And does that include the country that supplied all the weapons and training to Afghanistan during their war with the Soviet Union?

Could you clarify your statement Westie?

shoe...

you KNOW what he's inferring, as do all of us.

Clearly, the USA is responsible for domestic terrorism.

whatever

why do we continue to be taxed and shell out UNGODLY amounts of money to help all these foreign countries when they are OBVIOUSLY (at least in somes eyes) using US Dollars to fund terrorism against the US?

Besides, we have plenty of issues on our soil to handle, and ALL those foreign countries just use our monetary assistance for evil against us, the great satan, right?

avdude

Actually, as I recollect, we supplied weapons to the Afghanies to repel the Soviet invasion of their country. I do not recall any Afghanie attacks on Soviet soil.

ALL those foreign countries just

Much like AVAD.

It is true that some of the dictators we are now removing were put in place by the US and some of the weapons we are trying to destroy are our own. At various times we have been allies of both the Israelis and Arabs. Just the nature of the foreign policy beast.

No, my main concern is not reprisal or fear. I do believe though in justice and honesty. And I don't think Bush has been honest, and I don't think it served justice. Fear and revenge are strong emotions, and those are the emotions described by Shoe, the problem is that revenge is a strong and escalating cycle (i.e. an eye for an eye can only end if you stop trying to poke the other mans eye or if both of you don't have eyes any more). There were a lot of innocent people that died because of this war, and we still don't know why. I know "WMDs", "links to terrorists"... but none of them were given with proof "we have proof but cannot show it", what happened to all that proof afterwords? Even the genocide is stretched, this was old history, most of it done when he was ally. Why did the action need to be done now? did the "proof" just appear? No, so why now?

Actually Anthony, what is your concern? Your profile places you in Canada. This is between the United States and the usual suspects in the Middle East. I was really pissed off for obvious reasons, what are yours? What has Bush done to you? The results for the here and now are acceptable to me and I feel a hell of a lot safer than I did on 9/12. I did feel fear Anthony but avoiding necessary confrontation is living in fear which is unacceptable. Most of our former allies responses were based on fear of economic loss or terrorist reprisals. You should post on "Remote Camel" and tell those poor innocent people not to condone and aupport terrorism. That way the United States will not be compelled to remove that threat. Obviously, we are not going to change each others minds and the UN can pass resolutions and judge the US but who cares. They still owe New York a gazillion dollars for parking tickets. I know I would get a few jobs if the UN headquarters was changed to condos. One can only hope.

Being a human being?


This message was edited by QQQ on 03/18/04 04:32.

QQQ, there are always human concerns but the discussion was about who knew what and when they knew it and why they did it etc. I am curious about peoples motivations because you sometimes get some fo them but not all. I wouldn't get too involved in issues that involved let's say two other countries because I know enough to know that opinions differ and customs, laws and social attitudes change from nation to nation and just like people, there are two sides to every story. I don't dismiss Anthony's ideas or anybody elses because they are from Canada or where ever, I disagree with them because I have different values, concerns and life experiences. You may be projecting your own motivations to guess what my motives are but fortunately I'm not you. You must also feel Americans put Canadians down because they're from Canada. That's in your head, not mine. I am dissappointed that Canada's government chose not to support the US but I don't confuse politics with individuals.

Deleted.

This message was edited by QQQ on 03/18/04 04:33.

....

This message was edited by Shoe on 03/18/04 06:59.

I still don't understand what you anti-Bush people think he "lied" about. UN1441, unanimously approved by the saint-like guardians of the world, was implemented to remove weapons used during the Gulf war. Obviously, nobody in the UN denied the existence of these weapons. All you anti-war folks should be really concerned about where these things are now. What there is no evidence of, is the destruction of these weapons. As far as al queida's "link" to Iraq, all I can tell you is that I lived there and just had friend return from Basra, and terrorist groups, including al queida ARE there. Are they "linked" to Sadam and Iraq? I think Pres. Bush was extremely honest in saying they had not found evidence of a link. I'm not sure what "evidence" you find in a pile of rubble and Arablc documents. Did the US over react to Iraq? Maybe, but given their (Iraq's) history and the probable cause of the moment I think they made the best logical choice. Did Bush lie about evidence? Possibly, but I can't see what his motivation would be, revenge seems extremely far fetched as does the vague refrences to oil connections. (Not to mention all the other people it takes to declare an act of war) I think that the middle east has needed an enema for some time and history will show that our brief war and occupation did much more for world peace than all the peace talks and summits of the last few decades.

First of all, there are different claims being made here by those that opposed the war, some reasonable *IMO* and some more extreme. I do NOT believe this war was about oil etc. As far as your question above:

1.Initially the administration overtly suggested that Iraq was behind or involved with 9/11, even though there was no evidence that was the case. This was clearly done to mislead in an attempt to justify the war. Later they backtracked and admitted there was no evidence Iraq was involved with 9/11.

2. Then they suggested ties to al Qaeda, and again have had to back track at times because they have been unable to provide any evidence of such ties.

3.In my opinion and many others the administration exaggerated the threat that Iraq posed to us. Clearly, this is one of the reasons even most of our allies refused to support this war. And before someone makes the argument “how can you know that when the president has so much more information than you”, then I suppose based on that reasoning we should always agree with everything every president does.

4.There seems to be evidence that the administration CHOSE to see intelligence information the way they wanted to. According to many, including those in the CIA the evidence of WMD was not as clear-cut as the administration presented.


This message was edited by QQQ on 03/13/04 14:22.

So why did the administration want to go to war with Iraq? That’s a tough one. There are many in the administration that believed we made a mistake by not finishing what we started in the first Gulf war (a view I concur with) and wanted to finish it and remove Saddam. Most importantly, they seemed to believe that by removing Saddam and inserting a democracy there we could create some type of blueprint for a new Middle East. They also may have wanted to flex our power in the Middle East and show the countries there that if they supported terrorism they would be next. I DO think it’s likely that they genuinely believed there were WMD but I also think that was an excuse, not the real reason for the war. As many have pointed out, if WMD is the real reason there are FAR more terrifying countries out there than Iraq.