An Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

Which would be extremely ironic if civil war actually broke out because (unless I'm mistaken), it was the Royal Family that embraced that initial conservative ideology.

I could be wrong.

[Shadow248]

Ok, we've broken off onto alot of unecessary tangents that we don't need. So in this post, I am going work on cleaning up our argument.

I don't know if it's our difference of style, or maybe just the fact that we cannot express emotion in this argument, but it seems like we are misunderstanding alot of each other's comments.

Originally Posted by Bipa

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 are a very good writer, i'll give you that. But you have offered an awful lot of "proof" and not that much "argument".

Originally Posted by Bipa

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

Because you have given evidence that you actually know something.

Originally Posted by Bipa

"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...."

On that, we are in agreement.

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

I don't dispute your information (the factual stuff). I dispute some of the conclusions you have come to based on that information.

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

Your not misunderstanding. My word choice was pretty bad there. I knew what I wanted to say, but somehow it didn't come out so clear-cut.

What I was trying to say was, I hear that little "history" lesson everytime I get into it with some anti-war nut. I get the line "well we created him, so we have no-one to blame but ourselves". To which I then ask "So we are to simply sit around and let this 'monster' that we created destroy us?". My opinion would be since we screwed up, and we (most of us) can recognize this, shouldn't we go back and clean up the mess we made?

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

ok...

1 - Saying "The goal justifies the means" is oversimplifying the situation to enhance your argument. This is a different situation. Again, LIVES ARE AT STAKE. We are not on some field trip here. But to put it as simply as I can, and to play into your version of the argument here, when the goal is preserving American lives, i'd say in just about ANY situation "The goal justifies the means". The bottom line is both OBL and Saddam were threats. Though we can (and will) argue until we can't breathe over how much of a threat they are/were, they were both very powerful, very influential men with a shared hatred of the ideals we built this country on.

2 - I notice you conveniently lumped all those "pairs of eyes" under the "American kill" column and neglected to mention that the majority of those eyes were actually taken at the hands of Iraqis or Al-Queda henchmen. I really hope you are not one of those people who blames guns for shooting deaths, cause then my respect for you as a reputable historian would be lost.

Originally Posted by Bipa

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."

If you have a machine gun, and you know someone in a crowd of criminals is about to shoot you, do you go perusing through the crowd to try to find the one who wants you dead?

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

Yes that was directed only partially at you. You are still trying to tell me that there is absolutely no connection between OBL and Saddam, while it seems blatantly obvious to me and millions of other people that there was. You can spit out all the history and information about the two that you want. You can't prove to me that they never collaborated or assisted each other in any way. I go by what I know of the two men, and a little deductive reasoning/common sense, and I come to a rather solid conclusion.

However you have yet to actually call me crazy, so that's why I can't say you totally fit that statement of mine.

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

Yes I haven't backed anything up because I really haven't said anything that needs backing up. I am only commenting on your arguments and proof, and i am simply making comments based on information that is widely known to be true. To top it off, I don't have an entire hour to devote to this thread. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

But here we are talking about Iraqi people, not Saddam. Very different worlds there.

Originally Posted by Bipa

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."

Don't waste your time. I'm tired of hearing people saying "I could have told you this would happen. Idiots running this country, we have.". Bull****. there's a reason not everyone is running this country. Even though everyone in this country thinks they could do it better. There are things that we don't know that factored into all this. Just use common sense and what you know is fact (not what the media wants you to think is fact) to make your opinions.

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

So we should have kept waiting? For how long? What if we never found evidence of WMDs because Saddam successfully shuffled his stockpile? Then, when we finally gave up searching and shook his hand and left, he launched on us while our backs were turned. I can only imagine the size of the skillet you'd be frying our government on in that case.

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

I refer you to my point above about the crowd of criminals.

Originally Posted by Bipa

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.

Agreed here. If you've ever been a manager for an American corporation, you know this concept well.

Originally Posted by Bipa

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

See here you are presenting me with another report, in retrospect, of mistakes made going into the war. What's your point here? We've talked about this in detail. I'm not disputing at any level the fact that we didn't have all our ducks in a row before we went into this. But i AM disputing the claim that this was the wrong thing to do. WE DID NOT KNOW...I REPEAT...DID NOT KNOW. When the stakes are that high, and you have reason to believe, you act. I would have done the same thing. The same reason that schools are always evacuated for any bomb-threat. It could be the most obvious hoax, but the school still reacts. It's simple why - the consequences of not acting and the threat being real.

