Repeatedly during his two terms as vice president [ Hermit : And after it ] , Cheney claimed there was overwhelming evidence linking the former Iraqi president to the al-Qaeda attack, and publicly condemned the 9/11 commission for claiming that there was “no credible evidence” linking the two.
Though no such evidence was ever found, and indeed Cheney finally concedes it never existed, the United States invaded Iraq in early 2003, sparking a bloody war in which well over 100,000 American soldiers remain mired to this day. [ Hermit : Not to mention 1 million plus surplus Iraqui deaths, 5 million refugees, and the global economy. ]
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
If by troll you mean me, then you are the same sick twisted warped crazed demented vicious noxious toxic rabid rancid vapid vacuous vomitous odious execrable disgusting and gratuitously lying troll you were when you faked a nick to accuse me of digging up the grave of my dead elderly Alzheimer-afflicted mother and fucking her rotted body.
I have consistently maintained that Saddam supported terrorism by offering a 25k bounty to the families for every Pali jihadi - an offer he later upped to 50k per splodeydope. I have consistently maintained that his interest in nukes did not end when the Israelies took out his French-built reactor in Osirak - and indeed the US military has removed hundreds of tons of imported yellowcake uranium ore from Iraq.
And I accused Saddam of having dialogue with Al Qaeda, just as he dialogued with anyone antiamerican who would agree to palaver with him. And I was subsequently proven right.
But I never accused Saddam of perpetrating the 9-11 atrocities, and you damn well know it. It was surpassingly obvious from almost the beginning that Al Qaeda's proud claims of responsibility were based in fact - and yet you opposed us going into Afghanistan after the murderous bastards who perpetrated it fom there - who had planned, trained, and financed it from there, sent its jihadis via orders from there, and continued to train tens of thousands of jihadis from all over the planet from there to engage in global jihad. You screamed that our soldiers would all die there, or else be the cause of an Afghani civilian holocaust - neither of which happened. Not even close, Nostrodamus.
But Saddam was evil, and undeniably so, and eminently deserving of deposition. He was the only living ruler to employ weapons of mass destruction, both against his own Kurdish citizens, and against the citizens of Iran. He waged two bloody wars during his tenure - one to seize the western oilfields of Iran, the other to annex Kuwait and it's petroresources. He committed ecocide against the Marsh Arabs for the sake of French filthy lucre. He proliferated mass graves and torture chambers and childrens' prisons and rape rooms. He had portraits of both Hitler and Stalin hung in his presidential office. He suborned the UN leadership and Security Council members with petrobribes, shattering beyond repair the credibility of our only global legal framework. He was directly responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than any other figure in world history; his total death count was equal to Pol Pot's, and only exceeded by Hitler's, Stalin's, and Mao's - the first two of which he publicly idolized. And he had raised his two twisted sons, Uday and Qusay, to follow in his genocidal footsteps, and to travel farther down the path of global destruction. It's a damn GOOD thing he's gone; good for us, good for the region, good for the global community, and good for the Iraqis who proudly wave their purple-stained fingers after evey democratic vote.
Go cornhole yourself, you repulsive fuckwit. If you are sufficiently disturbed by my posting solid, valid and sound rebuttals to your repugnant positions to egregiously lie in order to troll for an indictable response you can endeavor to twist into justification for my banning, I will gladly and joyously accommodate you. Tragically, a site that originally was born to objectively analyze memesets has ironically fallen victim to a pernicious memetic infection, and you are the primary phage. Now even Barack Obama resembles Dick Cheney for you. And now you attempt to vaccinate and inoculate this site against any contesting voice. And perhaps you have succeeded in that egocentric and megalomanic quest. We shall see.
Politically maturbate to your heart's content in your Hermitically sealed and meticulously engineered echo chamber. I deeply regret ever sending you hundreds of dollars worth of philosophy books back when you thought I was the best thing since sliced bread. It is now manifestly obvious to me that you could no more glean wisdom from them than you could dispassionately and objectively comment upon world events.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:Is our troll the last to accept that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?
« Reply #3 on: 2009-06-04 02:08:54 »
I was begining to think that he had forgotten how to use the "qwerty" part of his keyboard after he discovered the joys of cut-n-paste clicking. Finally in his own words. Static would have been more interesting. Perhaps some people spam not because they are actually trying to sell something, but because on some level they fundamentally fail at communicating with other humans. Maybe he finally passed the Turing test this time, but I've enjoyed chatbots more than reading this painful wailing.
Re:Is our troll the last to accept that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?
« Reply #4 on: 2009-06-04 13:14:46 »
[Blunderov] Our troll maintains that Saddam was "evil" - as if that were in contention. But the murder and devastation that has been and is being inflicted on some 5 million Iraqis does not seem much to be the opposite of evil. But perhaps there really another reason for the war that had nothing to do with Saddam's nastiness at all.
Oh, and about those WMD that Saddam deployed against the Kurds and the Iranians? "God damn the dealer man"!
