I second that emotion. You can resume your attacks on straw men. Tell Mr. CEMACK I said goodbye.
Tom Wright, they are all your buddy, enjoy the "constructive" dialogue.

Posted at January 5, 2007 11:07 AM in response to The Iraq Blame Game

Tom, seriosuly, I am amazed that you don't want to find out about this on your own. The information is there, I'm not making it up.
The Time article is from Oct. 17th 1994. There are dozens of others because it was a widely reported news story. Take 3 minutes and look for yourself. Google it. It really isn't hard, but you are insisting on making it so.
From now on, you are going to have to do your own research, I don't do research for strangers unless I'm paid.

Here's another one:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp941009/10090057.htm

and another one:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_2004_May-June/ai_n6123968/pg_5

and another one:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/hammurabi.htm

Posted at January 5, 2007 10:49 AM in response to Lunacy, Not Blunders

Did we "fake up" the dozens of SCUD missiles too? Did we "fake up" the 28 dead American soldiers?
Come off it, Tom.

Posted at January 5, 2007 8:52 AM in response to Lunacy, Not Blunders

"Saddam was not a threat to Saudi Arabia at the time of the Kuwait invasion"

So the Saudi government, the American government and bin Laden's mujahadeen all got together to concoct the threat? How are you justifying these statements? The facts don't back up your case here, Tom.

Why on earth would the Saudis invite us in to protect them, knowing full well that the radical elements of their nation would not be happy about it? They want those people subdued and calm. Inviting us in would only get them angry. If we knew it would make 15 of them so angry that they would join al Qaeda and take flying lessons, maybe we wouldn't have done it. The facts are what they are, Tom.
Saddam was clearly a threat to Saudi Arabia. I don't know if you realize that he launched dozens of SCUD missiles at the country in January of 1991. Luckily for them, our Patriot Missiles shot most of them down and the others landed harmlessly, I believe in the desert.
He also massed troops on the Saudi border and attacked once our offensive began. Luckily, again Americans were there to fight him off.
Unfortunately for the 28 soldiers killed in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia, he did managed to get one SCUD past our defenses.
Not only was he a "potential" threat, he actively attacked the country. You can't argue with the facts. I didn't invent these events, I am simply reporting them to you.

Posted at January 5, 2007 6:43 AM in response to Lunacy, Not Blunders

First of all, how on earth can you justify asking that question? Maybe I missed the other times you asked other people if they knew people in the site, but for some reason I doubt it. Do you ask liberals who joined the site around the same time to answer that question?

I bet you don't.

Prove me wrong.

Prove to me that you didn't ask that because we both disagree with your world view.
Did you get recruited by the groupthink patrol?
Anyone who does not march in lock step with the site's established point of view must be smoked out and hounded. Good grief, Dan.

This is another attempt to avoid debate.
You actually did "detective" work to try to figure out if there is some conspiracy here, Dan. You seem like a somewhat sensitive guy. Do a little introspection here and examine how you feel about what you just asked. Examine your motivations. That question says something about you that I don't think you would be proud of, and what's worse, I think you know it.

To answer your question, yes I do know him.
Now please give me a list of all the liberals who you have asked that question to. I would like to know how many people on this site you know. I would also ask for a detailed list of who you voted for in the last 20 years. I would also like some finger prints from you so I can do a background check. Please e-mail Sadr and tell him which people on the site don't have beards so that he can bully them and attack their families for not being the way he wants them to be.

I was initially excited about this site. When Ivo invited me, I was looking forward to having a mature discussion with intelligent people. What has transpired is simply silly. I have been called names, I have been accused of being some plant from right wing websites, I have been rebutted by logical fallacy at every turn and rarely challenged by facts or reason.
It is sort of ironic that people on this site have criticized the Bush administration for huddling together and ignoring alternative view points, yet that is exactly the prescribed modus operandi on this site. I know how Colin Powell feels. Now you know how Rumsfeld feels.

If you have a dissenting opinion on this site, people actually try to track down other people that you might know and "expose" you. You did that, Dan.

I am waiting patiently for my yellow star of David to come in the mail so that I can sew it onto my jacket. That way you will know exactly what group I am a part of and it will make the target more visible. Should I shave my head and get on a train too, or is that taking things too far?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Based on that inexplicable question, TomWright is probably the only person worth debating anymore. As much as I enjoy the back and forth with TomWright, it probably isn't worth spending time and energy posting on this site just for him. It is a shame because many people on this site need to have their opinions and facts challenged and I have been the only one to do that.
If you want to sit around patting yourselves on the back for agreeing with each other and calling people "dipshits" that's fine, but why would someone interested in debating issues subject themselves to it?

