Is Al Gore a traitor or has he simply lost his mind?

[bcvillastwo]

discount the 100,000 or so Muslims we have killed in IRAQ during our invasion of "shock and awe", mostly woman and children. Get your facts straight.

Support for your position please.

 

[LuvDuke]

Or better yet, hide the contempt under a "God Bless".

Ahhh, a direct hit.

 

[bsnyder]

Support for your position please.

Do we HAVE to go there again?

 

[bcvillastwo]

Reading history is almost always a good thing. Ben Shapiro wrote an interesting article today titled, "Should We Prosecute Sedition?" In the article he's discussing Al Gore's comments before the Jiddah Economic Forum and the whole idea of being disloyal. To make his point clear, Mr. Shapiro turns to history he says:

we must remember our history. President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and allowed governmental officials to arrest Rep. Clement Vallandigham after Vallandigham called the Civil War "cruel" and "wicked," shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, and had members of the Maryland legislature placed in prison to prevent Maryland's secession.

He goes on to say:

Under the Espionage Act of 1917, opponents of World War I were routinely prosecuted, and the Supreme Court routinely upheld their convictions. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes rightly wrote, "When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." The Allies won World War I.

Further he points out that:

During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans, as well as allowing the prosecution and/or deportation of those who opposed the war. The Allies won World War II.

And finally, he raised the ugly topic of Vietnam and says:

During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the free speech rights of war opponents, whether those opponents distributed leaflets depicting the rape of the Statue of Liberty or wore jackets emblazoned with the slogan "F--- the Draft." America lost the Vietnam War.

I'm not saying there is an absolute cause and effect relationship between the kinds of things that Al Gore said recently and perhaps losing the war in Iraq, but I think his (Shapiro's) analogy has at least some merit, particluarly when looked at through lense of history.

By the way, I am not suggesting that there should be no dissent against any administrations policies or actions. But, I do believe that when we are on a war footing, there are boundaries, that citizens should not cross. I think Al Gore crossed the boundary, just as Hanoi Jane did over 30 years ago during the Vietnam War. (By the way, we have solid proof that Jane's actions did give aid and comfort to the enemy because the North Vietnamese leaders have acknowledged the fact that her comments, and similar comments by others and the press, gave them the courage to stay to the course.)

 

[salmoneous]

The point I was trying to make was that most of us including the two major political parties don't have the market cornered on getting the facts straight, or allowing the facts to get in the way of a good story.

Let me agree with the spirit behind much of what you have written in your post, but disagree with some of the details.

Yes, there is room for debate about whether the U.S. should or should not have gone to war with Iraq.

Again, let me just start be agreeing with your basic points.

Virtually every major intellegence operation in the world was in agreement that Hussein had WMD.

Here is where we start to get in trouble. First of all, all the major intelligence operations in the world were convinced in March of 2003 that Iraq had *no* nuclear weapon, *no* nuclear programs, *no* ability to restart programs in for foreseeable future. And yet every speech, every call for war coming from our administration used the treat of nuclear attacks as justification for war. That's just flat out dishonest and wrong.

Second, while every major intelligence operation thought *at some point* that Iraq had non-nuclear WMD, by March 2003 that was no longer the case. There was massive evidence coming out of Iraq that they didn't have any weapons. At the time we went to war, there was a huge amount of doubt in the intelligence community. Other coutries were begging us to wait and see if Iraq really was a threat. Instead of finishing the process of discovering whether or not there were WMD, the US ordered the inspectors out of the country and invaded. I still haven't heard any reasonable explanation as to why we couldn't have continued the inspections other than "we were tired of waiting". In my option, being tired of waiting *isn't* a good enough reason to go to war.

On the contrary, if what that major intelligence agencies of the world were saying about WMD and Iraq was true it probably would have been irresponsible for Bush not to give the mission a go.

Here's were we really start to disagree. First, as I said earlier, in March 2003 the intelligence agencies weren't saying what you claim. But even if they were, it would *not* have been irresponsible to continue alternatives to war. Just because a country is evil, doesn't mean you have to go to war. There are a bunch of really bad countries out there - North Korea is vastly more evil and more threatening to the US than Iraq ever was. Iran, Pakastan, China, and others are much worse than Iraq ever was. Is it irresponsible not to invade those countries?

I believe you only go to war where there are no other options. In March 2003, there were other options in Iraq. Even if you believed Iraq has some WMD around, there was virtually no threat he could use them. The treat had been countered by means other than invasion. Avoiding an unnecessary war is never irresponsible.

 

[LakeAriel]

But no pictures, huh?

Perhaps these photo's will interest you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/default.stm

 

[bsnyder]

Perhaps these photo's will interest you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/default.stm

I've seen those photos before. I was asking about photos to back up this claim:

I have seen American's with similair signs "Kill the towel heads" "Kill the camel jockey's" etc etc etc There are radicals everywhere. Don't answer by "we don't actually do it" because Iraq disproves that argument.

