An Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan

Originally Posted by wawazat??

Calm down here guys. We all have our right to opinions here. Regardless of eack of our beliefs, none are better than anothers. This war, as any, will generate heated debate. Keep it on the up-and-up and the thread stays open.

Dan, that was pretty close to an attack on SVXtra and I will ask you to remember the rules of the site and avoid them from now on.

Thanks,
Todd

Yessir! I will remember the rules of the site and avoid them from now on.


Sorry, my twisted sense of humour got the better of me for just a sec....
.....there, I'm all better now

P.S. I think the puppy has doggy breath.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Bipa

Yessir! I will remember the rules of the site and avoid them from now on.


Sorry, my twisted sense of humour got the better of me for just a sec....
.....there, I'm all better now

P.S. I think the puppy has doggy breath.

I hear there are bones that will curb the smell of doggy breath.

Landshark's wife gives him biscuits to fix his horsebreath.

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by Bipa

Yessir! I will remember the rules of the site and avoid them from now on.

Im with Bipa on this one...

[Noir]

Originally Posted by RSVX

Im with Bipa on this one...

oh yeah? well you're stupid!

yeah that's right, i went there.

you smell funny too!

Originally Posted by RSVX

Im with Bipa on this one...

You moron, you're not supposed to be agreeing with me!
This is a fightin' thread...

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by Bipa

You moron, you're not supposed to be agreeing with me!
This is a fightin' thread...

I agreed with you knowing it would start a fight about agreeing with you... so THERE!!

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by Noir

oh yeah? well you're stupid!

yeah that's right, i went there.

you smell funny too!

Well, if you would get your head out of my a$$, maybe I wouldnt smell so bad...

Yeah, thats right, YOU went there!!!



LOL

Originally Posted by RSVX

I agreed with you knowing it would start a fight about agreeing with you... so THERE!!

You Potato-head... you forgot to call me a name. And hey! aren't I even worthy of a single insult!? I think you like Noir better than me! Not fair!!!

That calls for twenty lashes with a wet noodle!

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by Bipa

You Potato-head... you forgot to call me a name. And hey! aren't I even worthy of a single insult!? I think you like Noir better than me! Not fair!!!

That calls for twenty lashes with a wet noodle!

I was gonna call you an attention wh... NVM!

LOL

[Noir]

Originally Posted by RSVX

Well, if you would get your head out of my a$$, maybe I wouldnt smell so bad...

Yeah, thats right, YOU went there!!!



LOL

oh no, another thread hijacked by yours truly.

so let me guess you had clam chowder last night...and oh wait....was that the faint aroma of a milkbone detected?

[Shadow248]

Originally Posted by Bipa

Actually, I've heard this type of thinking before. What I find interesting is that the previous folks who espoused similar values were leaders of the CCCP. The goal justifies the means. Was despised by the West as going against all our beliefs. Guess those beliefs have changed. Oh, well.... if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

You would be an excellent politician. You have a great ability to dance eloquently around a subject while not really saying anything one way or another.

You completely avoided (or just missed) my point. My point was, when American lives are directly threatened, the whole game changes. And yes, we may have to do some underhanded things sometimes to protect ourselves. You of all people here should recognize this.

Originally Posted by Bipa

You ask me to use common sense. Here goes. That rag-tag organization is led by a man with excellent family connections and a great deal of personal wealth. Bin Laden was one of 54 children born to a Saudi Arabian of Yemeni origin who made a fortune in the construction trades. At the time of his death in 1968, Osama's father was worth in excess of $11 billion. Osama was raised and educated with members of the Saudi royal family.

Won't go into lots of detail, but Osama initially saw the CCCP as being the greater threat, and having been strongly influenced by his cleric teachers, he went to Afghanistan to join the mujahideens. In the 1980's, Osama formed an organization called Maktab al-Khidamar, which together with the other mujahideen groups, were covertly being supported by the US/CIA in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It is estimated that the CIA funnelled over $3 Billion over the course of the war to fund anti-Soviet fighters, which included Osama.

By 1982, they were receiving $600 million per year from the CIA and the same from the Gulf states. (Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002), 143

When that war ended in 1989, Osama had not just his family wealth, but very good training and weapons - mostly supplied by the USA, and a vast interconnecting network of fellow guerilla fighters. On his return to Saudi Arabia, he continued to be disillusioned by the activities of the royal Saudi Family, which he viewed as dissolute and degenerate. He was also against the increasingly close ties between the Saudi Royal Family and the USA, which he saw as contributing to the downfall of traditional Saudi moral values.

