Do you think Terrorism could bring down the US Government?

[Topsez]

Aww, the poor little Topsez is running from the fight!

I'll catch up on this other thread, but he's no less a coward.:mrgreen:


Duke

The poor little Topsez just baited and switched you on the other thread... You are the one absent refutal on cooperation of Saddam...

They said so so it must be true... Saddam cooperated 100% in the days leading up to the war... What about the letters in red on the other thread Duke?

the quotes in post #72 of the other thread If you were a soldier were events of Mar 2003 and he fell for it....

 

[Topsez]

Duke the best way I can explain your conviction that Saddam was 100% cooperative leading up to the restart of hostilities is this; When I was a child my parents took me to a fair where a magician actually sawed a woman in half and put her back together. It was fact woman, box, saw, woman two pieces with head moving, with feet moving while separated and then she was back in one piece. I wanted to believe what my senses told me and ignore reality… in your case you desire America to be wrong for going to war that you will do the same. I cried real tears of concern too but it was bullshit in the real world.

Give logic and reason a chance as I grew to do.

 

[Duke]

Duke the best way I can explain your conviction that Saddam was 100% cooperative leading up to the restart of hostilities is this

You do not need to explain. According to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Iraq was "cooperating unconditionally". I have said that more than twenty times by now. When will you finally understand?

Give logic and reason a chance as I grew to do.

I've got logic and reason coming out my ears. The UNMOVIC and American weapons inspectors said that A) Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction as described by the Bush Administration, and B) They knew this because of their through investigations in which they had "unfettered access". Now, logically, reasonably, they are telling the truth. They have no sensical reason to lie.

Reason and logic? All here.:roll:


Duke

 

[UtahBill]

Powerful governments have failed in the past, but the causes were usually internal. Greed, selfishness, corruption, etc. will do it faster than external causes.
Bush and his pals are on the way out for various reasons, mostly related to a failure to execute the war properly. He called it a victory after the first battle. Someday we will learn that you can't win a war against entrenched ideology, especially on their turf.
It will take far more than a few terrorists to bring down our government, but bringing about a change in leadership is more than possible.

 

[Topsez]

Powerful governments have failed in the past, but the causes were usually internal. Greed, selfishness, corruption, etc. will do it faster than external causes.
Bush and his pals are on the way out for various reasons, mostly related to a failure to execute the war properly. He called it a victory after the first battle. Someday we will learn that you can't win a war against entrenched ideology, especially on their turf.
It will take far more than a few terrorists to bring down our government, but bringing about a change in leadership is more than possible.

Government: (adj) governing (responsible for making and enforcing rules and laws) "governing bodies"
In our government the constitution establishes citizens rights remaining outside of the government control. Protecting these rights are the primary reason for the government to exist. When the government cannot protect each citizens rights the government ceases in its need to exist.

You state:

Someday we will learn that you can't win a war against entrenched ideology, especially on their turf.

which indicates the government should not react to such actions and especially on their own turf. How would the US government meet its mandate for existence if it did not respond to 9-11? The rights of the citizens being governed were removed by terrorists on 9-11 and to not react to this reason for government's reason for existence would indicate the government is not valid.

The size of sacrifice is the only distinguishing factor as to relevance to whether a government should continue to exist. People are born free according to our values and the government is there to protect those freedoms. I view 9-11 as an act of war and had 9-12 been a nuclear bomb going off in San Francisco or Chicago then there would be no discussion about response. The government is taking actions to assure it has relevance and to end such actions it should cease to exist. Afterall, it is the stated goal of the enemy to deliver such attacks and to not take the battle to the enemy is ending the government relevance to our freedoms... By not responding to attacks the government is assured to end either through outright takeover or through anarchy such attacks would result.

 

[Duke]

Government: (adj) governing (responsible for making and enforcing rules and laws) "governing bodies"
In our government the constitution establishes citizens rights remaining outside of the government control. Protecting these rights are the primary reason for the government to exist. When the government cannot protect each citizens rights the government ceases in its need to exist.

Let's get a real definition in here, shall we?

government |?g?v?rm?nt| noun 1 [treated as sing. or pl. ] the governing body of a nation, state, or community : | [as adj. ] government controls. • the system by which a nation, state, or community is governed : • the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people : • the group of persons in office at a particular time; administration : the election of the new government. • another term for political science .

You state:
which indicates the government should not react to such actions and especially on their own turf. How would the US government meet its mandate for existence if it did not respond to 9-11? The rights of the citizens being governed were removed by terrorists on 9-11 and to not react to this reason for government's reason for existence would indicate the government is not valid.

Let's cut through the BS on this one: You are saying that if America had not reacted to 9/11, it is not valid. Some logic.

But see, the reaction is what counts. You can make this a fighting flag and go to war here and there (which isn't always bad) or you can react by trying to defend the country from further attacks with more proactive methods.


