O'Reilly says "get me the smoking gun. If you can't get'em you don't have it." What the hell???? He supports the Iraq invasion without a smoking gun. Wish this loser could take some of his own medicine. This guy is scary nuts.
Dennis Kucinich doesn't care about The United States and its people.
A Windfall Profits Tax on the big oil companies will be passed along to the people, you fool. It is just another way of taking the people's money. Call it a tax, a fee, a license, a penalty, a fine...they are all forms of tax.
He is part of the group that is trying to impose the Socialist, Marxist agenda on the people of the United States.
I agree about the Windfall profits tax part but you are a fool to say he doesn't care about the U.S. I don't agree with Dennis on many things but I respect him a lot because he is one of a few members in government who doesn't belong to CFR and isn't a corporate owned politician. He truly speaks his mind. If Republicans actually did the same thing besides Ron Paul, this country would be in much better shape.
When OReilly comes on, I switch to Fox BUSINESS News and watch Judge Andrew Napolitano on "Freedom Watch." I get the news of the day and learn about the Constitution! What a deal!
So would you say Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush I and Clinton were also impeachment worthy? Because again, it was only "unconstitutional" in the sense that it wasn't officially declared by congress, and neither were these other presidents' military operations.
Truman led proxy wars and United Nations troops. In a way, he managed to constitutionally loop-hole his way out of it. Should it be adressed? You bet.
I can go on, but I'll leave it at this: if you violate the constitution, then yes, you are impeachment worthy.
I don't believe that those in power can just mow over the Constitution if they feel like it. Sorry. I don't believe in Authoritarianism.
Except there was no "mowing over the constitution" when lives are at stake. Anything can be done to save lives. Only thing unconstitutional, again, may have been fighting wars that weren't "officially" declared. But you've avoided my question. You mention Truman, but I remind you, every single other president I mentioned fought wars that were not officially declared by Congress--so should they all have been impeached or not?
Oh really? Well, I'm sure Stalin and Big Brother would agree. "Anything can be done to save lives"? Well, let's see...our founding fathers put limits on the executive branch...so that...they would OBEY those limits. This ain't Rome, where in time of chaos we give complete power to one person. Know who the Romans gave it to? Caesar. Bye-bye Republic.
And, let's see, the leaders don't obey the legal rules...are they worthy of impeachment (when you don't play fair), self-explanatory
No, actually they wouldn't agree. Because they went to extreme extents to KILL their own people--we go to extreme extents to SAVE our people's lives. BIG DIFFERENCE, BUSTER!!! They also put limits on limits. Any law, policy, or statute can and MUST be broken when lives are at stake. That's why the courts of law recognize what is called the "necessity defense" and it's as old as time. The Romans gave Caesar a hell of a lot more power than just to do what was necessary to save their lives.
I'll ask you one more time, should Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush Sr, and Clinton have been impeached? They ALL waged wars that were never officially "declared" by congress. Answer that question or don't even both responding at all.
If someone violates the Constitution, they are impeachment worthy.
I think it's self-explanatory. Break the rules and you ARE liable to be impeached. I ain't giving no free lunch pass to any politician just b/c they became president.
So in other words, all of those presidents should have been impeached, right? Remember, thats Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush Sr., and Clinton. That,s a shit ton of impeached presidents, my friend.
Really? So in your opinion, as long as a person is president, they can just piss and not follow the Constitution? Well, that''d dandy. I always wanted our Founding Father's to exempt people from following rules (And I told you Truman woulda loopholed out of impeachment).
Had we threatened impeachment the first round, do you think any other president would have dared not follow the Constitution? As it stands, your argument is based on the authority of these people, nothing else.
Never said that--I take issue with your claims that they did not, but again, all I was doing was confirming that you believe all the aforemnentioned presidents above should also have been impeached, since they also fought wars that were never officially declared by congress. If Truman could have loopholed, so could the others, because most of them involved the UN, except this Iraq War, which was given an authorization of force by congress. So youd have a tough time with any of these.
Yeah, a tough time, but if the President feels the heat to follow the rules like everyone else, there'd be a lot less of all of this. And yes, probably a lot of the aforementioned presidents could have loopholed out, but they'd think twice before messing with the Constitution.
How can ANYONE not see that Oreilly is a right wing corporate welfare whore. The SAME sound bites over and over by the right wing corporate welfare whores. WHEN oh WHEN, will the American people see through the right wing corporate BS???
This clip is exhibit A for how he most certainly is NOT a "right wing corporate welfare whore." Someone who fits that description would not be agreeing wholeheartedly with Kucinich about the need to regulate such practices as the speculation that screws the average citizen by driving prices up far above what many can comfortably afford. If you listen to what he actually SAYS instead of the way he says it, or what the smear merchants say he says, you'd see he's quite OPPOSED to corporate welfare
I think this interview makes it perfectly clear that this is most certainly NOT the case. Did you HEAR him say, "Congressman, I'm your best friend on that issue" when Kucinich talks about going after the speculators?? Kucinich is most certainly NOT a neo-con, and O'Reilly is not opposed to a couple of his ideas here. SO yeah, pretty sure that shoots what you just said straight to hell. And precisely how are any neo-cons "pissing on the constitution?"
Well, I'd say that Bill-O got riled up, but forget that.
It's only neo-cons nowadays trying to justify the unconstitutional Iraq war, and the unconstitutional phone taps. All for national security we were assured. I'm sure Stalin's gulags were also for "national security".
What exactly do you mean--"got riled up?" He still told someone who's about as far from a neo-con as anyone can be that he's his "best friend" on a very substantial issue. Now the war may have been unconstitutional in the sense that it wasn't officially "declared" by congress, but neither has any war we've fought since WWII. Those phone taps also didn't violate anything in the constitution, because they were ONLY used to save lives, not for any other purpose.
Just because some thug could claim a national security interest from an action that in reality has no legitimate national security basis, doesn't make something not even in that same league that a democracy does to save its citizens' lives illegitimate. That's a red herring argument. I'd say what we've done since 9/11 has been pretty damn effective, wouldn't you? Or would you rather we have been hit again? Because those wiretaps DID save lives, whether you like it or not.
No, I'd say it isn't. Let's see...Bin Laden is still ou there....He escaped to Pakistan...For whatever reason we are still stuck in Afghanistan...Iraq is a mess...Most of Al-Qaeda is from Saudi Arabia but we are treating Iran as our main enemy....We are selling weapons to Saudi Arabia even though they've funded the Wahabbi religion...
And we've been attacked against since 9/11 precisely WHEN? Yeah, thought so. If you call that anything but effective, you're crazy. Bin Laden may still be out there, but he's isolated and toothless without his massive organization having free reign to plan whatever sick plots they want. We've stopped every single one of them. And anyway, bin Laden was just the godfather, we DID catch the actual mastermind of 9/11. Saudi Arabia, by the way, helps US in the war on terror.
It's not about where the members of Al-Qaida are from, it's about where they're being given sanctuary and material support, which is not in Saudi Arabia.
Not willfully--it's only through laundered money that the government gives for one purpose and then gets intercepted by these terror organizations. But the Saudi government is on our side in the war on terror--maybe for the wrong reasons, in that they need us to buy their oil, but the bottom line is they willfully give no support to attacks against us, unlike the Taliban did in Afghanistan. And no, not "only Iran"--but they're a pretty big one if they are trying to develop a nuke.
Yeah? And if they know it gets "intercepted" by the terrorist organizations, why are we still feeding this government that can't stop terrorists from getting into their funds.
The Saudi Arabia government is on our side. But what about the people? Most Saudis seem fairly pissed at us. Why are we not investigating why? No, instead, let's make $ on a dubious government.
As for Iran, what can they do with the nuke? Israel already has 'em. We have 'em and are pro-Israel. What the hell can they
And then they try to stop it, and help track down the terrorists who are laundering the money to use for terrorism. Again, its not the best arrangement in the world but thats what Realpolitik is. We back the Saudi government because at least the try to help us fight terror, and if they fall, its entirely possible that those who would take their place would not. What can Iran do with a nuke? Easy, use it on Israel or us. Israel has its nukes as a deterrant, never threatened anyone--unlike Iran
No they're not. Apparently, we are nation building in both Afghanistan and Iraqi at htis point. Al-Qaeda's moved on, forget about them. And Iraq is still being "protected" by our troops. If we were actually investigating and the people weren't in the dark, I can assure you, I would not be opposed to the current state of the Afghanistan War. But as it stands, we are now in the wrong country, and don't seem too worried about it.
Al Qaida has most certainly NOT moved on, I have no idea where you get that doozy. But yes, it is time to start winding down the mission in Iraq, but only because there is at least some semblance of stability there finally.
do? Nothing! They know they do something, they might as well have shitted everything up and hand over the territory to Israel.
What we need to do is start respecting and caring about those WITHOUT nukes. If we start caring about a country that threatens to have nukes, then guess what? Every fucking nation will want one.
Let's stop rewarding and paying attention to the rule breakers.
They dont care about any of that--all they care about is wiping Israel off the map, and if we try to get in their way (which we damn well better) and they already have nukes, theyll do the same to us. Its not every nation that threatens to have nukes thats a problem. Plenty of nations have nukes. The point is, nations that have threatened to destroy other nations cannot be allowed to have nukes, for reasons that if they are not obvious to you, then I dont even know why Im wasting my time
And how do you know they don't care about any of that? Are you seriously telling me that people "smart" enough to build their own nuke are going to be so piss stupid as to nuke a nation with more nukes than they have (and the best ally in the world?)? C'mmon man piss off.
Y'know what the whole damn point of having a nuke is? To threaten. You don't use them. You only threaten to. Our current foreign policy stops messing around w/ leaders who have nukes. And we mess around with those that don't
When theyre that crazsy, you better believe they will. For sane leaders, yes, the purpose of a nuke is self defense, deterrance, or possibly threats--but not for true believers like Ahamdine-whackjob. He doesnt care if his own country goes down with us and especially Israel, so long as they go down at his hands, He and his people will be rewarded with their 72 virgins for helping to take out the infidels.
Ahmadinejad is not our problem. It's their cleric. May I remind you that Iran being a theocracy, it's those "clerics" that have the power. Now, they certainly hate the U.S., but, in case you missed the memo, the new hate is directed at Britain, Russia and China.
We actually fell of the radar. So let's keep it that way. The Iran people are getting p-oed at their government. It's only a matter of time before the haters go away.
Quite frankly, they can't do shit atm, and probably never will.
So guess what's all the rage these days? Nukes. So we better stop messing around with the little guys without nukes and REWARD them. I believe we rewarded India after they got a nuke (by breaking the rules)! Hm..why do ya think Hussein bluffed and pretended he had one?
Don't you see how mad our foreign policy is? We only take threats seriously, so anyone who wants to be taken seriously with us will have them.
And, no, if these Iranese clerics are so power-hungry, nuking us is the best way
The Iranian clerics may want power secondarily, but primarily they want to destroy Israel, and us too, especially if we stand in their way of destroying Israel, which we damn well better. We rewarded India when they had nukes because they never threatened us. You still dont get that the problem isnt a country having nukes alone, its the nukes PLUS the threats that make it a problem.
Nah, they want power first and foremost. That's why they shifted their Two Minutes Hate campaign towards other countries. Why? Because the public is getting tired of the old "Kill the U.S./Israel" rhetoric.
What you fail to recognize is that the power of the Clerics lies intriscically connected to the hate rhetoric. Who they hate doth not matter. What matters is that hate thrives.
But by attacking anyone, they lose all of the hatred, as war just leads to dissent.
And Saudi Arabia's government has certainly "helped" us in the war on Terror. But, again, too bad that they contribute more money to the terrorists than to the war on terror! Ooops! And too bad that much of Al-Qaeda comes from Saudi Arabia.
The government is helping us. But not the people. Remember, Saudi Arabia is not a representative form of government.
And, if you've forgotten, any gov. that feels threatened and has nukes, will use the nukes to threaten others
But one more time, none of that money goes to terrorists with the intention for it to go there on the part of the Saudi government. We have plenty of money for the war on terror--what we need is cooperation, and we get it from the Saudi government, and once again, any future government that might take over there probably would not cooperate with us. Yes, much of the Saudi population may be against us, but they cant hurt us without government support, which they dont get from their own
Really? You think the authoritarian Saudi government had NO idea 100 Million ended up going to fund the Taliban? Or how their "charities" ended up funding the Wahabbi religions? Nah, the government is well aware of it, and if we had any sense, we'd be cracking down on these Wahabbi operations, not messing in Iraq.
And, yes, the Saudi population CAN help us without government support. Ya know why? Most of the suicide bombers that kill our troops come from Saudi Arabia.