In 1988, Osama left the Maktab al-Khidamar along with a group of other like-minded extremists to form a new organization: al-Qaida. So it could be argued that the whole situation is a problem step-child of the USA and CIA. Seems that history repeats itself continuously as there are many similar examples of USA backed individuals and groups later returning to bite the hand that fed them.

Yawn...i've heard this little "history lesson" so many times I could recite it back to you word for word now. Seems like every anti-war nut in this country uses this as a big part of their justification. "Oh it's our fault, we created the monster so now we have to deal with it".

I certainly won't disagree that Osama's beef is genuine. But how does that make us wrong for going after him and his support network? We need to protect ourselves. He used no discretion in killing thousands of innocent Americans who had nothing to do with the events which he uses for justification of his hatred. So why should we be any different in going after him? He assumed "they're Americans, so they are all bad and must die." Now you are saying we're wrong for doing the same to him? Eye for an eye as they say.

Originally Posted by Bipa

I usually don't respond at all to these kinds of inappropriate comments. I shall ignore the personal disparagement and move on to your speculation about possible links between Saddam and al-Qaida.

Ahh...how noble and mature of you. There was no personal attack in there and i'm sorry if you misunderstood me and thought there was. I'm just getting very tired of people who are in denial of the obvious, and then have the nerve to tell me i'm crazy. Step outside your own world for a moment (as you must have done before many times to learn all that you have) and consider how ridiculous your claim is.

Originally Posted by Bipa

I assume you are aware that Osama was extremely upset when the Saudi's "invited" the infidel US Armed Forces to use Saudi Arabia as a base in 1990 for the first Iraq war. He wanted the Saudi's to instead invite only true-believers - i.e. former Afghan mujahideens, who would not pollute Islam by their very presence. He perceived Saddam as a threat not only to Saudi Arabia but also to Islam in general. Saddam did not have clerics in high government positions and was extremely secular in nature. He allowed women unprecedented freedom for an Arab society, among other things. Saddam did not follow the strict conservative interpretation of Islam which Osama believes is the only true path.

So considering the well-known fact that Osama was ready and willing to use his former Afghanistan network against Saddam for the protection of Saudi Arabia, and given their diametrically opposed beliefs, I see no way that they could ever cooperate.

When two powerful men with alot to gain from each other have a common goal, personal feelings often are overrided by convenience. I'm sure you can name several other examples of this very phenomenon in history.

Originally Posted by Bipa

Once Saddam was gone, and the mainly US forces were occupying Iraq, it was only natural and to be expected that the Islamic conservatives, both Osama's group and others (for example Iran) would view this as a opportunity to change a secular, fairly modern country into a conservative, Sharia based Islamic state.

Oh sure, except for the fact that the most powerful, most advanced, and most pissed-off military in the world happened to be standing in the way. I'm sure Osama's people thought nothing of this. Let's not forget that the people of Iraq largely had no interest in what Osama was peddling. But who cares, we're wrong and he's right.

Originally Posted by Bipa

I also must admit that after reading Bob Woodward's "Plan Of Attack", I have severe doubts about how great a threat Saddam actually posed to the world in general, and the US in particular at the time of the 2nd Iraq war. It was a fascinating read, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested.

Hindsight is always 20/20 as they say. Much like the monday-morning armchair quarterbacks, everyone's an expert.

It was too much of a gamble to wait. Bush (I use that term to represent the people who REALLY make the decisions) felt the pressure to do something, and knew full well what would happen if he was right (about the WMDs) and didn't do anything about it. So really, put yourself in his shoes, not knowing for sure, but thinking that Saddam could very well have these weapons and could very well be preparing to use them. Would you sit around and wait for inspectors who could take months to search and still come up with nothing?

[NapaBavarian]

Originally Posted by Shadow248

You would be an excellent politician. You have a great ability to dance eloquently around a subject while not really saying anything one way or another.

THE KETTLE IS BLACK, THE KETTLE IS BLACK!!!!!!!

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Shadow248

You would be an excellent politician. You have a great ability to dance eloquently around a subject while not really saying anything one way or another.

You completely avoided (or just missed) my point. My point was, when American lives are directly threatened, the whole game changes. And yes, we may have to do some underhanded things sometimes to protect ourselves. You of all people here should recognize this.

You would make an excellent superhero. Riddle me this Batman, 'What are we going to do about Indonesia?' American lives are at risk! Australian lives are at risk! British lives are at risk! The whole city of Gotham is in DANGER!!!!!

