Let's Settle this: Pro-GWoT Imperialist or No? Anti-GWoT Coward or No? Read text 1st

[Divinus Arma]

Are the people in support against the Global War on Terrorism imperialists?

Is you say yes, then why? Facts please.

Are the people who dissent against the Global War on Terrorism traitors and cowards or no?

If you say yes, then why? Facts please.

[Major Robert Dump]

And agian, the issue is clouded.

What about people who support the GWOT but not certain aspects of how its handled or executed? What about when we get a new president and the meaning of GWOT changes, will people still have to accept what happens hand over foot or will they be allowed to dissent if its a president you don't agreee with?


People who support the GWOT imperialists? For the most part no, but if you think every intention is innocent you are wrong. There are also plenty of people -- some of them in the armed forces, I'm sure you know a few, a lot of them in Oklahoma, I know a lot -- whose take on the GWOT can be summed up to "kill every raghead" or "they ain't christian, kill em" and that, I can assure you, is not what the GWOT is about.


Are the people who dissent cowards?

That's a tough one. Define coward. Is speaking out a coward? Is not being in the military indicative of being a coward? If people are blissfully ignorant of the dangers around them, then how can they be cowards for not supporting a cause that is trying to stop something they don't fear to begin with?

I remember when the
abu story broke a couple years ago. First, you got the typical knee jerk libs who assumed the actions of a few represented what was going on in all of Iraq. Then you got the typical "blame the media" types who said the media should have never broke the story because of the backlash it would cause, even though the story would have eventually broke because of freed inmates and the internet and the court martials. Then you got the "big deal, so we made some prisoners sodomize each other" crowd. But the one response I rarely saw -- and I mean rarely -- was "wow, shame on those soldiers, imagine how many more soldiers are gonna die because of this, I hope they are prosecuted and people don't think this is happening everywhere" Keep in mind this was before Bush admitted he made errors on WMD and AQ, when support at all costs was still fervent, and you either had to be a war hating soldier hating hippie or someone who felt america could do no wrong never ever. Despite having the last opinion, those people were summed up with the first opinion I mentioned. Congrats, you've done the same thing.

[Major Robert Dump]

sorry if that post came off as me as an arse, but I sometimes get a little whippy from work, got satellite radio in the truck, and listening to 30 mins of Ted Nugent followed by 30 mins of Randi Rhoades tends to scramble my brain. I need to just keep it on the UFO channel

[Ronin]

The question is not completelly correct.

I have no problem with the war on terrorism......I think after 911 it was both necessary and unavoidable.
The real question is, does Iraq has anything to do with the war on terrorism?
I say no.

[Adrian II]

Joel Stein seems to be a self-professed clown and as such we should grant him some latitude.

Americans who signed up with the Military in the wake of 9/11 may have thought (or hoped) that the 'war on terrorism' would be just that. And it was, in so far as the demise of the criminal and criminally insane Taliban regime in Afghanistan was both necessary and very welcome. I fully support the multinational effort to rebuild Afghanistan and introduce the basics of political democracy to that country, though I fear it is going to be at least another ten years before we will see a sufficient, autonomous domestic fundament for democracy in that nation. We will all have to bleed for it in terms of money, diplomatic effort and, most tragically of all, human lives. And there is always the risk that the occupation forces overplay their hand, alienate the population, or grow cynical over the years and thus become ineffective as an instrument of change.

Iraq is a different game altogether. I am inclined to agree with Stein that since 2003 imperialism has taken over from patriotism and legitimate self-defence as the main force behind the 'war on terrorism'. From the start this ill-fated invasion has been part of a plan to reshape the area to suit American political and economic interests, which is the very definition of imperialism.

However, that does not justify an equation of American soldiers with imperialists as if they were on a par with the disenfranchised conscripts and colonial mercenaries enlisted by European imperialist powers in a previous era. The U.S. is a democracy with a well-educated population and the democratic element in its Army as well as its society is strong enough to thwart any serious abuse of military power and foreign policy for the private gain of a small elite.

This basic democratic attitude forces the U.S. Administration to uphold at least the facade that the main goal in Iraq is the establishment of political democracy. For over a year I have been thinking, or hoping, that this rhetoric would serve as a magnet that would attract democratic and reform-minded forces and policies, and would miraculously 'transsubstantiate' into a secular, democratic state of Iraq.

But it isn't working and I have lost faith...

[Watchman]

Facades only tend to attract two kinds of peoples: opportunists and fools. Neither are in and by themselves terribly useful.

[Vladimir]

The question is not completelly correct.

I have no problem with the war on terrorism......I think after 911 it was both necessary and unavoidable.
The real question is, does Iraq has anything to do with the war on terrorism?
I say no.

You are correct. It's about the cease-fire after the '91 Gulf War. Repeatedly Saddam violated the cease fire he signed, mostly in regards to weapons inspections. It was incumbent upon him to prove that he did not possess any, not for us to take him at his word. If the cops show up to your house with a warrant to look for a murder weapon you can't say: "Sorry it isn't here." then ship it so Syria.