Maybe they found it out eventually, but they certainly did not give that money with the intention of it going to fund terrorism. Again, they may help us for the wrong reasons, but they don't support terror against us, at least not knowingly. Once again, we start messing with Saudi government (who has helped us greatly in the War on Terror) the ones who would take over would not be nearly so cooperative.
Regardless of the matter, the Saudi government is a threat, as they are prominent funders (knowingly or unknowingly) of the Wahabbi religion, and seeing how no one can do shit without approval, is it a coincidence that Saudi priests are prominent teachers?
I'm saying we need to deal with the roots of the problem, the Saudi Arabian people. They are obviously pissed, and we need to find out why. Yes, dealing w/ the Taliban was okay, but what about the 15/19 terrorist sauds of 9/11?
They may be pretty damn unsavory, but once again, we start going after them, they're going to be replaced effectively with a bin Laden clone. The roots of the problem are pure, brainwashed unadulterated hatred, and there's not much to be done about that except to CRUSH the ideology, which the Saudi government itself does not condone.
Actually, just by [involuntarily] funding it, they do condone it. So many Saud missionaries actually preach the intolerant Wahabbi religion, they should be one of our priorities.
Furthermore, you touched on a keystone, a lot of it is based on hate rhetoric. Hm..does having secret torture operations condone hate for the torturer or does it shine a positive light on the torturer...hm...
We need to fight a nice clean war to undermine the stupid hate rhetoric that Al-Qaeda use to gain power.
That may be, but the fact still remains that the Saudi government has helped us in the war on terror, maybe for all the wrong reasons, but the bottom line is, they have, and any government that replaced them probably would not. As to the "condone hate or shine positive light" question, it's a bit like complaining about chemotherapy side effects while overlooking the fact that a patient will die without it.
What I'm saying is that we ought to treat the Saudi government with caution. They have demonstrated that at best they are irresponsible tyrants and at worst, playing double agents. If we went and attacked Iraq, with only rumours, why are we just treating the Saudi government without any discernable caution?
And if they are oh-so-willing to help, they ought to let us find out what is causing all of this saudi agression towards us.
But,hey, as long as we can make $, why bother investigating
I agree with caution, and yes they are irresponsible, but I've answered you question five times. Because they were helping us in the war on terror, and Iraq was not. And what we went into Iraq on was not "rumors" it was seemingly credible intelligence from four independent intelligence agencies from four independent nations.
Gah, I'm saying even though they contributed and all, we have been uncatious. So they "help" us. Okay. But have they done more harm than good? Should we try and limit trade?
These are all serious questions that have been ignored. And the "intelligence" reports were dubious from the start.
And I told you i agree on the caution with the Saudis, and that's a valid question to ask. But no, the intelligence reports were not "dubious" from the start. Perhaps the African uranium point was, but that wasn't the only piece of information we were going on. Hell, Saddam's own henchmen thought he had the weapons, so it makes sense that he could also fool us and the intelligence agencies of four other nations.
There were reports that were challenged, but there were also plenty that seemed perfectly credible. And no, it turned out he did not have them. But that fact does not make a "lie" out of Bush's statements that he did have them, since he had reason to believe at the time he made those statements that they were completely true.
FYI, even after it was thoroughly refuted, Bush still claimed that there were WMD's. He did lie as long as he could get away with it. He just got called out after a while.
He lied so many times. And lied on purpose. Not like a mistake.
Not according to the independent intelligence agencies of several different nations. Bush knew that there was always the possibility that the WMD's would be found. A statement is not a "lie" unless you know it to be false at the time you make it, which Bush did not, in fact he had many reasons to believe it was true. Yes, there were those saying it wasn't, but plenty of other saying it was. That's called managing against the worst case scenario.
Go ahead and look it up. It's not a fucking secret that these "independent intelligence" reports were erranous, and before sending American lives to get killed, it should have been thoroughly investigated with RELIABLE sources.
And all of this about other nations seems like another "You forgot Poland" moment. "Various nations" indeed! If that was the case, they woulda pitched in, not backed out.
It's not a "fucking secret" that those reports TURNED OUT to be erroneous. But it most certainly IS a secret if they were well known to be erroneous . They backed out once the weapons were not found. That says nothing about the apparent level of credibility of the intelligence at the time it was gathered. Remember, Saddam even had his own henchmen fooled on this matter--even they thought he had the weapons, so its no surprise that he could fool others too.
Much of the erroneous information about Saddam's alleged WMD was obtained via torture. The numbers don't lie regarding torture: The information obtained via torture is most often inaccurate and unreliable.
No, it was not--it was through investigations and often infiltrations done by several different nations' independent intelligence agencies. Waterboarding (which I assume is what you are referring to when you say "torture") was used on three terrorists, none had anything to do with Iraq. These are two separate debates. It may not be the most accurate way to get information, but when all else fails, sometimes its that or resign ourselves to thousands of our citizens dying. I know which i'd pick
What planet did your America Invade Iraq on? Certainly not Earth. The so-called mobile biological weapons facilities (which turned out to be rusted out old American Willys Jeeps) was obtained via torture. Quiet yourself, NEO-CON. You are so freaking discredited you are laughed at in every sect of the planet...even in America where 70% oppose your baseless war of aggression,
For your information, I'm no "neo-con"--I'm an independent who has voted on both sides in elections in the past. It was not obtained via "torture"--the only thing we've done in interrogations that could possibly be given that label--waterboarding--has been used on 3 people, none of whom had anything to do with Iraq. The WMD intel was from infiltrations. Oh, and by the way, no one "sends their own children." Our ADULT children make that decision for themselves, of their OWN ACCORD!!!
One more thing--that 70% figure has to do with the fact that it did not go well, was poorly executed, and fought for much of the time without a proper exit strategy. You won't even get 30% who would call it a "baseless war of aggression." They know just as well as I what the intelligence we had at the time said, and that it appeared to be perfectly credible. Yes, there were dissenters even then as well, but the decision to go to war was a simple case of managing against the worst-case scenario
I'm assuing the "70%" response was to mongoose, but actually, quite a few people did oppose Iraq from the start, and don't get me started on the Bush doctrine.
I find it hard to believe that we were managing against the worst-case scenarios, yet trading (and even selling weapons to) Saudi Arabia.
By the way, also, there's about four different "Bush Docrines,"--all of which, I might add, are media labelings, not Bush himself. Which one are you talking about?
Right, but Iraq was utterly reckless, to say the least. Because, thinking about it, a sudden invasion would have just ticked him off and he woulda used the WMDs. No reason not to.
In hindsight, of course it was reckless, with no exit strategy. But being given the same information Bush had at the time, I'd have a very hard time making any decision other than what Bush did.
I would have investigated, planned, and tried and quell the fire. Before sending out Americans to die, we have to do a few things (following the Constitution is one of them).
Let's see...if Hussein is the bastad he is, and he doesn't care about America...and America invades, what will stop him from using his WMDs?
The idea was to take him out BEFORE he got a chance to use them. As to the 70% thing, I'm well aware that there were naysayers from the start, but at the time they were in the minority, and furthermore, many of them opposed simply on the idea of "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and that we had bigger fish to fry right then--not many would have called it a "baseless war of aggression." Point of selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, again, was to prevent a far worse government from coming to power
Oh, and as for the whole chemotherapy thing, that's not entirely true. We mustn't lose our dignity and values in the face of panic and fear. Don't you see that's the whole point? To spread fear, panic, terror, to divide us, and make us lose sight of who we want to be.
There are other ways to fight terror, and secret torture programs are EXACTLY the wrong way to go about things.
It's COMPLETELY true, no difference in the cirumstances. The biggest way for us to lose our "dignity and values" is to allow our citizens to die when there is ANY possible way to prevent it. And no, that is not "the whole point"--the whole point is to KILL AS MANY OF US AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE--they don't give two shits about anything else. If these "other ways" do it, I'm all for them. But when they don't our back-up plan better not be to let our citizens die, which you seem to want it to be
Okay, first off, pay attention to Bin Laden's videos. To kill isn't the main objective. It's to spread terror. In fact, I'd say the greatest leg up is nothing but "mystery". If they wanted to kill as many of us as humanly possible, they'd already suicide bombed themselves to oblivion at a high cost to our troops. That is not the case.
Second off, I am not opposed to phone taps. I am opposed to warantless phone taps. Warrants were put forth to prevent Big Bro' from happening, and quite frankly
it's not too hard to get a warrant. But, no! Fear and panic prevaiils. It's either authoritarianism or we all die! Yet another false dilemma. It's not too hard to go ahead and follow the law, and get warrants. And like I said, the warrentless (unauthorized) phone-taps didn't do anything, and waiting for due process of law certainly wouldn't kill anyone.
Abdi actually cracked and told us a lot, not because we began about the Brooklyn Bridge. That ain't true.
Our first obligation to our citizens is to save their lives, and in the cases where we can't do so any other way, we can't worry about what the necessary methods for saving those lives does to our image.
I assume you mean "hurt" us without government support, and no, they can't. No Saudi terrorist has EVER done anything to an American civilians without the backing from a terror supporting government. In their case, they got most of their support from the Taliban--not from their own government.
And perhaps we haven't been attacked again because...we are doing EXACTLY what Bin Laden wanted us to do in the first place? Haven't you thought that maybe this is what Bin Laden wanted?
To make himself feel much more powerful? Perhaps if we realized that the terrorists plot was based on common known deficiencies in airplane travel, and even part of a hollywood script, Bin Laden's terrorist "genious" is reduced to garden-variety terrorism at the right spot. No evidence Gitmo stopped anyt
No, it is not "what he wanted"--what he wanted is to kill us all, or as many of us as possible, and they have failed in everything they've tried since then. That's a damn big success in my book. He doesn't care about power, he cares about slaughtering us. Maybe not Gitmo itself, but the interrogation methods used there, you better believe it did. It stopped the Library Tower plot AND the Brooklyn Bridge plot. Inconvenient for you, maybe, but it's the truth.
Troops are the ones who put THEIR lives on the line to save the rest of us. No one forced them to do so. We have had no attacks on our civilians since 9-11. They never decided not to do the Brooklyn Bridge plot, they simply put the plan on hold until the weather in New York was not so hot. They were still planning and plotting, and thanks to the wiretaps you oppose, and waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we were able to stop them in your tracks. Sorry if you dont like those facts.
Hahahaha. Get your facts right. Yes, troops go where they're sent. Leave the people out of this. The terrorists actually decided not to do the Brooklyn Bridge. "The weather's too hot" was the code. What did the code mean? Abandon the plan.
We only knew of the plots AFTER they were abandoned. And Khalid was caught in Pakistan, by their ISI. Apparently, they knew where he was after capturing two other people beforehand, not because of the phone taps.
My facts are VERY straight, sir. That weather comment was not code for abandoning the plot, just putting it on hold and reassessing how they could do it. And fortunately, thanks to the wiretaps, they never got that chance. I didnt say we found KSM because of the wiretaps, I said we found out about the Brooklyn Bridge plot and the Library Tower one this way, not to mention plenty of others we werent always told about. Otherwise Obama would have dropped it right away, but he knows its necessary
It was an abandon plan. There was too much security and the plan was too risky. The code was "abandon". And you're taking a leap saying they didn't get the chance to do the plot they'd already abandoned thanks to wiretaps...
I don't know where the hell you're getting this information, but you're wrong. Terrorists don't "abandon" their plans, they simply reevaluate and delay. Once again, fortunately thanks to the wiretaps, they never got the chance to tweak the plan so they could carry it out. The wiretaps were what allowed us to capture those psychopaths, so no, that's not taking a leap at all. SOunds more like common sense to me.
Actually, you are right, "the weather's too hot" did not mean abandon plan, it meant the plan was unlikely to succeed...ah, more or less the same thing though. I'm telling you, you are overestimating these terrorists. They just exploit obvious weaknesses, that's it.
No, we did not capture anyone from phonetaps. Much of the research was done in Pakistan, and Abdi, one of the main witnesses was caught because of fraudelent papers, not wiretaps.
Not the same thing at all--point being they were plotting attacks, and thanks to the wiretaps, and we caught them doing so. Again, you apparently didn't read what I said. I didn't say we captured anyone because of the wiretaps--we captured these particular terrorists from information we got from KSM (by waterboarding him, by the way) but we found out that this plot was in the works (thus knowing what questions to ask KSM) because of those wiretaps.
Nah, all the wiretaps did was give us more insight into what was going on, but by themselves, they didn't do shit. They were coded, and it wasn't till KSM and we knew what to ask KSM not b/c of the wire-taps but b/c of Abdi, again, twisting info.
