RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Never mind the war on Terrorism

Posted by: Tree, also @ work
- Donor [599393013] Tue, Apr 29, 2003, 14:02

so, we go into Iraq to disarm a "terrorist" who has "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and is a "threat to the United States"....

but yet, we're actually negotiating with other terrorists and allowing them to keep their weapons!?!?!

U.S. Reaches Cease-Fire With Terror Group

peace,
Tree
1Baldwin
      ID: 4261155
      Tue, Apr 29, 2003, 14:11
Actually there are plenty of people who are angry that the USA quietly went across the border into Iran and bombed the crap out of that group because it after all was an armed group inside Iran opposing the Mullahs there.
2Myboyjack
      Leader
      ID: 108231015
      Tue, Apr 29, 2003, 14:15
OK, tree.

Scare quotes around terrorist? Do you dispute that Sadaam supported terrorism and had terrorist connections? Don't be scared - go ahead and say it.

Scare quotes around weapons of mass destruction? Do you dispute that Sadaam had WMD? Don't be scared - take a stand.

Reagarding the cease-fire with the Mujahedeen Khalq; do you think we're wrong? Should we do something different than contain them? If so, what? Shoot them? Arrest them? I would assume you started a thread because you had something to say on the subject. What, exactly would it be?
3Baldwin
      ID: 4261155
      Tue, Apr 29, 2003, 14:22
Actually this group has killed a few Americans in the past and we just got done decimating the best of their fighting force. If leaving this group in place to guard against Iranian infiltration and to harrass an Iranian theocracy already tottering, well that would be an interesting and tempting example of realpolitik.
4Madman
      Donor
      ID: 398591212
      Tue, Apr 29, 2003, 14:25
I think the argument that Bush is hypocritical because he is doing something the Left has been advocating all along (treating every case differently).

This is the true genius of the Bush administration. You can say what you want about how dumb he sounds, or how wrong his policies are. But there is no denying the fact that the opposition has been stuck waging rather inept arguments, while Bush has been given an almost free reign both domestically and internationally.

This came despite the fact that Gore had more votes than he did in the last election, and it came prior to Sept. 11, as evidenced by his passing a "radical" social agenda (as described by many on the left) in his first Spring/summer.

This terror case is just a trivial example of this broader theme. An argument about hypocrisy carries no weight with the American people who are more interested in whether it's the right thing to do or not. The Left will be arguing that he's not self-consistent while Bush can argue that he's doing what he believes is in the best interests of the country.

Ironically, to the average voter, this sounds like someone who is moderate and open-minded to re-evaluating past statements and acting in the best interests of the country (or what Bush believes those best interests to be). Thus, ironically, the Left will implicitly argue that Bush is a moderate, leaving Bush free to argue other points.

Getting the opposition to accidentally campaign for you ... as I said, genius.
5Madman
      Donor
      ID: 398591212
      Tue, Apr 29, 2003, 14:26
(first sentence) I think the argument IS that Bush is hypocritical ...

Aaargh. I need an editor.
6Tree, also @ work
      Donor
      ID: 599393013
      Tue, Apr 29, 2003, 17:10
MBJ - post 2.

Saddam supported terrorism. the U.S. supported Saddam. Osama supports terrorism. the U.S. supported Osama.

saddam *had* WOMD. we haven't found any yet, and it was a main argument for going to war. meanwhile, the U.S. *HAS* WOMD.

is it the "war on terrorism", or is it the war on terrorism, well, except for those terrorists we're gonna let keep their weapons because they're allies at this moment, much like Osama and Saddam were?"

peace,
Tree

7Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 07, 2008, 15:55
WAPO
ADEN, Yemen -- Almost eight years after al-Qaeda nearly sank the USS Cole with an explosives-stuffed motorboat, killing 17 sailors, all the defendants convicted in the attack have escaped from prison or been freed by Yemeni officials.

Jamal al-Badawi, a Yemeni who helped organize the plot to bomb the Cole as it refueled in this Yemeni port on Oct. 12, 2000, has broken out of prison twice. He was recaptured both times, but then secretly released by the government last fall. Yemeni authorities jailed him again after receiving complaints from Washington. But U.S. officials have so little faith that he's still in his cell that they have demanded the right to perform random inspections.

Two suspects, described as the key organizers, were captured outside Yemen and are being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Many details of their alleged involvement remain classified. It is unclear when -- or if -- they will be tried by the military.

The collapse of the Cole investigation offers a revealing case study of the U.S. government's failure to bring al-Qaeda operatives and their leaders to justice for some of the most devastating attacks on American targets over the past decade.

A week after the Cole bombing, President Bill Clinton vowed to hunt down the plotters and promised, "Justice will prevail." In March 2002, President Bush said his administration was cooperating with Yemen to prevent it from becoming "a haven for terrorists." He added: "Every terrorist must be made to live as an international fugitive with no place to settle or organize, no place to hide, no governments to hide behind and not even a safe place to sleep."

Since then, Yemen has refused to extradite Badawi and an accomplice to the United States, where they have been indicted on murder charges. Other Cole conspirators have been freed after short prison terms. At least two went on to commit suicide attacks in Iraq.
Mike Hendrix at Coldfury:
Yemen is semi-clandestinely aiding and abetting terrorist scum who attacked a US Navy ship and killed Americans. Until that changes, they are not our friends, they are not our allies, they are not our “partners” in any damned thing. They’re just another weak, corrupt pisspot Arab country who wants to milk the American cow for all it can while simultaneously and underhandedly undermining our interests — when they’re not denouncing us outright.
8bibA
      ID: 7421515
      Wed, May 07, 2008, 18:25
MBJ - Many do not dispute that Sadaam supported terrorism and had terrorist connections to some degree, nor do they dispute that Sadaam once had WMD, although many would dispute that he had the ability or desire to use them against the US.

Did this make him that much greater a danger to the US than so many other countries throughout the world that also fit that particular bill? Do you still hold that the invasion and its repercussions were justified?
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days11
Last 30 days108
Since Mar 1, 20071035695