Originally Posted by RojoRocket

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.

Well you made a laughing stock out of yourself better than I ever could have. Noir was lightening the mood of the thread as he always does. You are just unnecessary.

Go cry for John Kerry.

[RojoRocket]

Unnecessary? Considering the source, I'll take that as a compliment. To quote your hero, "You're doin' a great job Brownie".

Glenn

To quote your hero, "You're doin' a great job Brownie".

What! You mean to say The Shadow is a Bush supporter? No wonder he never responded to my answers. After making two requests for me to answer his trivia question of naming one popular wartime president. Then I named two and both of the correct answers end with the name Bush. I guess if your a Bush supporter "that's just the way it works in this country".

Again I refer you to my trivia - name one popular wartime president. There are none and there will never be any. That's just the way it works in this country.

Since you wish to bring up the question again. How about George H.W. Bush. He oversaw two major U.S. military deployments. He ordered the invasion of Panama. Which I believe was the largest airborne assault since World War II. I also believe his approval rating was around 80% after that war.


And how about George W.Bush's easy reelection while fighting two wars. He moped up the floor voter wise using John Kerry as a mop.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by SVXtra

And how about George W.Bush's easy reelection while fighting two wars. He moped up the floor voter wise using John Kerry as a mop.

that doesn't count, because a bag of hammers would get more votes than John Kerry.

[RojoRocket]

Originally Posted by Landshark

that doesn't count, because a bag of hammers would get more votes than John Kerry.

Very funny guys, but actual popular vote:

Republican Bush
(Incumbent)
62,040,606 51% 286

Democratic Kerry
59,028,109 48% 252

Independent Nader
411,304 1% 0

Heckova bag of hammers, and not exactly a "mandate".

Glenn

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by RojoRocket

Heckova bag of hammers, and not exactly a "mandate".

Glenn

teh bag of hammers would have better "plans" than Kerry.

[Red SVX 92]

The bag of hammers would have beat Bush in the elections.

Bipa, great posts, I'd love to reply to some of the points and nitpick at a few comments, but they're too minor to point out.

[Shadow248]

Originally Posted by RojoRocket

Unnecessary? Considering the source, I'll take that as a compliment. To quote your hero, "You're doin' a great job Brownie".

Glenn

You can take it anyway that makes you happy. Just don't waste our time unless you actually have something to contribute to this discussion.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by SVXtra

What! You mean to say The Shadow is a Bush supporter? No wonder he never responded to my answers. After making two requests for me to answer his trivia question of naming one popular wartime president. Then I named two and both of the correct answers end with the name Bush. I guess if your a Bush supporter "that's just the way it works in this country".

Since you wish to bring up the question again. How about George H.W. Bush. He oversaw two major U.S. military deployments. He ordered the invasion of Panama. Which I believe was the largest airborne assault since World War II. I also believe his approval rating was around 80% after that war.

You want my already ridiculously long posts to be even longer? Since we've hit a lull in the action, I will take the time to address your perfectly reasonable response.

You got about as close as you could to a "popular" wartime president, but there are two problems with your choice.

1 - His approval rating was high (not quite that high though) AFTER the war. Not during.

2 - You neglected to mention (understandably) that he lost his re-election bid to Bill Clinton of all people. I wouldn't call that popularity.

Originally Posted by Landshark

that doesn't count, because a bag of hammers would get more votes than John Kerry.

Could not have put that one better myself.



Note to the democrats in here - if you really have that much of a problem with Bush, how come you're not all out there scouting for a candidate who could actually have a shot at winning an election? That would be one hell of a way to start accomplishing your little agendas.

[dcarrb]

Originally Posted by Shadow248

Note to the democrats in here - if you really have that much of a problem with Bush, how come you're not all out there scouting for a candidate who could actually have a shot at winning an election?

You mean, Hillary's not gonna run?
dcb

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by dcarrb

You mean, Hillary's not gonna run?
dcb

See your original quote for my response to that one...

[Rotorflyr]

Originally Posted by Noir

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

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

Dang Noir, having an off day???
Fixed your post

[Rotorflyr]

Originally Posted by Shadow248

You can take it anyway that makes you happy. Just don't waste our time unless you actually have something to contribute to this discussion.

Thanks.

So why do you keep posting then???

So why do you keep posting then???

...........

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Rotorflyr

Dang Noir, having an off day???
Fixed your post

rotoflyr, i you mang.