Originally Posted by Shadow248

Yawn...i've heard this little "history lesson" so many times I could recite it back to you word for word now. Seems like every anti-war nut in this country uses this as a big part of their justification. "Oh it's our fault, we created the monster so now we have to deal with it".

You, my friend, are genuinely right. The second OBL was conceived, a gene from his forefathers pool was awakened. This was 'Eradicate the Western Civilizations' gene. In Russia, we don't create monster, monster create us!

Originally Posted by Shadow248

I certainly won't disagree that Osama's beef is genuine. But how does that make us wrong for going after him and his support network? We need to protect ourselves. He used no discretion in killing thousands of innocent Americans who had nothing to do with the events which he uses for justification of his hatred. So why should we be any different in going after him? He assumed "they're Americans, so they are all bad and must die." Now you are saying we're wrong for doing the same to him? Eye for an eye as they say.

Please refer to my riddle Batman.

Originally Posted by Shadow248

Ahh...how noble and mature of you. There was no personal attack in there and i'm sorry if you misunderstood me and thought there was. I'm just getting very tired of people who are in denial of the obvious, and then have the nerve to tell me i'm crazy. Step outside your own world for a moment (as you must have done before many times to learn all that you have) and consider how ridiculous your claim is.

Shadow248, I am appalled that someone would call you crazy. You bring nothing but ironclad facts and scientific reasoning to the table. I don't know if you're familiar with comics, but Ironman had qualities just like yourself.

Originally Posted by Shadow248

When two powerful men with alot to gain from each other have a common goal, personal feelings often are overrided by convenience. I'm sure you can name several other examples of this very phenomenon in history.

Men aren't the only ones who follow this trend. I've had girlfriends in the past with whom I did not harbour any feelings for. We consummated our carnal desires out of convenience instead of personal feelings like majority of people I see daily driving on the streets.

Originally Posted by Shadow248

Oh sure, except for the fact that the most powerful, most advanced, and most pissed-off military in the world happened to be standing in the way. I'm sure Osama's people thought nothing of this. Let's not forget that the people of Iraq largely had no interest in what Osama was peddling. But who cares, we're wrong and he's right.

Preach it brother!!!!

Originally Posted by Shadow248

Hindsight is always 20/20 as they say. Much like the monday-morning armchair quarterbacks, everyone's an expert.

It was too much of a gamble to wait. Bush (I use that term to represent the people who REALLY make the decisions) felt the pressure to do something, and knew full well what would happen if he was right (about the WMDs) and didn't do anything about it. So really, put yourself in his shoes, not knowing for sure, but thinking that Saddam could very well have these weapons and could very well be preparing to use them. Would you sit around and wait for inspectors who could take months to search and still come up with nothing?

This is only the beginning, Shadow248. We still have to deal with Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Crimea, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, Kurdistan, Kosovo, and Chechnya. It's going to be a long fight brother, but we need to secure our futures and the safety of our country and our people!

American JIHAD, baby!!!!!!!!!!

[RojoRocket]

This is only the beginning, Shadow248. We still have to deal with Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Crimea, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia, Kurdistan, Kosovo, and Chechnya. It's going to be a long fight brother, but we need to secure our futures and the safety of our country and our people!

Noir

Don't forget California and the rest of the Blue states! I'm sure we're on Mister SUPERHERO's list as well. As so condescendingly stated, following obvious insult with "i'm sorry if you misunderstood me..." blah blah blah. Another expert on everything that reaffirms what he knows to be true and determined to "help" the rest of us see the errors of our ways. Forehead must bulge with all that knowledge locked inside

Archie Bunker lives, and he now wears a cape.

Bipa, thanks for your well stated and researched posts, hopefully encouraging other folks into seeing through the rhetoric, while rising above the snide and obnoxious. Glad you kept the car and stuck around to contribute such thoughtful insight from a different perspective. As much as I love this board I cringe every time the current Administration and their so called "Christian" agenda and "mandate of the people" is questioned in any way, bringing on vitriolic attacks from certain members.

I was determined not to post here, but fell victim to a few too many brewskis.

Glenn Commie Pinko F@g and proud of it.

Originally Posted by Shadow248

You would be an excellent politician. You have a great ability to dance eloquently around a subject while not really saying anything one way or another.

Hmm...I genuinely thought I had stated quite a few of my actual positions quite openly and clearly. Let's review, shall we? I will mainly use quotes from what I have already written in this thread to answer your objections. I also thank you for the backhanded compliment. I've always enjoyed writing, and having my writing acknowledged as "eloquent" is quite gratifying.