You can go back to laughing at Mr. CEMAC's "witty" quips and standing on the same side of the fence in a homogenous orgy of destructive name calling, hindsight-laden epiphanies and left wing propaganda.

Enjoy your day, friend.

Posted at January 5, 2007 6:19 AM in response to The Iraq Blame Game

Your argument is that the "international community" and the American people (including congress) would have been more likely to support an invasion of Saudi Arabia than Iraq?
I disagree for reasons already stated.

Aside from the support, Saudi Arabia is a much less secular country. Trying to bring democracy there would not seem as promising as it did in Iraq. If we had elections in Saudi Arabia, the Sunni Wahabbi versions of Sadr would dominate the country. Sadr has had surprising success in gaining a minority of seats in the Iraqi government, but the Wahabbists would have an overwhelming majority.
Not to mention that we have a working dialogue with the Saudis and soft power is more likely to work there in getting them to reform their government using linkage and other forms of diplomacy.

Posted at January 5, 2007 5:40 AM in response to Lunacy, Not Blunders

"What 1994 try are you talking about?"

I don't know how to answer that, all the information I can give in the answer is already in your question. The year was 1994, the countries involved were Kuwait and Iraq and Saddam was in charge of Iraq. Instead of asking me to do your research for you, why don't you try to do it yourself next time. Here's a link to get you started:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981630,00.html

He was no threat to Saudi Arabia because the American military was there. You are using circular logic.

Posted at January 5, 2007 5:32 AM in response to Lunacy, Not Blunders

Tom, I am sorry to break you down like this, but saying he didn't have clue was a statement of fact. You must be operating under the assumption that he has some clue as to which organization is better suited than ECOWAS. Surprisingly enough, you didn't answer the question either.
He went out of his way to try to humiliate me and he failed. That is why he has not been back. He knows it, anyone who reads the exchange knows it, but you still stand by your man.
Look at the reality for a minute.
I, me, the guy you think doesn't know anything about anything just proved he knows more than a guy who you consider to be a hero. Not to mention this is the second time I did it.
I don't want to browbeat the guy. I want to have a discussion, but he gets nervous when I prove him wrong and he hides.
No big deal.

Posted at January 4, 2007 9:56 PM in response to The Iraq Blame Game

Someone please explain to this maniac that you aren't allowed to have opinions that differ from Big Brother around here.

Will someone please jump all over this guy and attack him with fallacious logic?

Someone call the straw man police! An argument needs to be NOT addressed! It's an emergency!

Better yet, someone tell "Mr. CEMAC" the Africa expert.

Posted at January 4, 2007 6:00 PM in response to The Iraq Blame Game

"we should have toppled Saudi Arabia's ruling family"

That would have been nice to try, but there was less justification. I would have suggested another Central Asian madman-run country like Turkmenistan because the population there is much smaller and we might be able to lock them down with 175,000 troops, but again, on what grounds?
The problem is that of all the places to choose, Iraq was the only one we could really justify by international, traditional means. Regardless of what the U.N. said, we had almost 3 dozen countries in the coalition, so the bet was a smart one.
Saddam violated the treaty from 91 essentially just to prove he could. He was a threat to Kuwait when he tried to invade a second time in 1994, just for the record.
He shot at American aircraft virtually every day that the no-fly zone was enforced and we all know his track record with the anfal, etc. The problem with justification is that with the percentage of dictators and despotic regimes holding powerful seats in the U.N., simply saying, "He's a dictator" doesn't count as justification. That would be like Islamists telling Europe they want to attack America because we are a democracy...oops bad example!

"Saddam never was a threat to Saudi Arabia, and certainly was not after Kuwait"

To say he was no threat to Saudi Arabia is strange. How can you possibly back that up? His intentions for Saudi Oil were not a secret. Do you think the Saudis wanted us there because they got a perverse thrill out of pissing off the radicals in their country? Why on earth would they keep us there when it caused them so much trouble? The answer is obvious, because they couldn't defend themselves as effectively as we could defend them. It isn't hard to understand.

Posted at January 4, 2007 5:34 PM in response to Lunacy, Not Blunders