Funnily enough, when we appreheneded Abdi, we could have LEGALLY searched the conversations and everything. There was no reason to piss on the Constitution.
Not in the case of the Brooklyn Bridge plot--we would have had NO CLUE WHATSOEVER that such a plan was in the works without those wiretaps--sorry if that's inconvenient for you. We got those wiretaps BEFORE we captured KSM and only because of them were we able to ask him the right question. Nothing "pissing on the constitution" about doing whatever is necessary to save our citizens' lives. The constitution makes clear that the most important right is to life, and must be protected at all costs
Again, yes, we [unlawfully] had those wirtetaps, but we had no idea what was really going on. It wasn't until Abdi came along (and confessed) that we were able to decypher what was going on. We had the info, but could not adequately analyze it.
It was Abdi (not the phone-taps) that helped us put the jigsaw together. The Constitution says that the rights and liberty of the people is the most important thing (clearly violated by the warrantless phone-taps) to be protected against a government
It was those wiretaps that gave us an indication of where to start--we kept hearing the words "Brooklyn Bridge" over and over again, so we knew to investigate in that direction. Abdi certainly helped beyond that, but without the wiretaps, we wouldn't have even known where to start. And no, the right to life trumps EVERYTHING else, and there is no "liberty" violated by being able to discover terror plots.
No, we found out about the plans from KSM, who was NOT caught by wiretaps. And since KSM was one of the prime scumbags behind the whole thing, any future plots obviously had to be deserted.
But wiretaps didn't do anything. And Obama has fallen prey to the talking heads trying to find "common ground" on almost every issue. In a way, he is too easily influenced, which, people like me were worried about.
We found out who the specific culprits were from KSM, but we found out that there WAS a plot targeting the Brooklyn Bridge from those wiretaps. If you still claim the wiretaps to have done nothing, there's nothing that can be done for you, because you are simply in denial. Obama gets the security briefings that make perfectly clear what he has to do to keep us safe, and at least he has come to his sense on a FEW issues, though certainly not on everything.
not getting any information if we had not waterboarded is a false dilemma. Sorry if you don't like the fact that phone taps and waterboarding did nothing except bring out intelligence of an old, abandoned plan years after it was abandoned (in this case, the phone taps did shit).
And yes, troops go where they are sent, but no one forced them to join the military in the first place. And its not a false dilemma according to those with actual first hand experience with the situation with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, so sorry buster, but I take their word over yours.
So, you are telling me that you take the testimony of those who face possible prosecution for their questionable acts as definitive evidence? Really? Oh, well, then, if a murderer says he didn't do it, he didn't do it!
Man, c'mmon. There are more ways to interview people. Saying it's torture or America gets attacked IS a false dilemma.
And you're telling ME that you take the words of people who did not PERSONALLY witness the circumstances in question?? That's even more ridiculous. I take the evidence of those who speak from experience over those who don't. Of course there are many ways to interrogate people, and I'm sure many non-questionable ones can be very effective. BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GET NOTHING FROM THOSE TACTICS?? Unless you can show that such tactics are 100% effective, it is NOT a "false dilemma"
And by the way, Obama has made it clear that no one is going to be prosecuted, so they are no longer worried about that, and those with the first hand, eyewitness experience still make perfectly clear that we DID get vital information from waterboarding at the very least in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Really? It's ridiculous to pay attention to people who say that torture isn't the only way to interview someone? Because our government is keeping us in the dark, we don't know what the hell they tried, and it isn't a jump from all this secrecy that illegal methods were used.
Waterboarding also isn't 100%, that's bull. The way you are treating hte situation IS a false dilemma. You are assuming no other method worked/was tried. That ain't true.
I never said it's the "only way"--nor did I claim anyone else said so. What I did say is that since the non-controversial methods are not 100% effective and we know that at least in some cases waterboarding HAS yielded useful information even if it too is not 100%, it damn well better be kept on the table for the times when those non-controversial methods fail. Nothing is "illegal" when lives are at stake. That's why we have a concept called "necessity" recognized by every court of law there is
I beg to differ. Torture seems to lead to lots of unreliable information, as...well, you are inflicting pain on someone. You can get forced false confessions that only waste time and rack up human rights abuses. Yay!
Waterboarding is what ruthless regimes use, and quite frankly, condoning it is like condoning hte malpractices of values we don't appreciate in our culture.
Rash decisions like the approval of torture just fuel hate and distrust, uh...isn't htat what the terrorists want?
I'm not talking about confessions--no confessions coereced in any way should be admissible in court. But even those opposed to waterboarding in principle acknowledge that it HAS at times given us valuable information that has SAVED LIVES!!! And if the choice is between saving lives and being "hated and distrusted" or letting our citizens die and being liked or trusted, any president who chooses the latter is guilty of treason. Life is not a popularity contest buster.
Yes, life ain't a popularity contest, yet it is our "unpopularity" in the Middle East which has made our country targets. We stayed out of Iran, and guess what? Russia, China and Britain became the targets.
Waterboarding has certainly saved lives, but, in the long run, did it help Al-Qaeda out? Does it give their hate rhetoric some meaning? These are questions we must ask ourselves, as well as the long-term consequences of such programs.
Whether it did or not, lives are worth anything--you worry about unintended consequences later on, same as with chemotherapy. And don't think we aren't targets of Iran--they just have other fish to fry first. So let me get this straight--you'd rather the people whose lives were, you admit, SAVED by waterboarding, simply have been allowed to DIE??? I have lost ANY respect I might otherwise have had for you, if you are truly saying that.
Nah, I told you how Iran politics work. They need hate. They don't attack, they just hate-monger to keep their power. That's it. They are just blowhards who don't or ever will have any real potential to do anything without losing power.
And, stop bringing up the false dilemma. You are acting like if waterboarding was the ONLY option. It clearly wasn't, and the fact that we don't know the full extent of the things that went on at Gitmo and their sucess rate point to overall failure.
That's what they said about Hitler too, buddy. One attempt to call a madman's "bluff" when said madman wasn't bluffing is plenty for me, thank you. They don't care about "power" they care about KILLING ALL OF US!!! I didn't say waterboarding is ALWAYS the only option, it probably rarely is, but if it is such a "false dilemma" then TELL ME WHAT YOU DO WHEN EVERY "ACCEPTABLE" METHOD FAILS TO YIELD ANYTHING!!! Unless you can show me a method that's 100% effective, it's not a "false dilemma"
Hitler's main goal wasn't "to kill everyone". He wanted to make an Aryan state and rid the Jews (and other social "ills") and enslave the Slavs.
Again, not every method was used, and quite frankly, from what's leaked, it seems waterboarding was used fairly fast, and to say it isn't torture is just nonsense.
The false dilemma is that waterboarding saves lifes, and a failure to do so would have people die.
Why is it a FD? Because obviously other methods weren't tried, & it limits the opt.
I didn't say his goal was to "kill everyone"--but CERTAINLY to kill all Jews. Once again, investigate whether all other options were in fact exhausted, but one more time, unless they can show a method that NEVER fails to yield the information we need out of a terrorist, it isn't a "false dilemma." I don't really care what you call it--I'll concede the terminology (though it still pales in comparison to what REAL rogue regimes have done) but either way, it's preferable to letting citizens die
Not according to those who were actually there when it happened--not just Cheney. Again, I'm fine with investigating whether every other possible method truly had been exhausted by the time they used waterboarding. And as to its title and the Geneva Convention, I don't really care what we call it--call it Al for all I care. But the Geneva Convention doesn't trump saving lives, and if it must be violated to do so, then so be it. That's what the concept of "necessity" dictates in a court of law
Funny, but Yoo (the "lawyer" who interpreted the law) was put in there by fellow buddies. So we can sayt hat his findings are not only controversial, but can indeed be proven to be wrong. Again, the CIA have even said waterboarding and other techniques DID NOT reveal life-saving info. Furthermore, it's funny, but by ignoring the GC, we just spark hate rhetoric. I kid you not.
Surprise, surprise, there's cronyism in politics. What relevance does that have to whether this was necessary or not? The CIA NEVER said we didn't save lives with waterboarding--there are simply some who claim we could have gotten the information other ways. To which, one more time I remind you, if we can, I'm all for doing it. But we'd better keep EVERYTHING on the table that has EVER saved lives when those acceptable methods fail. Even you seem to have acknowledged that
and as to those "ruthless regimes" you might want to read up a little more on them buddy, because anyone imprisoned under them could tell you in no uncertain terms that they would be thanking God on their knees any day that waterboarding was the worst that happened to them. And they didn't use it to save lives either--they used it FOR SPORT!!! There IS a difference, and a huge one
Oh, inherently Japanese waterboarding ain't the same as ours, but that is like saying "Oh, we had Hitler. Hitler killed less than Stalin. Therefore, people would rather be with Hitler".
I know it's extrme,but torture shouldn't be condoned, and ther are regimes who only use torture for interogation. Does THAT make anyone feel re-assured?
No, it's not even close to saying that. Because neither of them did what they did to save their own citizens' lives--we did. Not even in the same UNIVERSE, buster. I'm not "condoning torture"--I'm condoning stopping at NOTHING to save our citizens' lives, and if accepted methods fail, and the choice comes down to using non-accepted methods and saving those lives, or not doing so and letting those people die, it's a NO-BRAINER!!!!!!!!!
But we didn't! We gave in to fear mongering and just installed water-boarding (and quite possibly other actions) w/out trying much of anything. Don't believe me?
Why else are people fighting so that the records are kept hidden? If they truly tried all else, why do they fear the truth? And if all these torture programs were "oh-so great", how come we only hear about a few sucesses?
If it was THAT GOOD, wouldn't they be trying to justify their actions by their consequences? It was a failure.
soekrmg[dseksrmga;lskfmgARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! If I hear the word "FEARMONGERING" one more time, I'm going to go off a cliff. IT. IS. NOT.
"FEARMONGERING". TO. RECOGNIZE. THE. REALITY. OF. WHAT. WILL. HAPPEN. IF. YOU. DON'T. IMPLEMENT. CERTAIN. MEASURES. TO. STOP. TERRORISM!!!!!!! I'll tell you why records are being hidden--because we don'y want the enemy to know EXACTLY how EVERY interrogation is carried out. That defeats the entire purposes. That's also why we only hear a few examples
And NOTHING that saves lives is a "failure." But I'll tell you one failure on your part. To answer my question: WOULD YOU RATHER THE PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES YOU ACKNOWLEDGE WERE SAVED BY WATERBOARDING BE ALLOWED TO DIE??? I'm all for investigating any case where waterboarding is used to make sure that every other option we have was tried first, and I'll reserve judgement on that in this case. But NOTHING that has EVER saved lives can be taken off the table!!!!!
According to a CIA report, waterboarding didn't save any lives. A proper investigation would be fine, and I wouldn't be too against it had it saved lives and it been done in a very controled environment.
But as it stands right now, "To waterboard or have people die" is a false dilemma. If waterboarding was so great for everyone, why are the people who condoned it trying to hide the records?
Shouldn't they be proud? I think it's safe speculation to say something worse happened.
And other CIA officials with first hand experience make clear that we did get life saving information, at least out of KSM, when we waterboarded him. Again, the reason they hide records is whatever we find out, the terrorists will too. But fair enough that you acknowledge that if it really is the only option, you'd do it over allowing people to die. Again, I'd support investigating whether everything else was tried, though I'd argue that the fact that we only used it 3 times demonstrates this
Oh, I think we did it more than 3 times, and the secrecy is unnerving. The CIA officials are dubious, because...well, if the don't "lie' they can be charged with crimes.
Not a reliable source. Let a private investigation handle it. And let's at least admit waterboarding is torture and that it did violate the Geneva Convention.
What proof do you have that we did it more than 3 times? It was done to Khalid Shiekh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Ramzi Binsalshibh--not sure what it got out of the latter two, but according to everyone who witnessed it, it DID get lifesaving information out of KSM. Once again, Obama has already made clar that nobody will be prosecuted, and those who were there still maintain that fact. Much more credible source than someone who just makes a blanket statement that it "never works."
Hahaha, you really believe that it was it was only used 3 times (actually, it was used more than 3 times, current "info" says it was used only on 3 people more than once)? Wow, how naive of you. If that was the case, they would have already released the damn documents.
Again, the CIA stated that NO life saving information was acquired, but only about already aborted plans (we've been over that). And Obama, of course, is backing out from bringing much reform into the whole thing. Fear, fear.
