Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by PatMeebles at 2006-03-23 04:28:58

ShadowSD said:

Clearly I'm boring at least Scoracrasia with my long-windedness and constant quoting, so I will keep my answers clear, concise, and brief (which is probably one reason my original points to Hoser were so effective)

They didn't show any close-ups as to who was laughing, just a wide shot followed by reaction shots from Powell as he tried to continue, clearly both frustrated and embarassed. I don't see how you can automatically assume that laughing at a lie implies a bias towards dictatorships; I found what Powell was saying laughable as well, based on the believability of his evidence contrasted with common sense and a basic understanding of the world.

Ok, I'll take your word for it that Powell was laughed at by everyone. Thank you France for giving us the intel and then laughing at us as we try to tell the UN about it. What a douchebag country

ShadowSD said:

I understand that "lesser of two evils" is realist. However, I think that givem the way we went about pursuing 1980's Iran/Iraq policy, assuming it would work was not realistic. You can't be in tune with reality unless you consider long-term consequences, taking into account the variable of time. I believe one thing that makes me a realist is the fact that I'm concerned with the realistic conclusions of policies, not just my idealistic hopes about what will result from my realistic assessment of a particular moment. I will stop beating this point to death, though; here, we can agree to disagree.

I agree it was bad policy in that Iraq lost. Now that we have hindsight and can look at the consequences, we can judge differently. However, if back then you had two countries in which one was literally holding the world hostage due to its control on oil supplies, and its nextdoor neighbor wanted to attack and take out the regime, you could/would make a case for supporting Saddam. Of course, now we're slapping ourselves in the forehead for doing such a thing.

I think you and I agree that it was bad policy. That ends this discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

ShadowSD said:

As I said above, I could believe reports that say Bin Laden sought Iraq backing in the mid-90's, and Iraq never responded, since as you said Al Qaeda will do whatever they have to to achieve their goals. I can believe Al Qaeda could have sought a partnership with Iraq. I cannot believe Iraq would have sought a partnership with Al Qaeda. That's where it all failed the common sense test.

Saddam is also quite Machiavellian. Hitler allied himself with Islamofascists in WWII, just because they were another ally (I know about Godwin's law, but if you're talking about someone that idolized Hitler, then hey, might as well use the analogy). Also, of the first batch of documents, we learn things like Saddam was supporting islamofascists in Southeast Asia (who had strong AQ ties) as late as 2002.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...icles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp?pg=2

B. An approval to meet with opposer Osama bin Laden by the Intelligence Services was given by the Honorable Presidency in its letter 138, dated January 11, 1995 (attachment 6). He [bin Laden] was met by the previous general director of M4 in Sudan and in the presence of the Sudanese, Ibrahim al-Sanusi, on February 19, 1995. We discussed with him his organization. He requested the broadcast of the speeches of Sheikh Sulayman al-Uda (who has influence within Saudi Arabia and outside due to being a well known religious and influential personality) and to designate a program for them through the broadcast directed inside Iraq, and to perform joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz. (The Honorable Presidency was informed of the details of the meeting in our letter 370 on March 4, 1995, attachment 7.)
C. The approval was received from the Leader, Mr. President, may God keep him, to designate a program for them through the directed broadcast. We were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to see what other doors of cooperation and agreement open up. The Sudanese side was informed of the Honorable Presidency's agreement above, through the representative of the Respectable Director of Intelligence Services, our Ambassador in Khartoum.
D. Due to the recent situation of Sudan and being accused of supporting and embracing of terrorism, an agreement with the opposing Saudi Osama bin Laden was reached. The agreement required him to leave Sudan to another area. He left Khartoum in July 1996. The information we have indicates that he is currently in Afghanistan. The relationship with him is ongoing through the Sudanese side. Currently we are working to invigorate this relationship through a new channel in light of his present location.

Even if it is the late 90's, this would disproves everything that lefties have said about Iraq not being linked with terrorists at all. Now combine that with documents showing Al Qaeda to be in Iraq as late as 2002 (documents not proven to be compeltely authentic, but they come from Iraq and have been translated), and you have to ask yourself exactly what Saddam was up to, because he sure was up to something.

ShadowSD said:

When it comes to what we Americans hear about our own country from our own news media, we are always at a greater risk of hearing pro-US propaganda than anti-US propaganda. The less you are aware of it, the more subtlely and pervasively it's occuring. We should never be nieve enough to assume that just because we have the most democratic nation in the history of the world, that we are immune to the lessons of history. Our existence as a nation is always a constant journey towards our founding ideals, never an absolute manifestation, and blind patriotism is at best chronic stagnancy in that journey, and at worst outright regression.

The only thing I disagree with in here is that the American media is riddled with Pro-US propoganda. I wouldn't say that the media goes out of its way to say "Americans are fat and lazy," but there definitely is not an attempt to say that we're better than everyone else.