How the USA can Win the war on Terror

Discussion in 'World Events' started by shadarlocoth, Aug 10, 2004.

  1. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    Expulsion of inspectors?
    http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

    And evidently he was correct, at least some of them were spies:

    http://www.fair.org/activism/usat-iraq.html
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Eng Grez Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    102
    Which is why we expended millions of dollars to bomb Serbia without UN approval to save the Kosovars from Slobodan Milosevic. In case you didn't know, the majority of Kosovars are... Muslim.


    You do know the Sudan in general and the area of Darfur is rich in oil, don't you?

    Because we don't want to. And there's fuck all you can do about it.

    The UN and Russia are two separate entities.

    I think what you've missed out on is the billions and billions of dollars we have spent in food aid, medicine aid, military intervention to protect human rights and countries attacked by aggressive dictatorships, and everything else. If you want a specific example, there was a little program called the Marshall Plan. No doubt you haven't heard it about it.

    There's a very simple process here.

    1. Pick up a book.
    2. Preferably have it be a history book.
    3. Open it up.
    4. Read it.
    5. Digest the information in it.
    6. Remember the information when you start posting.

    I do believe the part you're missing out on is part 2. Or perhaps your problem starts at the beginning.

    Then what do you call shooting at U.S. and British planes enforcing the No-Fly Zones over Iraq? That is the most blatant example.

    Stop acting as if you have ESP.

    ...Whenever you want to stop acting like an eight-year-old...

    http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/15/sprj.irq.aziz.assisi
    http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/iraqdossier.pdf
    http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr11032003.htm
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/sprj.irq.kay/
    http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/index.htm

    Excuse me, but you obviously did not read the link. The source was not the CIA. The source was David Kay's testimony to the Congress, in his capacity as leader of the Iraq Survey Group.

    Independence has nothing to do with it. Intelligence does. The biggest gun against the Idiot Brigade.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Which is why we expended millions of dollars to bomb Serbia without UN approval to save the Kosovars from Slobodan Milosevic. In case you didn't know, the majority of Kosovars are... Muslim.

    Well the US in 1998 unlike in 2003 had a real coalition of the wiling, it’s called NATO (look it up some time). Yes the US did not do it all on her own, Clinton was able to bring all those feisty little Europeans together to fight against Slobodan in 1998. Granted the US didn’t get a UN resolution but to my knowledge did the US even try to?

    You do know the Sudan in general and the area of Darfur is rich in oil, don't you?

    Not that rich, actually not that rich at all. Most of Sudan’s oil is concentrated in the South.

    Because we don't want to. And there's fuck all you can do about it.

    That’s quite a surrender isn’t it Eng? I mean you think that shows your intellectual ability (assuming it does indeed exist). I mean the point is that the US does not invade nations to “liberate” them.

    I think what you've missed out on is the billions and billions of dollars we have spent in food aid, medicine aid, military intervention to protect human rights and countries attacked by aggressive dictatorships, and everything else.

    That small morsel of aid is FAR eclipsed by the amount of military sales the US engages in with those dictators and third world nations. Also per capita the amount of money the US gives in aid is petty.

    If you want a specific example, there was a little program called the Marshall Plan. No doubt you haven't heard it about it.

    The US did that because of a fear of Sovietism throughout Europe it was not because the US cared about the Europeans, learn history. Oh but I forgot you haven't heard it about it.

    There's a very simple process here.

    Why has it escaped you then?

    I do believe the part you're missing out on is part 2. Or perhaps your problem starts at the beginning.

    It does seem that he is at least 5 steps ahead of you.

    Then what do you call shooting at U.S. and British planes enforcing the No-Fly Zones over Iraq? That is the most blatant example.

    To my knowledge the “No-fly Zones” where not sanctioned by the UN thus the US was extra judiciously patrolling those areas, that was legally still Iraqi air space.

    Stop acting as if you have ESP

    In order to do that with you, you would have to have a brain…

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    just a little factoid.

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/15/sprj.irq.aziz.assisi

    Oh yes posting nonsense from 2003 when there was no questioning about the war is SO smart…too bad EngGrez that the Iraqi’s did destroy their Al Sammouds.

    http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/iraqdossier.pdf

    Wasn’t the dossier written by a College student in California, actually this is the real deal here:

    http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/home.htm

    Read and learn, that’s not propaganda…


    Excuse me, but you obviously did not read the link. The source was not the CIA. The source was David Kay's testimony to the Congress, in his capacity as leader of the Iraq Survey Group.