Ok, fine on three people. I'm not losing any sleep over those three. And no, they would not necessarily release the documents, because, one more time, releasing them to us also releases them to the terrorists--not something we want to do. What part of that don't you get? No, they did NOT state that no life-saving information was acquired--even Dennis Blair, who opposes its use, has acknowledged that we DID get this. Once again, the Brooklyn Bridge plot was never "aborted"--simply tabled
And not releasing it just creates distrust and leads to us thinking of the worst. At least a confirmation of investigations undertaking would satiate us. But nooo, even THAT seems to much (though, to be fair, you support investigations too).
Dennis Blair said we got info out of it, quite different to it being necessary. Even suppose I grant that the BBP was not aborted...when we caught KSM it certainly was, as KSM was the mastermind.
I'd MUCH rather be distrusted and have people think the worst than have our enemies know EVERYTHING we do to get life-saving information. Blair's statement that it isn't necessary assumes that there are methods to get that life-saving intelligence that NEVER fail--never as in 100% effective. There aren't. that leaves the door open for other tactics being necessary. Once again, I'd supporting investigating whether it was necessary in the cases it happened, but you can't take it off the table.
Well, in case you didn't know, all this undisclosed info. can work in the terrorists favor. How? They can say that the U.S. severely abuses Muslims there, torture, etc. and recruit people. But if they say, this is what we did, what leverage do terrorist recruiters have?
May I remind you, terrorists base everything on anti-American rhetoric. But if America is open about what it's done, apologizes, investigates, etc., we make their hate-mongering jobs much harder, AND regain trust of Americans
Sir, the truth was never an impediment to those psychopaths. They don't need it for anti-American rhetoric. They tell lie after lie about us, and recruit plenty from that. Recruitment wouldn't increase much from one statement that can be made being true, that we'll waterboard a terrorist if we couldn't get life-saving information any other way. But onece again, I don't oppose investigating whether it was necessary in every case it was used--i.e., whether every other option had been tried.
But in cases where everything else truly has been tried, we have no obligation to "apologize" for stopping at NOTHING to protect the lives of our citizens.
Really? If the truth doesn't matter, why would it matter if we released the info. about Gitmo? Really, they base their hate on semi-truthful things. Go ahead and heear what bin Laden has said. It's mostly half-truths, not made up shit. They have to have some sort of truth for the Average Joe to join. You don't walk up to someone and say "Hey, Obama is an alien, want to blow yourself up?"
Tell that to Hitler--you have to have some sort of truth for the Average Joe to join. He didn't need it, and neither did these nutcases. You're an intelligent arguer, and I respect at least a good amount of what you say. But you're still glossing over the point I've answered to you at least five times. It would matter if we released the info because then our enemy knows EXACTLY what to train their future operatives to be able to resist. What do you mean "general idea?" There's 4 ideas
Perhaps you forgot, but Hitler did actually have a "fair share" of truth in his arguments. Even after 1918, anti-semetic feelings were nothing new, and eugenics was still part of an intellectual movement based on imperialism and racism.
Now, for this racism (& anti-semitism) to develop it took time.
Similarly, for the deep american hate to develop it took time (again, no one would have attacked us had we not meddled there) and some truths (twisted for convenience). In other words, some1
Not for any of the things he said against Jews, he didn't. He may have had general grievances for German citizens from the first World War, but the Jews had nothing to do with any of it. Those were pure LIES, just like what bin Laden sells his jihad with. "Meddling" in this case means not letting them ride roughshod over Israel and responding to the Saudi government's request for our military presence there. We don't form our foreign policy around the desires of terrorists, buddy.
Sure he did. Hitler based his whole rhetoric against the anti-semetic sentiments of the era. This racism was considered "true" at the time, and that's why so many Average Joes bought into it. Anti-semitism wasn't anything new. In fact, I believe even Russia had had a "purging" of Jews just a few years before.
And by meddling I meant placing a dictator over an elected government, but p'haps you forgot aobut that? Terrorists form their desires out of our foreing policy, & that's my point.
Of course there were anti-Semitic sentiments of that era, but they were all based on LIES, not anything with any remote factual basis. As to the dictator over elected government, if you're referring to Iran, then tell me why we weren't attacked by them back in the '50's when that happened. And no, their desires are due to blind brainwashed hatred with no basis in reality.
Your missing the whole point! It doesn't matter if today it's known to be a lie, back then it was a "truth". And that's how Hitler got into power and got support from the Average Joe. Back then Anti-Semitism wasn't anything new, and all Hitler did was channel the angst of average people into hate.
He did have a portion of truth in what he said (even if today it isn't true, but that is besides the point), and that's how he got support. Hitler's feelings didn't just appear out of nowhere.
Key point being the quotation marks you rightly put around the word "truth"--the fact that it was accepted as being such doesn't make it so. He had what was accepted at the time on his side, but he NEVER had truth on his side, just like the terrorists have no such thing now
Again, that's besides the point. Al-Qaeda (in case you've never heard bin Laden) uses semi-true hate rhetoric to fuel their campaign. You're missing the point completely. There are roots to what Al-Qaeda says and not all of it is untrue.
It's semi-true and twisted out of context, but some element of truth is still there. In Hitler's time, Eugenics was still not debunked and racism was the "truth". And that's what matters.
Not if in 70 years after the fact, racism is seen as false.
The roots are unadulterated, ungrounded hatred, and in some cases, a desire to export theirt sick, twisted agenda and backwards way of life across the globe. Racism is seen as false now because it is. It just wasn't seen as such at the time. But that doesn't mean there was any actual real world merit to anything Hitler or the terrorists said.
There actually is. Stating your point of view, no matter how erranous is very beneficial. Why? Because you can disprove it if it is lies, or clarify it if the view is distorted.
We need to understand our enemy, the enemies region, and act accordingly. I don't think invading nations and nation-building is the adequate response.
When those nations you speak of have governments that are blatant supporters and harborers of terrorists who wish us harm, yes, sometimes we have to do that--and Iraq and Afghanistan both CLEARLY fit that mold, even without Iraq having any WMD's.
Iraq, surprisingly, did not like Al-Qaeda. Hussein may have been a lot of things, but extreme islamic, he wasn't. He was more your typical garden dictator.
They may not have liked Al-Qaida in absolute terms, but enemies of each other are more than willing to work together to take out a much greater perceived mutual enemy. Witness us working with Stalin against Hitler. Same here. Just because they didn't like each other doesn't mean Saddam would have hesitated to provide anyone else who wishes for our destruction with some of those weapons if our intelligence had proven correct. Nothing else we could do about that than what we did.
Well, the comparison to us working with Stalin in WWII is an odd one, as we certainly where on the same team, but for "total" coperation...I'd argue against. Remember, Stalin also worked with Hitler, then they both fought against each other and it was a mess. Indeed, even the level of coperation is dubious.
I believe Hussein actually denied Al-Qaeda from entering into Iraq. Seeing how Hussein wanted power, having a terrorist group at home seems counter-productive.
I never said there was "total cooperation"--I said if Saddam actually had the WMD's our intelligence at the time said he did, don't think for a second that he would have hesitated to hook Al-Qaida up with some of their own. Sure he denied them entry into Iraq--that would be too blatant a connection, and then he wouldn't have any plausible deniabiliy when held accountable. But that doesn't preclude under the table dealings in weapons meant for use against a mutual enemy
has to set the roots, it has to take time to develop, and then you CAN recruit people with half-truths (exactly what Hitler did). Mein Kampf had the general ideas of the time taken to the extreme. Even Benito called the book "cliched". In other words, the ideas were not new.
I think releasing the info would get rid of skepticism and potential new recruits, as a more transparent and humble policy would make it harder for the terrorists to hate and fear monger. And the BD has 1 general motif.
Wrong, they'll just come up with more lies about us. And even if it DID stop new recruits (which it wouldn't) there's still plenty of old recruits out there who we better not strip our intelligence community of the ability to effectively deal with them by disclosing EVERYTHING we ever might do to them, thus providing them with a textbook training manual. Not worth the risk.
Well, first off, doing so would gain popular support from other nations and may just allow a nice operation to develop into Pakistan (the Pakistani government is beginning to crack down on terrorist and Taliban supporters, even arrestinga prominent cleric).
By gaining re-newed support, we can wipe out Al-Qaeda (something a lot of the Muslim community seems to want) and earn their respect. By gradually building up respect, diplomacy will be a breeze and Israel will be secure.
Before 9/11, we had all the popular support from other nations we could ever want, and guess what? It didn't stop that from happening. No amount of "popular support" will EVER keep us safe. We should always pursue it whenever possible, but not when the cost is revealing every method we will ever use to get information out of a terrorist that will save American lives. That far we MUST NEVER go!!!!
We didn't (and still don't) have the popular support in the Middle East. Guess what's our biggest threat? Like I've stated before, our past foreign policies affect how other countries see us. We don't get attacked just because whe are succesful, we get attacked because we've had intrusive foreign policies.
And yes, if no one hates America, why would anyone attack America? Besides, the idea behind releasing the documents (the torture) is to undermine Al-Qaeda's hate mongering
But we had wide popular support for defeating terrorism in general, and it still didn't stop 9/11. But what might have stopped 9/11 was the ability to get information out of the Al-Qaida officials we already had in custody from the first WTC attack from '93. I didn't say no one hates America, I said they have no legitimate reason for that hatred, so they have to make shit up, just like those who precipitated the anti-Semitism that Hitler latched on to did back in the 30's.
No, what would have stopped 9/11 would have been for there to have been better security. May I remind you that what the terrorists did was exploit a well known deficiency in airline security.
Furthermore, Al-Qaeda does not randomly make up shit. Go ahead and listen to bin Laden. A lot of what he says is true, and the middle east has many legitimate reasons to hate us (not the least of which is Israel) due to our foreign policy.
And the anti-Semitism wasn't "made up shit" it had many root
There are probably many things that could have stopped 9/11, and of course there was terrible security. We need El Al-style security in this country, but that wouldn't be "politically correct" so God forbid we offend a few people to prevent another few thousand of our citizens from dying. I've listened to bin Laden, and it's a bunch a made up nonsense--he has ZERO legitimate complaints. Us not standing by and letting them destroy Israel is not a legitimate complaint.
One of the main reasons El Al would be bad is the racial profiling it could employ. I am a vehement critic of such measures and think it detracts from the actual security of such things.
Personally, I don't think it takes much to stop terrorists from making their plans, as they have very limited resources and supporters.
And bin Laden doesn't "make up" anything. He just sees facts and radically analyzes them to his convinience.
Sorry buddy, but you lose on that argument. El Al has had NOTHING happen to it since it employed its current security measure, so there's no possible way you can argue that it "detracts" from anything. What's worse, inconveniencing and offending some people, or losing a city full of innocent people? I hope this is a rhetorical question. And whatever else you can say about El Al's security measures, you MUST acknowledge one thing: THEY WORK!! That's all that counts when saving lives is involved
I'm sure I haven't lost this one yet. Oh, sure, El Al is the safest airline around, I'm not arguing that. What I argue against is Racial Profiling. And it sure does detract from overrall security as one passanger is given more of a look-over than others.
Why is that bad? Oh, let's see, if the terrorirst can get someone outside the profile...oh my!
impeach Bill O'reilly.
Ddstairclimber 3 months ago 3
O'Reilly says "get me the smoking gun. If you can't get'em you don't have it." What the hell???? He supports the Iraq invasion without a smoking gun. Wish this loser could take some of his own medicine. This guy is scary nuts.
iihippoii 10 months ago
Dennis Kucinich doesn't care about The United States and its people.
A Windfall Profits Tax on the big oil companies will be passed along to the people, you fool. It is just another way of taking the people's money. Call it a tax, a fee, a license, a penalty, a fine...they are all forms of tax.
He is part of the group that is trying to impose the Socialist, Marxist agenda on the people of the United States.
DONGOE 1 year ago
@DONGOE
I agree about the Windfall profits tax part but you are a fool to say he doesn't care about the U.S. I don't agree with Dennis on many things but I respect him a lot because he is one of a few members in government who doesn't belong to CFR and isn't a corporate owned politician. He truly speaks his mind. If Republicans actually did the same thing besides Ron Paul, this country would be in much better shape.
rmccay88 1 year ago
@rmccay88 very true
DemonDrummer1018 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When OReilly comes on, I switch to Fox BUSINESS News and watch Judge Andrew Napolitano on "Freedom Watch." I get the news of the day and learn about the Constitution! What a deal!
vechorik 4 months ago
I love how it is not worthy of impeachment if someone declares an unconstitutional war. Wow, who knew?
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
So would you say Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush I and Clinton were also impeachment worthy? Because again, it was only "unconstitutional" in the sense that it wasn't officially declared by congress, and neither were these other presidents' military operations.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Well, each case was very very different.
