Bush refuses to answer questions about spying on Americans....

[agin1415]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:



Saddam was not suicidal. He did not kill himself after the US attacked and his country was captured. He did not kill himself when he was captured, and he has not killed himself sitting in jail going to trial.

So, Saddam did and does not want to die, but we expect that he was going to launch a single nuclear strike against the US for which he would have been killed by a counter strike of nukes by the US?

It makes zero sense.

ZZZZzzzzz as usual. you attempt to place Western Logic, where it does not exist.

And the most illogical of your points is your point that Saddam is not Suicidal.

He recruits suicidal people to carry out his work, why should he dirty his hands? Your point is SILLY!

You clearly do not understand the Muslim and Arab culture, which is Family, Tribe, and seek revenge at all costs against your enemy.

Saddam has been seeking a way to attack us since the first Gulf War. He was trying to do it with third parties to divert attention from Iraq and himself.

By the way what part of Canada do you live in?

You are wringing your hands trying to place logic where there is none to be found.

Saddam Hussein was not of our mind think and culture, he will never make sense.

He is illogical, he may have thought that he could train terrorists to go the the United States and from other 3rd party countries and get away with it. That was illogical thought.

If he were trying to retaliate against us (for the first Gulf War and that would be logical in the Arab mind), he would do it with third parties, and think he could get away with it.

He lives in the 7th Century and does not understand any western logic or thought. His heroes are Arab Warriors from the Crusades.

He thought he could cover his tracks, and he thought he could finally recover and build for the next war against the United States.

Then Bush and Tony Blair came down on him like a ton of bricks, after Clinton avoided the issue for 8 years.

I think it will be proven eventually that Saddam had a hand in both attacks on the Twin Towers., 9-11 and previous.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from agin1415:

ZZZZzzzzz as usual. you attempt to place Western Logic, where it does not exist.

We either act as a rational civilized nation, or we act as the barbarians we claim are out enemies.

And the most illogical of your points is your point that Saddam is not Suicidal.

Saddam has not shown any tendency toward suicide.

So my claim that he is not suicidal is most logical.

He recruits suicidal people to carry out his work, why should he dirty his hands? Your point is SILLY!

Yes, he had people do his work for him, but he gist of the threat of Saddam was that he would obtain nukes and use them against the USA. To do so, would be suicide, and he is not suicidal.

You clearly do not understand the Muslim and Arab culture, which is Family, Tribe, and seek revenge at all costs against your enemy.

Oh, you understand the revenge mentality? You mean like Bush Jr. who swore revenge against Saddam for threatening the life of his daddy?

Saddam has been seeking a way to attack us since the first Gulf War.

He has been seeking to maintain rule over his own country, not attack the USA.

He was a 2 bit dictator, not a genuine threat to the USA. Comparisons of him and his military to Hitler and his military is a complete joke.

He was trying to do it with third parties to divert attention from Iraq and himself.

Evidence please....

By the way what part of Canada do you live in?

Very typical response of someone who has no case to present.

You are wringing your hands trying to place logic where there is none to be found.

Yawn....

Saddam Hussein was not of our mind think and culture, he will never make sense.

Saddam ran his country in a secular manner, he was not a genuine threat to our way of life.

He is illogical, he may have thought that he could train terrorists to go the the United States and from other 3rd party countries and get away with it. That was illogical thought.

What about his was that illogical? He was a brutal dictator, yes. Is that illogical? He attacked a neighboring country and was punished. Did he attack anyone since the Gulf War?

If he were trying to retaliate against us (for the first Gulf War and that would be logical in the Arab mind), he would do it with third parties, and think he could get away with it.

If, if, if, if.....

Evidence......please.

He lives in the 7th Century and does not understand any western logic or thought. His heroes are Arab Warriors from the Crusades.

Bush's heroes are cowboys. He does not understand other cultures.

So?

He thought he could cover his tracks, and he thought he could finally recover and build for the next war against the United States.

You claim to know what he was thinking?

LOL....

Then Bush and Tony Blair came down on him like a ton of bricks, after Clinton avoided the issue for 8 years.

Clinton's bombing efforts kept Iraq at bay, and we discovered that Saddam had not rebuilt his army or WMD...that's the fact, Jack.

I think it will be proven eventually that Saddam had a hand in both attacks on the Twin Towers., 9-11 and previous.

They may discover that Bush had a hand in the attacks on the Twin Towers.

Who knows?

Let's deal with reality of today, and facts....

 

[agin1415]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I believe Saddam has a good point to make. He is saying that the current government that is holding a trial of his alleged crimes is not a valid Iraqi government.

I would like to see him stay in a protected prison without a trial until the Iraqi people are able to have free elections to elect their own government, create their own constitution, and not be subjected to the current form of Bush appointed leadership. As long as we are pulling the strings of the puppet government that is Iraq and Iraq is under, Iraq is not really free.

Then after a free election, one in which I believe Saddam himself should appear on the ballot, we will see the expressed will of the people via choosing their own elected officials to decide his fate.

If we are all about democracy, democracy should be in place before Saddam is brought to justice.
.

Here's another interesting viewpoint you have.

All in all, ZZZZzzzz, I just have a question, why are you here and not a political site like the DemocraticUnderground?

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You know, this is why the whole Iraq war and "danger" of Saddam is so bloody bogus.

I have heard the argument that the reason the Soviets or the Chinese would never attack the US is because it would mean their destruction.

Okay, so following along those lines, for Saddam to use a single dirty bomb, or some scuddy nuke would also mean his destruction.

Hello? Was Saddam hiding in an unknown country? Or was he visible, did we know essentially where he was, where his country was, yada, yada, yada.