    Not that much better now is it…

    Intelligence does. The biggest gun against the Idiot Brigade.

    Sadly a gun which you do not posses.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cckieran HighSchool Phys/Chem student Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    So are the UN and France. But Russia and France are members of the security council. There was no UN approval of the USA sending troops into Iraq.



    How very original. I've never seen that before.
    And before you bother pointing out my "Intelligent thought" remark, I already know.



    It's called humour, laugh, haha, get it?



    While I love James Bond movies, I don't really trust the British Intelligence, even though I do count this information as more reliable than CIA. This pre-war document's claims are nullified by the fact that no WMDs were found in Iraq.

    Did you read that?

    Hey look! Bush is latching onto the "Saddam was a dictator" excuse too. Oops, sorry Georgie, some people remember that this was meant to be about WMDs. No WMDs means no casus belli.

    Congratulations. You found a flow chart on how Huessein could have produced biological weapons. Adapted from a US congress document. Well done. Relevance? Or just that Huessein could have had weapons. We all know that he could have, the fact is, he probably didn't. If he had, the US has the best army in the world don't they Eng Grez? Surely the best army in the world would have found any WMDs that Saddam was producing or had stockpiled.



    And the CIA would post something on their website that was against what they wanted people to know? I'll believe that one when the USA has a benevolent foreign policy. You're right, I didn't read the link. Nor any other CIA links. I count anything on the CIA website as propaganda. Would you give credit to an article on a website run by an anti-war commitee?

    I suppose US citizens sharing hive mind would be beneficial for GWB, wouldn't it? Or just forcing them all to vote for him. After all, independence has nothing to do with it, does it?

    Get some new material.
    What is this Idiot Brigade that you seem to have such an obsession with? Is it just a group of people who happen to disagree with you and present their argument logically and with reason? And if so, how do I contact them?

    Anything I haven't directly addressed has already been addressed by Undecided.
    Which brings me back to questioning why you're not addressing everything that's being presented to you Eng Grez. Is it because you know that there's no clean reply? Is it because you know that you're wrong, but you're too proud to admit it? Or did you just skip those parts of my post because there were just too many words? Do tell, my ESP isn't picking anything up

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    Actually history isn't my strong point, I prefer physics. But I do do some background research before I post, even if it is not extensive.
     
  8. Eng Grez Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    102
    Undecided and cckieran,

    Interesting. I was not aware that the United States had annexed the near-40 nations that are a part of the Coalition.

    And NATO is involved in Iraq, in the training of Iraqi forces. Many NATO members are also members of the Coalition. The UN was rendered unable to act in Serbia because of Russian opposition. So, without UN approval, the US bombed Serbia.The international community did attempt a UN resolution, which Russia blocked.

    I guess your definition of unilateralism changes to meet whatever situation you face.

    "Most"? That's very nice. It does not change the fact there is oil in Darfur, and oil in all of the regions where the Muslim, Arab government is committing genocide.

    Your reasoning is invalid. You are relying on the impossibility of proving a negative.

    The point is that you have yet to prove the assertion that the US does not invade nations to liberate them. You instead have made the assertion and challenged me to refute it, which I do not have to do until you present some kind of valid evidence supporting the assertion.

    http://www.usaid.gov/fani/Chapter 6-- Foreign Aid in the National Interest.pdf

    Official government foreign aid for domestic development of third-world countries for the year 2000, as a percentage of GNP:

    Canada: .25% 1.744 billion
    Denmark: 1.06% 1.664 billion
    France: .32% 4.105 billion
    Italy: .13% 5.030 billion
    Japan: .28% 13.508 billion
    Netherlands: .84% 3.135 billion
    Norway: .8% 1.264 billion
    Spain: .22% 1.195 billion
    Sweden: .8% 1.799 billion
    UK: .32% 4.501 billion
    US: .1% 9.955 billion

    Total U.S. government international assistance, 2000: 22.6 billion
    Total U.S. assistance, government and private sources: 56.2 billion

    Low Estimate of Total U.S. Aid in 2005: 70.5 billion
    High Estimate of Total U.S. Aid in 2005: 111 billion

    Total U.S. military aid to Israel, 2000: $3.12 billion dollars, including an extra $1.92 billion Israel received as part of the Wye aid package, in which the Palestinian authority received 400 million, Jordan 200 million, and Egypt 25 million.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/wyeaid.html

    Perhaps you could provide me with some figures as to U.S. arms sales and whether or not in the year 2000 those arms sales exceeded 56.2 billion dollars.