Got any?

 

[bcvillastwo]

salmoneous, I see the facts otherwise in terms of what the world knew in March 2003. If you have something to support this assertion then send me a link. You also say that other countries were begging us to wait. Need I remind you that a few of those countries (France, Germany, and Russia) had dirty hands in that they and/or business enterprises in their countries were doing quite well financially as a result of Iraq business interests. In my view, they didn't want their cash cow to go away. You go on to say,

As you also probably know the Senate Committee on Intellegence agreedthat the intellegence community concerns about Iraqi WMD were incorrect. They pointed to the problem of "group think" as one of the primary causes for their errors. (Group think was also a major problem in the Challenger crash). But that same Senate Intellegence Committee report found no evidence that the Bush administration put pressure on the intellegene communty to mischaracterize or exaggerate their WMD findings. So, at the time, it appears that the intellegence community felt it had reason to believe the Hussein had WMD (even though it was shown to be wrong in hindsight) and the Bush administration used that information as one of the factors for making the decision to go to war.

You also said that,

Just because a country is evil, doesn't mean you have to go to war.

I'm reminded of Hitler before WWII. In the middle 30's it was pretty well known that Germany was building a war machine but Hitler's activities were either ignored or appeasement was attempted.

So, How many people died in WWII? How many deaths could have been prevented had someone acted to stop Hitler in the mid to late 30's. If my memory serves me correctly, after WWI the German government agreed not to rearm. They violated that agreement, eventually started WWII, and with the result that millions of people died that may not have if someone had intervened before Germany became so powerful. That's not so different than the situation leading up to Iraq in my view.

So yes, in my view sometimes it's better to nip something in the bud before it gets a chance to start. Sometimes it really is better to take action before you someone hits you on the head with a two by four (because if you wait, you may just die).

 

[salmoneous]

salmoneous, I see the facts otherwise in terms of what the world knew in March 2003. If you have something to support this assertion then send me a link.

Which particular assertion? That there was clear and convincing evidence against any possible nukes? That there was growing evidence against other weapons and programs? I can dig some up if you like. Meanwhile, I'm curious what leads you to believe otherwise about what we knew in March 2003?

You also say that other countries were begging us to wait. Need I remind you that a few of those countries (France, Germany, and Russia) had dirty hands in that they and/or business enterprises in their countries were doing quite well financially as a result of Iraq business interests. In my view, they didn't want their cash cow to go away.

I don't know of any evidence that the contries you mention had their "hands dirty.". I know they had business and people who were profiting. As did the US. But if you believe having business that were making some money influenced their government's policy, you can always look to Canada for a close US ally without significant ties to corruption in Iraq who were pleading with us to wait and allow the inspections to finish.

But that same Senate Intellegence Committee report found no evidence that the Bush administration put pressure on the intellegene communty to mischaracterize or exaggerate their WMD findings.

It should be pointed out that the Intelligence Committee wasn't investigating the issue. So while they say they didn't stumble across any evidence, it also doesn't say they looked for it. But that's a side point.

it appears that the intellegence community felt it had reason to believe the Hussein had WMD (even though it was shown to be wrong in hindsight)

Again, it should also be pointed out that the same intelligence community felt that there was little risk from those weapons.

I'm reminded of Hitler before WWII. In the middle 30's it was pretty well known that Germany was building a war machine

If Saddam was building a war machine that was threatening his neighbors, I might feel differently. He wasn't. Vastly different from Germany in the 30's.

Sometimes it really is better to take action before you someone hits you on the head with a two by four (because if you wait, you may just die).

We didn't do nothing. We *did* take action. We went in and dismantled his weapon's program. We put massive economic restrictions on him. We took his airspace from him. We did everything we needed to do to remove the threat.

The question is, did we also need to go to war, invade the country, and overthrow the government?

 

[crcormier]

I've seen those photos before. I was asking about photos to back up this claim:

Got any?

Not calling for violence, but not good either:

 

[inneedofvacation]

All Gore in the middle east, stoking the fire of middle eastern outrage!

 

[Charade]

I know the sign holders were American's by the way they puffed out their chests and yelled USA USA! The suggestion they bring such venom to the front lines was lost on them. I have these signs myself and I am quite certain the Muslims have too. To say they are the only ones doing the killing is to discount the 100,000 or so Muslims we have killed in IRAQ during our invasion of "shock and awe", mostly woman and children. Get your facts straight.

ok, so they were Americans. Just as dispicable as what the Muslims are advocating. The difference is, those Americans are mostly hot air. While the radical Muslims are not. I'm not condoning either but I am much more worried about radical Muslim terrorist striking the US again than I am of a group of Americans going to blow up Muslims.

