1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bush admits that terrorist suspects were held in secret prison network

Discussion in 'The OT' started by cj9788, Sep 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
     
  2. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003

    The mindset is this:

    A band of thugs kills your son. You're outraged and now realize the thugs you thought you could handle and couldn't get to your kids, in fact, CAN.

    Suddenly your worldview changes. The man down the street with the large house who tried to steal his neighbor's car? That guy who invites thugs like the ones who killed your son safety when the cops are after them? He's been shooting looking to buy guns. He's been bribing cops. He's violated the restraining order you have on him, and the cops won't do anything about it. You're not going to wait for another kid to be murdered. You have his violation of the restraining order, his refusal to turn in his guns, and his obvious search for more guns to clue you into the fact that he's a danger. And in your new mindset, you don't believe you can afford to wait anymore. You don't believe you're as safe as you once were. So you act.

    Well, you get into his house and arrest him. You don't find the guns you thought he had--he either gave them to his thuggish neighbor or hid them or whatever--but you release his own kids from the basement (they were being mutilated and starved) and you find the graves of some of his other kids he murdered. You knew it happened, but you'd done nothing about it in the past. Now the kids are fighting and hurting themselves, and hurting you, but at least he's out of the way and the kids have a CHANCE at a decent life where they had no chance before. You've made some mistakes and didn't handle it all correctly, but you've done a net good, because a monster who was hurting his kids and could have hurt yours is out of the way.

    That's the analogy. Take it for what you will, but that's the basic MORALITY in play.
     
  3. bear paws

    bear paws Icon

    521
    0
    Jan 11, 2006
    NE Ct.
    Jonstad; I'm impressed, really. You write well and present a good argument.
    A lot of what you say is true. The objective was in ways imperialistic. We may have opened up a nest that we can not control but I think it had to be done.

    Yet I look at other areas/countries that we "conquered " and they are prospering beyond their wildest dreams compared to a time without freedom and democracy. Japan comes to mind, though some would say they would not have attacked us had we not embargoed them after they invaded China. Other historians will refute that with empirical evidence that we where next on their list once we got sucked into Europe by the Nazi. Well at least YOU are not bowing to the Emperor and now enjoy statehood and speak English. Did we conquer you guys too? I can't remember. There where so many.
    All of Europe now that I mentioned it seems to enjoy our conquering. What was Hitlers issue with the US again? After all he did sink the Lusitania and had stationed subs off our coast and spy/invaders on our beach in Brooklyn before we said, enough. Oh yes, he did not like the terms after Germany lost WW1 that they instigated.. Poland, Hungary, and the whole eastern bloc could not wait to be Free and Democratic and are deeply grateful for us "conquering" them. Turkey seems happy.

    THe problem with allowing the middle east to solve their own turf wars is their history. They don't and they didn't. By 1100 they brutally occupied from Constantinople to Spain and had their eye on the English Isles. They never did forgive the Crusaders. {Westerners}. :) for taking it all back. Its the Basis of their culture because the westerners, aka Christians/Jews, at the same time drove Mohammad from Jerusalem.

    The Persians where doing fine until the Islamic hoards over took them and left behind the seed of hatred and became Iran.

    I do not believe for a second that they will not repeat history because their culture is rooted in the history of hatred.

    No Mid-east or Africa :D

    Capmiester Good analogy but it may be a little too complex for some viewers :confused:

    Bear!
     
  4. billpa

    billpa Icon

    869
    0
    Jul 11, 2003
    No, it's not too complicated. It's simply wrong.
    We invaded a country that had nothing to do with who attacked us and killed three thousand people. The leader was a bad guy, but he had nothing to do with 9-11 and he posed no threat.
    There are too many here who will believe in any war the president tells them to believe in. I guess it's a sense of patriotic duty, or something. I would like to think most of us won't allow our love of country get in the way of doing what's right and avoiding what's wrong.

    Bill!
     
  5. DonLandis

    DonLandis Hall Of Fame

    3,363
    0
    Dec 17, 2003
    Capmeister-

    One of the best analogies, I have yet to read. As for WMD's- I like to explain it this way- Like my car keys I lost the other day- I know they existed as I used them to drive my car for years, but now I can't find them anywhere. I've looked now for weeks but still can't find them. This really bothers me and I worry that someone else now has them and may be preparing to take my car from me with them. The worry is just too much so my solution is to just deny they ever existed! Now I feel much better since I know I never had keys to my car so therefore no one else could possibly have keys that didn't exist. Since I can't find them it must be true. They didn't exist and anyone who claims I did have keys is a liar, or a fool. Now many people are convinced I never had keys to my car, even the police since no one can find them and my car hasn't yet been stolen with them. It is real important I admit that I never had keys now too because of all the ridicule by the people who hear about my keys just laugh it off. So, I caved and now say publically that thinking I had keys to my car was a mistake. But, deep inside, I still worry because I know I had those keys and just can't find them. Maybe some day they will turn up. Hopefully before anyone else uses them to steal my car. But I have stopped claiming I had them and most have stopped calling me stupid for claiming they existed. They sleep OK, but I still worry, because the truth is deep and can't be changed through denial of the facts- I once had those keys and just can't find them... yet!
     