    Prove that stunning assertion.

    The UN did not object to these No-Fly Zones, which were set up to patrol airspace over Kurdish and Shia-dominated areas to prevent Saddam from using aircraft in any kind of attack on them.

    So Iraq's possession of illegal weapons is nonsense?

    I don't believe so, as that dossier was removed by the British government.

    Neither is the British government.

    UN approval was not necessary.

    Irrelevant, as that knowledge was not available at the time.

    Indeed I did. You have yet to withdraw your claim that no WMD were found in Iraq.

    Some people also remember that Bush and Blair spoke extensively of Saddam being a brutal dictator as well from the very beginning. The casus belli were the threat of WMD, Iraq's well-documented terrorist ties, and Saddam's brutal rule.

    Question-begging is invalid. The relevance is that Saddam was supposed to give up the capability to make anything more dangerous than fingernail polish after the Gulf War and he did not.

    The link is a transcript of public testimony given to the Congress, with absolutely no connection to the CIA whatsoever besides its being posted on the CIA website.

    The USA does have a benevolent foreign policy to its allies, and a malevolent one to its enemies. As do all other nations.

    Poisoning the well is invalid.

    I like my material. The Idiot Brigade is a joke. Grow up.
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I have yet to see a valid response to the fact that "Ricin" showed up in London which was traced to Iraq. "Ricin" is a WMD. Not a large stockpile but then terroists don't need large quantities. Iraq had already started giving terroists WMD's.
     
  10. cckieran HighSchool Phys/Chem student Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    The UN is as close as we have to a major international governing body in the world (even though its resolutions are not binding unless enacted into domestic law). I think we can agree there.
    The USA acting without UN approval undermines the UN's authority (or underlines its lack thereof) and is destructive to the setting up of a peaceful unified world community. There are short term gains, such as Saddam Huessein being ousted from power, but in the long run it would be better to solve problem with diplomacy rather than murders.


    So if there's all these human rights abuses going on there, why doesn't the USA invade? Easy answer: Because the USA isn't interested in human rights.



    Actually, I made that assertion, and provided examples of the USA ignoring or committing human rights abuses as evidence, which you subsequently ignored. I also provided at least one example where the USA ignored human rights abuse until the USA was directly attacked, then invaded, where revenge was the implied motivation, rather than protection of human beings.


    404. File not found.


    .1%GNP. You're just showing that the US gives only petty international aid.



    And the USA didn't object to Hitler slaughtering the Jews. Doesn't mean they approved. Without UN approval... as above.



    Sure is. Where's the conclusive evidence of stockpiled WMDs? Just so you don't call that question-begging too, there is none.

    Every government uses propaganda.



    As above.


    Neither was knowledge that Iraq HAD weapons of mass destruction. That knowledge is still not available now. In my opinion the reason for that is that Huessein had no stockpiled weapons. After all, wouldn't the US government have tortured the locations out of him by now?

    I'll withdraw that claim when conclusive proof of WMDs is found in Iraq. A few shells left in the desert that Saddams people lost because of poor infrastructure is not conclusive proof. If you think it is, then I'm amazed that you have the intellectual capacity to understand a logically presented argument. Though perhaps you don't, as you've missed the point of what I have been trying to say more than once.

    I threw casus belli in to check if you knew what it was. Well done. Show me pre-war talk by Bush about human rights in Iraq.



    Medical and chemical factories have the capability to make things that are far more dangerous than fingernail polish. Even if Saddam had been a benevolent leader and bought his people the best medical care he could, he still would have had the capability to produce chemical or biological weapons. I can see how you would have construed that as question begging, but the question begging part started after I'd made my point. I refer you to my three step process.

    Once again, you have missed the point. The CIA would not have posted on its website unless the transcript agreed with them. If you had read and understood while thinking for yourself, instead of scanning and skipping, you would have picked that out. [sarcasm]But as you've said, it's not about Independent thought.[/sarcasm]

    In general the USA has greedy foreign policies, bent on imposing their views on the rest of the world. At least, that's what it appears as.


    Repetition of "invalid" gets a bit boring after a while. Is that the best you can come up with?

    And some people are sexually aroused by human feces. The two make about the same amount of sense to me.

    I know the idiot brigade is a joke. It seems to be a joke that you apply when someone disagrees with you, rather than when you encounter someone stupid. I usually assume that whoever I'm talking to is fairly intelligent until they show otherwise. Showing otherwise counts as either not backing up their opinion, not speaking or typing legibly, not understanding a concept or repeatedly not understanding several concepts, and in some circumstances ignoring whole or parts of posts directed to them that they have no answer to.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2004
  11. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Interesting. I was not aware that the United States had annexed the near-40 nations that are a part of the Coalition.

