3/19 Rumsfeld 'wanted to bomb Iraq' after 9/11
http://csua.org/u/6iv
'But Mr Clarke, who is expected to testify on Tuesday before a federal
panel reviewing the attacks, said Mr Rumsfeld complained in the meeting
that "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots
of good targets in Iraq." A spokesman for Mr Rumsfeld last night said
he could not comment immediately."'
\_ tell me why would the UN want to give up its exploitation of
making millions off Saddam and the Oil for Food program?
what incentive for the UN to get rid of IRAQ's saddam when they
are making millions. You want nothing more than to put the
\_ Okay Mr. Smarty Pants whay was your strategy for
Iraqi people back under oppression so that the UN can make millions
more off the poor Iraqi people exploiting the Oil for Food program.
\_ lovely
\_ What's wrong with this, liberal?
\_ What's wrong? That Dubya and Co. tried to use the national
tragedy to push their own agendas?
\_ Okay Mr. Smarty Pants what was your strategy for
\_ Okay Mr. Smarty Pants whay was your strategy for
dealing with terror and cleaning up the cesspool of
the Middle East; this is incumbent on those who
criticise. No cogent alternative was ever
\_ how about dealing with Israeli/Palestine issue
directly and more even-handedly?
\_ Um, how about the simple observation that Iraq didn't
have any involvement at all in Al Qaeda or the WTC?
Bombing Iraq as a response to that is asinine.
\_ Um, you are plain wrong. Iraq actually did (and
still does) have ties with Al Qaeda. Soldiers
during the war actually came across a number of
terrorist training camps during the war. This is
pretty well documented.
\_ Show me the documents so I can laugh at them.
I never saw them. I did see things about camps
in Saudi Arabia.
\_ There were plenty of cogent alternatives advocated.
Hussain's neighbors didn't consider him a threat.
Our own analyists didn't consider him a threat.
Hussain was not connected to radical Islamists.
It was and remains quite clear that invading Iraq
had nothing to do with dealing with terror.
\_ And what exactly were those alternatives? Was it to
continue to sit on our hands while Iraq continued
to violate UN rules and regulations? Do you really
believe the UN would have actually done something
about the problem? Are you that naive? Do you have
no sense of history?
\_ Hussein's neighbors didn't consider him a threat
*to them*. I'm not one of his neighbors and I
doubt you are/were either. Which of 'our own
analysts' are you refering to? And yes there are
documents out there that show the national fascists
and Islamic fascists had considered working together.
Since our intel was so poor due to cuts in the 90s
we can't really know what was going on back then.
The best way to deal with terror is to overthrow the
socialist fascists that run the middle east and
replace them with non-Islamic democracies that won't
\_ I can't believe you have such simplistic
view of the world. If you actually
read 18-19th century, you might find that
much of the africa was conquered by the
western democracies. How about Britian's
Opium War against China? How about French's
conquest of Indochina and Algeria?
The truth is, Democracy, set by western
europe and Americans, are interwined with
Imperialism. Countries fell victim of
imperialism (including China, numerous
of southeast asian nations, and much of the
middleeast) tend to equate imperalism and
democracy. When they look for ways to
modernize themselves, they tend to look for
anything but imperalism related ideals.
Many choose communism (eg N. Korea, Vietnam,
and to some extent, China), many choose
religious fundamentalism for solution.
put up with that shit. Only then will the Arab
people advance and terrorism fade. It's people like
you who want to keep the Arab people down who create
and foster future generations of terrorists.
\_ The "if only everyone had government structure
X (which just happens to be the same structure
I live under), then there would be no more
conflict" argument goes back the beginning of
time. I see no particular reason to think that
this time, but truly, the argument is right.
\_ It's a well-documented historical fact that
democracies rarely, if ever, fight each other.
Democracy does promote peace, the problem is
establishing democracy in a society which has
never seen it before. Look how well it worked
in Russia... -- ilyas
\_ Or China. The primary arrogance of American
foreign policy since the beginning of time
is to simply assume as axiomatic that all
people want and need Democracy, and that all
governments are in some way drawn towards
this conclusion as a natural matter of
course.
\_ Those arrogant optimistic Americans.
A pox on them. -- ilyas
\_ you erase my post, I erase yours
advocated. |
http://csua.com/feed/