Duke

 

[Topsez]

Let's get a real definition in here, shall we?





Let's cut through the BS on this one: You are saying that if America had not reacted to 9/11, it is not valid. Some logic.Yes!

But see, the reaction is what counts. You can make this a fighting flag and go to war here and there (which isn't always bad) or you can react by trying to defend the country from further attacks with more proactive methods.

So are you saying if NY city were nuked by a terrorist rather than a couple buildings being knocked down we should fire the homeland security chief, have hearings, investigations and issue an international warrant on the suspect. Then hold the new HS manager accountable for additional infractions on America's sovereignty? Is that what you are saying? Three thousand people were not a significant event or the deaths of 11,000,000 would be a significant event? You talk in rhymes that have absolutely no meaning as to the responsibility of the government to meet the government's primary reason for existence... Why have a government if it is unwilling to do what a government is established to do? By your assumptions we could actually do without a government and simply employ commune watch and save the problem of having a government to fund.

Please define what exact actions the government should take when attacked by an outside force.

 

[Duke]

So are you saying if NY city were nuked by a terrorist rather than a couple buildings being knocked down we should fire the homeland security chief, have hearings, investigations and issue an international warrant on the suspect. Then hold the new HS manager accountable for additional infractions on America's sovereignty? Is that what you are saying? Three thousand people were not a significant event or the deaths of 11,000,000 would be a significant event? You talk in rhymes that have absolutely no meaning as to the responsibility of the government to meet the government's primary reason for existence... Why have a government if it is unwilling to do what a government is established to do? By your assumptions we could actually do without a government and simply employ commune watch and save the problem of having a government to fund.

Please define what exact actions the government should take when attacked by an outside force.

:lamo :2rofll:

Look at this guy! Look at him! I say that the most effective way to deal with terrorists is with proactive measures such as security organization, and he hears me say that the proper way to react to a nuclear attack is with hearings and commissions, and that I'd like to live on a commune! This guy is a barrel of laughs!

Let me repeat that:

I say that a proactive approach to terror is the best approach.

He thinks that I mean the best way to respond to nuclear attacks is with hearings and firings, and that I'd like to live on a commune. Does he even know what "proactive" means? Where did he buy his brains, Wal-Mart? :roll:

Topsez, I have nothing but respect for you, you just turned my frown upside-down.:mrgreen:


Duke

 

[ProudAmerican]

You do not need to explain. According to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Iraq was "cooperating unconditionally". I have said that more than twenty times by now. When will you finally understand?

and according to the vice chairman of the 9-11 commission, Iraq had a relationship with the same terrorists that hit us on 9-11.

"The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor (Commission Chairman Thomas Kean) just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States." -- Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman who is the 9/11 commission's vice chairman

I suppose believing the UN, an organization proven to be corrupt and in bed with Saddam, is smarter than believing an American on the commission though huh.

 

[Duke]

and according to the vice chairman of the 9-11 commission, Iraq had a relationship with the same terrorists that hit us on 9-11.

Oh please, Proud American, we've already gone over this. The vice president said that Al Qaeda had come in contact with Iraq, but the findings of the report said there was "no collaborative relationship"

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,472023,00.html

The 9/11 congressional inquiry in the most comprehensive inquiry to date into the attacks makes no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, except for a passing reference in the testimony of CIA director George Tenet to the possibility that hijacker Mohammed Atta may or may not have met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence agent.

This claim was never confirmed.

Proud American, why do you use dishonest tactics consciously? I know that you know that the 9/11 commission found no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but you continue to say there is with the use of this quote of yours that doesn't even show there is a link.

Futhermore, what does this have anything to do with the argument? We're not talking about terror links, did you even try to read the debate?

I suppose believing the UN, an organization proven to be corrupt and in bed with Saddam, is smarter than believing an American on the commission though huh.

:lamo :2rofll:

Look at this guy! He's saying "Damn, the facts are contradicting my argument! So I better make some blatantly false claims about the purveyor of these undeniable facts!"

Actually, I think it goes past that: I think that he is so unable to come to terms with the facts about the prelude to war that he has to tell himself that these facts are untrue. It's rather sad...

Look, Bob Ney was nabbed for corruption. Does that mean that the entire U.S. Government "organization" is corrupt? You know, now that we know that the U.S. Government is completely corrupt and untrustworthy (as Ney showed us), why should we believe this "9/11 Commission"? They must be corrupt too. :roll:


Duke

 

[ProudAmerican]

Oh please, Proud American, we've already gone over this.

yep, and Im still right.

The vice president said that Al Qaeda had come in contact with Iraq, but the findings of the report said there was "no collaborative relationship"

I can only still quote the vice chairman directly. but you have already seen it and know what he said.

Proud American, why do you use dishonest tactics consciously? I know that you know that the 9/11 commission found no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but you continue to say there is with the use of this quote of yours that doesn't even show there is a link.

actually, what I know is what Lee Hamilton said directly.

