"The policies of my opponent [Kerry] are dangerous for world peace," [George W.] Bush said. "If they were implemented, they would make this world not more peaceful, but more dangerous."
1) Compared and contrasted to ETA and the IRA, as I pointed out earlier. Al-Queda is a whole different sort of terrorism.
2) No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
3) Iraq has been liberated from Saddam. Of course it hasn't full democracy yet. But thne neither did Germany for instance for several years after WWII.
4) No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them. As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
5) 9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
Compared and contrasted to ETA and the IRA, as I pointed out earlier. Al-Queda is a whole different sort of terrorism.
...and has existed since 1990, so again - what's your obsession with "11/9/2001 changed everything"?
No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
...or so it's claimed. That al-Qaida training camps existed in Afghanistan is true: that the best way of getting them was to bomb Afghanistan is false: the claimed "terrorist infrastruture" had damn-all evidence, and still doesn't.
Iraq has been liberated from Saddam.
Iraq has been invaded, conquered, and occupied by the US military, plus a handful of others. Calling that "liberation" is as false as calling the handing-back of Kuwait to the Kuwaiti Royal Family "liberation".
No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them
And the UN inspection teams went in: their inspection was stopped by the US invasion: when American inspection teams were finally allowed to finish, it was established that there were virtually no WMD in IRaq, and certainly none justifying invasion. It is also established that neither Bush nor Blair possessed the kind of definite evidence of threatening WMD that would have justified immediate invasion.
As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
Was he? He's been far more right than George W. Bush or Dick Cheney - and it begins to look like the US Occupation can't hold Baghdad.
9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
See? American-centric viewpoint, which, as I originally said, looks very absurd to people living outside the US.
1) Compared and contrasted to ETA and the IRA, as I pointed out earlier. Al-Queda is a whole different sort of terrorism.
Yes. You funded (possibly still do?) the IRA for years. I'm going to make assumptions and say that perhaps you think it was okay to fund the IRA because they aren't Al-Queda's sort of terrorism?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 09:21 (UTC)2) No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
3) Iraq has been liberated from Saddam. Of course it hasn't full democracy yet. But thne neither did Germany for instance for several years after WWII.
4) No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them. As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
5) 9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 10:44 (UTC)...and has existed since 1990, so again - what's your obsession with "11/9/2001 changed everything"?
No, the Taleban was harbouring Al-Queda, and allowed a terrorist infrastruture of tens of thousands of people to develop.
...or so it's claimed. That al-Qaida training camps existed in Afghanistan is true: that the best way of getting them was to bomb Afghanistan is false: the claimed "terrorist infrastruture" had damn-all evidence, and still doesn't.
Iraq has been liberated from Saddam.
Iraq has been invaded, conquered, and occupied by the US military, plus a handful of others. Calling that "liberation" is as false as calling the handing-back of Kuwait to the Kuwaiti Royal Family "liberation".
No, Resolution 1441 explicitely accepts the presence of WMDs, and demanded Saddam account for them
And the UN inspection teams went in: their inspection was stopped by the US invasion: when American inspection teams were finally allowed to finish, it was established that there were virtually no WMD in IRaq, and certainly none justifying invasion. It is also established that neither Bush nor Blair possessed the kind of definite evidence of threatening WMD that would have justified immediate invasion.
As for Scott Ritter, this is the man who said that Coalition Forces could not take Baghdad.
Was he? He's been far more right than George W. Bush or Dick Cheney - and it begins to look like the US Occupation can't hold Baghdad.
9-11 brought Al-Queda to the attention of the world, as opposed to a group of folks that occasionally set off bombs in Africa.
See? American-centric viewpoint, which, as I originally said, looks very absurd to people living outside the US.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-06 18:00 (UTC)Yes. You funded (possibly still do?) the IRA for years. I'm going to make assumptions and say that perhaps you think it was okay to fund the IRA because they aren't Al-Queda's sort of terrorism?