Peace Creep Hostages!

[alphamale]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177007,00.html

[Jesus Christ]

WTF is your point here? You're less useful than random newsfeeds. You don't expect a point with them.

[alphamale]

From AP:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Al-Jazeera television broadcast a videotape Friday in which kidnappers of four Christian peace activists threatened to kill their hostages unless all prisoners in U.S. and Iraqi detention centers are released. The kidnappers gave the two governments until Dec. 8 to meet their demands, Al-Jazeera quoted a statement delivered with the tape as saying.

For about two years, I've been telling appeasers that the islamofascists would gladly slit THEIR throats from ear to ear - now here's proof.

[Jesus Christ]

Does that in any way, shape, or form invalidate their objections to the war?

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by Jesus Christ

Does that in any way, shape, or form invalidate their objections to the war?

Yes - it's irrational to oppose a war against people who are the first ones since the soviets with a goal of destroying western civilization. It's hard to sing kumbayah when someone is slitting your throat - it in fact becomes a suicidal hymn.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Yes - it's irrational to oppose a war against people who are the first ones since the soviets with a goal of destroying western civilization. It's hard to sing kumbayah when someone is slitting your throat - it in fact becomes a suicidal hymn.

Prior to our invasion, these people had no power to do these things whatsoever. Under Saddam Hussein, these people never would have acted in such a manner. We entered Iraq in an overly hasty manner with little planning in regards of what to do after we won because we assumed a priori that the Iraqis would be greeting us with rose petals and open arms, and would love us forever and ever. Prior to the invasion of Iraq we had what--three foreign terrorist attacks against US soil/military assets in a decade? Two of which did less damage together than a single domestic terrorist managed? Then we attacked a target that had no relationship whatsoever to the terrorists of 9/11 on grounds that were quite dubious at best when first introduced, and shown to be quite blatantly fabricated after the fact. Can you understand why the oppossition to the war is legitimate?

1. Iraq had no relationship to the espoused enemies of the state
2. Iraq had no nuclear, biological, or chemical capabilities. This was known by the administrations of both the US and Great Britain at the time, as well as a good portion of the people living there.
3. The country that was attacked had shown no aggression towards the US or any ally in recent times.

There was no causus belli. None. Subsequent to the invasion, the CPA made several grave mistakes almost immediately. Disbanding the Iraqi Army instantly caused large numbers of people to lose their jobs, and in a country that had a decade of economic sanctions imposed against it, there was little opportunity to recover from that. This single act gave any potential insurgency tens of thousands of recruits trained and ready to fight against the US, but on terms that were far more favorable to the insurgents rather than the US: in cities, in a guerrilla campaign. This caused an increase in civilian casualties, both from insurgents killing political enemies as well as from collateral damage from coalition military operations. Ethnic violence sprang up, and today we have Iraqi military and police forces carrying out extrajudicial killings. All this from engaging a country that posed no credible threat to the US or its allies.

The mere desire for harm to pass upon the US is not a legitimate reason to invade, let alone a reason that cries for urgent invasion. Were that to be the case, we'd most certainly have to invade several other countries right now, such as Iran and North Korea, both of which are in far greater position to attack the US directly or indirectly than Iraq has ever been. The populace of Saudi Arabia bears us greater malice than the Iraqi government did, as is the case with Pakistan. Were it to be legitimate to invade a country that simply has the desire to cause us harm, even though it definately lacks the means, then it is equally legitimate for any liberal to arrange someone to beat you to a pulp, based upon many of your postings here. Such an action is in no way, shape, or form legitimate, and rescaling makes no difference upon the legitmacy and morality of the action.

[But]

then it is equally legitimate for any liberal to arrange someone to beat you to a pulp, based upon many of your postings here. Such an action is in no way, shape, or form legitimate, and rescaling makes no difference upon the legitmacy and morality of the action.

[alphamale]

[QUOTE=Jesus Christ]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Yes - it's irrational to oppose a war against people who are the first ones since the soviets with a goal of destroying western civilization. It's hard to sing kumbayah when someone is slitting your throat - it in fact becomes a suicidal hymn.

Prior to our invasion, these people had no power to do these things whatsoever.

Uh, well, no. Before the war in iraq, the IF's on 9/11 racked up the largest death toll by a foreign power on the U.S. homeland since the War of 1812.

Under Saddam Hussein, these people never would have acted in such a manner. We entered Iraq in an overly hasty manner with little planning in regards of what to do after we won because we assumed a priori that the Iraqis would be greeting us with rose petals and open arms, and would love us forever and ever.