Truman led proxy wars and United Nations troops. In a way, he managed to constitutionally loop-hole his way out of it. Should it be adressed? You bet.
I can go on, but I'll leave it at this: if you violate the constitution, then yes, you are impeachment worthy.
I don't believe that those in power can just mow over the Constitution if they feel like it. Sorry. I don't believe in Authoritarianism.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Except there was no "mowing over the constitution" when lives are at stake. Anything can be done to save lives. Only thing unconstitutional, again, may have been fighting wars that weren't "officially" declared. But you've avoided my question. You mention Truman, but I remind you, every single other president I mentioned fought wars that were not officially declared by Congress--so should they all have been impeached or not?
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Oh really? Well, I'm sure Stalin and Big Brother would agree. "Anything can be done to save lives"? Well, let's see...our founding fathers put limits on the executive branch...so that...they would OBEY those limits. This ain't Rome, where in time of chaos we give complete power to one person. Know who the Romans gave it to? Caesar. Bye-bye Republic.
And, let's see, the leaders don't obey the legal rules...are they worthy of impeachment (when you don't play fair), self-explanatory
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
No, actually they wouldn't agree. Because they went to extreme extents to KILL their own people--we go to extreme extents to SAVE our people's lives. BIG DIFFERENCE, BUSTER!!! They also put limits on limits. Any law, policy, or statute can and MUST be broken when lives are at stake. That's why the courts of law recognize what is called the "necessity defense" and it's as old as time. The Romans gave Caesar a hell of a lot more power than just to do what was necessary to save their lives.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
I'll ask you one more time, should Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush Sr, and Clinton have been impeached? They ALL waged wars that were never officially "declared" by congress. Answer that question or don't even both responding at all.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
I'll respond one more time:
If someone violates the Constitution, they are impeachment worthy.
I think it's self-explanatory. Break the rules and you ARE liable to be impeached. I ain't giving no free lunch pass to any politician just b/c they became president.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
So in other words, all of those presidents should have been impeached, right? Remember, thats Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush Sr., and Clinton. That,s a shit ton of impeached presidents, my friend.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Really? So in your opinion, as long as a person is president, they can just piss and not follow the Constitution? Well, that''d dandy. I always wanted our Founding Father's to exempt people from following rules (And I told you Truman woulda loopholed out of impeachment).
Had we threatened impeachment the first round, do you think any other president would have dared not follow the Constitution? As it stands, your argument is based on the authority of these people, nothing else.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Never said that--I take issue with your claims that they did not, but again, all I was doing was confirming that you believe all the aforemnentioned presidents above should also have been impeached, since they also fought wars that were never officially declared by congress. If Truman could have loopholed, so could the others, because most of them involved the UN, except this Iraq War, which was given an authorization of force by congress. So youd have a tough time with any of these.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Yeah, a tough time, but if the President feels the heat to follow the rules like everyone else, there'd be a lot less of all of this. And yes, probably a lot of the aforementioned presidents could have loopholed out, but they'd think twice before messing with the Constitution.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Did you see Dennis' face when Bill wouldn't let him quote from the Rockafeller book? Hillarious
KennyEazle 2 years ago
How can ANYONE not see that Oreilly is a right wing corporate welfare whore. The SAME sound bites over and over by the right wing corporate welfare whores. WHEN oh WHEN, will the American people see through the right wing corporate BS???
Paolo7219 3 years ago 5
This clip is exhibit A for how he most certainly is NOT a "right wing corporate welfare whore." Someone who fits that description would not be agreeing wholeheartedly with Kucinich about the need to regulate such practices as the speculation that screws the average citizen by driving prices up far above what many can comfortably afford. If you listen to what he actually SAYS instead of the way he says it, or what the smear merchants say he says, you'd see he's quite OPPOSED to corporate welfare
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Nah. Bill-O is opposed to anything by people who aren't Neo-Cons.
If a Neo-Con pisses on the Constitution, it's A-OK. Someone else does it, he loses it.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
I think this interview makes it perfectly clear that this is most certainly NOT the case. Did you HEAR him say, "Congressman, I'm your best friend on that issue" when Kucinich talks about going after the speculators?? Kucinich is most certainly NOT a neo-con, and O'Reilly is not opposed to a couple of his ideas here. SO yeah, pretty sure that shoots what you just said straight to hell. And precisely how are any neo-cons "pissing on the constitution?"
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Well, I'd say that Bill-O got riled up, but forget that.
It's only neo-cons nowadays trying to justify the unconstitutional Iraq war, and the unconstitutional phone taps. All for national security we were assured. I'm sure Stalin's gulags were also for "national security".
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
What exactly do you mean--"got riled up?" He still told someone who's about as far from a neo-con as anyone can be that he's his "best friend" on a very substantial issue. Now the war may have been unconstitutional in the sense that it wasn't officially "declared" by congress, but neither has any war we've fought since WWII. Those phone taps also didn't violate anything in the constitution, because they were ONLY used to save lives, not for any other purpose.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Just because some thug could claim a national security interest from an action that in reality has no legitimate national security basis, doesn't make something not even in that same league that a democracy does to save its citizens' lives illegitimate. That's a red herring argument. I'd say what we've done since 9/11 has been pretty damn effective, wouldn't you? Or would you rather we have been hit again? Because those wiretaps DID save lives, whether you like it or not.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
No, I'd say it isn't. Let's see...Bin Laden is still ou there....He escaped to Pakistan...For whatever reason we are still stuck in Afghanistan...Iraq is a mess...Most of Al-Qaeda is from Saudi Arabia but we are treating Iran as our main enemy....We are selling weapons to Saudi Arabia even though they've funded the Wahabbi religion...
Pretty damn effective? I'd say not.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
And we've been attacked against since 9/11 precisely WHEN? Yeah, thought so. If you call that anything but effective, you're crazy. Bin Laden may still be out there, but he's isolated and toothless without his massive organization having free reign to plan whatever sick plots they want. We've stopped every single one of them. And anyway, bin Laden was just the godfather, we DID catch the actual mastermind of 9/11. Saudi Arabia, by the way, helps US in the war on terror.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
It's not about where the members of Al-Qaida are from, it's about where they're being given sanctuary and material support, which is not in Saudi Arabia.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
No, but an awful lot of Saudis are part of Al-Qaeda. An awful lot of terroristic and Wahhabi organization's funding has come from Saudi Arabia.
But our enemies? Iran. Only Iran. Why? Because Iran doesn't buy our fucking weapons.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Not willfully--it's only through laundered money that the government gives for one purpose and then gets intercepted by these terror organizations. But the Saudi government is on our side in the war on terror--maybe for the wrong reasons, in that they need us to buy their oil, but the bottom line is they willfully give no support to attacks against us, unlike the Taliban did in Afghanistan. And no, not "only Iran"--but they're a pretty big one if they are trying to develop a nuke.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Yeah? And if they know it gets "intercepted" by the terrorist organizations, why are we still feeding this government that can't stop terrorists from getting into their funds.
The Saudi Arabia government is on our side. But what about the people? Most Saudis seem fairly pissed at us. Why are we not investigating why? No, instead, let's make $ on a dubious government.
As for Iran, what can they do with the nuke? Israel already has 'em. We have 'em and are pro-Israel. What the hell can they
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
And then they try to stop it, and help track down the terrorists who are laundering the money to use for terrorism. Again, its not the best arrangement in the world but thats what Realpolitik is. We back the Saudi government because at least the try to help us fight terror, and if they fall, its entirely possible that those who would take their place would not. What can Iran do with a nuke? Easy, use it on Israel or us. Israel has its nukes as a deterrant, never threatened anyone--unlike Iran
ADEAL416 2 years ago
No they're not. Apparently, we are nation building in both Afghanistan and Iraqi at htis point. Al-Qaeda's moved on, forget about them. And Iraq is still being "protected" by our troops. If we were actually investigating and the people weren't in the dark, I can assure you, I would not be opposed to the current state of the Afghanistan War. But as it stands, we are now in the wrong country, and don't seem too worried about it.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Al Qaida has most certainly NOT moved on, I have no idea where you get that doozy. But yes, it is time to start winding down the mission in Iraq, but only because there is at least some semblance of stability there finally.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
do? Nothing! They know they do something, they might as well have shitted everything up and hand over the territory to Israel.
What we need to do is start respecting and caring about those WITHOUT nukes. If we start caring about a country that threatens to have nukes, then guess what? Every fucking nation will want one.
Let's stop rewarding and paying attention to the rule breakers.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
They dont care about any of that--all they care about is wiping Israel off the map, and if we try to get in their way (which we damn well better) and they already have nukes, theyll do the same to us. Its not every nation that threatens to have nukes thats a problem. Plenty of nations have nukes. The point is, nations that have threatened to destroy other nations cannot be allowed to have nukes, for reasons that if they are not obvious to you, then I dont even know why Im wasting my time
ADEAL416 2 years ago
And how do you know they don't care about any of that? Are you seriously telling me that people "smart" enough to build their own nuke are going to be so piss stupid as to nuke a nation with more nukes than they have (and the best ally in the world?)? C'mmon man piss off.
Y'know what the whole damn point of having a nuke is? To threaten. You don't use them. You only threaten to. Our current foreign policy stops messing around w/ leaders who have nukes. And we mess around with those that don't
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
When theyre that crazsy, you better believe they will. For sane leaders, yes, the purpose of a nuke is self defense, deterrance, or possibly threats--but not for true believers like Ahamdine-whackjob. He doesnt care if his own country goes down with us and especially Israel, so long as they go down at his hands, He and his people will be rewarded with their 72 virgins for helping to take out the infidels.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Ahmadinejad is not our problem. It's their cleric. May I remind you that Iran being a theocracy, it's those "clerics" that have the power. Now, they certainly hate the U.S., but, in case you missed the memo, the new hate is directed at Britain, Russia and China.
We actually fell of the radar. So let's keep it that way. The Iran people are getting p-oed at their government. It's only a matter of time before the haters go away.
Quite frankly, they can't do shit atm, and probably never will.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
So guess what's all the rage these days? Nukes. So we better stop messing around with the little guys without nukes and REWARD them. I believe we rewarded India after they got a nuke (by breaking the rules)! Hm..why do ya think Hussein bluffed and pretended he had one?
Don't you see how mad our foreign policy is? We only take threats seriously, so anyone who wants to be taken seriously with us will have them.
And, no, if these Iranese clerics are so power-hungry, nuking us is the best way
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
The Iranian clerics may want power secondarily, but primarily they want to destroy Israel, and us too, especially if we stand in their way of destroying Israel, which we damn well better. We rewarded India when they had nukes because they never threatened us. You still dont get that the problem isnt a country having nukes alone, its the nukes PLUS the threats that make it a problem.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Nah, they want power first and foremost. That's why they shifted their Two Minutes Hate campaign towards other countries. Why? Because the public is getting tired of the old "Kill the U.S./Israel" rhetoric.
What you fail to recognize is that the power of the Clerics lies intriscically connected to the hate rhetoric. Who they hate doth not matter. What matters is that hate thrives.
But by attacking anyone, they lose all of the hatred, as war just leads to dissent.
It's complicated stuff
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
to do so is to nuke us.
And Saudi Arabia's government has certainly "helped" us in the war on Terror. But, again, too bad that they contribute more money to the terrorists than to the war on terror! Ooops! And too bad that much of Al-Qaeda comes from Saudi Arabia.
The government is helping us. But not the people. Remember, Saudi Arabia is not a representative form of government.
And, if you've forgotten, any gov. that feels threatened and has nukes, will use the nukes to threaten others
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
But one more time, none of that money goes to terrorists with the intention for it to go there on the part of the Saudi government. We have plenty of money for the war on terror--what we need is cooperation, and we get it from the Saudi government, and once again, any future government that might take over there probably would not cooperate with us. Yes, much of the Saudi population may be against us, but they cant hurt us without government support, which they dont get from their own
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Really? You think the authoritarian Saudi government had NO idea 100 Million ended up going to fund the Taliban? Or how their "charities" ended up funding the Wahabbi religions? Nah, the government is well aware of it, and if we had any sense, we'd be cracking down on these Wahabbi operations, not messing in Iraq.
And, yes, the Saudi population CAN help us without government support. Ya know why? Most of the suicide bombers that kill our troops come from Saudi Arabia.
We need to find out y
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Maybe they found it out eventually, but they certainly did not give that money with the intention of it going to fund terrorism. Again, they may help us for the wrong reasons, but they don't support terror against us, at least not knowingly. Once again, we start messing with Saudi government (who has helped us greatly in the War on Terror) the ones who would take over would not be nearly so cooperative.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Regardless of the matter, the Saudi government is a threat, as they are prominent funders (knowingly or unknowingly) of the Wahabbi religion, and seeing how no one can do shit without approval, is it a coincidence that Saudi priests are prominent teachers?