How many UN resolutions were ignored by Iraq? We know now the UN was hesitant to take action on Iraq because many key players were getting bribes. Again resolution 1441 promised "severe repercussions" if Iraq did not cooperate. They didn't, and suffered our repercussions. Let's not forget that our poor showing in Lebanon and Somalia showed these radicals that we can't stomach casualties. The link between Saddam and terrorists is abundantly clear i.e. Samon Pak (or however you spell the name of that training camp in Iraq). Hell, an attempt to assonate a former President is a justification for war.

As to the topic: The GWOT isn't imperialism, it can't be. You can't create a "traditional" empire with a volunteer army. You can include Europe as a part of our "empire" if you wish because of all the troops we still have there. Cowards is a poor word to describe the anti-war types. As has been said before most of them are just ignorant and we're all ignorant of something.

Personally I'm a bit of a radical because I think that it doesn't matter where our troops are, I'll support them no matter where or why. This is balanced by the fact that traditionally Americans detest war and prefer commerce (post manifest destiny) and I know enough Americans would oppose our creation of a traditional empire. As you can see many even oppose the creation of a democratic Iraq.

[Goofball]

Are the people in support against the Global War on Terrorism imperialists?

Is you say yes, then why? Facts please.

Are the people who dissent against the Global War on Terrorism traitors and cowards or no?

If you say yes, then why? Facts please.

Sorry, but I had to vote yes to all options. There are those in the world who fall into every one of those categories.

[Sheep]

Sorry, but I had to vote yes to all options. There are those in the world who fall into every one of those categories.

I did the same thing.

[Tribesman]

Oh dear , I just couldn't let this one go by .

The link between Saddam and terrorists is abundantly clear i.e. Samon Pak (or however you spell the name of that training camp in Iraq).
OMG Vladamir , it is abudantly clear and has been for a very long time that the antiterrorist training facility was not and never had been a terrorist training camp , even the most Hawkish thick headed members of your government don't even try to make that claim anymore .

Sorry, but I had to vote yes to all options. There are those in the world who fall into every one of those categories.

Agreed


I fully support the multinational effort to rebuild Afghanistan and introduce the basics of political democracy to that country, though I fear it is going to be at least another ten years before we will see a sufficient, autonomous domestic fundament for democracy in that nation.
You optimist Adrain , I fear it is going to be at least 20 years .

[Vladimir]

Oh dear , I just couldn't let this one go by .

The link between Saddam and terrorists is abundantly clear i.e. Samon Pak (or however you spell the name of that training camp in Iraq).
OMG Vladamir , it is abudantly clear and has been for a very long time that the antiterrorist training facility was not and never had been a terrorist training camp , even the most Hawkish thick headed members of your government don't even try to make that claim anymore .

Are you saying that the 9/11 commissioners are hawks or that Uday wasn't the official Al Qaeda liaison (ya, I read the whole report)? It's also abundantly clear for a very long time that Saddam was directly supporting Palestinian terrorists with $25,000 donations to the families of suicide bombers.

[Tribesman]

ya, I read the whole report
Well it might be a good idea if you actually remembered what you had read then Vlad .
So to follow on from your example that was false , you now use another false example , as what you claim is not stated at all .
It links "Shakir" to Al-Qaida and links "Shakir"to the Feedayeen which was under Uday ,BUT it is also shown that there is no certainty that "Shakir" who is linked to Al-Qaida and "Shakir" who is linked to the Fedayeen are even the same person .
Then you come out with the Palestinian bit , well guess what , Iraq and Isreal are still at war , just as they have been since the creation of Isreal . So is that terrorism or support for your allies in an international conflict that is recognised by both the Iraqi and Israeli governments ?
So , pray tell Vladimir , how many terrorist organisations does your State department still claim were linked to Saddams regime ?
Al-qaida ain't one of them is it ?
Though it does list one group that has been inactive for many years
And just for novelty value another of those listed is now one of your "allies" and members of your government are trying to reopen its American offices for fundraising to support its little terrorist enterprise .
Yay war on terror ...but who are the terrorists and when are they no longer nasty terrorists but good friendly freedom fighters that must be allowed to raise funds in the States?

[Vladimir]

From the right-wing fundamentalists at PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/khodada.html

What kind of training went on, and who was being trained?

Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism.

There's more. There's also new stuff in The Weekly standard too but you probably close your mind to news sources that don't match your ideology.

[SwordsMaster]

You know what is ironic about the "war on terrorism"?

That left wingers support non-intervention against all of those dictatorial right-wing regimes all over the world, and that right-wingers support overthrowing them to replace them with even puppet, but more democratic regimes.

And that you fight a war to protect freedom, and give up freedom to do it.

The tragedy is that nobody cares anymore. Everyone is too busy with their own alignment to notice.

[Tribesman]

Vladimir , do you even bother to read the links you post ?
Did you not notice the disclaimer
[Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. In fact, U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Since the original broadcast, Khodada has not publicly addressed questions that have been raised about his account of activities at Salman Pak.]




you post an interview from someone whose group was working for the Iranians

There's more. There's also new stuff in The Weekly standard too but you probably close your mind to news sources that don't match your ideology.
I am sure you can find plenty more like that , but since you seem to be quite a rabid supporter of your government , could you possibly find anything from your government that still tries to back up those claims you post .
And why can you not find those claims still being made by your government ?
Because they found out on investigation that mainly it was a load of bollox

[Slyspy]

Your poll is weighted and meaningless, as so many are.