    LOL! Oh yes too bad the US represents 90% of the men, and material in the war. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that this is a “coalition of the wiling?” When you have states leaving left and right, and when you have “coalition” partners like the Ukraine running away from their posts? Yes…the biggest joke in history.

    And NATO is involved in Iraq, in the training of Iraqi forces.

    Too bad NATO isn’t in Iraq; the condition was that the Iraqi has to go to the NATO nations to train. Bush wasn’t even that excited about that with NATO. It’s not a big deal,

    Many NATO members are also members of the Coalition.

    Oh yes, with what? 300 men! What a coalition…let me tell you.

    I guess your definition of unilateralism changes to meet whatever situation you face.

    But the difference is obvious the war in Serbia was not an invasion firstly so they did not break the sovereignty of the land, secondly the mission was not to overthrow the leader of Serbia that was an effect, thirdly there was general consensus within NATO and the world for the attack of Serbia. It wasn’t a unilateralist action by definition because an organization had sanctioned a war against Serbia. To try to compare Serbia with Iraq is really illogical. I remember that it was the Republicans who were against attacking Serbia for the reason that you now reject…interesting.

    "Most"? That's very nice. It does not change the fact there is oil in Darfur, and oil in all of the regions where the Muslim, Arab government is committing genocide.

    Mind telling how much oil? Since you know all?

    Your reasoning is invalid. You are relying on the impossibility of proving a negative.

    Isn’t that what you doing with Saddam? Sorry but here is where you dug your grave, you wanted Saddam to do the same thing that you even stated is impossible. To prove that he doesn’t have something…you are so smart…

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The point is that you have yet to prove the assertion that the US does not invade nations to liberate them.

    If the US invaded nations to “liberate them” then where is the US in Sudan? Where was the US pre-9/11 giving the Taliban aid for being an ally on the “war on drugs”? Why is the US involved in multibillion trade with the Chinese government? Sorry but that Bull shit isn’t flying here.

    Official government foreign aid for domestic development of third-world countries for the year 2000, as a percentage of GNP:

    US: .1% 9.955 billion

    LOL! OMG you are so smart…you proved me correct thanks…

    Perhaps you could provide me with some figures as to U.S. arms sales and whether or not in the year 2000 those arms sales exceeded 56.2 billion dollars.

    Oh are you serious!

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_to_dev_nat

    United States
    $90,929million

    That was only to developing nations…sick.

    Prove that stunning assertion.

    Sure why did the US offer aid to Greece in 1947? Why did she offer it to Turkey? Because there was a fear of Soviet take over.

    Now the Marshall Plan did a lot of good for Europe no doubt the reasoning behind it wasn't humanitarian.

    The UN did not object to these No-Fly Zones, which were set up to patrol airspace over Kurdish and Shia-dominated areas to prevent Saddam from using aircraft in any kind of attack on them.

    But the UN did not stamp the No-Fly Zones thus the airspace over Iraq was still Saddam’s.

    So Iraq's possession of illegal weapons is nonsense?

    No what’s nonsense is bringing up a non-issue when Iraq did do what that article said it wouldn’t do, they destroyed as many missiles as they could before the war:

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/samoud.htm


    I don't believe so, as that dossier was removed by the British government.

    http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/460

    You are so easy manipulated its not even funny child…

    Neither is the British government.

    Right….that made so much sense

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=336701

    Enjoy… Goebbels would have loved yah! So you are the one man idiot brigade indeed!
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2004
  12. Truenemo1889 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    the war on terror can not be won. I repeat the war on terror cannot be won. (maybe in a couple of thousand years with extrem social control ....or the the destruction of humanity)
     
  13. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    US: .1% 9.955 billion

    1%!?!?!?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Heeeeehehehehehe....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Even my country helps much more then you! And we are pretty poor, ya know?!?

    And look at Japan! Hoa! 28%!! More then 13 billion! much better then you...
    And look at Netherland! More then 80%!

    US is sooo evil....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Eng Grez Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    102
    That only happens if we lose.

    Yeah, we know you want the United States to lose.
     
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    The war on terror will be won but not by the destruction of humanity but the destruction of the inhumane. That fortunately is substantially one sided and it isn't on our side.

    It is indeed a farce to call the war as being a collition of the willing. There is damn little support by others. Some have been bribed with aid packages and others threatened in one manner or another.