I don't know where the "rose petals" myth came from, but if that was the intelligence, then it's just one more in a long string of failures that predated Bush by several administrations. The CIA didn't predict the fall of the soviet union, nor the iranian revolution, nor 9/11, nor did they get the WMD prediction right. I've called for the abolishing of the CIA and replacement of it with a better intelligence organization.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq we had what--three foreign terrorist attacks against US soil/military assets in a decade? Two of which did less damage together than a single domestic terrorist managed?

More americans were killed on 9/11 than Pearl Harbor, and the latter was seen as cause to declare war and put 15 million men under arms.

Then we attacked a target that had no relationship whatsoever to the terrorists of 9/11 on grounds that were quite dubious at best when first introduced, and shown to be quite blatantly fabricated after the fact. Can you understand why the oppossition to the war is legitimate?

Most of the western intelligence agencies, including Britain, France, and Russia, said they had WMDs. Also I've been asking anti-war people to supply proof of the "fabication" for two years - do you want to be the first to supply it? Opposition to any war is legitimate for pacifists.

1. Iraq had no relationship to the espoused enemies of the state
   No - it's now well-known that Iraq had contacts with Al Qaeda.
2. Iraq had no nuclear, biological, or chemical capabilities. This was known by the administrations of both the US and Great Britain at the time, as well as a good portion of the people living there.
   Wrong - and Iraq state secrets were known to average people??
3. The country that was attacked had shown no aggression towards the US or any ally in recent times.
   Wrong - Iraq made the first attack on a country (Israel) with IRBMs since WWII.

There was no causus belli. None

.

See above.

Subsequent to the invasion, the CPA made several grave mistakes almost immediately. Disbanding the Iraqi Army instantly caused large numbers of people to lose their jobs, and in a country that had a decade of economic sanctions imposed against it, there was little opportunity to recover from that.

Congratulations on your 20-20 hindsight. Disbanding an enemy army is always what is done after a war. The U.S. was saddled with handling a decaying infrastructure, and an insurgency, and a post-war situation all at the same time. They didn't do it perfectly - too bad they didn't have you in charge, it would have been perfect.

Ethnic violence sprang up, and today we have Iraqi military and police forces carrying out extrajudicial killings. All this from engaging a country that posed no credible threat to the US or its allies.

Ethnic violence has been there for many hundreds of years. As for the extrajudicial killings, that also occurs in war - e.g. U.S. soldiers did it in WWII. Already asnswered last sentence.

The mere desire for harm to pass upon the US is not a legitimate reason to invade, let alone a reason that cries for urgent invasion. Were that to be the case, we'd most certainly have to invade several other countries right now, such as Iran and North Korea, both of which are in far greater position to attack the US directly or indirectly than Iraq has ever been.

The invasion of those countries are impractical. There's a difference between what regimes ought to be toppled, and those that can be toppled. We got Iraq BEFORE it became like North Korea - a country with nukes and long-range delivery capability.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Uh, well, no. Before the war in iraq, the IF's on 9/11 racked up the largest death toll by a foreign power on the U.S. homeland since the War of 1812.

So the insurgents and Al Qaeda are the same people? If you assert this, prove it.

I don't know where the "rose petals" myth came from,

Chalabi. The guy, you know, that the adminstration based it's expectations off of when the man is a convicted fraudster who has not bee in Iraq for 20 years. Nice job on that.

but if that was the intelligence, then it's just one more in a long string of failures that predated Bush by several administrations. The CIA didn't predict the fall of the soviet union, nor the iranian revolution, nor 9/11, nor did they get the WMD prediction right. I've called for the abolishing of the CIA and replacement of it with a better intelligence organization.

1. The CIA didn't need to predict the fall of the Soviet Union: everybody who knew anything knew that it would collapse under its own weight sooner rather than later.
2. So? A revolution is rarely easy to predict, even under the best of circumstances.
3. Not their field. Domestic activities are not their area--that's the FBI. And the FBI had agents who saw huge warning flags, and they were literally ignored by the higher ups.
4. So all those memos that show that intelligence was prettied up for the admin to make it's case man nothing? The fact is that the administration doctored intelligence based upon policy.

So your "string of failures" is utterly irrelevant.

More americans were killed on 9/11 than Pearl Harbor, and the latter was seen as cause to declare war and put 15 million men under arms.

Yes, we declared war on the people who attacked us, not some third party with no ties to Al Qaeda.

Most of the western intelligence agencies, including Britain, France, and Russia, said they had WMDs. Also I've been asking anti-war people to supply proof of the "fabication" for two years - do you want to be the first to supply it? Opposition to any war is legitimate for pacifists.