I'm saying we need to deal with the roots of the problem, the Saudi Arabian people. They are obviously pissed, and we need to find out why. Yes, dealing w/ the Taliban was okay, but what about the 15/19 terrorist sauds of 9/11?
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
They may be pretty damn unsavory, but once again, we start going after them, they're going to be replaced effectively with a bin Laden clone. The roots of the problem are pure, brainwashed unadulterated hatred, and there's not much to be done about that except to CRUSH the ideology, which the Saudi government itself does not condone.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Actually, just by [involuntarily] funding it, they do condone it. So many Saud missionaries actually preach the intolerant Wahabbi religion, they should be one of our priorities.
Furthermore, you touched on a keystone, a lot of it is based on hate rhetoric. Hm..does having secret torture operations condone hate for the torturer or does it shine a positive light on the torturer...hm...
We need to fight a nice clean war to undermine the stupid hate rhetoric that Al-Qaeda use to gain power.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
That may be, but the fact still remains that the Saudi government has helped us in the war on terror, maybe for all the wrong reasons, but the bottom line is, they have, and any government that replaced them probably would not. As to the "condone hate or shine positive light" question, it's a bit like complaining about chemotherapy side effects while overlooking the fact that a patient will die without it.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
What I'm saying is that we ought to treat the Saudi government with caution. They have demonstrated that at best they are irresponsible tyrants and at worst, playing double agents. If we went and attacked Iraq, with only rumours, why are we just treating the Saudi government without any discernable caution?
And if they are oh-so-willing to help, they ought to let us find out what is causing all of this saudi agression towards us.
But,hey, as long as we can make $, why bother investigating
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
I agree with caution, and yes they are irresponsible, but I've answered you question five times. Because they were helping us in the war on terror, and Iraq was not. And what we went into Iraq on was not "rumors" it was seemingly credible intelligence from four independent intelligence agencies from four independent nations.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Gah, I'm saying even though they contributed and all, we have been uncatious. So they "help" us. Okay. But have they done more harm than good? Should we try and limit trade?
These are all serious questions that have been ignored. And the "intelligence" reports were dubious from the start.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
And I told you i agree on the caution with the Saudis, and that's a valid question to ask. But no, the intelligence reports were not "dubious" from the start. Perhaps the African uranium point was, but that wasn't the only piece of information we were going on. Hell, Saddam's own henchmen thought he had the weapons, so it makes sense that he could also fool us and the intelligence agencies of four other nations.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
First off, if we didn't reward nations w/ nukes, I can almost assure you Saddam's bluff would not have happened.
Second, I do believe the intelligence reports were questioned and challenged right from the start
Third, if Hussein was so bad, and he had WMD's, why wouldn't he have used them when we invaded?
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
There were reports that were challenged, but there were also plenty that seemed perfectly credible. And no, it turned out he did not have them. But that fact does not make a "lie" out of Bush's statements that he did have them, since he had reason to believe at the time he made those statements that they were completely true.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
FYI, even after it was thoroughly refuted, Bush still claimed that there were WMD's. He did lie as long as he could get away with it. He just got called out after a while.
He lied so many times. And lied on purpose. Not like a mistake.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Not according to the independent intelligence agencies of several different nations. Bush knew that there was always the possibility that the WMD's would be found. A statement is not a "lie" unless you know it to be false at the time you make it, which Bush did not, in fact he had many reasons to believe it was true. Yes, there were those saying it wasn't, but plenty of other saying it was. That's called managing against the worst case scenario.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Go ahead and look it up. It's not a fucking secret that these "independent intelligence" reports were erranous, and before sending American lives to get killed, it should have been thoroughly investigated with RELIABLE sources.
And all of this about other nations seems like another "You forgot Poland" moment. "Various nations" indeed! If that was the case, they woulda pitched in, not backed out.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
It's not a "fucking secret" that those reports TURNED OUT to be erroneous. But it most certainly IS a secret if they were well known to be erroneous . They backed out once the weapons were not found. That says nothing about the apparent level of credibility of the intelligence at the time it was gathered. Remember, Saddam even had his own henchmen fooled on this matter--even they thought he had the weapons, so its no surprise that he could fool others too.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Much of the erroneous information about Saddam's alleged WMD was obtained via torture. The numbers don't lie regarding torture: The information obtained via torture is most often inaccurate and unreliable.
mongoose704 2 years ago
No, it was not--it was through investigations and often infiltrations done by several different nations' independent intelligence agencies. Waterboarding (which I assume is what you are referring to when you say "torture") was used on three terrorists, none had anything to do with Iraq. These are two separate debates. It may not be the most accurate way to get information, but when all else fails, sometimes its that or resign ourselves to thousands of our citizens dying. I know which i'd pick
ADEAL416 2 years ago
W R O N G ! ! ! ! ! !
What planet did your America Invade Iraq on? Certainly not Earth. The so-called mobile biological weapons facilities (which turned out to be rusted out old American Willys Jeeps) was obtained via torture. Quiet yourself, NEO-CON. You are so freaking discredited you are laughed at in every sect of the planet...even in America where 70% oppose your baseless war of aggression,
SEND YOUR OWN FUCKING CHILDREN, CHICKENHAWK!
mongoose704 2 years ago
For your information, I'm no "neo-con"--I'm an independent who has voted on both sides in elections in the past. It was not obtained via "torture"--the only thing we've done in interrogations that could possibly be given that label--waterboarding--has been used on 3 people, none of whom had anything to do with Iraq. The WMD intel was from infiltrations. Oh, and by the way, no one "sends their own children." Our ADULT children make that decision for themselves, of their OWN ACCORD!!!
ADEAL416 2 years ago
One more thing--that 70% figure has to do with the fact that it did not go well, was poorly executed, and fought for much of the time without a proper exit strategy. You won't even get 30% who would call it a "baseless war of aggression." They know just as well as I what the intelligence we had at the time said, and that it appeared to be perfectly credible. Yes, there were dissenters even then as well, but the decision to go to war was a simple case of managing against the worst-case scenario
ADEAL416 2 years ago
I'm assuing the "70%" response was to mongoose, but actually, quite a few people did oppose Iraq from the start, and don't get me started on the Bush doctrine.
I find it hard to believe that we were managing against the worst-case scenarios, yet trading (and even selling weapons to) Saudi Arabia.
Some "worst-case" scenario managing that was!
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
By the way, also, there's about four different "Bush Docrines,"--all of which, I might add, are media labelings, not Bush himself. Which one are you talking about?
ADEAL416 2 years ago
I mean the general idea behind it. And, of course it's the media doing the labeling. That's what it's there for.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Right, but Iraq was utterly reckless, to say the least. Because, thinking about it, a sudden invasion would have just ticked him off and he woulda used the WMDs. No reason not to.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
In hindsight, of course it was reckless, with no exit strategy. But being given the same information Bush had at the time, I'd have a very hard time making any decision other than what Bush did.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
I would have investigated, planned, and tried and quell the fire. Before sending out Americans to die, we have to do a few things (following the Constitution is one of them).
Let's see...if Hussein is the bastad he is, and he doesn't care about America...and America invades, what will stop him from using his WMDs?
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
The idea was to take him out BEFORE he got a chance to use them. As to the 70% thing, I'm well aware that there were naysayers from the start, but at the time they were in the minority, and furthermore, many of them opposed simply on the idea of "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and that we had bigger fish to fry right then--not many would have called it a "baseless war of aggression." Point of selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, again, was to prevent a far worse government from coming to power
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Oh, and as for the whole chemotherapy thing, that's not entirely true. We mustn't lose our dignity and values in the face of panic and fear. Don't you see that's the whole point? To spread fear, panic, terror, to divide us, and make us lose sight of who we want to be.
There are other ways to fight terror, and secret torture programs are EXACTLY the wrong way to go about things.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
It's COMPLETELY true, no difference in the cirumstances. The biggest way for us to lose our "dignity and values" is to allow our citizens to die when there is ANY possible way to prevent it. And no, that is not "the whole point"--the whole point is to KILL AS MANY OF US AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE--they don't give two shits about anything else. If these "other ways" do it, I'm all for them. But when they don't our back-up plan better not be to let our citizens die, which you seem to want it to be
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Okay, first off, pay attention to Bin Laden's videos. To kill isn't the main objective. It's to spread terror. In fact, I'd say the greatest leg up is nothing but "mystery". If they wanted to kill as many of us as humanly possible, they'd already suicide bombed themselves to oblivion at a high cost to our troops. That is not the case.
Second off, I am not opposed to phone taps. I am opposed to warantless phone taps. Warrants were put forth to prevent Big Bro' from happening, and quite frankly
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
it's not too hard to get a warrant. But, no! Fear and panic prevaiils. It's either authoritarianism or we all die! Yet another false dilemma. It's not too hard to go ahead and follow the law, and get warrants. And like I said, the warrentless (unauthorized) phone-taps didn't do anything, and waiting for due process of law certainly wouldn't kill anyone.
Abdi actually cracked and told us a lot, not because we began about the Brooklyn Bridge. That ain't true.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Our first obligation to our citizens is to save their lives, and in the cases where we can't do so any other way, we can't worry about what the necessary methods for saving those lives does to our image.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
I assume you mean "hurt" us without government support, and no, they can't. No Saudi terrorist has EVER done anything to an American civilians without the backing from a terror supporting government. In their case, they got most of their support from the Taliban--not from their own government.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
And perhaps we haven't been attacked again because...we are doing EXACTLY what Bin Laden wanted us to do in the first place? Haven't you thought that maybe this is what Bin Laden wanted?
To make himself feel much more powerful? Perhaps if we realized that the terrorists plot was based on common known deficiencies in airplane travel, and even part of a hollywood script, Bin Laden's terrorist "genious" is reduced to garden-variety terrorism at the right spot. No evidence Gitmo stopped anyt
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
No, it is not "what he wanted"--what he wanted is to kill us all, or as many of us as possible, and they have failed in everything they've tried since then. That's a damn big success in my book. He doesn't care about power, he cares about slaughtering us. Maybe not Gitmo itself, but the interrogation methods used there, you better believe it did. It stopped the Library Tower plot AND the Brooklyn Bridge plot. Inconvenient for you, maybe, but it's the truth.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
He's killing some of our troops, aint he?
I recall that he made a statement about being glad that U.S. troops were on "his" soil.
And stop being misleading. We only found out about the supposed Brooklyn Bridge Plot AFTER they had decided not to even do it.
Y'know WHY they didn't do it? Too secure. Again, these guys aren't geniouses, they only capitalise on our weak points.
And NO, GITMO did not somehow stop the Brooklyn Bridge plot
Stop jerking around with facts.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Troops are the ones who put THEIR lives on the line to save the rest of us. No one forced them to do so. We have had no attacks on our civilians since 9-11. They never decided not to do the Brooklyn Bridge plot, they simply put the plan on hold until the weather in New York was not so hot. They were still planning and plotting, and thanks to the wiretaps you oppose, and waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we were able to stop them in your tracks. Sorry if you dont like those facts.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Hahahaha. Get your facts right. Yes, troops go where they're sent. Leave the people out of this. The terrorists actually decided not to do the Brooklyn Bridge. "The weather's too hot" was the code. What did the code mean? Abandon the plan.
We only knew of the plots AFTER they were abandoned. And Khalid was caught in Pakistan, by their ISI. Apparently, they knew where he was after capturing two other people beforehand, not because of the phone taps.
And all this nonsense about
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
My facts are VERY straight, sir. That weather comment was not code for abandoning the plot, just putting it on hold and reassessing how they could do it. And fortunately, thanks to the wiretaps, they never got that chance. I didnt say we found KSM because of the wiretaps, I said we found out about the Brooklyn Bridge plot and the Library Tower one this way, not to mention plenty of others we werent always told about. Otherwise Obama would have dropped it right away, but he knows its necessary
ADEAL416 2 years ago
It was an abandon plan. There was too much security and the plan was too risky. The code was "abandon". And you're taking a leap saying they didn't get the chance to do the plot they'd already abandoned thanks to wiretaps...
[to be continued, g2g]
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
I don't know where the hell you're getting this information, but you're wrong. Terrorists don't "abandon" their plans, they simply reevaluate and delay. Once again, fortunately thanks to the wiretaps, they never got the chance to tweak the plan so they could carry it out. The wiretaps were what allowed us to capture those psychopaths, so no, that's not taking a leap at all. SOunds more like common sense to me.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Actually, you are right, "the weather's too hot" did not mean abandon plan, it meant the plan was unlikely to succeed...ah, more or less the same thing though. I'm telling you, you are overestimating these terrorists. They just exploit obvious weaknesses, that's it.
