Then I'd be a murderer, not a nation-state capable of

Post #151,408 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 10:58:20 AM Reply	Then I'd be a murderer, not a nation-state capable of prosecuting a war.
Post #151,411 by bepatient 4/16/04 11:13:14 AM Reply	Ah. And what would the leader of the country that paid your family after you did it be? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,447 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 2:46:27 PM Reply	Be very careful with that argument. Wasn't Reagan one of your heroes? Emphasis Mine. Between 1980-85 the CIA funds the recruitment and training of thousands of volunteers from three dozen Muslim countries to fight in Afghanistan. *Among these \ufffdAfghan Arabs\ufffd is Osama bin Laden,* heir to a Saudi construction fortune, as well as top officials from Islamic movements throughout the Middle East and Asia. Many of these fighters and groups later join to form the Al Qaeda network and turn against their former American and Saudi sponsors.6 President Reagan says that \ufffdThe resistance of the Afghan freedom fighters is an example to all the world of the invincibility of the ideals we in this country hold most dear, the ideals of freedom and independence.\ufffd7 [link\|http://www.cesr.org/Emergency%20Response/Afghanistan%20Fact%20Sheet%202%20WORD.doc\|http://www.cesr.org/...et%202%20WORD.doc] and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983... The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. ... Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31]. *Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests."* [link\|http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/\|Shaking hands with Saddam]
Post #151,492 by bepatient 4/16/04 8:30:19 PM Reply	And what would these things do... ...other than bolster my continuing argument? Everyone points fingers at this administration when the problem is systemic and years old? One could even call it "historic". And meeting with people is one thing. Show me where these guys [link\|http://www.seacoastonline.com/2002news/4_4_w2.htm\|cut checks] to the families of suicide bombers. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,593 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 12:43:48 PM Reply	Boggle And meeting with people is one thing. Show me where these guys cut checks [] to the families of suicide bombers.* Maybe you can't read. Start with this one: Between 1980-85 the CIA funds the recruitment and training of thousands of volunteers from three dozen Muslim countries to fight in Afghanistan. Among these \ufffdAfghan Arabs\ufffd is Osama bin Laden,... Reagan praised them, sent Rummy to friendly up to Saddam. You say we had to rid ourselves of Saddam because he paid criminals ex post facto for their crimes. What do we do with ourselves? You know, the people who paid for the "recruitment and training of thousands" to commit the crimes? The crop you're defending, (Rummy, Cheney, et. al.) are the ones who paid for the recruitment and training of the very same terrorists who have attacked us. If Saddam paying "our old pals" is enough for us to go after him, isn't it time we, at the very least, threw Cheney and crew out of office?
Post #151,602 by Another Scott 4/18/04 2:39:45 PM Reply	We've been through this before. The CIA didn't support, recruit or train bin Laden. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=9897\|#9897] and the link within. Cheers, Scott.
Post #151,604 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 2:56:59 PM Reply	Why I cautioned Beep. If "financing" terrorists is enough, well then we don't have to look beyond our borders do we? Keep in mind that bin Laden himself didn't pilot those aircraft. Nor did Saddam. If "funding" is enough - well, then, we're culpable too.
Post #151,606 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:00:26 PM Reply	It wasn't funding I was discussing. You should read the link. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,608 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:03:28 PM Reply	I (mis?)read this one. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=151408\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=151408] Aren't you saying that 'We went after Saddam because he paid the families of suicide bombers'? Wouldn't that, generally, be classified as "funding terrorists"?
Post #151,609 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:05:49 PM Reply	I would generally say no. Cause the terrorist is already dead. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,612 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:09:13 PM Reply	Okay, I'll play. Exactly, why did we need to get rid of Saddam? And please, don't lecture me about what an evil bastard he is/was. I was screaming about that when you were probably still in high school and I was in college back when Saddam was "the leading force for moderation in the region" according to the Reagan Administration (circa that famous handshake above).
Post #151,615 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:17:20 PM Reply	We didn't. You really haven't been paying attention, have you? The question is, when arresting and prosecuting terrorists, what do you do when you have >governments< complicit in the terrorism? Do you stroll into Libya and arrest Khadaffi? He bankrolled the bombing of a 747. We arrested those "responsible", but we didn't get all of those complicit in the attack. The point being, fighting terrorism is NOT as simple as "arresting terrorists". If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,621 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:31:18 PM 4/18/04 3:34:08 PM Reply	? The question is, when arresting and prosecuting terrorists, what do you do when you have >governments< complicit in the terrorism? Central America anyone? Or are "Death Squads" not terrorists? The United States (in particular the United States when run by folks like Reagan, Bush I, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al.) has a history of supporting terrorists. I'm just cautioning you about living in a glass house and pitching rocks. [Edit: Supporting terrorists, not terrorist nations] Edited by mmoffitt April 18, 2004, 03:34:08 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #151,624 by bepatient 4/18/04 3:40:03 PM Reply	So fine. What do you do? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,626 by mmoffitt 4/18/04 3:58:18 PM Reply	Vote for smarter people ;0) I saw Kerry on "Face the Nation" today. I'd go along with him for the most part. Russert tried to beat him up over his position that fighting terrorism "is not primarily a military action" but a primarily a law enforcement, intelligence action. Bombing Iraq for the sake of "defendin' mah daddee" didn't do a lot for rooting out terrorist organizations (which, mind you, I do not think are that great a threat in the first place. Sure, we should pay attention. Sure, we can't have slackers in the CIA, FBI and White House. Yes, we've got to have a President who pays attention even when he is on the longest Presidential Vacation in history. But most Americans - no, probably ALL Americans are more likely to be killed by their automobiles on the way to work than they are to become a victim of terrorism). In pursuing those responsible for 9/11, imagine where Osama would be today if we had sent the same number of troops into Afghanistan when we had Osama cornered in Tora Bora as we sent into Iraq. I don't claim to have all the answers, but it is clear to me that the current crop has none of the answers.
Post #151,707 by bepatient 4/18/04 10:55:33 PM Reply	I wish there were some to vote for. We're back to a lesser of 2 evils choice again. It would be nice to see someone smart actually run. Unfortunately, the fact that their smart automatically excludes them from consideration. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!