You completely avoided (or just missed) my point. My point was, when American lives are directly threatened, the whole game changes. And yes, we may have to do some underhanded things sometimes to protect ourselves. You of all people here should recognize this.

Ah.... and here I thought you were arguing that "the goal justifies the means" (Post #42). Sorry, I must have misunderstood.

Question: Why should I of all people here recognize this?

I actually did write more about this topic in response to Red SVX 92 in Post #43.
"To be honest, it isn't the concept of a pre-emptive strike in theory that bothers me all that much. Obviously, nation states play by different rules, and you don't always have time to hold a nice trial by judge and jury and find someone officially guilty before taking action...."

Yawn...i've heard this little "history lesson" so many times I could recite it back to you word for word now.

If you dispute the information I have presented, then please respond with contradictory evidence and sources so that I may educate myself further. Don't just tell me I'm wrong, give me supporting data that I can review, confirm from third sources, analyze and mull over. I enjoy constructive criticism that gives me something new to consider.

Seems like every anti-war nut in this country uses this as a big part of their justification. "Oh it's our fault, we created the monster so now we have to deal with it"

There's a contradiction here that has me puzzled. Folks with anti-war sentiments are usually the ones that DON'T want to deal with it, at least not with military force. Pro-war advocates are the ones that do indeed want to deal with it, quickly and with maximum force. So how is it possible that in your opinion, the anti-war protestors are justifying their peaceful desires by saying "Oh it's our fault, we created the monster so now we have to deal with it." I must be misunderstanding something yet again.

I certainly won't disagree that Osama's beef is genuine. But how does that make us wrong for going after him and his support network? We need to protect ourselves. He used no discretion in killing thousands of innocent Americans who had nothing to do with the events which he uses for justification of his hatred. So why should we be any different in going after him? He assumed "they're Americans, so they are all bad and must die." Now you are saying we're wrong for doing the same to him? Eye for an eye as they say.

I do believe we're back to a variant of "the goal justifies the means" (Post #42). Yet if true equality of damage is the goal, then the US should have attacked and/or killed no more than the same number of Americans who have been injured and killed. I do believe you said "eye for an eye" and not 26 million pairs of eyes in exchange for a few thousand? The mathematical equation doesn't equate.

I am not anti-war in general. There are times when it is needed as a last resort when all else has failed. I support the use of appropriate force. I even have written openly that I don't really have a problem with pre-emptive strikes. I stated my view clearly in Post #43. "My biggest problem is with how the target for this pre-emptive strike was chosen. I think we should be much more selective, and not hold to account 26 million people for the actions of a few."

Ahh...how noble and mature of you. There was no personal attack in there and i'm sorry if you misunderstood me and thought there was.

How can anyone refuse to accept so noble and mature an apology? Apology accepted.

I'm just getting very tired of people who are in denial of the obvious, and then have the nerve to tell me i'm crazy.

I have done a search of all my posts here, and don't find any such statement ever made by me. In fact, I have never expressed such a sentiment in any of the over 100 posts which appear beneath my name. I am also open to new facts and welcome the chance to learn more information, thus cannot be in denial by definition. Obviously, this comment is not directed at me but at others who might be reading your post. Or else perhaps I just might be misunderstanding again.

Step outside your own world for a moment (as you must have done before many times to learn all that you have) and consider how ridiculous your claim is.

I have provided data for my claims which people can verify for themselves through various sources. I can provide more if you wish. As of yet, you have supplied only your personal opinions without backing them up with any hard evidence or sources. If something I have written is incorrect, then I will gladly accept a correction, provided I can double check it through my own choice of reputable sources.

When two powerful men with alot to gain from each other have a common goal, personal feelings often are overrided by convenience. I'm sure you can name several other examples of this very phenomenon in history.

Sometimes? yes. Often? debatable. Always? no. In matters of belief, religion, and other strongly held principles, such "deals with the devil" occur only seldom. We're not speaking about two competing businessmen teaming up to get rid of a third rival. These two men had strongly held convictions on completely opposite poles.

