I will work on a first response to the above topic.
As a note, I will only respond to US=GG in this thread - the entire point is that it is a discussion between two rather than 15, which tends to get sloppy sloppy.
lol Prisoner#22 good one. They won’t ask that because they don’t want to hear the real reason.
Start a new thread MQ, I’d be happy to engage with you there. Its easy up in Canada to sit back and bitch about the US, us protecting your ass and all.
Prisoner#22,
We can’t catch bin laden because we don’t have thousand of troops in Pakistan and teh presidnet of that country won’t let us place thousands of trooops in Pakistan.
If we just wanted Iraq’s oil, why didn’t we keep it the first time we were there. Why didn’t we just keep his oil and Kuwaits and Saudi Arabia’s the first time around. Also, if it’s just about oil why didn’t we buy Iran’s oil for all these years.
We went to Iraq because after 9-11 we needed to go to the source of the terrorist problem. That is the middle east. We began in Afganistan for obvioius reasons. Then we went to Iraq because we had U.N. mandates saying we could if he didn’t comply. He hadn’t been complying for years and everyone was looking the other way. However, since we needed to get another foothold in the middle east to begin to effect some change there, Iraq was the next best place to go because we had U.N. authority to go.
Afganistan and Iraq are slowley on their way to becoming democracies and democracies tend not to produce terrorost fundamemtalists that threaten the world. That’s the plan and thats why we are there. Whether or not we invade Iran and Syria who knows. We can sure intimidate the hell out of them if we are on thier borders though.
We didn’t go to Rawanda for the exact reasons whatever country you are from didn’t, it didn’t directly effect our country. I personally was angry that Clinton didn’t send help and I would be just as angry if Bush wouldn’t help in such a situation.
The world hates us largely because you always hate the biggest, richest and most powerful. The guy who always gets his way is disliked. As infintile as that sounds it’s the reason most people don’t like the US. We are the biggest player on the world stage and we usually get our way, therefore people get sick of our percieved bullying. Certainly there’s some truth to that. But your and everyone else’s country would always get their way to if they could too. I don’t necessarily like it but that’s the way it is. The middle east has a particualr bone to pick with us and that’s our support for Isreal.
Prisoner#22,
More people aren’t murdered here than you have births, although there are a lot of murders. Also, we have something like ten times the population you guys do. Although, admitedly I have no idea what the ratio would be comopared to Canada. I’m sure we’d still have a lot more coomparitively.
Try not to exagerate so much. And you do seem angry. Take after M.Q. a bit, he’s wacky but he seems like a relatively nice guy other than that.
Prisoner#22:
Paul Martin, who recently took over for Jean Chretien.
Were you drunk when you typed the above? I am tempted to attribute your diatribe to the Canadian education system, but I know too many smart, well educated Canadians, all of whom would be embarrassed to be associated with you. Therefore, it must be some other genetic or environmental factor that caused you to produce such a jumble of blather.
By the way, what do you think of Canada’s new allied conservative party? Good times ahead for Canadians.
Cheers.
Prisoner#22,
Sorry, I didn’t see you were from Canada. I must have read the post too fast and didn’t notice you said you were from Canada.
Prisoner #22:
Oh yeah, forgot this part:
Ottawa.
My spelling is terrible.
guys, seriously, let’s stop posting here and let this be used for the debate.
yeah yeah i posted pics and stuff, but now that it seems there really will be a debate, i think we should all stop posting stuff.
Prisoner#22,
Many of the points you were attempting to make with your rant hinged on the assumption that Canada was relevant. It isn’t.
US=GG
“The first topic of discussion is as follows: saddam supported terrorists(1). The United States is a prime target for terrorists(2). saddam hussein hates the United States(3). Therefore, he was a threat to the United States and the world(4.1 - 4.2).”
I will be posting the topic at hand in each of my replies as to keep this debate organized and on-point.
Any change of topic should be approved by both parties, though elaboration and interpretation of the given topic might be seen as “changing of topic” - if this occurs, the other should point it out and debate the usefullness of doing so.
On points 1, 2, and 3, there is no base disagreement. However, the evidence of these points does not necessarily lead to a logical assumption of point 4.1 and 4.2 (I have divided this point into two clearly distinct claims, that he was a threat to (1) the US and (2) the world.
I’ll start with argument 1. There is no doubt that Hussein supported terrorism, though by admission of the evidence you provided (or evidenced by the specific sources you provided) Hussein specifically supported Palestinian terrorists (suicide bombers) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Though there were reports of Hussein offering up sums of money for suicide missions within the US, those attacks never occured, and the initial reports came into question by the media.
For procedural purposes, I think a definition of terrorism is in order.
The Miriam-Webster defines terrorism as:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
This definition is good, except that it does not specifically say that terrorism is indiscriminate in its target - the term “unlawful” is virtually useless in the international sphere, since GOVERNMENTS acting in particular way can always claim lawful action while groups can always be termed unlawful.