Downing Street Memo.

1. Iraq had no relationship to the espoused enemies of the state
   No - it's now well-known that Iraq had contacts with Al Qaeda.
   

1. Not true at all. If you want to assert this, please provide evidence.
   

   Iraq had no nuclear, biological, or chemical capabilities. This was known by the administrations of both the US and Great Britain at the time, as well as a good portion of the people living there.
   Wrong - and Iraq state secrets were known to average people??

   True: remember those pesky memos that said to "fix intelligence based upon policy"?
   When you have weapons inspectors who are have spent a long time looking for them saying "it looks like they don't have any", that sort of is a big clue, especially after the last round of inspections.
   

   The country that was attacked had shown no aggression towards the US or any ally in recent times.
   Wrong - Iraq made the first attack on a country (Israel) with IRBMs since WWII.

Over a decade ago, while we were engaged with them. So, basically, this is irrelevant.

.

See above.

Back at you.

Congratulations on your 20-20 hindsight. Disbanding an enemy army is always what is done after a war.

And usually, the populace is thoroughly beaten down, and literally unable to further resist. Winning a war in several weeks without destroying the vast majority of the opposing army hardly qualifies for this situation.

The U.S. was saddled with handling a decaying infrastructure,

Whose fault was that?

and an insurgency, and a post-war situation all at the same time.

A post-war situation: isn't that something that should have been planned for prior to invading?

They didn't do it perfectly - too bad they didn't have you in charge, it would have been perfect.

That's an understatement. There were many mistakes made, and many public relations disasters (i.e., turning the Ministry of Oil into a fortress while national treasures were being looted left and right). These aren't "looking back" kind of mistakes. These are things that should have been immediately addressed.

Ethnic violence has been there for many hundreds of years.

And had been absent under Saddam Hussein.

As for the extrajudicial killings, that also occurs in war - e.g. U.S. soldiers did it in WWII.

That makes it right, eh?

Already asnswered last sentence.

Poorly.

The invasion of those countries are impractical. There's a difference between what regimes ought to be toppled, and those that can be toppled. We got Iraq BEFORE it became like North Korea - a country with nukes and long-range delivery capability.

What abou Iran? Or Syria? Well within our military capabilities, weren't they?

[D. Scarlatti]

Rush Limbaugh also "likes" the fact they were taken hostage:

Well, I mean, that's why there's -- I'm telling you, folks, there's a part of me that likes this. Probably, even with this, though, you know, they're not going to see the light of day. . . . I said at the conclusion of previous hours -- part of me that likes this. And some of you might say, "Rush, that's horrible. Peace activists taken hostage." Well, here's why I like it. I like any time a bunch of leftist feel-good hand-wringers are shown reality.

This is who does alphamale's thinking for him.

[seebs]

Some people at my church studied under one of these men.

These people are more in touch with reality than Mr. Limbaugh. They have no illusions. They don't think that there is no hostility. They are more aware than Mr. Limbaugh is of the reality of hostility and war.

This, perhaps, is why he encourages it as long as it's happening to someone else, and they are willing to go to where it is happening to try to prevent it from happening to someone else.

Tom Fox believed so strongly in freeing captives and preventing deaths that he was willing to risk captivity and death to address this. In a world full of other peoples' problems, he was one of the few to try to solve a problem instead of adding to it.

There are pacifists I do not particularly respect, but Tom Fox is not among them. The flaw in pacifism is a tendancy to cowardice, but in the war of words that Limbaugh wants, it is the fat rich man in America gloating over the suffering of others, while his own is in no danger, who best exemplifies pure cowardice. He reminds me of Wimpy; "Let's you and him fight!"

[D. Scarlatti]

Tom Fox's daughter was on Nightline last night, and the lead-in to her interview contained a clip of Limbaugh's remarks, but to her credit she didn't even acknowledge them, let alone comment.

[Plant Woman]

I remember in the 90s watching C-span and then later watching Limbaugh talk about what some democrat politician had said or done. What I saw actually unfold on C-span and what came out of Limbaugh's mouth about the event were two different things. Anyone that relies on Limbaugh to filter events and spoon feed it to their brains, needs their head examined.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by Debbie T

I remember in the 90s watching C-span and then later watching Limbaugh talk about what some democrat politician had said or done. What I saw actually unfold on C-span and what came out of Limbaugh's mouth about the event were two different things. Anyone that relies on Limbaugh to filter events and spoon feed it to their brains, needs their head examined.

Gosh, Limbaugh has the temerity to disagree with a feminist wuss!

[alphamale]

They don't think that there is no hostility.