Look at this guy! He's saying "Damn, the facts are contradicting my argument! So I better make some blatantly false claims about the purveyor of these undeniable facts!"

what I am saying is that the UN was in bed with Saddam. prove me wrong.

Actually, I think it goes past that: I think that he is so unable to come to terms with the facts about the prelude to war that he has to tell himself that these facts are untrue. It's rather sad...

theres not one untrue thing I have said so far.

whats sad is watching you try to defend a corrupt organizations dealings with a man they found it necessary to pass 17 resolutions against. odds are, if they hadnt been in bed with him, 17 wouldnt have been necessary.

 

[26 X World Champs]

what I am saying is that the UN was in bed with Saddam. prove me wrong.

It's bullshit posts like this that defy all educated logic! ProudAmerican has no proof that the "UN was in bed with Saddam" so he does what every losing arguer does he asks to be proven wrong when there is no evidence to prove him right!

Other as$hole Republicans did the same thing when accusing Pelosi and Reid of knowing about Mark Foley and claculating when to release what they knew. Republican Congressmen went onto Hardball and Meet The Press saying that "there was no prood that Pelosi and Reid had NOT kept the information hidden"!

Those Congressmen were moronic in their point and the same holds for ProudAmerican's made up nonsense.

Pathetic!

 

[Duke]

yep, and Im still right.



I can only still quote the vice chairman directly. but you have already seen it and know what he said.

And you're still in denial. The 9/11 Commission found that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Do you know what that means? That means that they might have talked, but Iraq did not work with AQ in any way. They did not plan together, they did not help each other, they did not have a working relationship. They might have shot the breeze, but they didn't work together. Do you understand? Do you?

what I am saying is that the UN was in bed with Saddam. prove me wrong.

:lamo :2rofll:

"I've made a completely ludicrous claim with no facts supporting it whatsoever! I can't prove it in any way............so prove me wrong!"

You crack me up, kid.

theres not one untrue thing I have said so far.

Look up.

whats sad is watching you try to defend a corrupt organizations dealings with a man they found it necessary to pass 17 resolutions against. odds are, if they hadnt been in bed with him, 17 wouldnt have been necessary.

Let's break this down. If they were "in bed with him", they wouldn't have passed so much as one sanction or resolution. Do that make sense to you?

The U.N. is no more corrupt than any other organization: There are certain members of it that have been corrupt, but that does not mean the entire organization is no more corrupt than any other.

Now, I know these things might be very hard to understand for someone with the mental capacity such as yours, but if you try really, really hard, you might figure it out!


Duke

 

[ProudAmerican]

And you're still in denial. The 9/11 Commission found that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Do you know what that means? That means that they might have talked, but Iraq did not work with AQ in any way. They did not plan together, they did not help each other, they did not have a working relationship. They might have shot the breeze, but they didn't work together. Do you understand? Do you?

"The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor (Commission Chairman Thomas Kean) just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States." -- Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman who is the 9/11 commission's vice chairman

1. the commission doesnt dissagree with the vice president.
2. "with regards to the attacks on the United States"

ie....not in general.

spin and twist all you like. that quote by the vice chairman about the entire commissions findings blows you out of the water.

also, im not sure why you feel the need to be condescending . I am constantly amazed by people that feel the need to act superior, and treat someone else as a "kid" or an idiot in order convince themselves they have one a debate.

if you think somehow it makes you look smarter, then keep on truckin.

 

[Duke]

1. the commission doesnt dissagree with the vice president.

2. "with regards to the attacks on the United States"[/QUOTE]

You're right!

Vice chairman Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman, said, "I must say, I have trouble understanding the flap over this." The commission's position, he said, is that "we don't have any evidence of a cooperative . . . relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48970-2004Jun17.html

So, your star witness actually said that there was no working relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda! That kind of goes against what you've been saying for a long time.

spin and twist all you like. that quote by the vice chairman about the entire commissions findings blows you out of the water.

:rofl

Yeah, right. You continue to deny the findings of the 9/11 commission and the statements of Lee Hamilton. See, the difference between the findings of a commission and the personal opinion of a person is vast: The commission finds facts, and releases a conclusion (Iraq and Al-Qaeda have no cooperative relationship), but a person's opinion is just his personal idea or belief.

also, im not sure why you feel the need to be condescending . I am constantly amazed by people that feel the need to act superior, and treat someone else as a "kid" or an idiot in order convince themselves they have one a debate.

But the question is, have the "one a debate? :roll: That answers your question, kid.


Duke

 

[ProudAmerican]

You're right!

ive been telling you that for weeks. finally you get it.

 

[Duke]

ive been telling you that for weeks. finally you get it.

Oh darn, did I forget to put the [sarcasm] brackets around that? Not again!


Duke