For example - the Bush administration and the US government repeatedly has termed the roadside bombings and acts of violence agains the US occupation force as “acts of terrorism” - when, in fact, they are acts of war. The attack of a group of soldiers by another group of soldiers in a war-time environment is a hostile act of war. The car bombings of aid agencies in Iraq, or the bombing of police headquarters would be considered “terrorist” acts, in my understanding of the term.
The argument over the definition of terorism is broad and has been raging for years - we have no hope of coming to a definitive conclusion here. However, I do not consider any act of violence against the US as terrorism necessarily, or any act the US commits against other countries as “not terrorism” - that is to say, there SHOULD BE no moral hierarchy of terms. An act of war can be just as morally reprehensible as terrorism, and the reverse is true as well.
Saddam Hussein did in fact support terrorism. He did not, however, support the terrorist group that immediately threatens the US, Al Qaeda.
Brent Scowcroft, a Republican foreign policy advisor, wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
In an op-ed piece published by the Wall Street Journal he stated, ?[T]here is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam’s goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address.? (Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal)
President Bush himself has denied the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda:
"The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here’s the key portion:
[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can’t make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question."
The Bush administration has consistently ALLUDED to the links between Saddam Hussein and terrorism (a charge which the administration denies) which leads a whopping 70% of US residents to believe that Saddam is directly tied to the 9-11 attacks.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html)
Though Bush has gone on record as saying there is a definite link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda (cited above), no evidence has been provided by anyone that such is the case.
So ends my analysis of point 1. The salient arguments:
-
Saddam supported terrorism, but not terrorism that directly threatens the United States.
-
There is no accepted definition of terrorism, and the term itself has become a political catch-all phrase used by politicians to stir emotions among the people. The current Iraqi insurgency against the US occupation force should not be considered terrorism, except for the attacks that occur against civilian targets.
-
There is no link between Saddam and 9-11 that we know of, and Bush has said so. The Bush administration is directly responsible for leading 70% of people in the US to believe that there were ties. The alleged ties between Al Qaeda and the Baath party also have no evidence supporting them.
On points 2 and 3, we have no disagreement. US interests are constantly under attack by terrorists, and Saddam had all the hate in the world for the United States (though he enjoyed our movies, music, and soda products)
Point 4.1 is incorrect, point 4.2 is correct only in that he threatened his neighbors in the Middle East and Israel (as well as terrorizing his own people)
I will address these arguments next.
An additional point of clarity please:
Can I assume that by your statement:
“The first topic of discussion is as follows: saddam supported terrorists(1). The United States is a prime target for terrorists(2). saddam hussein hates the United States(3). Therefore, he was a threat to the United States and the world(4.1 - 4.2).”
You conclude:
Therefore, the US led war in Iraq was justified?
I do not want to put words in your mouth, but an answer is somewhat essential for me to finish my initial response. I may think that Saddam was a threat to the world, but I may not believe that the resources expended were justified, for example. Or, I may argue that the war was justified, but not because Saddam supported terrorism and was therefore a threat.
Again, just a point of clarity. If you choose not to add a “therefore” argument to your initial topic, we will work within the weaker version.
I am Cruched. I can not believe that US=GG supported Al Gore and Bill Clinton. He has lost all credibility with me!
Me Solomon Grundy
“The Bush administration has consistently ALLUDED to the links between Saddam Hussein and terrorism (a charge which the administration denies) which leads a whopping 70% of US residents to believe that Saddam is directly tied to the 9-11 attacks.”
If I was an American I would be pretty angry with my government for treating us like idiots. Not that it is terribly surprising that they use suggestion to get the people to think anything is justified under the notion of ?national security.?
Someone needs to stop what is going on in the US. It is deeply ironic, and disturbing, that the US claims to be the leader of democracy. So much of the US foreign policy is decided without any care or consultation of the American people. Everyone just assumes that because the people making the decisions are American, they must be making decisions that are in the best interests of the people and not themselves and the people they represent.
The point of democracy is that it allows for the people to run their own country. In order to do so, the people require two things: freedom of speech, so that all opinions can be heard, and transparency/representation, so that everyone can have a say in the issues at hand. Right now most of the decisions that will affect your country for years to come are being made behind closed doors in the name of ?freedom? and ?democracy?
Just remember that people are extremely self interested, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I love this thread. It is keeping quite a few of the whackos tied up here so they cannot poison other threads.
Umm, Kiernan:
We’re a democratic republic, not a direct democracy. The point of a republic is that you elect leaders, who then can set policies without direct referrendums to the people on each issue. Just an FYI.
yes BostonBarrister, I understand that the US is a representational democracy and not a direct democracy (which would be impossible…lol!
My point was this:
How are you supposed to decide who to vote for when you don’t even know the issues going on, let alone their policies on them?
Kieran:
There are lots of facts out there. People decide which to believe. The central premise of freedom of speech is that the cure for bad speech is exposing it to the marketplace of ideas. BTW, if the study referenced is the one I think it is, those questions were a bit slanted. Be happy to continue the discussion via IM.
Why don’t we stop debating and arguing over something we’ll never agree too no matter how much info we have and go lift some weights, now there’s something I think we all agree with.