have rather stupidly believed intelligence reports from intelligence sources who were inept, but I don't believe he lied. [/QUOTE]There isn't any complete proof that he did, but I very much suspect that he did or exaggerated by saying that they were an "imminent threat". I even had my doubts about the claim on WoMD even before the war. I've never trusted Bush and I've reason not to. He isn't an honest guy and has lied in the past. Who knows in years from now if they find classified documents to prove that the Bush administration lied about WMD.

[ 03-19-2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Timber Loftis]

I don't think I take different stances, Gab. I just recognize both sides of the issues have fair points and bad points. And, if I see one side getting too much attention and the other side being ignored, I will try to play Devil's Advocate. I have yet to see a political issue where everybody wasn't part right and part wrong.

As for GWB, I'll give Kerry the fair opportunity to sway me, but if I had to cast my lot today, it would be with the Leetle Oil Monkee -- based primarily on safety/security concerns.

Additionally, I think GWB has undertaken a crusade against terror that I'm willing to give him 4 more years to try to complete. He may fail horribly, but this is the biggest attempt the world and my nation has made at ousting terrorists around the globe -- I think it's a project that needed to be done. Bush's way of doing it certainly ain't perfect, but I also recognize that switching administrations en medias res would be a setback for the overall project.

Of course, if Edwards were running, he'd have my vote hands down.

I take it on a person-by-person basis.

[ 03-19-2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: Really bad move. Shows terrorism works, and will encourage more of it. A stronger show would have been to say "HAH! Now you've done it... we're staying" and pulled out in a year, as per the mandate. Some nations have balls. Others cave to terrorism. Good thing Spain weren't always cavers or the Spaniards would still be subjegated by the Muslim Moors.

Of course, many of the Hawks would love to see the Iraq war as part of the war on terrorism - but it is not. If anything the entire Iraq war has worked in Al'Qaida's failure by not only removing one of its strongest enemies from power - but by also providing it with propaganda that was simply PRICELESS.

And while all of that intelligence and military time, effort and money have been diverted away from the real business of catching Al'Qaida and it's affiliates, those organisations have managed to gain time to regroup, reorganise and recruit new members to its cause.

Indeed, the very first words out of Zapatero's mouth upon hearing the result of the elections was: "My most immediate priority is to fight all forms of terrorism. And my first initiative, tomorrow, will be to seek a union of political forces to join us together in fighting it."

Now if those words coupled with redirecting resources away from Iraq and back to the business of catching terrorists equates to 'appeasement' and 'caving-in', then someone will have to provide a new definition of those terms as Zapatero's actions and statements clearly do not fit in with the current definition of them.

Indeed according to the latest Pew Research report:
"In every country except the United States more people say the war in Iraq has hurt the fight against terrorism than say it has helped. Fully two-thirds of Moroccans (67%) say military action in Iraq has done more harm than good in this regard, as do solid majorities in Germany (58%), Pakistan (57%), Turkey (56%) and France (55%). Even in Great Britain, 50% say the war in Iraq hurt the broader struggle against terrorism while just 36% say it helped the war on terrorism."
and if that wasn't bad enough at a time when the US needs allies and their TRUST to help in the REAL war on terrorism:
"At least half the people in countries other than the U.S. say as a result of the war in Iraq they have less confidence that the United States is trustworthy."
Pew Global Attitudes Report: A Year After Iraq War

So let's remember that the war on Iraq has HINDERED US efforts to break Al'Qaida's power - it has certainly NOT helped and continues to draw resources AWAY from the real battle-field.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: Of course, many of the Hawks would love to see the Iraq war as part of the war on terrorism - but it is not.

Is too.

So, unless you have any proof of what you're asserting the discussion on that is finished.

Many Hawks would love to see the Iraq war as being seperate from the war on terrorism - but it is not.

And yes you are a hawk. Those that refused to back the American alliance were more responsible for the war than any others - because they gave Saddam a moral leg to stand on. If the world was united with revulsion against his atrocities, he would have seen he had no support, no hope, and possibly caved.

You hawks have as much blood on your hands as those that fired the bombs skunk.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Gab: quote: Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Gab: he's a warmonger and a liar. He lied about WMD to get America into a war without approval from the UN. I'm sure many leaders don't like Bush, they just simply aren't going to go out and say that.