Limbaugh doesn't think there is hostility??? Whaaaaattttttt????

[seebs]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Limbaugh doesn't think there is hostility??? Whaaaaattttttt????

No, but your misrepresentation of the peace workers implies that you think they live in a fantasy world where there is no evil.

They are quite aware of what's out there. They just had the innovative idea that the solution to a flood was not to go throwing water on it.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Gosh, Limbaugh has the temerity to disagree with a feminist wuss!

A few years ago, one of the few Senators of conscience died in a plane crash. I attended his memorial service, along with a number of people I knew from school and the neighborhood.

It made the national news.

Every thing I heard about it from any pundit was utterly false. Every damn bit. That Republicans were booed down when they tried to speak. That the entirety was a blatant propoganda tool. Five minutes out of a man who was visibly about to shatter's speech was taken wholly out of context, and it was assumed that the attitude that was fabricated by the media pervaded the hall. It didn't--the looks of shock on the faces of Democratic politicians who I was sitting next to were enough to prove that, let alone the other people.

Rush Limbaugh spread blatantly untrue things about the service, and he didn't give a damn. Not a damn. Nor did anyone on any messageboard I was on at the time. The word of a man who was given an edited version of the actual events was trusted over that of someone who was physically there.

Rush is a lying sack of shit as far as I'm concerned, all from that episode.

Rush doesn't care what actually happens: he cares about what gets him ratings. Reality does not sell his viewpoint well, so he distorts it. Wildly. And he doesn't care.

[seebs]

I don't know exactly what the media said. I did hear that a couple of people got sort of political, and this was complained about at the time -- but by Democrats, Republicans, and even independants. Mr. Ventura found it upsetting, probably precisely because Wellstone was more respectable than that.

FWIW, I do remember some big foofrah in the early 90s about a study of sexual fidelity. Limbaugh reversed two of the numbers and ranted at some length about the dire social trends revealed by the numbers which were the opposite of what the study reported.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by Jesus Christ

A few years ago, one of the few Senators of conscience died in a plane crash. I attended his memorial service, along with a number of people I knew from school and the neighborhood.

It made the national news.

Every thing I heard about it from any pundit was utterly false. Every damn bit. That Republicans were booed down when they tried to speak. That the entirety was a blatant propoganda tool. Five minutes out of a man who was visibly about to shatter's speech was taken wholly out of context, and it was assumed that the attitude that was fabricated by the media pervaded the hall. It didn't--the looks of shock on the faces of Democratic politicians who I was sitting next to were enough to prove that, let alone the other people.

Rush Limbaugh spread blatantly untrue things about the service, and he didn't give a damn. Not a damn. Nor did anyone on any messageboard I was on at the time. The word of a man who was given an edited version of the actual events was trusted over that of someone who was physically there.

Rush is a lying sack of shit as far as I'm concerned, all from that episode.

Rush doesn't care what actually happens: he cares about what gets him ratings. Reality does not sell his viewpoint well, so he distorts it. Wildly. And he doesn't care.

You're talking about Wellstone, right? What I heard from Rush was that it was turned into practically a political rally - certainly not a normal funeral. Here's a citation from the Nation, certainly not an organ of the extreme, far-out, rightwing:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?mm=10&yr=2002

Good heavens, have the neocons infiltrated the Nation?

[seebs]

Er, what you heard from Rush is very different from the complaints I heard from people who had been there and did have concerns about it.

Rush is a liar.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by seebs

Er, what you heard from Rush is very different from the complaints I heard from people who had been there and did have concerns about it.

Rush is a liar.

Errrr, you ignored my citation from The Nation.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Errrr, you ignored my citation from The Nation.

Yes, because it's irrelevant. I heard the accounts of people who were there at the time, and who were unhappy with what politicizing happened. What Rush said was not similar. He made it up. I have heard him lie before.

He is a liar.

[alphamale]

Rush said it was a political event. The liberal-left Nation as much as said it was a political event. It was a political event.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Rush said it was a political event. The liberal-left Nation as much as said it was a political event. It was a political event.

Any event involving a Senator is political to some extent. The majority of what happened, however, was simple respect for the dead, mourners talking about a man they loved and respected. The primary purpose was not political, and the majority of those present were offended by the few who tried to use the event for political gain.

I see no distinction between the political gain sought by some jerk at Wellstone's funeral and the political gain sought by Rush.

[rigorist]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Rush said it was a political event. The liberal-left Nation as much as said it was a political event. It was a political event.

Were you there, my friend?

Were you there?

No?

Then how about shutting the fuck up about it.

Thank you.