Could you please give me evidence of some goals held in common by Saddam and Osama? Saddam wanted to take over Kuwait. There is actually some historical basis to his claim that Kuwait should have been a part of Iraq all along. For a brief overview, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kuwait

Osama doesn't care about Kuwait to the best of my knowledge. Osama wanted, and still does assuming he's alive, that Saudi Arabia revert to a conservative Sharia-based Islamic State. Saddam did not want to have yet another neighbour go all extremist conservative since he'd had enough trouble with Iran already. One of the major factors keeping the Saudi Royal Family in power is the USA. It could be argued that without continuing American support, civil war would have already broken out in Saudi Arabia between the ruling family and the conservatives. Any such dispute would have flowed over the border and caused trouble in Iraq as well. So it was in Saddam's best interest that the USA maintain a strong presence in Saudi Arabia as a stabilizing force in the region. The tension between the orthodox, conservative Muslims and the reform-minded, more secular Muslims was discussed in my post to you #42.

As an aside, there has been much speculation about possible connections between Saddam and Osama. Here I present one of my favourites: Powell Offers Proof of Saddam-Osama Link February 7, 2003 By Gil Christner

Oh sure, except for the fact that the most powerful, most advanced, and most pissed-off military in the world happened to be standing in the way. I'm sure Osama's people thought nothing of this.

For evidence contradicting your view, I ask you to get current news about Iraq using the medium of your choice. (newpaper, TV, radio, internet, ask your neighbour...) The current struggle in Iraq is not between anti- and pro- Saddam groups. They all recognise that Saddam isn't coming back. The current struggle is, as I described in my Post #42, between ijtihad and taqlid.

Let's not forget that the people of Iraq largely had no interest in what Osama was peddling.

I would say they had little interest in buying into Osama's agenda. Thus I dispute any supposition of close ties between the two. They definitely would have been interested in what he was attempting to accomplish, given that it could have a direct effect on Iraq.

I doubt that the majority of Iraqis would want to live in a strict theocratic state such as Iran. As stated in Post #42, "Saddam did not have clerics in high government positions and was extremely secular in nature. He allowed women unprecedented freedom for an Arab society, among other things. Saddam did not follow the strict conservative interpretation of Islam which Osama believes is the only true path." This means that the Iraqi's were used to much greater freedoms than currently to be found in Iran.

But who cares, we're wrong and he's right.

Errr... who's "he"? I'm back to misunderstanding again.

Hindsight is always 20/20 as they say. Much like the monday-morning armchair quarterbacks, everyone's an expert.

Hindsight was covered in Post #43. "Of course in hindsight one is better able to consider possible options and outcomes. But certain things remain basic cause and effect stuff and can be anticipated. The current mess in Iraq SHOULD have been anticipated."

It was too much of a gamble to wait.

They had already waited many years after the first Iraq war. What changed between 1991 and 2001 to make it an even bigger gamble? I have found no evidence of any dramatic increase in risk. Given that "Hindsight is always 20/20 as they say" (your words), we certainly should have had some actual proof by now. The Americans in Iraq have had two years now to put some evidence on the table for all to see. Show me.

Bush (I use that term to represent the people who REALLY make the decisions) felt the pressure to do something...

Oh, wait a sec. Something did happen in 2001. September 11 to be exact. Osama's group attacked and killed lots of innocent people in the USA. But we couldn't find Osama. We could more easily, however, find Saddam. We're upset, we're angry, we need to lash out at somebody. Well, what the heck, we don't really like Saddam either, so let's take him out. Gotta get all this angry aggression out somehow. Common sense, of course.

And it actually does make some sense from a purely Public Relations perspective. The government must be seen as actually doing something. Can't sit back and wait to find the guilty one responsible before taking action - that looks like nobody is doing anything. Must take action now, any action will do. So let's attack a country, restrict civil liberties, and put a whole bunch of people in jail without formal charges laid.
Just one of many examples of the latter:
Jose Padilla: No Charges and No Trial, Just Jail
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html

Must add this one: Myths and Realities About the Patriot Act
http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/facts.html

Bush (I use that term to represent the people who REALLY make the decisions) felt the pressure to do something, and knew full well what would happen if he was right (about the WMDs) and didn't do anything about it. So really, put yourself in his shoes, not knowing for sure, but thinking that Saddam could very well have these weapons and could very well be preparing to use them. Would you sit around and wait for inspectors who could take months to search and still come up with nothing?

First I would make sure my facts were as straight as possible. Please read the following excerp, which has the accompanying link below so you can read the whole article if desired.

Now the fight has begun over who was responsible. Or, as CIA veteran Melvin Goodman put it: “Did the intelligence shape policy, or did the policy shape intelligence?” Greg Thielmann, who was formerly a member of the U.S. State Department’s intelligence division, put it this way: “Everyone knew that the White House was deaf to any information that would not substantiate its charges….The White House was never searching for the truth; it was searching for arguments to make the case for war.”

http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1828.cfm#down