No, we did not capture anyone from phonetaps. Much of the research was done in Pakistan, and Abdi, one of the main witnesses was caught because of fraudelent papers, not wiretaps.
No, we found out about the plans b/c of abdi.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Not the same thing at all--point being they were plotting attacks, and thanks to the wiretaps, and we caught them doing so. Again, you apparently didn't read what I said. I didn't say we captured anyone because of the wiretaps--we captured these particular terrorists from information we got from KSM (by waterboarding him, by the way) but we found out that this plot was in the works (thus knowing what questions to ask KSM) because of those wiretaps.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Nah, all the wiretaps did was give us more insight into what was going on, but by themselves, they didn't do shit. They were coded, and it wasn't till KSM and we knew what to ask KSM not b/c of the wire-taps but b/c of Abdi, again, twisting info.
Funnily enough, when we appreheneded Abdi, we could have LEGALLY searched the conversations and everything. There was no reason to piss on the Constitution.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Not in the case of the Brooklyn Bridge plot--we would have had NO CLUE WHATSOEVER that such a plan was in the works without those wiretaps--sorry if that's inconvenient for you. We got those wiretaps BEFORE we captured KSM and only because of them were we able to ask him the right question. Nothing "pissing on the constitution" about doing whatever is necessary to save our citizens' lives. The constitution makes clear that the most important right is to life, and must be protected at all costs
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Again, yes, we [unlawfully] had those wirtetaps, but we had no idea what was really going on. It wasn't until Abdi came along (and confessed) that we were able to decypher what was going on. We had the info, but could not adequately analyze it.
It was Abdi (not the phone-taps) that helped us put the jigsaw together. The Constitution says that the rights and liberty of the people is the most important thing (clearly violated by the warrantless phone-taps) to be protected against a government
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
It was those wiretaps that gave us an indication of where to start--we kept hearing the words "Brooklyn Bridge" over and over again, so we knew to investigate in that direction. Abdi certainly helped beyond that, but without the wiretaps, we wouldn't have even known where to start. And no, the right to life trumps EVERYTHING else, and there is no "liberty" violated by being able to discover terror plots.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
No, we found out about the plans from KSM, who was NOT caught by wiretaps. And since KSM was one of the prime scumbags behind the whole thing, any future plots obviously had to be deserted.
But wiretaps didn't do anything. And Obama has fallen prey to the talking heads trying to find "common ground" on almost every issue. In a way, he is too easily influenced, which, people like me were worried about.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
We found out who the specific culprits were from KSM, but we found out that there WAS a plot targeting the Brooklyn Bridge from those wiretaps. If you still claim the wiretaps to have done nothing, there's nothing that can be done for you, because you are simply in denial. Obama gets the security briefings that make perfectly clear what he has to do to keep us safe, and at least he has come to his sense on a FEW issues, though certainly not on everything.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
not getting any information if we had not waterboarded is a false dilemma. Sorry if you don't like the fact that phone taps and waterboarding did nothing except bring out intelligence of an old, abandoned plan years after it was abandoned (in this case, the phone taps did shit).
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
And yes, troops go where they are sent, but no one forced them to join the military in the first place. And its not a false dilemma according to those with actual first hand experience with the situation with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, so sorry buster, but I take their word over yours.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
So, you are telling me that you take the testimony of those who face possible prosecution for their questionable acts as definitive evidence? Really? Oh, well, then, if a murderer says he didn't do it, he didn't do it!
Man, c'mmon. There are more ways to interview people. Saying it's torture or America gets attacked IS a false dilemma.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
And you're telling ME that you take the words of people who did not PERSONALLY witness the circumstances in question?? That's even more ridiculous. I take the evidence of those who speak from experience over those who don't. Of course there are many ways to interrogate people, and I'm sure many non-questionable ones can be very effective. BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE GET NOTHING FROM THOSE TACTICS?? Unless you can show that such tactics are 100% effective, it is NOT a "false dilemma"
ADEAL416 2 years ago
And by the way, Obama has made it clear that no one is going to be prosecuted, so they are no longer worried about that, and those with the first hand, eyewitness experience still make perfectly clear that we DID get vital information from waterboarding at the very least in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Really? It's ridiculous to pay attention to people who say that torture isn't the only way to interview someone? Because our government is keeping us in the dark, we don't know what the hell they tried, and it isn't a jump from all this secrecy that illegal methods were used.
Waterboarding also isn't 100%, that's bull. The way you are treating hte situation IS a false dilemma. You are assuming no other method worked/was tried. That ain't true.
Besides, some guiltless people r in Gitmo.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
I never said it's the "only way"--nor did I claim anyone else said so. What I did say is that since the non-controversial methods are not 100% effective and we know that at least in some cases waterboarding HAS yielded useful information even if it too is not 100%, it damn well better be kept on the table for the times when those non-controversial methods fail. Nothing is "illegal" when lives are at stake. That's why we have a concept called "necessity" recognized by every court of law there is
ADEAL416 2 years ago
I beg to differ. Torture seems to lead to lots of unreliable information, as...well, you are inflicting pain on someone. You can get forced false confessions that only waste time and rack up human rights abuses. Yay!
Waterboarding is what ruthless regimes use, and quite frankly, condoning it is like condoning hte malpractices of values we don't appreciate in our culture.
Rash decisions like the approval of torture just fuel hate and distrust, uh...isn't htat what the terrorists want?
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
I'm not talking about confessions--no confessions coereced in any way should be admissible in court. But even those opposed to waterboarding in principle acknowledge that it HAS at times given us valuable information that has SAVED LIVES!!! And if the choice is between saving lives and being "hated and distrusted" or letting our citizens die and being liked or trusted, any president who chooses the latter is guilty of treason. Life is not a popularity contest buster.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Yes, life ain't a popularity contest, yet it is our "unpopularity" in the Middle East which has made our country targets. We stayed out of Iran, and guess what? Russia, China and Britain became the targets.
Waterboarding has certainly saved lives, but, in the long run, did it help Al-Qaeda out? Does it give their hate rhetoric some meaning? These are questions we must ask ourselves, as well as the long-term consequences of such programs.
Deep analysis shows it isn't the best option.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Whether it did or not, lives are worth anything--you worry about unintended consequences later on, same as with chemotherapy. And don't think we aren't targets of Iran--they just have other fish to fry first. So let me get this straight--you'd rather the people whose lives were, you admit, SAVED by waterboarding, simply have been allowed to DIE??? I have lost ANY respect I might otherwise have had for you, if you are truly saying that.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Nah, I told you how Iran politics work. They need hate. They don't attack, they just hate-monger to keep their power. That's it. They are just blowhards who don't or ever will have any real potential to do anything without losing power.
And, stop bringing up the false dilemma. You are acting like if waterboarding was the ONLY option. It clearly wasn't, and the fact that we don't know the full extent of the things that went on at Gitmo and their sucess rate point to overall failure.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
That's what they said about Hitler too, buddy. One attempt to call a madman's "bluff" when said madman wasn't bluffing is plenty for me, thank you. They don't care about "power" they care about KILLING ALL OF US!!! I didn't say waterboarding is ALWAYS the only option, it probably rarely is, but if it is such a "false dilemma" then TELL ME WHAT YOU DO WHEN EVERY "ACCEPTABLE" METHOD FAILS TO YIELD ANYTHING!!! Unless you can show me a method that's 100% effective, it's not a "false dilemma"
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Hitler's main goal wasn't "to kill everyone". He wanted to make an Aryan state and rid the Jews (and other social "ills") and enslave the Slavs.
Again, not every method was used, and quite frankly, from what's leaked, it seems waterboarding was used fairly fast, and to say it isn't torture is just nonsense.
The false dilemma is that waterboarding saves lifes, and a failure to do so would have people die.
Why is it a FD? Because obviously other methods weren't tried, & it limits the opt.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
I didn't say his goal was to "kill everyone"--but CERTAINLY to kill all Jews. Once again, investigate whether all other options were in fact exhausted, but one more time, unless they can show a method that NEVER fails to yield the information we need out of a terrorist, it isn't a "false dilemma." I don't really care what you call it--I'll concede the terminology (though it still pales in comparison to what REAL rogue regimes have done) but either way, it's preferable to letting citizens die
ADEAL416 2 years ago
The reason people like me call it a false dilemma is because the way people put it: "It was waterboarding or everyone dies!!".
Sorry, Cheney, that ain't true.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Not according to those who were actually there when it happened--not just Cheney. Again, I'm fine with investigating whether every other possible method truly had been exhausted by the time they used waterboarding. And as to its title and the Geneva Convention, I don't really care what we call it--call it Al for all I care. But the Geneva Convention doesn't trump saving lives, and if it must be violated to do so, then so be it. That's what the concept of "necessity" dictates in a court of law
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Funny, but Yoo (the "lawyer" who interpreted the law) was put in there by fellow buddies. So we can sayt hat his findings are not only controversial, but can indeed be proven to be wrong. Again, the CIA have even said waterboarding and other techniques DID NOT reveal life-saving info. Furthermore, it's funny, but by ignoring the GC, we just spark hate rhetoric. I kid you not.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Surprise, surprise, there's cronyism in politics. What relevance does that have to whether this was necessary or not? The CIA NEVER said we didn't save lives with waterboarding--there are simply some who claim we could have gotten the information other ways. To which, one more time I remind you, if we can, I'm all for doing it. But we'd better keep EVERYTHING on the table that has EVER saved lives when those acceptable methods fail. Even you seem to have acknowledged that
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Agree with "Surprise surprise"
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
and as to those "ruthless regimes" you might want to read up a little more on them buddy, because anyone imprisoned under them could tell you in no uncertain terms that they would be thanking God on their knees any day that waterboarding was the worst that happened to them. And they didn't use it to save lives either--they used it FOR SPORT!!! There IS a difference, and a huge one
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Oh, inherently Japanese waterboarding ain't the same as ours, but that is like saying "Oh, we had Hitler. Hitler killed less than Stalin. Therefore, people would rather be with Hitler".
I know it's extrme,but torture shouldn't be condoned, and ther are regimes who only use torture for interogation. Does THAT make anyone feel re-assured?
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
No, it's not even close to saying that. Because neither of them did what they did to save their own citizens' lives--we did. Not even in the same UNIVERSE, buster. I'm not "condoning torture"--I'm condoning stopping at NOTHING to save our citizens' lives, and if accepted methods fail, and the choice comes down to using non-accepted methods and saving those lives, or not doing so and letting those people die, it's a NO-BRAINER!!!!!!!!!
ADEAL416 2 years ago
But we didn't! We gave in to fear mongering and just installed water-boarding (and quite possibly other actions) w/out trying much of anything. Don't believe me?
Why else are people fighting so that the records are kept hidden? If they truly tried all else, why do they fear the truth? And if all these torture programs were "oh-so great", how come we only hear about a few sucesses?
If it was THAT GOOD, wouldn't they be trying to justify their actions by their consequences? It was a failure.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
soekrmg[dseksrmga;lskfmgARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! If I hear the word "FEARMONGERING" one more time, I'm going to go off a cliff. IT. IS. NOT.
"FEARMONGERING". TO. RECOGNIZE. THE. REALITY. OF. WHAT. WILL. HAPPEN. IF. YOU. DON'T. IMPLEMENT. CERTAIN. MEASURES. TO. STOP. TERRORISM!!!!!!! I'll tell you why records are being hidden--because we don'y want the enemy to know EXACTLY how EVERY interrogation is carried out. That defeats the entire purposes. That's also why we only hear a few examples
ADEAL416 2 years ago
And NOTHING that saves lives is a "failure." But I'll tell you one failure on your part. To answer my question: WOULD YOU RATHER THE PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES YOU ACKNOWLEDGE WERE SAVED BY WATERBOARDING BE ALLOWED TO DIE??? I'm all for investigating any case where waterboarding is used to make sure that every other option we have was tried first, and I'll reserve judgement on that in this case. But NOTHING that has EVER saved lives can be taken off the table!!!!!
ADEAL416 2 years ago
According to a CIA report, waterboarding didn't save any lives. A proper investigation would be fine, and I wouldn't be too against it had it saved lives and it been done in a very controled environment.
But as it stands right now, "To waterboard or have people die" is a false dilemma. If waterboarding was so great for everyone, why are the people who condoned it trying to hide the records?