[Blunderov] Our troll maintains that Saddam was "evil" - as if that were in contention. But the murder and devastation that has been and is being inflicted on some 5 million Iraqis does not seem much to be the opposite of evil. But perhaps there really another reason for the war that had nothing to do with Saddam's nastiness at all.
Oh, and about those WMD that Saddam deployed against the Kurds and the Iranians? "God damn the dealer man"!
In retrospect, the major decision failure seems to go this way.
After they got through stealing the 2000 election, even before day one of the Bush administration, while Bin Laden and his friends were probably finalizing the details of their 9-11 plan, and despite the fact that the exiting Clinton administration had pointed out in official memoranda that these individuals were in fact the gravest threats to US security, . . . . W's team had already decided that they were going to take out Saddam Hussein. And so they ignored the intelligence to pursue him instead.
And then 9-11 happened . . . and like the good political schemers they were the W team weren't going to let this crisis go to waste. Living in their pre-9/11 world, 9/11 simply provided the impetus to do what they were already going to do anyway - invade Iraq. Instead of seriously reconsidering priorities and consulting intelligence, they simply kept the same priorities, added a heavy dose of public fear and war mongering, and invented intelligence through "enhanced interrogation".
As a result, they did less than a half-assed job in Afghanistan pursuing the actual culprits, and sunk us into a much more costly war based on their pre-determined political whims, rather than anything remotely based on actual or concievable national security interests of the nation they swore to serve (even if they did steal their election).
Basically we got hijacked by a bunch of incompetant, constitutionally-dishonest, neo-con frat-boys, who might have possibly prevented 9-11 if they actually gave a shit about reality and kept an eye on our real enemies. Instead they fundamentally failed to keep us safe. In other words they critically failed at national and homeland security, war, and foreign policy at the same time that they politically claimed these as their strong suit. Amazing how fear mongering can make black white, and white black.
Re:Is our troll the last to accept that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?
« Reply #6 on: 2009-06-05 00:44:16 »
[MoEnzyme] Have I missed anything important? [Hermit] I think so. Leaving out historical issues like our role in destroying a much more popularly supported communist government elected in freer elections than the puppet show the US engaged in in Afghanistan and placing the Taliban in office before abandoning them, and our unquestioning support for Apartheid policies in Israel which was and is a major driver in inspiring attacks against the USA and her citizens:" I would suggest that major policy failures involved at least:
Afghanistan was prepared to extradite bin Laden and Co to Germany in exchange for evidence that they had participated in 9/11 (or possibly, even for other "terrorist actions"). The US could have worked with the Taliban to accomplish this and the likelihood was that the Taliban would have rounded up those allegedly involved in planning 9/11 with little trouble. While the US might have had to forgo asking for capital sentences to obtain extradition from Germany, extradition would have happened, 9/11 would have been treated appropriately, as a criminal problem and the global and US economy would not have been sacrificed to the "Global War on Terror" and its perverted offspring, "Contingency Operations".
Had potentially involved Saudis and Israelis, including some previously arrested for espionage, not been bundled onto aircraft and packed off home at the insistence of the Whitehouse, we might have learned how these two countries were involved in 9/11, what roles their agents played in enabling the crimes, and perhaps what effect not sharing actionable intelligence they indubitably held had on the events of 9/11.
Even if we had approached Afghanistan as a military problem, a rapid transition from invasion to an International nation building process could have prevented the situation we have today, where American innocence about tribalism combined with nearly terminal incompetence has meant that the USA has mistaken tribalism for terrorism and essentially declared war on the Pushtan, the world's largest and fiercest tribe, in both Afghanistan and what used to be the "Autonomous Tribal Regions" of Pakistan.
Consistently failing to recognise that Saddam Hussain was a tribal leader with no aspirations outside his area; which when combined with American perfidy and the "Conservative American" affiliation with slippery slope arguments and predilection to make everything about himself while considering himself loved and envied despite a plethora of any contradictory evidence, such that any opposition is taken personally, and the greater the opposition the greater the likelihood to assume a "conspiracy" (as well demonstrated here by our troll on a personal level as well as by the last 3 Republican administrations), lead directly to both the US-Iraq wars and the diversion of American effort into a completely counter-productive war focus.
Failing to recognise that conventional forces constrained by civilised norms will always lose in guerilla wars, and that the cost to oneself of abandoning civilised norms is real even if not measured in dollars.
Failing to recognise the easily predictable fact that the cost of the Afghan and Iraq wars would destroy the US (and possibly the global) economy,
Failing to recognise that the US is operated by special interests, principally driven by financial, oil, military, media and Apartheid Israeli influences and that relatively small amount of money applied by these interests on the American political system, particularly when the media perceives its interests as congruent with one or more of the others, can completely upset any major decisions, and indeed, any pretence to rational governance. So long as this remains the case, the situation is unlikely to improve.
As this was thought out in just a few minutes, I'm sure applied thought might expose more "major decision failures."
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Author
Logged