Saddam was not suicidal. He did not kill himself after the US attacked and his country was captured. He did not kill himself when he was captured, and he has not killed himself sitting in jail going to trial.

So, Saddam did and does not want to die, but we expect that he was going to launch a single nuclear strike against the US for which he would have been killed by a counter strike of nukes by the US?

It makes zero sense.

Terrorism is not the type of danger, real danger to the US that the Soviets represented (and still represent...they have a ton of nukes, capable of delivery) and China...do we really know how many nukes they have?

What if some wacko like Bin Laden ever becomes the leader of China or the Russia, and decides to go crazy and strike first, not really caring about if we strike second?

Nope, these rogue terrorists are not anywhere near the threat that a soverign nation with thousands of nukes with a delivery mechanism is.

Yes, terrorists can have these single events where the US could be damaged, but they do not, and likely never will have the type of capability to destroy the US the way the Soviets or China can.

America has such a big fucking ego that when they found out they were vulnerable to these events, they went ape-shit. It is so ridiculous. In 25 to 30 years, people will look back on the Bush administration and see that it was nothing but a "Chinese" fire drill, with the Keystone Cops running the show....

What makes zero sense here is your argument.

The greater danger from Saddam was that he would develop WMD and give them to terrorists to use against us. The Bush Administration has been saying this all along. So did the Clinton administration and innumerable members of Congress, Repubs and Dems alike.

As for your query as to if someone like bin Laden ever becomes head of state of a country armed with nuclear weapons, then IMO the danger would be him giving those weapons to terrorist organizations, not that he is the leader of a country. Why? Because bin Laden, like Saddam, is not suicidal. He sends his minions to strike blows against the Great Satan, whilst plotting his dreams of a worldwide caliphate. What caliphate could he have if his sovereign nation and its population were wiped out by a retaliatory US strike?

No, the greater danger is a nuke in the hands of a terrorist organization against whom we have no retaliatory capability.

Yes, China and the USSR could wipe us out with their nukes, but they know they would in turn be destroyed. A terrorist organization smuggling in nukes to be detonated in American cities would have us by the balls.

Only someone who lives in the far left World of Denial fails to understand this.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Why are you expressing your point of view here at ET?

I don't need to go to a revival meeting of dems to get energized, don't need to hear a preacher preaching to choir.

Much more interesting to view the comments of ditto heads and realize how illogical and indefensible their positions are, and how difficult a time they have doing anything but regurgitating the talking points of Rush, Hannity, Coulter, et. al.

Quote from agin1415:

Here's another interesting viewpoint you have.

All in all, ZZZZzzzz, I just have a question, why are you here and not a political site like the DemocraticUnderground?

 

[agin1415]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Why are you expressing your point of view here at ET?

I don't need to go to a revival meeting of dems to get energized, don't need to hear a preacher preaching to choir.

Much more interesting to view the comments of ditto heads and realize how illogical and indefensible their positions are, and how difficult a time they have doing anything but regurgitating the talking points of Rush, Hannity, Coulter, et. al.

I don't post 400 posts a month anywhere.

You are posting above that rate, and none of it relates to trading.

I just wondered why?

You are not selling anybody on your ideas.

Why don't you just start writing op eds and get paid for it in a local newspaper.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You can stop the ad hominem direction, waste of time.....

p.s. How do you know that I am not getting paid for what I write somewhere???

p.p.s. I don't expect to "sell" my ideas to dittoheads.....

You appear to have a personal issue with me, so what about that makes you special?

LOL.....there are a lot of dittoheads here at ET who have issues with what I post.

Quote from agin1415:

I don't post 400 posts a month anywhere.

You are posting above that rate, and none of it relates to trading.

I just wondered why?

You are not selling anybody on your ideas.

Why don't you just start writing op eds and get paid for it in a local newspaper.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Brownback: 9/11 Resolution Did Not Give Bush Authority for Warrantless Wiretapping

This morning, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) added his name to the growing list of conservatives who have expressed disapproval of Bush’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program, further undermining the right-wing spin that the only critics of the program are liberals. On ABC’s This Week:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you confident that the administration has acted lawfully in this case?

BROWNBACK: I think we need to hold hearings on it and we’re going to. Both in the intelligence committee, there will be closed hearings and then the judiciary committee will have open hearings.

I think we need to look at this case and this issue. I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis, and I think we need to look at that far more broadly and understand it a great deal.

I think this is something that bears looking into and us to be able to establish a policy within constitutional frameworks of what a president can or cannot do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You don’t think the 9/11 resolution gave the president the authority for this program?

BROWNBACK: It didn’t, in my vote. I voted for that resolution. That was a week after 9/11. There was nothing you were going to do to stop us from going to war in Afghanistan, but there was no discussion in anything that I was around that that gave the president a broad surveillance authority with that resolution.

Brownback’s view echoes that of Sen. Tom Daschle’s and that of the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. More and more people are seeing Bush’s policy for what it truly is: an unnecessary and unconstitutional power-grab.

 

[Optionpro007]

It's really not with what you post, but your inability to see much further than what your mental shadow projects....

Cheers !

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You can stop the ad hominem direction, waste of time.....

p.s. How do you know that I am not getting paid for what I write somewhere???

p.p.s. I don't expect to "sell" my ideas to dittoheads.....

You appear to have a personal issue with me, so what about that makes you special?

LOL.....there are a lot of dittoheads here at ET who have issues with what I post.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Back to your stalking and flaming habits I see....

Quote from optionpro007:

It's really not with what you post, but your inability to see much further than what your mental shadow projects....

Cheers !