Shouldn't they be proud? I think it's safe speculation to say something worse happened.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
And other CIA officials with first hand experience make clear that we did get life saving information, at least out of KSM, when we waterboarded him. Again, the reason they hide records is whatever we find out, the terrorists will too. But fair enough that you acknowledge that if it really is the only option, you'd do it over allowing people to die. Again, I'd support investigating whether everything else was tried, though I'd argue that the fact that we only used it 3 times demonstrates this
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Oh, I think we did it more than 3 times, and the secrecy is unnerving. The CIA officials are dubious, because...well, if the don't "lie' they can be charged with crimes.
Not a reliable source. Let a private investigation handle it. And let's at least admit waterboarding is torture and that it did violate the Geneva Convention.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
What proof do you have that we did it more than 3 times? It was done to Khalid Shiekh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Ramzi Binsalshibh--not sure what it got out of the latter two, but according to everyone who witnessed it, it DID get lifesaving information out of KSM. Once again, Obama has already made clar that nobody will be prosecuted, and those who were there still maintain that fact. Much more credible source than someone who just makes a blanket statement that it "never works."
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Hahaha, you really believe that it was it was only used 3 times (actually, it was used more than 3 times, current "info" says it was used only on 3 people more than once)? Wow, how naive of you. If that was the case, they would have already released the damn documents.
Again, the CIA stated that NO life saving information was acquired, but only about already aborted plans (we've been over that). And Obama, of course, is backing out from bringing much reform into the whole thing. Fear, fear.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Ok, fine on three people. I'm not losing any sleep over those three. And no, they would not necessarily release the documents, because, one more time, releasing them to us also releases them to the terrorists--not something we want to do. What part of that don't you get? No, they did NOT state that no life-saving information was acquired--even Dennis Blair, who opposes its use, has acknowledged that we DID get this. Once again, the Brooklyn Bridge plot was never "aborted"--simply tabled
ADEAL416 2 years ago
And not releasing it just creates distrust and leads to us thinking of the worst. At least a confirmation of investigations undertaking would satiate us. But nooo, even THAT seems to much (though, to be fair, you support investigations too).
Dennis Blair said we got info out of it, quite different to it being necessary. Even suppose I grant that the BBP was not aborted...when we caught KSM it certainly was, as KSM was the mastermind.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
I'd MUCH rather be distrusted and have people think the worst than have our enemies know EVERYTHING we do to get life-saving information. Blair's statement that it isn't necessary assumes that there are methods to get that life-saving intelligence that NEVER fail--never as in 100% effective. There aren't. that leaves the door open for other tactics being necessary. Once again, I'd supporting investigating whether it was necessary in the cases it happened, but you can't take it off the table.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Well, in case you didn't know, all this undisclosed info. can work in the terrorists favor. How? They can say that the U.S. severely abuses Muslims there, torture, etc. and recruit people. But if they say, this is what we did, what leverage do terrorist recruiters have?
May I remind you, terrorists base everything on anti-American rhetoric. But if America is open about what it's done, apologizes, investigates, etc., we make their hate-mongering jobs much harder, AND regain trust of Americans
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Sir, the truth was never an impediment to those psychopaths. They don't need it for anti-American rhetoric. They tell lie after lie about us, and recruit plenty from that. Recruitment wouldn't increase much from one statement that can be made being true, that we'll waterboard a terrorist if we couldn't get life-saving information any other way. But onece again, I don't oppose investigating whether it was necessary in every case it was used--i.e., whether every other option had been tried.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
But in cases where everything else truly has been tried, we have no obligation to "apologize" for stopping at NOTHING to protect the lives of our citizens.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Really? If the truth doesn't matter, why would it matter if we released the info. about Gitmo? Really, they base their hate on semi-truthful things. Go ahead and heear what bin Laden has said. It's mostly half-truths, not made up shit. They have to have some sort of truth for the Average Joe to join. You don't walk up to someone and say "Hey, Obama is an alien, want to blow yourself up?"
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Tell that to Hitler--you have to have some sort of truth for the Average Joe to join. He didn't need it, and neither did these nutcases. You're an intelligent arguer, and I respect at least a good amount of what you say. But you're still glossing over the point I've answered to you at least five times. It would matter if we released the info because then our enemy knows EXACTLY what to train their future operatives to be able to resist. What do you mean "general idea?" There's 4 ideas
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Perhaps you forgot, but Hitler did actually have a "fair share" of truth in his arguments. Even after 1918, anti-semetic feelings were nothing new, and eugenics was still part of an intellectual movement based on imperialism and racism.
Now, for this racism (& anti-semitism) to develop it took time.
Similarly, for the deep american hate to develop it took time (again, no one would have attacked us had we not meddled there) and some truths (twisted for convenience). In other words, some1
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Not for any of the things he said against Jews, he didn't. He may have had general grievances for German citizens from the first World War, but the Jews had nothing to do with any of it. Those were pure LIES, just like what bin Laden sells his jihad with. "Meddling" in this case means not letting them ride roughshod over Israel and responding to the Saudi government's request for our military presence there. We don't form our foreign policy around the desires of terrorists, buddy.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Sure he did. Hitler based his whole rhetoric against the anti-semetic sentiments of the era. This racism was considered "true" at the time, and that's why so many Average Joes bought into it. Anti-semitism wasn't anything new. In fact, I believe even Russia had had a "purging" of Jews just a few years before.
And by meddling I meant placing a dictator over an elected government, but p'haps you forgot aobut that? Terrorists form their desires out of our foreing policy, & that's my point.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Of course there were anti-Semitic sentiments of that era, but they were all based on LIES, not anything with any remote factual basis. As to the dictator over elected government, if you're referring to Iran, then tell me why we weren't attacked by them back in the '50's when that happened. And no, their desires are due to blind brainwashed hatred with no basis in reality.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Your missing the whole point! It doesn't matter if today it's known to be a lie, back then it was a "truth". And that's how Hitler got into power and got support from the Average Joe. Back then Anti-Semitism wasn't anything new, and all Hitler did was channel the angst of average people into hate.
He did have a portion of truth in what he said (even if today it isn't true, but that is besides the point), and that's how he got support. Hitler's feelings didn't just appear out of nowhere.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Key point being the quotation marks you rightly put around the word "truth"--the fact that it was accepted as being such doesn't make it so. He had what was accepted at the time on his side, but he NEVER had truth on his side, just like the terrorists have no such thing now
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Again, that's besides the point. Al-Qaeda (in case you've never heard bin Laden) uses semi-true hate rhetoric to fuel their campaign. You're missing the point completely. There are roots to what Al-Qaeda says and not all of it is untrue.
It's semi-true and twisted out of context, but some element of truth is still there. In Hitler's time, Eugenics was still not debunked and racism was the "truth". And that's what matters.
Not if in 70 years after the fact, racism is seen as false.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
The roots are unadulterated, ungrounded hatred, and in some cases, a desire to export theirt sick, twisted agenda and backwards way of life across the globe. Racism is seen as false now because it is. It just wasn't seen as such at the time. But that doesn't mean there was any actual real world merit to anything Hitler or the terrorists said.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
There actually is. Stating your point of view, no matter how erranous is very beneficial. Why? Because you can disprove it if it is lies, or clarify it if the view is distorted.
We need to understand our enemy, the enemies region, and act accordingly. I don't think invading nations and nation-building is the adequate response.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
When those nations you speak of have governments that are blatant supporters and harborers of terrorists who wish us harm, yes, sometimes we have to do that--and Iraq and Afghanistan both CLEARLY fit that mold, even without Iraq having any WMD's.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Iraq, surprisingly, did not like Al-Qaeda. Hussein may have been a lot of things, but extreme islamic, he wasn't. He was more your typical garden dictator.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
They may not have liked Al-Qaida in absolute terms, but enemies of each other are more than willing to work together to take out a much greater perceived mutual enemy. Witness us working with Stalin against Hitler. Same here. Just because they didn't like each other doesn't mean Saddam would have hesitated to provide anyone else who wishes for our destruction with some of those weapons if our intelligence had proven correct. Nothing else we could do about that than what we did.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Well, the comparison to us working with Stalin in WWII is an odd one, as we certainly where on the same team, but for "total" coperation...I'd argue against. Remember, Stalin also worked with Hitler, then they both fought against each other and it was a mess. Indeed, even the level of coperation is dubious.
I believe Hussein actually denied Al-Qaeda from entering into Iraq. Seeing how Hussein wanted power, having a terrorist group at home seems counter-productive.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
I never said there was "total cooperation"--I said if Saddam actually had the WMD's our intelligence at the time said he did, don't think for a second that he would have hesitated to hook Al-Qaida up with some of their own. Sure he denied them entry into Iraq--that would be too blatant a connection, and then he wouldn't have any plausible deniabiliy when held accountable. But that doesn't preclude under the table dealings in weapons meant for use against a mutual enemy
ADEAL416 2 years ago
has to set the roots, it has to take time to develop, and then you CAN recruit people with half-truths (exactly what Hitler did). Mein Kampf had the general ideas of the time taken to the extreme. Even Benito called the book "cliched". In other words, the ideas were not new.
I think releasing the info would get rid of skepticism and potential new recruits, as a more transparent and humble policy would make it harder for the terrorists to hate and fear monger. And the BD has 1 general motif.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Wrong, they'll just come up with more lies about us. And even if it DID stop new recruits (which it wouldn't) there's still plenty of old recruits out there who we better not strip our intelligence community of the ability to effectively deal with them by disclosing EVERYTHING we ever might do to them, thus providing them with a textbook training manual. Not worth the risk.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
Well, first off, doing so would gain popular support from other nations and may just allow a nice operation to develop into Pakistan (the Pakistani government is beginning to crack down on terrorist and Taliban supporters, even arrestinga prominent cleric).
By gaining re-newed support, we can wipe out Al-Qaeda (something a lot of the Muslim community seems to want) and earn their respect. By gradually building up respect, diplomacy will be a breeze and Israel will be secure.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Before 9/11, we had all the popular support from other nations we could ever want, and guess what? It didn't stop that from happening. No amount of "popular support" will EVER keep us safe. We should always pursue it whenever possible, but not when the cost is revealing every method we will ever use to get information out of a terrorist that will save American lives. That far we MUST NEVER go!!!!
ADEAL416 2 years ago
We didn't (and still don't) have the popular support in the Middle East. Guess what's our biggest threat? Like I've stated before, our past foreign policies affect how other countries see us. We don't get attacked just because whe are succesful, we get attacked because we've had intrusive foreign policies.
And yes, if no one hates America, why would anyone attack America? Besides, the idea behind releasing the documents (the torture) is to undermine Al-Qaeda's hate mongering
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
But we had wide popular support for defeating terrorism in general, and it still didn't stop 9/11. But what might have stopped 9/11 was the ability to get information out of the Al-Qaida officials we already had in custody from the first WTC attack from '93. I didn't say no one hates America, I said they have no legitimate reason for that hatred, so they have to make shit up, just like those who precipitated the anti-Semitism that Hitler latched on to did back in the 30's.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
No, what would have stopped 9/11 would have been for there to have been better security. May I remind you that what the terrorists did was exploit a well known deficiency in airline security.
Furthermore, Al-Qaeda does not randomly make up shit. Go ahead and listen to bin Laden. A lot of what he says is true, and the middle east has many legitimate reasons to hate us (not the least of which is Israel) due to our foreign policy.
And the anti-Semitism wasn't "made up shit" it had many root
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
There are probably many things that could have stopped 9/11, and of course there was terrible security. We need El Al-style security in this country, but that wouldn't be "politically correct" so God forbid we offend a few people to prevent another few thousand of our citizens from dying. I've listened to bin Laden, and it's a bunch a made up nonsense--he has ZERO legitimate complaints. Us not standing by and letting them destroy Israel is not a legitimate complaint.
ADEAL416 2 years ago
One of the main reasons El Al would be bad is the racial profiling it could employ. I am a vehement critic of such measures and think it detracts from the actual security of such things.
Personally, I don't think it takes much to stop terrorists from making their plans, as they have very limited resources and supporters.
And bin Laden doesn't "make up" anything. He just sees facts and radically analyzes them to his convinience.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Sorry buddy, but you lose on that argument. El Al has had NOTHING happen to it since it employed its current security measure, so there's no possible way you can argue that it "detracts" from anything. What's worse, inconveniencing and offending some people, or losing a city full of innocent people? I hope this is a rhetorical question. And whatever else you can say about El Al's security measures, you MUST acknowledge one thing: THEY WORK!! That's all that counts when saving lives is involved
ADEAL416 2 years ago
I'm sure I haven't lost this one yet. Oh, sure, El Al is the safest airline around, I'm not arguing that. What I argue against is Racial Profiling. And it sure does detract from overrall security as one passanger is given more of a look-over than others.
Why is that bad? Oh, let's see, if the terrorirst can get someone outside the profile...oh my!
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago