Home | Community | Message Board


MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Premium Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Amazon Ranch Dressing, Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: ]
    #2576596 - 04/19/04 02:58 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

you're not the only one:

So why did you post this the other week?

Quote:

what "international law" did the united states violate by invading iraq?

as far as the war being illegal, why? what specific treaty or agreement did it violate?






If i remember you've also repeatedly made long posts insisting Iraq broke UN resolutions and that "it shouldn't be up to the US to do the UN's job for it".


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Xlea321]
    #2577645 - 04/19/04 12:57 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

So why did you post this the other week?

inquiring as to what international treaties the US violated by invading iraq is not anything close to insisting that "the war was totally legal and justified." especially, when in my very next post in that thread (a thread i started with a post that did not express a favorable opinion of the war), i cited the UN charter's applicable articles showing why the invasion was a violation of an international agreement. could you try to show a little more honesty?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 9 months
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2578416 - 04/19/04 04:13 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

EchoVortex writes:

Do you realize that there is a significant difference between invading another country and taking precautionary measures to prevent a terrorist attack within your own country?

Yes, I do.

What on earth makes you think that the hijackers were such invincible masterminds that nothing short of a "massive and prolonged violation of civil liberties" would have stopped 9/11?

Is arresting someone without probable cause a violation of their civil liberties? What's the probable cause for arresting someone who attends a flight school?

Do you realize how many things had to go right for the terrorists for them to strike as successfully as they did?

Yes.

I have posted in numerous other threads sane and sensible measures, none of which involve "massive and prolonged violation of civil rights," that could have stopped those planes from flying into their targets.

"Could" have, perhaps. "Would" have? Nope.

You have yet to address a single one of them, and I've really just about had it with your utterly dishonest characterization of the situation.

My responsibility as a moderator is to read each and every post in each and every thread in this forum. That takes time. I do not have unlimited amounts of time. The measures you listed were inadequate. Some readers may think the measures you listed were adequate. Some readers believe a lot of things. If I were to comprehensively debunk every fallacy that appears in this forum, I'd never get anything else done. Sometimes I have to leave things be. This time, it was your post that I had to leave be. Next time it might be someone else's. That's the way things go.

Your insinuation that those of us who oppose the war do so because we don't give a shit about foreigners (or whatever it is you're trying to insinuate) is hypocritical bullshit, to say the least.

I'm insinuating no such thing. The truth is, going to war for strictly humanitarian reasons is not the mandate of the any of the governments of the coalition countries. They are charged with defending their own constituents, not the constituents of any other country (i.e. foreigners). When I say "not my problem," I am not being facetious. It is quite literally not the problem of the US government that some nutbar in some other country across the ocean is murdering people who live in his country. That's their problem. No other country is obligated to help them out. Not even the US.

The money being spent on this war could supply everybody on the planet with clean drinking water, among other things.

If true, what's your point?

There are ways to help people without occupying their countries, killing thousands of them in the process of "liberating" them, and not even being able to provide them security at the end of the day.

Yes, there are.

But of course, you're categorically opposed to other, non-lethal means of helping people with taxpayer money...

Yep.

... whereas you're still "undecided" about an action that has killed thousands...

Yes, because I am still uncertain just how much of a threat to the security of the coalition countries it would have been to leave Hussein in power, not because I am uncertain that the Iraqi populace is better off without him in power.

.... and, if anything, has made Americans less safe.

Speculation. I know how much you abhor speculation. You are a pragmatist as I recall. You usually challenge your debating opponents to provide you with hard data. Is it too much to ask you to do the same? How many American civilians have been killed by terrorist attacks since April 9, 2003?

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Phred]
    #2578587 - 04/19/04 04:59 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

What on earth makes you think that the hijackers were such invincible masterminds that nothing short of a "massive and prolonged violation of civil liberties" would have stopped 9/11?

Is arresting someone without probable cause a violation of their civil liberties? What's the probable cause for arresting someone who attends a flight school?


known associate of international terrorist organization?

clearly indicated not interested in landing?

in country on illegal visa?

at the very least, couldn't we have kept an eye on them
and notified interested government parties to the situation?


I have posted in numerous other threads sane and sensible measures, none of which involve "massive and prolonged violation of civil rights," that could have stopped those planes from flying into their targets.

"Could" have, perhaps. "Would" have? Nope.


and you know they would not have how?


The money being spent on this war could supply everybody on the planet with clean drinking water, among other things.

If true, what's your point?


if peace, freedom and a better way of life are our goals,
maybe we could try taking measures that may actually
affect these conditions.

at the very least, try these cheaper measures before
blowing our wad on a conflict that is off-topic and has
cost us the lives of 700 US Servicemen in the process.

.... and, if anything, has made Americans less safe.

Speculation. I know how much you abhor speculation. You are a pragmatist as I recall. You usually challenge your debating opponents to provide you with hard data. Is it too much to ask you to do the same? How many American civilians have been killed by terrorist attacks since April 9, 2003?


how many american servicement have been killed by
terrorist attack since April 9?

how do we know that we would have ever experienced
additional attacks in the US if we hadn't begun this
charade of a campaign against terrorism?

how do we know that more attacks aren't still around
the corner?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: ]
    #2578708 - 04/19/04 05:21 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

could you try to show a little more honesty? 



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Phred]
    #2580601 - 04/20/04 12:13 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

Is arresting someone without probable cause a violation of their civil liberties? What's the probable cause for arresting someone who attends a flight school?

A number of the hijackers were already on watchlists and shouldn't have been allowed into the country in the first place.  Arrest one and there's a very good chance it will lead you to the others--either that or they abandon their plan, knowing that their secrecy has been compromised.

That's only one of the possible ways this could have been thwarted.  Making the hijacking threat public would have been another.  The hijackers would have been spooked, and airport security would have done its job more effectively.

As luv pointed out, bolted cockpit doors and an armed flight crew would have made also made all the difference in the world.

If worse came to worst, armed fighters ready to scramble could have reduced the ultimate number of casualties.

The problem is that when Bush read the PDB of Aug. 6, 2001, he was about to go on a month-long vacation to his ranch in Crawford, where he enjoyed golfing, jogging, and naps (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010807-2.html).  Apparently he was so preoccupied with these concerns that the security of the homeland had to wait--until it was too late, of course.

The measures you listed were inadequate. Some readers may think the measures you listed were adequate. Some readers believe a lot of things. If I were to comprehensively debunk every fallacy that appears in this forum, I'd never get anything else done. Sometimes I have to leave things be. This time, it was your post that I had to leave be. Next time it might be someone else's. That's the way things go.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

In case you didn't notice, my last post more or less included a challenge to refute the suggested measures.  Why did you pass up the opportunity to do so, yet again?  Tell you what, now's your chance.  Let's see that comprehensive debunking of yours in action.

Yes, because I am still uncertain just how much of a threat to the security of the coalition countries it would have been to leave Hussein in power, not because I am uncertain that the Iraqi populace is better off without him in power.

So you're still uncertain about whether or not Hussein presented a threat to the coalition but you're certain that Iraqis will be better off without Hussein?  I think your certainties are misplaced.  We pretty much know all we're going to know about what Hussein's capabilities were, and he would have had a hard time expanding them under an ongoing inspections regime.  It's rather certain that he posed little or no threat to the US and the countries of Europe.  The future of Iraq, however, is still an open book.  A Shiite Islamicist government is a real possibility, as is civil war.  The average Iraqi experiences more personal danger in his daily life now than he did before the war.  In the long run, the Iraqis could be just as bad or even worse off than they were under Saddam.  Too early to tell. 

Speculation. I know how much you abhor speculation. You are a pragmatist as I recall. You usually challenge your debating opponents to provide you with hard data. Is it too much to ask you to do the same? How many American civilians have been killed by terrorist attacks since April 9, 2003?

Why limit it to American civilians?  700 American servicepeople are dead now who wouldn't have been dead otherwise.  A number of civilian contractors who were working in Iraq are also dead.  200 Spanish civilians are dead.  This hardly suggests that coalition partners are more safe now than before--just the opposite.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 9 months
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2583209 - 04/20/04 03:00 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

EchoVortex writes:

Arrest one and there's a very good chance it will lead you to the others--either that or they abandon their plan, knowing that their secrecy has been compromised.

You mean just like how the one who actually was arrested (Moussaoui) led them to the others and the others abandoned their plans after his arrest? Oh wait... that didn't happen.

Making the hijacking threat public would have been another. The hijackers would have been spooked, and airport security would have done its job more effectively.

The hijackers might have been spooked. And the US airport security might have confiscated their box cutters (and fingernail clippers and knitting needles), which at that time weren't prohibited -- if the hijackers had stuck to their original target date rather than waiting for things to get back to normal. Those flights were regularly scheduled daily flights -- the exact same plan would have worked every bit as well if carried out September 25, 2001.

Or -- realizing the feds were suspicious -- the hijackers could easily have hijacked flights originating in Canada whose flight paths went directly over New York so there was no need to arouse suspicion with any gross deviations from flight path other than a last minute altitude change. I fly from Puerto Plata to Montreal and back at least twice a year. I've flown over New York dozens of times in the last sixteen years.

As luv pointed out, bolted cockpit doors and an armed flight crew would have made also made all the difference in the world.

And as I pointed out, even today not all cockpit doors have been reinforced, almost no pilots are armed, not all domestic American flights have sky marshalls on them, no foreign flights (think Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto) have them, and several foreign countries refuse to allow airliners with armed folks on them (even sky marshalls) to land in their countries.

If worse came to worst, armed fighters ready to scramble could have reduced the ultimate number of casualties.

Yeah, right. The same nation which is filled with people who believe that Bush "lied" about Hussein violating the terms of the conditional ceasefire is going to believe Bush that the shot-down airliners were not just part of a standard hijacking operation to negotiate for the release of hostages (as the August 6 PDB warned) but were targeted at buildings. Who is talking fantasy here?

Tell you what, now's your chance. Let's see that comprehensive debunking of yours in action.

Okay then. Bump the thread you're referring to. Or tell me the title of the thread at least.

Why limit it to American civilians?

Because the function of military (and cops and firefighters) is to defend civilians. Sometimes even with their lives.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Phred]
    #2585023 - 04/20/04 11:43 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

You mean just like how the one who actually was arrested (Moussaoui) led them to the others and the others abandoned their plans after his arrest? Oh wait... that didn't happen.

Now that's odd. You say that as moderator you have to read everything posted on the forum, but it appears that you don't retain very much of what you read:

from Edame's post in this thread :

"The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has concluded that the hijackers would probably have postponed their strike if the U.S. government had announced the arrest of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui in August 2001 or had publicized fears that he intended to hijack jetliners."

They didn't abandon their plan because they didn't know he had been arrested.

The hijackers might have been spooked. And the US airport security might have confiscated their box cutters (and fingernail clippers and knitting needles), which at that time weren't prohibited -- if the hijackers had stuck to their original target date rather than waiting for things to get back to normal.

This idea that the hijackers only used box cutters is a fabrication of Ashcroft's Justice Department designed to deflect blame. Evidence suggests that they actually had knives and paralytic sprays. Read this link: http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid9.htm

In any case, the Ashcroft's story that the hijackers used box-cutters and plastic knives in the attack on the World Trade Center is a functional fictoid. In this case, the function was diversion. This fictoid serves to divert public attentions from the responsibility, and legal liability, of the government and airlines to prevent major weapons? such as guns, bombs, chemical sprays and hunting knives from being carried aboard airplanes. If such illegal devices had been smuggled aboard the planes, the liability could amount to billions of dollars. If, on the other hand, it could be disseminated that the hijackers had only used plastic knives, such as those provided by the airlines for meals, or box cutters, which were allowed on planes, neither the airlines, the screeners at the airport, or the FAA, which regulates the safety of airports, could be held legally responsible. Paul Pillar, who had headed the CIA's counter-terrorism, could thus explain that"the attack that killed almost 4,000 people used box cutters." This press accepted it as established fact. The New York Times, for example, reported "the hijackers did not use firearms, which would probably have been detected, but apparently wielded box-cutter knives of the type that were then allowed on board but are now banned."

What made the box cutter and and plastic knives fictoid particularly welcome was that the FAA had found massive failures of airport screeners to find weapons prior to the attacks. Such tests were conducted by FAA undercover "Red Teams." In 1998, for example, one FAA Read team leader told the New York Times, "we were successful in getting major weapons? guns and bombs--aboard planes at least 85 percent the time." The failure rate was as high as 97 percent at some airports. Nor was this vulnerability corrected before September 11th. FAA Special Agent Bogdan Dzakovic, according to USA TODAY, said that FAA officials had ignored security problems before the terrorist attacks.
The fictoid successfully deflected from this gaping hole in security."


Or -- realizing the feds were suspicious -- the hijackers could easily have hijacked flights originating in Canada whose flight paths went directly over New York so there was no need to arouse suspicion with any gross deviations from flight path other than a last minute altitude change. I fly from Puerto Plata to Montreal and back at least twice a year. I've flown over New York dozens of times in the last sixteen years.


Could have "easily" hijacked flights originating in Canada? What makes you say that, other than your ideological hatred and contempt for the Canadian government? Proof, please. When was the last time that a flight originating in Canada was hijacked? The hijackers did their homework: if they had believed that hijacking flights originating in Canada would have been easier than those originating in the US, I have no doubt they would have done so. They realized that it was US airport security that was full of holes, not Canadian.

And as I pointed out, even today not all cockpit doors have been reinforced, almost no pilots are armed, not all domestic American flights have sky marshalls on them, no foreign flights (think Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto) have them, and several foreign countries refuse to allow airliners with armed folks on them (even sky marshalls) to land in their countries.

So, what's your point? Just because something that should have be done hasn't been done yet doesn't mean that it would be any less efficacious if it were actually carried out.

Yeah, right. The same nation which is filled with people who believe that Bush "lied" about Hussein violating the terms of the conditional ceasefire is going to believe Bush that the shot-down airliners were not just part of a standard hijacking operation to negotiate for the release of hostages (as the August 6 PDB warned) but were targeted at buildings. Who is talking fantasy here?

Uh, is it even remotely possible for you to make a statement without some deliberate distortion of truth to it?

Bush is not accused of lying about Hussein's violation of the terms of the ceasefire--he is accused of lying about the degree of certainty with which Hussein was believed to possess WMD. There is ample evidence of those lies right here .

Secondly, Bush has never given a damn about what the public thinks anyway. If it were a "standard" hijacking operation (if there is such a thing) and negotiations were under way, the first thing the negotiators would do is to tell the hijackers to let the pilot land the plan. That's SOP in these cases. If the hijackers refused, the second thing the negotiators would request is that the plane be kept flying over sparsely populated areas. If the hijackers again refused and then started heading for major population centers, that would be pretty strong evidence that the hijackers were not negotiating in good faith.

Okay then. Bump the thread you're referring to. Or tell me the title of the thread at least.

Already did, above. Here's another .

And while you're at it, why not just rebut the Kean Commission as well, the majority of whose members, including Kean himself, have concluded that 9/11 could have been prevented.

Because the function of military (and cops and firefighters) is to defend civilians. Sometimes even with their lives.

Uh, which American civilians exactly are the soldiers in Iraq defending? And from what? Some guy with an RPG in Iraq doesn't pose a threat to me; he only poses as threat to those occupying his country.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 9 months
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2585734 - 04/21/04 01:56 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

EchoVortex writes:

They didn't abandon their plan because they didn't know he had been arrested.

Oh, please! They didn't wonder why it was they hadn't been able to contact him for three weeks? You think it might not have occurred to them that he had been arrested? The guys that pulled off 9/11 were crazy -- they weren't stupid.

This idea that the hijackers only used box cutters is a fabrication of Ashcroft's Justice Department designed to deflect blame. Evidence suggests that they actually had knives and paralytic sprays. Read this link:

I read the link. What I see is speculation that the hijackers may have had knives or paralytic spray. I see no evidence they had. By the way, have you ever heard of ceramic blades? They don't set off metal detectors. And just exactly how hard do you think it is to fill an asthma inhaler or breath mint spray container with pepper spray?

Could have "easily" hijacked flights originating in Canada? What makes you say that, other than your ideological hatred and contempt for the Canadian government?

The fact that I have flown out of Toronto and Montreal literally dozens of times since the early 1980s. I am extremely familiar with the level of security checking done for international flights at Canada's two busiest airports, because I have gone through the routine dozens of times.

On a business flight from Ottawa to Baltimore in the late Eighties, I was once actually invited into the cockpit after I had been chatting up a stewardess for a while and expressed my interest in flying. At the time I was carrying in my pocket my Swiss Army knife with a three and three quarter inch blade (actually several blades -- it's a Swiss Army knife after all). This happened again in the late Nineties on a charter flight from Montreal to Puerto Plata -- the flight wasn't full, I was hitting on the stewardess, she invited me to the flight deck, and I spent a good ten or fifteen minutes yakking with the flight crew. Again, I had my Swiss Army knife in my pocket.

I even used to fly for a few years with my grandfather's pearl-handled straight razor in my shaving kit inside my carry-on bag. I have had my shaving kit rummaged through maybe twice between 1982 and 2002.

Ask any Canadian who flies regularly about security at Toronto or Montreal pre 9/11 and you'll hear the same thing I'm telling you.

The hijackers did their homework: if they had believed that hijacking flights originating in Canada would have been easier than those originating in the US, I have no doubt they would have done so.

I have no idea if it was easier in Canada than it was in the US. I just know it was easy. I doubt there was any substantive difference in security procedures between Canadian and US airports.

And you haven't considered another factor -- perhaps they hijacked flights originating in the US because those flights could reasonably be expected to contain more Americans than one originating in Canada. If their goal was to maximize the deaths of Americans, it makes sense to hijack American flights, no? Another factor -- the psychological impact. It was a pure "thumbing the nose" gesture.

Regardless, if the American public had been alerted, so too would the hijackers have been. This is logical. Everyone knows how easy it is to get into Canada from the US. If there was an extended "Orange alert" and tightened security measures at US airports, it wouldn't have been that difficult to stage out of Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa rather than Boston.

So, what's your point? Just because something that should have be done hasn't been done yet doesn't mean that it would be any less efficacious if it were actually carried out.

Lol! This is hilarious, it really is.

My point, EchoVortex, is that if they haven't even been able to carry out all these things post 9/11, how on earth do you believe Bush could possibly have made them happen pre 9/11?

Bush is not accused of lying about Hussein's violation of the terms of the ceasefire--he is accused of lying about the degree of certainty with which Hussein was believed to possess WMD.

Was not one of the terms of the ceasefire that Hussein provide credible and verifiable proof of the destruction of his WMD capability? Did David Kay's report not show that he retained that capability? Is it not true that 5 to 10 per cent (depending which report you prefer) of his known stockpiles remain unaccounted for?

If it were a "standard" hijacking operation (if there is such a thing) and negotiations were under way, the first thing the negotiators would do is to tell the hijackers to let the pilot land the plan. That's SOP in these cases. If the hijackers refused, the second thing the negotiators would request is that the plane be kept flying over sparsely populated areas. If the hijackers again refused and then started heading for major population centers, that would be pretty strong evidence that the hijackers were not negotiating in good faith.

Hang on here. You're trying to tell me that hijacked planes have never been landed in airports located near major population centers? Is Paris not a major population center? Hell, pretty much the entire Eastern seaboard of the US is one giant population center.

You are pretending that if Bush had shot down those four planes, the American public would have believed they had been aimed at the WTC and the Pentagon and the Senate or White House. Uh huh. Suuuuure they would have. They would also have thanked him profusely and crowned him emperor.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Phred]
    #2586504 - 04/21/04 11:29 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

Oh, please! They didn't wonder why it was they hadn't been able to contact him for three weeks? You think it might not have occurred to them that he had been arrested? The guys that pulled off 9/11 were crazy -- they weren't stupid.

The possibility may have occurred to them but it wasn't the only possibility. Perhaps they tried to have as little contact with one another before the hijacking as possible--that's how cells work after all. Or perhaps they thought he had lost his nerve and ditched the project. I don't know, and neither do you. However, I'll take Thomas Kean's word for it over yours: he knows far more about these men than you do or ever will.

I read the link. What I see is speculation that the hijackers may have had knives or paralytic spray. I see no evidence they had. By the way, have you ever heard of ceramic blades? They don't set off metal detectors. And just exactly how hard do you think it is to fill an asthma inhaler or breath mint spray container with pepper spray?

There was no evidence they had plastic knives, either. Whatever it was, it was enough to kill somebody with and enough to keep a large number of grown men frightened in their seats. Any weapon that can accomplish those two things has no business being on the body of a passenger on board.

The fact that I have flown out of Toronto and Montreal literally dozens of times since the early 1980s . . . blah blah blah

Look, I'll take your word for it that you've experienced some pretty lax security standards at Canadian airports. But I've checked the databases (www.aviation-safety.net) and never in history has a flight originating in Canada been hijacked. This may be due more to political reasons than anything else, but it seems the Canadians are doing something right.

Regardless, if the American public had been alerted, so too would the hijackers have been. This is logical. Everyone knows how easy it is to get into Canada from the US. If there was an extended "Orange alert" and tightened security measures at US airports, it wouldn't have been that difficult to stage out of Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa rather than Boston.


NORAD is responsible for the air defense of both the US and Canada and I find it highly unlikely that if the US went on alert it wouldn't pressure Canada to do the same; after all, the US government realizes how porous the border is just as well you do.

My point, EchoVortex, is that if they haven't even been able to carry out all these things post 9/11, how on earth do you believe Bush could possibly have made them happen pre 9/11?

Oh, now I see what you're trying say. Since Bush would have met with resistance if he had tried to carry out such measures . . . he is absolved of the responsibility to even try! Man, what an utterly limp-wristed attitude that is. If some welfare recipient claimed, "Well, I could try to look for a job, but it'll sure be tough to convince people to hire me, so why bother, eh?" you'd be howling in condemnation. I guess for you the concept of personal responsibility only extends to the poor and not to the leader of the free world.

Let me remind you what Bush did after August 6th:

Nothing.

I'll repeat that, and spell it out for you just in case: N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Since you're such a big fan of counterfactual history, let's try this one on for size:

Bush reads the PDB and tries to implement measures to make US and Canadian airports and airlines as safe as they possibly can be; he is met with a storm of protest from both the public and from other politicians. Flight crews with guns! Heaven forefend! Etc. September 11 rolls around and the attacks occur, and occur just as successfully as they actually did. What would happen?

Well, Bush would then have something he has never managed to attain up to this point: credibility. The average person would say, "Hey, this guy actually tried to warn us that something like this might happen, and we didn't listen. In fact, we fought him tooth and nail. We're the ones to blame, we and the politicians who opposed the sensible measures he proposed." He would be seen as a leader with foresight. But that's not the way things work with Bush; he has the anti-Midas-touch of shit. He's obsessed with missile defense shields and then we get airliners used as missiles. He tells us Saddam has WMD and no WMD are found. He doesn't tell us North Korea has nuclear weapons when they plainly do or are very close to having them. He tells us his tax cuts will rejuvenate the economy and bring back the jobs lost under his watch: they don't.

He may not have succeeded, but he could have tried; and if he had tried the responsibility for what happened would have shifted to those who opposed him. He didn't try and for that reason he is accountable.

Was not one of the terms of the ceasefire that Hussein provide credible and verifiable proof of the destruction of his WMD capability? Did David Kay's report not show that he retained that capability? Is it not true that 5 to 10 per cent (depending which report you prefer) of his known stockpiles remain unaccounted for?

Rumsfeld said, "we know where they are." That was a lie, pure and simple. By aiding and abetting liars, you too make yourself a liar.

You are pretending that if Bush had shot down those four planes, the American public would have believed they had been aimed at the WTC and the Pentagon and the Senate or White House. Uh huh. Suuuuure they would have. They would also have thanked him profusely and crowned him emperor.

I'm pretending no such thing. I made no claims as to what public reaction would or would not have been in such a case. He would have had to make a terribly difficult judgment call, one that I wouldn't wish upon anybody. As it stands, however, not only were those planes not shot down, they didn't even have unarmed fighter escort forty-five minutes after four of them went off flight plan at around the same time. Now, if one plane goes off course and doesn't respond to radio contact that could just be some kind of equipment malfunction. If four do so at the same time any idiot can tell that something is definitely not right.

Just in case you missed it when I wrote it in the middle of this post, I'll repeat again for your edification what Bush did after August 6th:

NOTHING.

Now, if you get your jollies off of being an unpaid hack for Bush's excuse-making, responsibility-evading, damage-control machine, be my guest. But it's clear as day that the 9/11 commission will conclude that the attacks were preventable. Terrorists are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and their plans can be thwarted without resorting to a police state. Unfortunately, doing so requires far, far more intelligence, creativity, cunning, and a sense of responsibility than this crew of halfwits and blinkered ideologues will ever manage to muster.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 9 months
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2588915 - 04/21/04 10:49 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

EchoVortex writes:

Or perhaps they thought he had lost his nerve and ditched the project. I don't know, and neither do you.

Correct. Neither of us know just what they thought. However, we both know that when they discovered he was missing -- be it the day he was arrested or when he failed to show up on September 11, 2001 -- they didn't ditch the project.

Any weapon that can accomplish those two things has no business being on the body of a passenger on board.

And just how is a security checker supposed to find a ceramic knife strapped to the thigh of someone going through the check in line? With a full-body hand frisk? Yeah, that would go down real well with a devout Muslim woman, wouldn't it?

But I've checked the databases (www.aviation-safety.net) and never in history has a flight originating in Canada been hijacked.

I know. That's my point. If they had hijacked planes originating out of Toronto or Ottawa or Montreal whose regular destinations were New York or Washington (or whose flight paths passed near New York or Washington), there would have been even less reason to suspect a hijacking.

NORAD is responsible for the air defense of both the US and Canada and I find it highly unlikely that if the US went on alert it wouldn't pressure Canada to do the same; after all, the US government realizes how porous the border is just as well you do.

Oh, that would have gone over real well with the world, wouldn't it? Shooting down four foreign planes on the unsubstantiated conjecture that they had been hijacked and were destined to crash into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

Besides, it takes time to scramble interceptors and get them into position. If the destinations of the hijacked planes coincided with the targets, just how many minutes would the interceptors have to respond? A plane is descending on its normal approach into Dulles, then veers off and crashes into the Pentagon or the Senate.

Oh, now I see what you're trying say. Since Bush would have met with resistance if he had tried to carry out such measures . . . he is absolved of the responsibility to even try!

It's not that Bush would have met with resistance, it's that it couldn't have been done at all. As proof, I point to the fact that it still hasn't been done.

Today, there are still people howling about "profiling" at airport check ins. One little nugget discovered by the 9/11 committee (pretty sure it was Senator Lehman who unearthed this one) is that it is illegal to have more than two people of Middle Eastern descent pulled aside for "special attention" at a time. You want to hijack another airliner? Simple -- have your cousin Mahmoud and your neighbor Abzid get in line ahead of you and act suspicious. Once they've been singled out, you waltz on through. No troubles at all -- the TSA dudes are at their quota limit.

Bush reads the PDB and tries to implement measures to make US and Canadian airports and airlines as safe as they possibly can be; he is met with a storm of protest from both the public and from other politicians. Flight crews with guns! Heaven forefend! Etc. September 11 rolls around and the attacks occur, and occur just as successfully as they actually did. What would happen?

Ummm... I thought you were trying to show that the measures you described would have stopped 9/11 from occurring. Are you now conceding they would not have? If so, why are we still discussing this?

He tells us his tax cuts will rejuvenate the economy and bring back the jobs lost under his watch: they don't.

Actually, they do. But that's a topic for another thread.

But it's clear as day that the 9/11 commission will conclude that the attacks were preventable.

Of course they were. They could have been prevented by Clinton accepting the offer of the Sudanese to turn over bin Laden on a few occasions. However, once those opportunities had passed, there was no way of stopping the plot absent massive violations of civil liberties -- something no president could have gotten away with.

Terrorists are neither omniscient nor omnipotent...

Neither are governments. However, in this case, terrorists have an edge. Particularly terrorists willing (even eager) to die while carrying out their plots. "They (the terrorists) can be right one time; we've got to be right 100 percent of the time in order to protect the country."

...and their plans can be thwarted without resorting to a police state.

Incorrect. Let's take Moussaoui as an example. By existing law, investigators weren't even allowed to look at the data on his personal computer. They weren't allowed to interrogate him "vigorously" on the mere suspicion -- and let's face it, that's all it was at the time of his capture, suspicion -- that he might know some dudes who might be planning a terrorist attack. I remind you of the contents of the August 6 PDB -- at the time that was presented, there were already 70 FBI investigations going on re Al Qaeda. Was Bush supposed to say, "All right, guys, screw the law. I want everyone y'all are investigating in these seventy cases rounded up NOW, detained in secret, and tortured until they cough up something we can use" ?

Hell, even after 9/11, Bush is getting his ass kicked by people like you just for arresting Middle Eastern people (some of whom may be Al Qaeda operatives) who are in the country illegally. I'm sure you remember posting this .

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Phred]
    #2589297 - 04/22/04 12:07 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

However, we both know that when they discovered he was missing -- be it the day he was arrested or when he failed to show up on September 11, 2001 -- they didn't ditch the project.

Probably because they had no reason to suspect that the Feds had any clue whatsoever what they were up to. And they were right.

And just how is a security checker supposed to find a ceramic knife strapped to the thigh of someone going through the check in line? With a full-body hand frisk? Yeah, that would go down real well with a devout Muslim woman, wouldn't it?

Tough nuts. It's still not a massive violation of her civil rights--she's the one who made the choice to fly within the United States. Any airport that has heavy traffic in devout Muslim women can hire other devout Muslim women to do the frisking if it comes to that.

I know. That's my point. If they had hijacked planes originating out of Toronto or Ottawa or Montreal whose regular destinations were New York or Washington (or whose flight paths passed near New York or Washington), there would have been even less reason to suspect a hijacking.

No, your claim was that it's very easy to hijack a plane from Canada. If all of North America had gone on alert it would have been a lot more difficult.

Oh, that would have gone over real well with the world, wouldn't it? Shooting down four foreign planes on the unsubstantiated conjecture that they had been hijacked and were destined to crash into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

I was talking about pressuring Canada to beef up security at its airports.
There was no need to "conjecture" that the flights had been hijacked because passengers were making calls on their cell phones to precisely that effect.

Besides, it takes time to scramble interceptors and get them into position. If the destinations of the hijacked planes coincided with the targets, just how many minutes would the interceptors have to respond? A plane is descending on its normal approach into Dulles, then veers off and crashes into the Pentagon or the Senate.

It also takes time to hijack an airplane and take control of the cockpit. The hijackers didn't even know how to conduct approaches and landings. You need permission from the tower even to begin an approach and the hijackers certainly didn't know the lingo that pilots and control use in such cases.

It's not that Bush would have met with resistance, it's that it couldn't have been done at all. As proof, I point to the fact that it still hasn't been done.

Bullshit. Not ALL of the measures would have been impossible. Air passengers are generally pretty patient and receptive to measures designed to protect their own safety. Secondly, there's no way for Bush to have known what the response would have been. No excuse for not trying. No excuse for doing NOTHING AT ALL.

Ummm... I thought you were trying to show that the measures you described would have stopped 9/11 from occurring. Are you now conceding they would not have? If so, why are we still discussing this?

Not at all. I was just imagining what would have happened if your assertion were correct that there was nothing Bush could have done but if he had tried anyway. Since he did nothing there's no way to know for sure and the discussion remains academic. I still maintain that the attacks could have been prevented or, at the very least, the extent of damage could have been lessened--without "massive and prolonged violations of civil liberties." I refuse to accept your fallacy of the excluded middle that forces a false choice between helpless vulnerability to catastrophic terrorist attacks and elimination of civil liberties. It is a) incorrect--there are plenty of countries in this world who experience neither, b) weak-minded and fatalistic--exaggerating the capacities of the terrorists and ignoring alternative options, and c) politically suspect--absolving the Bush administration of a responsibility that is clearly on its shoulders and at the same time giving it theoretical justification for its attacks on Americans' civil liberties.

Of course they were. They could have been prevented by Clinton accepting the offer of the Sudanese to turn over bin Laden on a few occasions. However, once those opportunities had passed, there was no way of stopping the plot absent massive violations of civil liberties -- something no president could have gotten away with.

I have stated elsewhere that both the Clinton and Bush administrations have a lot to answer for vis-a-vis terrorism. Clinton should have accepted that offer. But if you think that capturing bin Laden would have made al-Qaeda collapse, with his minions saying "oh well, he's gone so let's call it quits and go home," you're indulging in fantasy. There were ways to stop these attacks but they revolve around securing the homeland first and foremost. They also include cutting off terrorist funding and adopting a foreign policy that is something other than a continuous, relentless, and ultimately pointless provocation of hatred for the United States. Evolving has already tried to enlighten you on these points, but if you refuse to listen to a fellow libertarian I have no doubt you'll refuse to listen to me.

Neither are governments. However, in this case, terrorists have an edge. Particularly terrorists willing (even eager) to die while carrying out their plots. "They (the terrorists) can be right one time; we've got to be right 100 percent of the time in order to protect the country."

I will admit that suicidal terrorists have "an edge"--anybody who doesn't value his own life will have an edge when it comes to violence over those who do value their own lives. But given the massive imbalance in power and resources between the terrorists and the US government, that edge doesn't have to translate into guaranteed success on a catastrophic scale.

Incorrect. Let's take Moussaoui as an example. By existing law, investigators weren't even allowed to look at the data on his personal computer.

Not quite. The reason the computer wasn't searched had less to do with the law as written, which only calls for probable cause certainty of 50%, and more to do with the ineptitude of certain people within the FBI. I suggest you read Colleen Rowley's famous whistleblower memo to Robert Mueller, an extract of which I provide here:

5) The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel whose job it was to assist and coordinate with field division agents on terrorism investigations and the obtaining and use of FISA searches (and who theoretically were privy to many more sources of intelligence information than field division agents), continued to, almost inexplicably,5 throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause.6 In all of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_whistleblower1.htm

The FBI director, his boss the Attorney General, and his boss the President are ultimately responsible for the effective operation of FBI law enforcement. So far none of these people has seen fit to take responsibility for their failures in oversight, and none of them has been fired. The problem in this case wasn't the existing laws, it was the agency.

Hell, even after 9/11, Bush is getting his ass kicked by people like you just for arresting Middle Eastern people (some of whom may be Al Qaeda operatives) who are in the country illegally. I'm sure you remember posting this .


That registration program was a farce--as if terrorists would voluntarily mosey on down to have themselves registered. All it served to do was to intimidate the law-abiding while creating an authoritarian spectacle. If you know of any actual terrorists who were apprehended because of that brilliant little plan, let me know.

Since it didn't seem to sink in the first two or three times I told you, let me remind you again what Bush did after August 6th: NOTHING.

Funny how inconvenient little facts like that just don't seem to go away no matter how you try to ignore them, isn't it?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 9 months
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2589562 - 04/22/04 01:37 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

EchoVortex writes:

Probably because they had no reason to suspect that the Feds had any clue whatsoever what they were up to. And they were right.

More probably because they knew that American law enforcement personnel don't torture information out of people, therefore their plans weren't blown. And they were right.

Tough nuts. It's still not a massive violation of her civil rights--she's the one who made the choice to fly within the United States. Any airport that has heavy traffic in devout Muslim women can hire other devout Muslim women to do the frisking if it comes to that.

As always, you ignore the political reality pre 9/11. The Islamists had declared war on the US, but the American people didn't believe that. Forget devout Muslims -- would you, EchoVortex, submit to a full body search each and every time you boarded a plane? Would your mother? How about a cavity search? There are people who can fit some fairly sizeable objects up their nether regions.

And all of this is occurring in a country whose last hijacking was, when? Several years back?

No, your claim was that it's very easy to hijack a plane from Canada. If all of North America had gone on alert it would have been a lot more difficult.

Uh huh. So now it's not just the US whose security inspectors must do full body searches of all passengers, but Canada and Mexico as well? Get real.

There was no need to "conjecture" that the flights had been hijacked because passengers were making calls on their cell phones to precisely that effect.

Read the entire sentence. I wasn't disputing that no one knew the planes had been hijacked. In every previous hijacking, the plane landed and negotiations were carried out once the plane was on the ground.

It also takes time to hijack an airplane and take control of the cockpit. The hijackers didn't even know how to conduct approaches and landings.

They don't teach you that in flight school?

You need permission from the tower even to begin an approach and the hijackers certainly didn't know the lingo that pilots and control use in such cases.

I doubt the hijackers were concerned about obtaining permission.

Look, it's simple. You seize control of the flight deck, wait till you're a few miles out, then steer the plane into the ground. This takes maybe five minutes. Perhaps ten. Have you ever played Microsoft Flight Simulator? Do you know what an autopilot is?

Bullshit. Not ALL of the measures would have been impossible.

All the ones that would have made a difference. I can't help but notice that you continue to ignore the facts that the cockpit doors are still not hardened, that almost no pilots are armed, that there are still not even armed sky marshalls on every domestic flight, much less overflights originating in other countries (i.e. the hundreds of flights every week from Canada to Mexico and the Caribbean), and that there are still many countries who will not even allow an American plane with armed personnel to land in their countries.

Secondly, there's no way for Bush to have known what the response would have been.

Oh, bullshit. Bush may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but even he knows Americans won't stand for cavity searches whenever they fly. And that's post 9/11, mind you.

I was just imagining what would have happened if your assertion were correct that there was nothing Bush could have done but if he had tried anyway.

You mischaracterize my assertion. I have always said that once the plot was underway, there was no way to stop it absent massive and prolonged violation of civil liberties.

I still maintain that the attacks could have been prevented or, at the very least, the extent of damage could have been lessened--without "massive and prolonged violations of civil liberties."

You are of course free to continue to believe that, even though you have been unable to show how any of your proposals would have stopped 9/11 from happening.

I refuse to accept your fallacy of the excluded middle that forces a false choice between helpless vulnerability to catastrophic terrorist attacks and elimination of civil liberties. It is a) incorrect--there are plenty of countries in this world who experience neither...

Completely irrelevant. We're not talking about "plenty of countries", i.e. Sweden or Australia, we're talking about the America Bush inherited in January of 2001, past history intact. How is it Bush's fault that terrorists wanted to attack America for its past policies towards Israel or whatever?

And just to remind you, pre-9/11, America was also one of those "plenty of countries" who had yet to experience a catastrophic terrorist attack. You seem to have an inability to think objectively about this. You cannot prevent your knowledge of what occurred from tainting your "solutions" in the context of pre-9/11 America.

b) weak-minded and fatalistic--exaggerating the capacities of the terrorists and ignoring alternative options...

LOL! And you're the one who accuses me of being idealistic rather than pragmatic? This is just too funny.

Dude, it's pretty tough to exaggerate the capabilities of terrorists when you can walk past ground zero. And for every "alternative option" the barking moonbats oppose at the top of their lungs (fingerprinting visitors, body searches, information sharing -- remember what happened to Poindexter's TIS?) the terrorists have a way around it anyway. I don't know if you read my post to infidelGOD re: sailing a LNG tanker into New York harbor and detonating it (and other plausible scenarios he chose to ignore), but there are literally dozens of ways of killing mass quantities of American civilians that absolutely cannot be prevented absent a complete and total lockdown of the country. Recognizing this is not being fatalistic, it's being realistic.

The best way to thwart the terrorists is to kill or capture them before they reach your shores. That is being done. But Bush is being criticized for doing it.

and c) politically suspect--absolving the Bush administration of a responsibility that is clearly on its shoulders and at the same time giving it theoretical justification for its attacks on Americans' civil liberties.

I fail to see how America's past policies which infuriated the Islamists to the point of carrying out terrorist attacks were the responsibility of George W. Bush.

But if you think that capturing bin Laden would have made al-Qaeda collapse, with his minions saying "oh well, he's gone so let's call it quits and go home," you're indulging in fantasy.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you said (incorrectly) that capturing one of the plotters would have made the other nineteen call it quits? Can we say "hypocrisy"?

There were ways to stop these attacks...

Let's hear some.

...but they revolve around securing the homeland first and foremost.

You mean like TIS, the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, racial profiling, expulsion of illegal immigrants, wiretaps, web taps, intercepting e-mails, detention of suspects in Guantanamo, etc.?

They also include cutting off terrorist funding...

How can the US prevent people outside the US from funding terrorists? You're really floundering now.

.... and adopting a foreign policy that is something other than a continuous, relentless, and ultimately pointless provocation of hatred for the United States.

Such as deposing the rogue "government" in Afghanistan who harbored bin Laden and his Merry Pranksters? Or deposing Hussein who harbored and funded terrorists? Or withdrawing from the UN, who handled the ridiculously corrupt Oil for Food Program where billions of bucks vanished into the pockets of terrorist backers?

Oh, wait -- those things were done after 9/11, not before. Except for the withdrawing from the UN bit, sadly.

Evolving has already tried to enlighten you on these points, but if you refuse to listen to a fellow libertarian I have no doubt you'll refuse to listen to me.

Do you agree with everything Alex123 writes? No? Then why should I agree with everything Evolving writes?

You gave me shit for dragging another poster's name into one of our discussions in the past. Turnabout's fair play. You can't even refute my points properly. I suggest you leave Evolving out of it.

But given the massive imbalance in power and resources between the terrorists and the US government, that edge doesn't have to translate into guaranteed success on a catastrophic scale.

Guaranteed? Of course not. The CIA and FBI have foiled many other plots. With luck, they'll foil more.

Not quite. The reason the computer wasn't searched had less to do with the law as written, which only calls for probable cause certainty of 50%, and more to do with the ineptitude of certain people within the FBI. I suggest you read Colleen Rowley's famous whistleblower memo to Robert Mueller, an extract of which I provide here:

Well, we can thank Jamie Gorelick for that one, can't we? Her reward -- membership on the 9/11 Commission.

That registration program was a farce--as if terrorists would voluntarily mosey on down to have themselves registered.

Your suggestions so far have also been farcical.

All it served to do was to intimidate the law-abiding while creating an authoritarian spectacle. If you know of any actual terrorists who were apprehended because of that brilliant little plan, let me know.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps some of those facing expulsion might wish to bargain with the LEO types in return for getting lost in the shuffle?

"Look, fellas, I'm no terrorist. I'm one of those peaceloving Muslims, I swear by the beard of the Prophet! But there's a guy I overheard while I was serving shwarma and coffee who you really should take a look at. I'll tell you where to find him if you cut me some slack."

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Phred]
    #2589730 - 04/22/04 02:40 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

As always, you ignore the political reality pre 9/11. The Islamists had declared war on the US, but the American people didn't believe that. Forget devout Muslims -- would you, EchoVortex, submit to a full body search each and every time you boarded a plane? Would your mother? How about a cavity search? There are people who can fit some fairly sizeable objects up their nether regions.

I would submit to a frisking, sure.  At European airports I have been frisked.  My mother would submit to a frisking if it was conducted by a woman, and she has been frisked in the past--by US CUSTOMS OFFICIALS AFTER ENTERING THE US.  This was before 9/11.  It seems the US government cared more about keeping contraband out of our pristine, drug-free shores than they did about keeping weapons out of airplanes.

As far as cavity searches go, they have been conducted routinely on suspected drug traffickers since long before 9/11.  The absurdity of the situation is that what we won't do in the war on terrorism we will do in the war on drugs.

They don't teach you that in flight school?

Landing a 767 is completely different from landing a Cessna 172.  When the hijackers practiced flying commercial airliners at flight school simulators they didn't practice landings.

Look, it's simple. You seize control of the flight deck, wait till you're a few miles out, then steer the plane into the ground. This takes maybe five minutes. Perhaps ten. Have you ever played Microsoft Flight Simulator? Do you know what an autopilot is?

Not only have I played Flight Simulator, I had a private pilot's license for a few years until I let it lapse.

I'm saying that it takes time to seize control of the flight deck.  Within that time word gets out that the plane has been hijacked.  US F-15s based in Germany can scramble and be in the air within five minutes of receiving an alert.  Once in the air, they can travel at supersonic speeds to respond to a situation hundreds of miles away within minutes.  If we can do it in Germany, we can certainly do it here.

All the ones that would have made a difference. I can't help but notice that you continue to ignore the facts that the cockpit doors are still not hardened, that almost no pilots are armed, that there are still not even armed sky marshalls on every domestic flight, much less overflights originating in other countries (i.e. the hundreds of flights every week from Canada to Mexico and the Caribbean), and that there are still many countries who will not even allow an American plane with armed personnel to land in their countries.

Airport security would have made a difference too.  Do you have sources saying that cockpit doors are not hardened, that almost no pilots are armed?

Oh, bullshit. Bush may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but even he knows Americans won't stand for cavity searches whenever they fly. And that's post 9/11, mind you.

Oh, okay, so that basically excuses him for doing NOTHING.  Still haven't addressed that one, have you?  Quite remarkable the lengths you'll go to defending incompetence.

You are of course free to continue to believe that, even though you have been unable to show how any of your proposals would have stopped 9/11 from happening.

I don't have to prove that they would.  Counterfactual history is impossible to prove definitively.  I merely have to show that they could have, and you yourself have conceded that such is the case.

Completely irrelevant. We're not talking about "plenty of countries", i.e. Sweden or Australia, we're talking about the America Bush inherited in January of 2001, past history intact. How is it Bush's fault that terrorists wanted to attack America for its past policies towards Israel or whatever?

He supported those policies in the past and has in fact taken them to an entirely unprecedented pitch.  If he had done anything to better the situation, he would have the benefit of the doubt, but instead he's only made it worse.

And just to remind you, pre-9/11, America was also one of those "plenty of countries" who had yet to experience a catastrophic terrorist attack. You seem to have an inability to think objectively about this. You cannot prevent your knowledge of what occurred from tainting your "solutions" in the context of pre-9/11 America.

Hahah, nice try.  There had never been one on American soil, but Americans, both military and civilian, have been persistent targets of successful terrorist attacks.  The Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon.  The Pan-Am flight over Lockerbie.  The TWA hijacking.  The first WTC bombing.  The USS Cole.  Want me to list more?  There are plenty.

As far as my ability to think objectively goes, I have already stated that the Clinton Administration shares much of the blame for what happened.  Yet you persistently refuse to admit that the Bush administration carries any responsibility at all, even when any unbiased schoolchild can see that it does.  Sorry, but plying damage-control propaganda does not qualify as "thinking objectively."

Dude, it's pretty tough to exaggerate the capabilities of terrorists when you can walk past ground zero. And for every "alternative option" the barking moonbats oppose at the top of their lungs (fingerprinting visitors, body searches, information sharing -- remember what happened to Poindexter's TIS?)

I don't oppose any of those measures except TIS.

I don't know if you read my post to infidelGOD re: sailing a LNG tanker into New York harbor and detonating it (and other plausible scenarios he chose to ignore), but there are literally dozens of ways of killing mass quantities of American civilians that absolutely cannot be prevented absent a complete and total lockdown of the country. Recognizing this is not being fatalistic, it's being realistic.

I haven't read that post, but if you link it I'll take a look.  Logic would suggest, however, that if they "absolutely" cannot be prevented absent a complete and total lockdown of the country, they would have happened by now since the country hasn't been locked down.  In fact, al-Qaeda would probably have tried one of those more lethal possibilities first instead of the 9/11 plan which they didn't even think would bring the towers down.

The best way to thwart the terrorists is to kill or capture them before they reach your shores. That is being done. But Bush is being criticized for doing it.

Hunting them down before they get here is definitely one important part of the puzzle.  So is not granting them visas.  But that alone is not enough, because you cannot kill and capture them all, all over the world (bin Laden's continued escape from capture is proof enough of that), and if you pursue foreign policies that merely encourage more people to become terrorists you're only chasing your own tail.  I for one have never criticized Bush for invading Afghanistan or for capturing and killing terrorists.  Iraq is a different story, if you haven't realized by now.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you said (incorrectly) that capturing one of the plotters would have made the other nineteen call it quits? Can we say "hypocrisy"?

Publicizing the threat could have made them postpone the attack, giving law enforcement more time to get to them.

Let's hear some.

I've already given you plenty that could have.  If you choose to dismiss them that's your prerogative.  Your counter-arguments are themselves mere speculation anyway, and therefore don't really count for much.

Such as deposing the rogue "government" in Afghanistan who harbored bin Laden and his Merry Pranksters? Or deposing Hussein who harbored and funded terrorists? Or withdrawing from the UN, who handled the ridiculously corrupt Oil for Food Program where billions of bucks vanished into the pockets of terrorist backers?

Afghanistan was justified, and unopposed.  Please show us proof that Hussein "harbored" al-Qaeda terrorists.  Please show us proof that Oil for Food money went to al-Qaeda terrorists instead of to Hussein's palaces.  While you're at it, maybe you can also address the fact that Bush is in the middle of a friggin' love fest with the Saudis.  Do I need to remind you that most of the hijackers were Saudis?  Do I need to remind you that bin Laden is a Saudi?  Do I need to remind you that his construction business fortune is underwritten by Saudi oil money?  Do I need to remind you that the Saudis are the single largest financiers of Islamicist organizations not only in Saudi Arabia but around the world? 

Get a grip, dude.

You gave me shit for dragging another poster's name into one of our discussions in the past. Turnabout's fair play. You can't even refute my points properly. I suggest you leave Evolving out of it.

Hahah.  Refute your points?  Every single one of your points is based on hypothetical speculation with no refutable evidence provided.  The people who have been sifting through all of the availalble evidence for over a year now disagree with your speculations and your conclusions.  You have also failed to refute the fact that Bush did NOTHING after August 6th, simply because this is a factual assertion that can be verified.  You can't refute it because it is a fact.

Well, we can thank Jamie Gorelick for that one, can't we? Her reward -- membership on the 9/11 Commission

Sigh.  Since you're obviously incapable of refuting anything in that memo, you resort to a rimshot ad hominem attack on Jamie Gorelick.  And you accuse me of floundering?  :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your suggestions so far have also been farcical.

Sinking deeper now . . .

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps some of those facing expulsion might wish to bargain with the LEO types in return for getting lost in the shuffle?

"Look, fellas, I'm no terrorist. I'm one of those peaceloving Muslims, I swear by the beard of the Prophet! But there's a guy I overheard while I was serving shwarma and coffee who you really should take a look at. I'll tell you where to find him if you cut me some slack."


Any reported incidents of this happening, ever, anywhere?  Do you think terrorists talk about their plans over shwarma and coffee in places where they can be overheard?  If they're that stupid then stopping them should be a piece of cake, which would then negate the point you've been trying to make all along that only massive and prolonged violations of civil liberties could have stopped 9/11.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: ]
    #2590542 - 04/22/04 11:15 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

inquiring as to what international treaties the US violated by invading iraq

So you were just inquiring in the sense that you wanted me to instruct you? Not as usual where you hold a position and "demand" me to prove you wrong?

i cited the UN charter's applicable articles

You have also repeatedly cited a long list of alledged Iraq "breaches" of UN resolutions. Was there any reasoning behind this? You didn't mean any of that as a justification for war?

could you try to show a little more honesty?

Wow, ripping off 12 month old luv lines. You've hit rock bottom  :smirk:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Xlea321]
    #2590678 - 04/22/04 11:48 AM (16 years, 6 months ago)

So you were just inquiring in the sense that you wanted me to instruct you? Not as usual where you hold a position and "demand" me to prove you wrong?

no, i was genuinely curious because i hadn't yet done any research on the matter myself. after briefly looking into it for less than 20 minutes, and before anyone even responded to my question, i was able to find the relevant articles, which i then posted.

You have also repeatedly cited a long list of alledged Iraq "breaches" of UN resolutions.

i have not. i can't even tell you which resolutions the iraqis violated, but i can read well enough to see in the event of a breach, the UN security council decides what to do, not the united states. even if there was a breach, the invasion still violated certain articles of the UN charter.

i've never once insisted that the invasion was not a violation of international agreements.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Xlea321]
    #2591390 - 04/22/04 03:27 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

He can use the line. After all, it's true.

Were you an honest man, no-one would need to use it at all.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Xochitl]
    #2607137 - 04/27/04 04:36 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

The Top 19 Dumbest Statements of the Past Week
by Harry Browne
April 20, 2004

Politicians are a continual source of empty rhetoric, rosy promises that
are never fulfilled, meaningless mom-and-apple-pie clich?s, and outright
lies.

Last week was a particularly fertile one for such inanities. Here are
the week's 19 dumbest political statements. At the end of the list, I'll
tell you who said them.

19. "Iraq will either be a peaceful, democratic country, or it will
again be a source of violence, a haven for terror, and a threat to
America and to the world."

Right now Iraq is "a source of violence" and certainly "a haven for
terror." Or are all those bloody scenes we see on television just reruns
from Miami Vice? And, of course, Iraq was never a threat to the America.

18. "Our nation honors the memory of those who have been killed, and we
pray that their families will find God's comfort in the midst of their
grief. . . . we will finish the work of the fallen."

In other words, Americans will continue to die as a tribute to those who
have already died.

17. "We seek an independent, free and secure Iraq."

. . . Independent and free so long as it conforms to the conditions the
U.S. government has laid down.

Liberation

16. "We are a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can
attest."

Don't forget the liberated Haitians, on whom we forced Aristide. And the
liberated Iranians, on whom we forced the Shah. And the Philippines, on
whom we forced Marcos. And the Dominican Republic, on whom we forced the
Trujillos. And Indonesia, where the U.S. government helped Suharto
liberate tens of thousands of East Timorese from the burden of living.

And what about those liberated Iraqis ? carrying identity cards, going
through road blocks and checkpoints, liberated from freedom of the press
and freedom of assembly, occupied by a foreign power, their towns ringed
by barbed wire, subject to raids and attacks without warrants by the
U.S. military, liberated from the right to carry a gun and defend
oneself against murderers and rapists?

15. "The nation of Iraq is moving toward self-rule . . . We're working
closely with the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, and with Iraqis
to determine the exact form of the government that will receive
sovereignty on June 30th."

I'm sorry I must have misunderstood. I thought "self-rule" meant that
people determined their own form of government ? not a government
determined by the U.S. government or the United Nations. This sounds
more like the "self-rule" the Soviet Union gave to Poland,
Czechoslovakia, and Hungary at the end of World War II.

14. "Iraqi's neighbors also have responsibilities to make their region
more stable."

And they will shortly receive the appropriate ultimatums to inform them
of their responsibilities.

13. "Over the last several decades, we've seen that any concession or
retreat on our part will only embolden this enemy and invite more
bloodshed."

I haven't seen any concessions or retreats by the U.S. government. What
I have seen are invasions of Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq;
U.S. troops stationed at over 700 foreign bases; ultimatums to foreign
countries to do what American Presidents demand; resources confiscated
from American taxpayers and given to brutal foreign dictators to oppress
their subjects. I've yet to see any concessions or retreats, but I have
seen a lot of innocent people die.

12. "We serve the cause of liberty, and that is, always and everywhere,
a cause worth serving."

Speaking of liberty, have you been in an American airport lately?

Changing the World

11. "We're changing the world. And the world will be better off. . . .
there's an historic opportunity here to change the world."

Which clause of the Constitution discusses the U.S. government's
responsibility to change the world?

10. "[President Bush] went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said,
either you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American President
says, if you don't, we will, we better be prepared to. . . . And the
credibility of the United States is incredibly important for keeping
world peace and freedom."

In other words, the President can make any stupid threat he wants, and
all Americans are obligated to back up that threat with their money and
their lives. That, I guess, is how "we serve the cause of liberty."

9. "The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution
unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And
[Hussein] refused to disarm."

The fact that Hussein had nothing to disarm apparently is irrelevant. He
should have hurried over to the nearest 7-Eleven, bought some WMDs, and
then disarmed.

8. "[Hussein] had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the
United Nations; he was a danger."

Yes, those "long-range" missiles could travel 111 miles ? 18 miles over
the allowable limit set by the UN. Think of the devastation they could
have wreaked on New York City!

7. "The oil revenues are ? they're bigger than we thought they would
be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq,
the revenues of the oil stream is [sic] pretty darn significant."

But we were promised that the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for most of
the reconstruction. Instead, we're paying hundreds of billions of
dollars to reconstruct in Iraq what the U.S. military destroyed.

The Monster

6. "[The Iraqis are] really pleased we got rid of Saddam Hussein. And
you can understand why. This is a guy who was a torturer, a killer, a
maimer; there's mass graves."

Ah yes, the mass graves. No one ever explains who is in those mass
graves or how they came about. Do they contain Iraqis who died during
U.S. bombings? Or Iraqis and Iranians who died in the Iraq-Iran war? Or
the Iraqi soldiers who were plowed under with U.S. bulldozers at the end
of the Gulf War? No one seems to know. But all anyone has to do is
mention the "mass graves" ? and we know immediately that no amount of
money, no loss of American lives, no cost of any kind is too great for
having rid the world of the man who created those "mass graves."

And speaking of torture, I seem to recall conservative commentators
telling us not too long ago that American agents should be permitted to
torture suspected terrorists. But I guess that's different somehow.

5. "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein."

Tell that to the 700 Americans and thousands of Iraqis who have died in
the American invasion of Iraq. Tell that to the 200 Spaniards who died
in a terrorist attack triggered by the Spanish government's support of
the American invasion of Iraq. These people are dead! How are they
better off?

And tell it to the Iraqis who now live in daily fear of being killed by
a stray shell from a U.S. tank or from the rifle of a U.S. soldier who
barks orders in English that an Iraqi can't understand and obey. "The
world is better off" is one of those empty clich?s that require no
explanation, no examination, no support. But isn't it about time we did
examine it?

Who's in Charge Here?

4. "[President Bush is] the ultimate decision-maker for this country."

Then the politicians are right: the world really is a dangerous place.

3. "Sometimes we use military as a last resort, but other times we use
our influence, diplomatic pressure."

"Diplomacy" by the U.S. government consists of telling other countries
"You're either for us or against us; now here's what you must do or
we'll flatten your country."

"Influence" means using taxpayer money to bribe foreign leaders to join
the "Coalition of the Willing."

2. "Free societies are peaceful societies."

If that's true, America obviously is not a free society. We have been at
war continually since 1941, and the American military has been involved
in some kind of foreign conflict in 80 of the past 100 years. A
"peaceful society" doesn't invade Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, or Iraq.
So, if it's true that "free societies are peaceful societies," America
obviously isn't a free society.

The Wellspring of Wisdom

So who said all these dumb statements?

Every one of them was made by George Bush ? "the ultimate decision-maker
for this country" ? at his press conference last Tuesday, April 13.