  6. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    :bowdown: And I respect your opinion and understand where you are coming from. But it doesn't necessarily make your opinions any more objective then for instance a Quaker pacifist, of which BTW, I am not one. We've tried your way for a long time, the "man behind the curtain" turning knobs and pulling levers all the while hoping not to be detected. And while this may have aided us immensely in achieving our current domination and preeminence in the world, and I thank you for your courage, determination and dedication, as Oliver hardy was known to quip to Stan Laurel, "look at the fine mess you've gotten us into now!":p

    Actually I believe the Kaiser sank the Lusitania and WWI was "initiated" after some knucklehead assassinated Austio-Hungary's Archduke Ferdinand in Sarayevo, so maybe we should blame the Hungarians?;) And it appears now that the Lusitania WAS probably carrying munitions meant to be employed against Germany, and so could be considered a legitimate military target. But those are minor historical details and irrelevant to this discussion.

    Japan, Germany and the rest of Europe certainly thrived eventually after WWII. But they were capitalist countries before the war anyway. We didn't have to teach them that much about that, and they were pretty willing to essentially continue doing what they had done before, especially with our aid and encouragement. And perhaps this is a good time to point out that capitalism and democracy are not in any way synonymous. You can have socialist democracies as well as capitalist dictatorships. Germany and Japan were thriving BEFORE they initiated WWII, at least they were thriving enough to believe starting the war was a good idea, AND they almost won, on both fronts!

    I'm certainly happy they became democracies. I'm a big fan of democracy myself. But the Marshall Plan and our other efforts after the war were was not entirely altruistic either. We profited both economically AND politically as they became clients of US business and industry and the prosperity it generated kept them from going communist, which would have been a real possibility had we not intervened to prevent it. I'm not going to argue it wasn't a good idea and it worked out pretty well IMO. But we didn't rebuild Europe because we loved the Europeans so much,:love1: we did it out of our own self-interest.:dance:

    And there's nothing wrong with that. But let's not kid ourselves about our true motives. There were lots of Americans a little perplexed and peeved that after spending considerable blood and treasure to end a war we had not started, we should then go and rebuild the countries that DID start it. And most of those were not whom we would today call "liberals".

    And let's not kid ourselves about why we are so concerned about the welfare of the people of the mid-east and that we should insure them, or should I say impose on them freedom and democracy as we see it. There's been wars going on in Africa for decades and the only times we've been remotely interested or taken sides is if we thought we saw involvement by the former Soviet Union or the Cubans. In which case we promptly took the other side regardless of whatever worthless scum warlords we had to stand next to for a photo-op. Or we might raise some stink if we thought mineral rights were not being allocated quickly or economically enough.

    But we sure got interested, and fast, when Saddam had his little dust-up with the Ayatollah, didn't we. We latched onto the mustachioed Hussein pretty quick and held his hand through the whole bloody affair. Although at a couple points, we appeared to be playing both sides against the middle.:scratch: Anyhow, we all know how well that worked out. Why is that? And why is our President still holding hands with those slimy Saudi princes?

    Well, they've got something we want. And we want it desperately. And with every passing day our desperation gets grimmer. We know it and they know it and we both know what it is. We can get along without the odd diamond or tin mine in Botswana or Chad. But we really need that heroin that comes in barrels marked BP or Exxon. And we're willing to do just about anything and pay any price to insure that we continue to get it.

    Sorry, I'm rambling a little. You'll find I have a tendancy to do that.:blush: But I'm not sure your history is so accurate here. By 1100, Islam occupied much of the Mediterranean because their science, literature and technology was far superior to the European Christian culture of the time. It was a golden age for Islam and literally a "dark age" for Christianity. It's really no surprise the superior culture would have dominated. And if I recall, their rule wasn't all that brutal in the context of the day. Certainly not as brutal as the Crusaders were.

    But then for some reason they peaked and Christian Europe flowered. And I believe this is where some of the current resentment comes from. People from that region seem to have damn long memories. And I think Muslims feel that Christianity stifled Islam, and they probably did. That's how things were done back then.:grin: And I also believe many Muslims feel it's time for payback, and a comeback of Islam. And I also think they believe their oil is the key to that comeback. But presently, because they do not have control of this power, it still mostly rests with the west, they are once again being "stifled". And they're not only pissed at the west for this, they're pissed at their leaders who are allowing it to happen because they have sold out to the west.

    Ok, that's plenty for now. I'm sleepy!
     
  7. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    So, the president of the US is told by EVERY intelligence agency under the sun that Hussein has WMDs, he's stockpiling them, he has ties to terrorists, including al Qeada, and all of this happens AFTER 9/11, and the president is supposed to do... what? Explain that to me, please. Every time I hear "but he didn't HAVE WMDs..." I want to scream. We THOUGHT he did. Every intelligence agency THOUGHT he did. Bush's DCI told him it was a slam dunk... and he should just IGNORE all that? Please explain what you think Bush should have done in that situation... I would really like to hear it. I hear "but he was contained." Nonsense. The sanctions were crumbling... everyone knew it. It was just a matter of time. And then what? A guy who we thought had WMDs, post 9/11, now has normalized trade relations with the world... Great. THAT would have made the WHOLE middle east MUCH more stable.