Besides which you left off GAH!

[Divinus Arma]

You people and Iraq. Jeeze. Around and around we go.

Seperate fact from opinion:

Fact: The global community all believed Saddam had WMD.

Fact: The U.S. public initially supported an invasion of Iraq because of this.

Fact: We found no weapons of mass destruction.


All this nonsense about lieing and that we invaded for oil or to assimilate Iraq is nonsense. We buy oil from Iraq at the same price everyone else does. We are paying for Iraqi reconstruction, not loans for oil or anything like that.

I just want to hear a good argument based on facts. This revisionist history is BS.

[Ser Clegane]

Fact: The global community all believed Saddam had WMD.

No, it didn't

[Slyspy]

GAH! There, I had to add my own!

[Divinus Arma]

No, it didn't

Urhm. Yes. It did. Prove me wrong with evidence prior to the invasion. All I need to do to prove myself right is point you towards the stack of UN resolutions prior to the war.

[Ser Clegane]

All I need to do to prove myself right is point you towards the stack of UN resolutions prior to the war.

Since you made the first claim, I guess the ball is in your field.

So - please go ahead and show me a resolution that shows that the "global community" all(!) believed that Saddam had WMD at the time directly before the invasion (and keep in mind, asking him to provide evidence for the complete destruction of WMDs is not the same as believing that he still had WMDs)

[Tribesman]

Urhm. Yes. It did. Prove me wrong with evidence prior to the invasion. All I need to do to prove myself right is point you towards the stack of UN resolutions prior to the war.
Well Divinus you are proved wrong by the statements of several world leaders to the UN prior to the war , and by intelligence briefings to the UN before the war , and by the UNs own preliminary findings prior to the war .
Now what was it Putin said about WMDs ? was it something about there not being any and there being no evidence that suggested there might be any .

But hey , if you feel more comfortable thinking that everyone thought there was despite the fact that not everyone thought so , then go ahead , don't let facts get in the way of your comfort zone .

[King Henry V]

Where's the "Imperialist: Yes, GWoT: No"?

[Strike For The South]

Where's the "Imperialist: Yes, GWoT: No"?

well you are not a true Imprealist

[Divinus Arma]

Since you made the first claim, I guess the ball is in your field.

So - please go ahead and show me a resolution that shows that the "global community" all(!) believed that Saddam had WMD at the time directly before the invasion (and keep in mind, asking him to provide evidence for the complete destruction of WMDs is not the same as believing that he still had WMDs)

No. I won't. I refuse.

Because it is POINTLESS. I have already played this game with you monkeys and I am going to get that banana either way. Just look at Tribesman's response. Revisionist history. It's ridiculous.


Three monkeys were placed in a cage. At the top of the cage, a banana was hung from a string. Whenever any of the monkeys tried to reach the banana, they would all be sprayed by a powerful firehose.
One day, one of the monkeys was removed and a new monkey was placed in the cage. When he tried to go for the banana, the other two monkeys attacked him so they would not be sprayed.
The next day, one of the two remaining original monkeys was removed and a new monkey was placed in the cage. When this other new monkey reached for the banana, the remaining original monkey and the first new monkey both attacked him.
On the third day, the last of the original monkeys was taken out and another new monkey was brought in. When the new monkey reached for the banana, he was attacked by the other two new monkeys.

So, now three monkeys refuse to go for the banana and none of them know why.

This is how the backroom is sometimes.

[Ser Clegane]

OK let's recapitulate, Divinus:

1: You present a statement as a fact without providing any evidence

2: Your assertion is contested

3: You claim you can easily provide evidence

4: You are asked to show this evidence

5: You refuse to show your evidence, and resort to ad hominem attacks instead

Hmmm...

There is one point where we agree, though:

This is how the backroom is sometimes.

[Samurai Waki]

[Tribesman]

Just look at Tribesman's response. Revisionist history. It's ridiculous.

Wow Divinus found a copy of "the ultimate book of word definitions" .
Did you get it autographed ?


So then Divinus , what revisionist history ?
Since everything that was in the post was reported at the time there is no revisionism is there , since it was reported and recorded as factual at the time and still is now , there is no distorion is there .

So pray tell , what is todays definition of "Revisionist History" in the " ultimate book of word definitions" ?
Will we get the definition ? or is it to be a little tantrum like ....No. I won't. I refuse.

Hmmmmm...tantrums .... right ....you are to go to bed without any pudding and your favourite toys are going to the charity shop .

[Kagemusha]

Im in favour of the Global war on terrorism.Only problem is that there is no global war on terrorism.As long as we have bad terrorist and good terrorist,whatever suits different countries goals on certain times,there can be no global war on terrorism.

[Roark]

Terrorism is a tool of extremist ideology. Declaring "war" on it is almost as comic and naive as denying that we were lied to by the leaders of the "coalition of the willing". It's like trying to push pi$$ uphill with a pointed stick.