There is no proof that Bush lied about WoMD. He may have rather stupidly believed intelligence reports from intelligence sources who were inept, but I don't believe he lied. [/QUOTE]There isn't any complete proof that he did, but I very much suspect that he did or exaggerated by saying that they were an "imminent threat". I even had my doubts about the claim on WoMD even before the war. I've never trusted Bush and I've reason not to. He isn't an honest guy and has lied in the past. Who knows in years from now if they find classified documents to prove that the Bush administration lied about WMD. [/QUOTE]Who cares about WoMD. WOMD is an extremely selfish motivator. Self self self. America has WOMD. For me, it was never about WOMD.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Gab: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: I just ignored it because of the line "most people". I can't stand it when people use the moral weight of unknown others to justify their own opinions. Who are these "most people" Let them speak for themselves. Otherwise have the balls to stand up on your own opinion and simply say "I can't stand Bush".

If you can't stand it, fine but I'm telling you because that it's true. When I say most I'm refering to people over the world particularly the Spanish, Germans and French. Heck many people even from Britain (America's closest allies) hate Bush. There was lots of protesting upon his arrival and there was even concern for Bushs' safety.

George W. Bush is hated more in the rest of the world than any other U.S. president before him . [/QUOTE]Hating policies is not hating the person.

Secondly, more people in America do NOT hate Bush, than do.

The quantifiable proof?

Only 50% of Americans are motivated enough to vote. Of those 50% half voted the guy into office. So thats 25% of Americans who don't like Bush enough to vote against him. I would define hating a politician as doing everything you can to remove them from office.

Let's just see how many people vote against him then eh?

You are wrong Gab. The majority of the world are indifferent, not hating Bush.

[Yorick]

Let's go and poll every Chinese and Indian person and see how many know Bush's name, and if they hate him before making comments like "the world haes Bush"

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: Of course, many of the Hawks would love to see the Iraq war as part of the war on terrorism - but it is not.

Is too.

So, unless you have any proof of what you're asserting the discussion on that is finished.

Many Hawks would love to see the Iraq war as being seperate from the war on terrorism - but it is not.

And yes you are a hawk. Those that refused to back the American alliance were more responsible for the war than any others - because they gave Saddam a moral leg to stand on. If the world was united with revulsion against his atrocities, he would have seen he had no support, no hope, and possibly caved.

You hawks have as much blood on your hands as those that fired the bombs skunk. [/QUOTE]Actually, *you* have to prove the link to Al'Qaida - embarrassingly for the US/UK, the only evidence of Al'Qaida operating in Iraq was in the NATO controlled Kurdish north - safe from Saddam's secret police.

Even the CIA have publicly admitted this - do you know something that they don't? Please share your information with us and them and help the War on Terrorism (you might even make a few million dollars to boot!)

[ 03-22-2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Skunk: Actually, *you* have to prove the link to Al'Qaida - embarrassingly for the US/UK, the only evidence of Al'Qaida operating in Iraq was in the NATO controlled Kurdish north - safe from Saddam's secret police.

I eagerly await the proof!

[Donut]

Originally posted by Yorick: Who cares about WoMD. WOMD is an extremely selfish motivator. Self self self. America has WOMD. For me, it was never about WOMD.

Well I care. I care because my elected leader told me we were going to war because there was an imminent threat that Saddam would use WoMD against us. That is how he sold the war to us, that is how he sold the war to his own party, that is how he sold the war to the House of Commons.

45 minutes he said! That was how long it would take Saddam to fire his WoMD at us! How on earth can he have got it so wrong.

I can see that the end result of the war was to remove an evil dictator. But that wasn't put forward by Blair until he realised there were no WoMD If Blair had said that was the reason for war I would support him. But at the back of my mind I can't help thinking - this was the first time that Britain had gone to war on the basis of intelligence reports, and they were totally wrong, how can I possibly trust Tony Blair any more? Is it right for a leader to mislead the people about the reason for war - even if the end results are beneficial? He might not be so lucky next time.

We all shake our heads when we hear about terrorism - but deep down the West only do anything about terrorism when their interests are threatened. What are we going to do about Chechen terrorism, about Maoist terrorists in Nepal, about terrorists in the Sudan where genocide is about to take place?

The answer is nothing will be done - because it doesn't affect us.

That's why Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism. Iraq had some links to Middle East terrorist groups - but those groups weren't threatening the US/UK, the war on Iraq was part of a whole different agenda! An agenda, that Richard Clarke's revelations at the weekend show, is slowly emerging.

[ 03-22-2004, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]