    The president is given information. It's not perfect. It's not a science (you know, like evolution :) --- sorry, just tweaking folks). He has to make a decision based on the information he has. He's not clairvoyant - he's not omnipotent. He has to make a decision based on the information presented. And the information presented said "Hussein is a threat!" in big bold letters. Given that, if the president had NOT acted, then he should have been impeached. He did the right thing given the information that he had. Period.

    BTW, Cap's analogy is right on. A guy who's been a threat in the past, who's done horrible things, and who you believe has lots of weapons and is still causing trouble, is the perfect analogy for Hussein.
     
  8. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    You may disagree with the morality of it, but that is the mindset. I happen to think it is the PROPER morality. Your moral code may say differently, but I think that's a mistaken moral code, if so.
     
  9. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
  10. billpa

    billpa Icon

    869
    0
    Jul 11, 2003
    The weapons inspectors could've been given more time to find out if he REALLY had WMDs...I also don't believe that everyone thought there were WMDs in Iraq. I think the white house cherry picked intel, ignoring what didn't fit their agenda and getting excited about what did.
    People like Scott Ritter were saying in 2002 that Iraq's weapons capabilities were no longer a threat.
    Regardless, I don't think you should go to war until you KNOW there are weapons of mass destruction that are pointing toward you...not because you THINK that may be the case. The fact is there was never any proof of WMDs because there were no weapons.
    Also, regarding one of the "other" reasons we went to war: The Iraq/al Qaeda connection....that's been shown to be false. That again is cherrypicking. Only listening to those who make your case and ignoring those who do not.

    YOU want to scream?
    We're in the middle of what's becoming a civil war that didn't need to be fought, and we're about to reach the point where more of our servicemen and women will have been killed than died on 9/11....
    That makes ME want to scream!
     
  11. GeneralDisarray

    GeneralDisarray Banned User

    293
    0
    Jul 8, 2006
    We invaded a country that lost to us in a war and then snubbed their responsibilities associated with the cease fire they signed. They snubbed us on several occasions as well as 13+ UN resolutions. They were repeatedly shooting at our planes up to the time they were invaded. I don't care about WMD. Saddam had it coming!
     
  12. billpa

    billpa Icon

    869
    0
    Jul 11, 2003
    Now we go to war because of snubbing?
    Even Bush wouldn't make that argument.
     
  13. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
     
  14. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    One correction - Canada didn't actually get attacked. But al Qaeda did attempt one, including a plot to assassinate the prime minister - and it was broken up.
     
  15. jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    Oh, for crying out loud. We went to war with Iraq because we saw them as a threat. That's why. If he had actually complied with the cease fire agreement, he would still be in power. The fact that he was thumbing his nose at the international community was a problem. It indicated that he felt free to do whatever the hell he wanted. Our intelligence said that he's a threat. A person who's a threat (who we believed had WMDs and ties to terrorists) was thumbing his nose at world... you don't see a problem with that? You don't see that as justifcation enough to go to war? Wow, I'm glad you're not commander-in-chief...
     
  16. GeneralDisarray

    GeneralDisarray Banned User

    293
    0
    Jul 8, 2006
    Why do you always boil it down to ONE reason to go to war. There were SEVERAL reasons. You guys just can't get it through your thick heads. You focus on one thing that you don't agree with and start screaming while ignoring the myriad of other reasons that justified our actions. :nono2:
     
  17. billpa

    billpa Icon

    869
    0
    Jul 11, 2003
    OK, list for me, if you will, ALL the reasons we went to war. Not the reasons we gave after we were there, but all the reasons stated by Bush before our invasion.
     
  18. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    12 years wasn't enough? The cat and mouse continued to go on. Iraq refused to let it scientists be interviewed out of the country without being watched by Iraqi security. Iraq was building rockets that had more distance than they were allowed. Iraq was hiding plans to start its WMD programs after sanctions were gone. Iraq was bribing nations on the security council to get sanctions and inspectors off Iraqs back. Iraq was not producing the documents necessary to convince anyone what had happened to the WMD we know they had.

    At a certain point there has to be a deadline. You wanted more time. Some said there had been enough. Why are you right and they're wrong? Because you say it? There's no evidence to show that another month or another six months would have made Saddam stop playing footsie. There's certainly a lot of evidence to show that he was continuing to bribe memebers of the UNSC to getting us off his back.

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

    "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

    "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    Inspectors had not been in since 1998, and in 1998 he said:

    "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
     
  19. billpa

    billpa Icon

    869
    0
    Jul 11, 2003
    Like I said before, I believe our intel was cherrypicked. We had no PROOF of WMDs, although many suspected it and Iraq did NOT have ties to al Qaeda.
    If I were commander in chief we'd never go to war until there was actual PROOF there was a reason.
    But don't worry, jpl, I'm not going to run for president, so you needn't lose any sleep.
     
  20. billpa

    billpa Icon

    869
    0
    Jul 11, 2003
    yeah, I mentioned what Ritter said in 2002...that's four years later.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page