And here is the #1 dumbest political statement of the week ? straight
from that same press conference . . .

1. "As the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an
obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to help
feed the hungry . . . we're providing food for the North Korea people
who starve. We have an obligation to lead the fight on AIDS, on Africa.
And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our
obligation. That is what we have been called to do."

So this is what it means to live in a "free society." We have
obligations to virtually everyone in the world ? to help the spread of
freedom, to fight AIDS, to provide food to North Korea. Not to take care
of our own lives, not to be free to keep the money we earn or make our
own decisions ? but instead to dutifully carry out obligations imposed
on us by our government.

I don't know about you, but I don't believe George Bush has the faintest
idea what freedom means. The only thing he understands is power ? the
power to say anything he feels like without consequence, the power to
lock people up and throw away the key, the power to impose his will on
any country in the world, the power to define our obligations for us.

When will we be liberated?

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/dumbeststatements.htm






--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: ]
    #2607411 - 04/27/04 05:48 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

i have not.

Quote:

Posted by mushmaster:

exactly what cease-fire terms did the iraqis violate?? no banned weapons have been found in iraq.. nor is there any other evidence that such a violation occurred...

July 1994 - Iraq destroys 480,000 liters of chemical agents in accordance to demands of the UNSCOM. (Oldaker 1996, 2)

14 June 1996 - UNSCOM inspectors begin dismantling a biological weapons facility in central Iraq, despite pleas from Baghdad to salvage some dual-use items. (Reuters, 14 June 1996)

End October 1997 - Iraq refuses entry to three Americans on a team of UN arms inspectors, and warns Iraqi anti-aircraft guns might fire upon US U-2 spy planes if surveillance flights continue. The UN sends a high-level diplomatic mission to resolve the budding crisis and Iraq delays the expulsion order against the American inspectors. (Washington Post, 3 November 1997, A1; Financial Times, 5 November 1997, 6)

12 November 1997 - The UN Security Council unanimously approves a travel ban for senior Iraqi officials and demands that Iraq stop interfering with UN weapons inspectors. Iraq insists that the weapons teams have fewer Americans. When Iraq refuses to comply with UN demands, the weapons inspectors leave the country. Fears mount that Iraq could revive chemical and biological weapons programs without the oversight of the international community. Russia and France push for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, while Washington does not rule out a resort to the use of force. The United States increases its military presence in the Gulf. (Washington Post, 13 November 1997, A1; Washington Post, 18 November 1997, A22)

21 November 1997 - After intense diplomacy by Security Council members, particularly Russia, Iraq agrees to allow UN weapon inspectors back into the country. Russia agrees to push for concessions, such as the easing of the UN sanctions, in return. The Security Council rebuffs a Russian request to declare Iraq free of nuclear weapons and nearly free of prohibited missiles. (Washington Post, 21 November 1997, A1; New York Times, 22 November 1997, A1)

16 January 1998 - A weapons inspection team leaves Iraq after being barred for three days from conducting an inspection. The UN Security Council deplores Iraq's decision, which constitutes a clear violation of UN resolutions. (CRS, 6 March 1998, 3)

17 January 1998 - Saddam Hussein announces that Iraq will expel all weapons inspectors if sanctions against Iraq are not removed within six months. (CRS, 6 March 1998, 3)

3 February 1998 - US Secretary of Defense Cohen warns that if diplomacy fails, the United States will wage a "significant" military campaign against Iraq, "far more than what has been experienced in the past." (CRS, 6 March 1998, 5)

29 April 1998 - UNSCOM chief arms inspector Richard Butler reveals that experts discovered mustard gas in Iraqi artillery shells found at an ammunitions depot in 1996. The discovery raises new questions about similar shells that remain unaccounted for. (New York Times, 29 April 1998, A10)

24 June 1998 - Contradicting claims it never weaponized the substance, UNSCOM chief Butler says tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland show Iraq loaded deadly VX gas onto a missile. Iraq claims bias in the test of warhead pieces; similar weapons fragments are tested in Switzerland and France to see whether the finding can be confirmed. (USIS, 24 June 1998; New York Times, 25 June 1998, A10)

23 July 1998 - Iraqi authorities refuse to give UNSCOM documents that list weapons used by the Iraqi Air Force during the war with Iran. (Washington Post, 24 July 1998, A28)

5 August 1998 - Iraq restricts activities of IAEA and orders an end to all UNSCOM inspections, except for those specifically approved by the Iraqi government. It allows long distance monitoring with video camera, as well as air, water and soil sampling, to continue. President Hussein demands that UNSCOM be restructured, Butler replaced, and that UNSCOM move its headquarters out of the United States. (Financial Times, 6 August 1998, 1; USIS, 6 August 1998; New York Times, 15 September 1998, A3; Wall Street Journal, 2 October 1998, A16)

3 September 1998 - In a letter to Congress, President Clinton denounces Iraq's failure to allow weapons inspections, warns that, "If the Council fails to persuade the Iraqi regime to resume cooperation, all other options are on the table ." (USIS, 3 September 1998)

14 September 1998 - Iraq's National Assembly threatens to end all cooperation with inspectors unless the Security Council resumes regular reviews of the sanctions. (New York Times, 15 September 1998, A3)

31 October 1998 - Iraq stops all cooperation with weapons inspectors, banning arms inspectors from visiting sites that have already been inspected and were being monitored by UNSCOM. Baghdad says sensors and monitors placed in sites can continued operating and also exempt the IAEA from its latest decision. (Financial Times, 2 November 1998, 1; Wall Street Journal, 2 November 1998, A4)

20 November 1998 - Shortly after UNSCOM inspectors resume their duties in Iraq, the Iraqi government refuses to provide 12 documents relating to weapons inventories. Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Riyadh al-Qaysi accuses the inspectors of "unjustifiably" prolonging their work, thereby extending the embargo. (Washington Post, 24 November 1998, A25; 18 November 1998, A33; Financial Times, 24 November 1998, 6)

19 December 1998 - After four consecutive nights of bombing, the US and Britain end the attack on Iraq. President Clinton declares Operation Desert Fox a success at degrading Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program and his conventional military capacity. In all, there were about 600 bombs and 415 cruise missiles fired at approximately 100 targets. (Washington Post, 20 December 1998, A1; New York Times, 20 December 1998, 24; Wall Street Journal, 21 December 1998, A3; 22 December 1998, A20)

15 December 1999 - Iraq refuses to allow IAEA inspectors to check Iraq's uranium stockpile as required under the 1968 nuclear nonproliferation treaty. (New York Times, 15 December 1999, A13; 16 December 1999, A5)

19 December 1999 - Iraq officially rejects resolution 1284 and demands unconditional lifting of sanctions. (Washington Post, 19 December 1999, A54)

(emphasis mine)

complete timeline here.




Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Harry Browne on Bush/Iraq Invasion [Re: Xlea321]
    #2608143 - 04/27/04 08:08 PM (16 years, 6 months ago)

that would be me citing examples of instances where the iraqis did not honor the spirit of agreements they made.

i know as well as you that under the UN charter, in the event of a breach in a resolution, the UN security council, NOT the united states, is to determine what action shall be taken. i acknowledge that the invasion was a violation of UN protocols.

there. it can't be any simpler than that. i acknowledge that the US, by invading iraq without clearance from the UN security council, violated terms of the UN charter, to which it is a signatory.

now unless you presume to tell me what I think, could you find something more meaningful to discuss?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Premium Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Amazon Ranch Dressing, Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush: Iraq Part of 'Global Democratic Revolution' SquattingMarmot 556 1 11/06/03 05:51 PM
by Psilocybeingzz
* Tens of Bush Iraq War Supporters Take to the Streets mabus 1,671 17 03/16/04 08:39 PM
by Strumpling
* Libertarians & War
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 3,277 25 10/13/04 02:21 AM
by hound
* George Bush was right about what?????
( 1 2 all )
Silversoul 3,989 37 03/16/05 07:39 AM
by Innvertigo
* letter from a soldier in iraq
( 1 2 all )
ricyjo 1,803 24 11/07/04 09:18 PM
by Divided_Sky
* All Hail Emperor Bush!
( 1 2 all )
delian 3,767 36 06/27/01 07:31 AM
by Innvertigo
* Libertarians are full of shit iglou 1,582 16 03/16/02 02:36 AM
by Agent Cooper
* Bush on Record fft2 1,072 11 07/01/04 08:25 AM
by GazzBut

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,793 topic views. 3 members, 5 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Cannabis Seeds UK
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.136 seconds spending 0.018 seconds on 17 queries.