    Having said that doesn't alter the ultimate truth. France resisted because that were doing billions $ in illegal business with Iraq. Others in the UN (high ups) were getting rich from kickbacks from the "Food for Oil" program.

    Materialistic self interest and not support for Iraq was the greatest impediment to UN progress. Shame but a fact.

    The US had the foresight and balls to do what is right regardless of the short term consequences.

    Crush every fundlementalist in the world population. I just can't wait until we clean our own house also.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The would appear to include the White House - BTW.
     
  16. Truenemo1889 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    To destroy terrorism is almost as easy as destroying death.
     
  17. Jolly Rodger Banned Banned

    Messages:
    460
    yeah they should just pull thier finger out!
     
  18. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    EngGrez:

    Hey even your president admitted that the war cannot be won…so stop defending your thoroughly disproven position.

    MacM:

    Having said that doesn't alter the ultimate truth. France resisted because that were doing billions $ in illegal business with Iraq.

    Well then couldn’t it also be said that the US invaded Iraq for the same reasons? Also why did Germany not want to go in, or China for that matter they had significantly less at stake? Or for that matter the vast majority of the world’s governments and population? Something doesn’t jive here…

    Others in the UN (high ups) were getting rich from kickbacks from the "Food for Oil" program.

    Unproven…we have to await the report.

    Materialistic self interest and not support for Iraq was the greatest impediment to UN progress. Shame but a fact.

    That’s a two way street…

    The US had the foresight and balls to do what is right regardless of the short term consequences.

    Sure it did…hyping up intelligence, basically telling half-truths, if not even lying about the capabilities of the Iraqi’s. There is only one reason for the invasion of Iraq, its not human rights, that B.S, its not Al Q, that’s B.S. it was over WMD. Now that the US has been proven wrong it was more then a unjustified action, the US is by definition a rogue state.

    Crush every fundlementalist in the world population.

    We are all fundamentalists in some way or another.
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Understand this. I do not like Bush nor Kerry. But unfortunately we are given only two realisitic choices. It does indeed come down to the lesser of two evils.

    But you are spreading a mis-statment by the President. It has been clarified what he meant was we will not win the war in terms we recognize. that is there will be no peace treaty or formal signing. But win we will, because if we are the only humans left alive, we will win.

    There can be no terrosim if there are no terroists and I hope we kill each and every person that would "Unprovoked" kill in the name of their F.... God.
     
  20. Eng Grez Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    102
    Every time a terrorist is foiled, we win. Every extremist killed or brought to justice is a victory. To quote Starship troopers- 'They'll keep fighting! And they'll win!'.

    We are going to win this war in the end, Undecided. Not you, or any other terrorist can stop that.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2004
  21. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    War on terrorism is pure bollox and utter stupidity. Why? Because terrorism is a method of fighting.
    It was used by medieval knights, it was used by the Saracens, it is used by muslins and checens today. Even I can use terrorism as my method of fighting for or against something. ETA and IRA certainly do and did. You can't fight a method. You can't fight a method of hitting somebody with a stick the same as you can't fight a method of turning off a computer by kicking it real hard. I can apply that method if I want and anybody else can too.
    What you fight isn't terrorism but each seperate case, group of people who use terrorism as their method.
    Palestinians use it against Israel, checens use it against Russia, Russia uses it against the checens, Osama uses it against the USA, etc, etc "neverending tragedy".
    What the USA is fighting against is people not liking it, its people and its politics.
    So either you change yourselves to be generally nicer or kill all those not liking you, but you can't kill the method which is terrorism.
     
  22. Eng Grez Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    102
    We aren't killing people who simply don't like us, we're killing people who are doing everything in their power to kill our innocent civilians. As for destroying the method, well you obviously can't destroy a method of fighting- it's not like it's a physical entity. However, what we CAN destroy are all those who use it, and that's what we're trying to do.

    Or you destroy the source of that terrorism and the ideologies, governments, and beliefs that fuel the terrorist machine.
     
  23. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    People are being born each minute. You'll have to destroy whole nations. And that will fuel more hate and even more nations will hate you. It's not that you are particulary liked even in Europe. And I'm not mentioning all Arabic countries.

    And you'll have to destroy an idea, you'll have to destroy Islam
    for it is said in the Quaran (sp) "blessed are those who walk dusty roads in the wars against the christians".

    Do you mean here terror against the USA?
    I hope so. Or if you mean terrorism in general then there is global nuclear war at hand.
     

Share This Page