Political discussion thread

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 IVNORD wrote:

 Proletariat wrote:

 IVNORD wrote:

 Gamemako wrote:

 IVNORD wrote:

[QUOTE=Gamemako] [QUOTE=IVNORD] 
Clinton or Gore would have invaded Afghanistan, pure speculation, totally unsubstantiated. You're right, I forgot to mention that they might have been able to prevent 9/11. a very justified and still popular war. Technically, both wars have the same justification. What? That's certainly a generalization.  Not at all. Saddam was most likely involved in 9/11. So give-us-Osama-or-face-the-music is of the same kind as give-us-Saddam.

Is that a joke?

Do you mean the joke is that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? Indeed, we invaded a country because it sheltered Osama who technically was a fugitive. If going to war over a fugitive is justified, we should have invaded France because of Roman Polansky _popupControl(); 

I was referring to the green text. Last time I checked, they have found no evidence supporting that Saddam-was-in-on-9/11 theory. Nor have they found any weapons programs. Bush's justifications are more or less McCarthyisms as far as we can tell.

Bush's public reason for invading Iraq were weapons, 9/11, and despotism. One of them was quite obvious, but we've installed dictators at least as bad. The other two were blatantly wrong unlikely (notice how I can't say not, because the justification relies on the old logical trick: you cannot prove a negative).

Speaking of Afghanistan, we made the problem there in the first place. Serpent swallowing its own tail? Chickens coming home to roost? The U.S. has its share of bad karma either way.
 _popupControl(); They found no evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq either, but the entire world knows Saddam had had them. It looks weird that nothing was found. Sometimes I think that some findings were classified for some strange reason.  Wich should worry you just as much, what did they find that they cant tell us about? Why would they be hiding it unless A) it makes the US look bad or incriminates us or B) its somthing new, that would put the country in panic. Nither of those sound good, its easyer to stick with the nothing found theory As for 9/11, it seems unlikely that Osama planned and executed it on his own. Too professional an operation. Some intelligence service could be involved. Iraqi?  Osama is simply a figurehead for a much greater organization, one that is as professional as any intelligence agency, they just use some barberic methods. Of course Osama didn't plan it or carry it out, the people in charge of planning did the planning, Osama has men who know how to wage war 

Osama may not have directly planned 9/11 himself, but if he did recruit those responsible for 9/11 (as was the claim in May 2006), then how do we argue he was not responsible for any planning, if it can be assumed he recruited men specifically for the task of a terrorist attack? But of course it's reasonable to assume 9/11 was not planned soley by Osama, but does an operation like this really need an entire group to plan , rather than just him and a few others? 

Edited by HughesJB4 - January 10 2008 at 15:49