In other breaking news... *WE* (the US) did not kill 100,000 Iraqi (mostly) women and children.

 

[dcentity2000]

I'm reminded of Hitler before WWII. In the middle 30's it was pretty well known that Germany was building a war machine but Hitler's activities were either ignored or appeasement was attempted.

So, How many people died in WWII? How many deaths could have been prevented had someone acted to stop Hitler in the mid to late 30's. If my memory serves me correctly, after WWI the German government agreed not to rearm. They violated that agreement, eventually started WWII, and with the result that millions of people died that may not have if someone had intervened before Germany became so powerful. That's not so different than the situation leading up to Iraq in my view.

So yes, in my view sometimes it's better to nip something in the bud before it gets a chance to start. Sometimes it really is better to take action before you someone hits you on the head with a two by four (because if you wait, you may just die).

Living in a nation that was ravaged by both World Wars, I find this a little dangerous. Germany was widely known to be building a war machine and even was rumoured to be constructing foo fighters(!) Saddam, however, was not threatening any neighbour, had no capacity to do so and was responding to containment procedures well (according to Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell). There were rumours of weapons but these were widely ridiculed and discredited - oddly enough, the week and flimsy evidence was used as the primary case for war

Of course, sometimes it is better to nip a troublesome country in the bud, as it were. We need to invade the USA right this instant. There is good evidence that they have acquired a mighty arsenal of WMDs and they have recently demonstrated that they are quite capable of using cluster weapons, carpet bombing and other destructive devices on their own initiative when presented with zero threat. Further to this, they refuse to disarm.

Even worse is the nation of Israel. This nation is actively arming itself yet defies the UN more than Saddam ever did - they need to be stopped too, especially when you consider the various condemned acts made by this country in regards to the "new Berlin wall".

Oh, and Europe. They've started two world wars and slaughtered more people on this earth than any other nation. They are actively keeping WMD programs operational and many members have demonstrated an ability to use force on other nations for falsified reasons (an activity since apologised for by Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom). Even worse, we have just heard that the UK (a member of Europe) has just initiated a program to update their Trident nuclear missile system to an even more flexible and deadly one. They must be stopped.

Of course, I'm having you all on. I have no desire to invade any of the aforementioned countries, even though the complaints filed against them are well documented and widely accepted throughout the world.

What we have to discern is intention, or mens rea.

You see, a nation (such as the UK) that constructs an elaborate and extensive WMD system without intent to ever use it is safer than a country that constructs the same system with said intent. A nation that commits human rights atrocities in order to protect themselves and no more is not as "bad" as a nation that commits the same atrocities out of cruel intentions.

According to Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, Saddam and the regime was living on borrowed time and would never intend to use WMDs even if they were developed (and indeed built) for fear of the obliteration that would surely follow.

No mens rea at law means no offence.

Israel is trickier to defend. It certainly has mens rea in certain acts it commits and it is up to the internation community as a whole to decide whether or not these acts contain any malicious intent. Obviously there are deep concerns, reflected in the record number of defied UN instructions, resolutions and so forth.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you can't justify a war based on intent that is widely known and agreed not to be present regardless of personal opinion. Why regardless of opinion? Well, how would you feel if Tony Blair nuked LA based on a personal opinion that the USA was planning to attack France when this opinion was not supported by evidence of any kind?

Exactly.

When dealing with something as grave as war and termination of life - forbidden under the fundamental commandments that God supposedly handed down - we have to be darn sure we know what we are doing. We need evidence and proof, more than an assumption made by a small group of politicians in a localised area of the world. We need to further admit that opinion only carries weight where that opinion is widely held - no Hitlers passing singular judgements on Canada, please.

Bluntly put, we need to grow up and soon.

This isn't the wild west.

This is the world.



Rich::

 

[LakeAriel]

ok, so they were Americans. Just as dispicable as what the Muslims are advocating. The difference is, those Americans are mostly hot air. While the radical Muslims are not. I'm not condoning either but I am much more worried about radical Muslim terrorist striking the US again than I am of a group of Americans going to blow up Muslims.

In other breaking news... *WE* (the US) did not kill 100,000 Iraqi (mostly) women and children.

I beg to differ
Though we don't count the dead we blow up, there are counts as high as over a hundred thousand that have died as a result of our invasion.

 

[LakeAriel]

Living in a nation that was ravaged by both World Wars, I find this a little dangerous. Germany was widely known to be building a war machine and even was rumoured to be constructing foo fighters(!) Saddam, however, was not threatening any neighbour, had no capacity to do so and was responding to containment procedures well (according to Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell). There were rumours of weapons but these were widely ridiculed and discredited - oddly enough, the week and flimsy evidence was used as the primary case for war

Of course, sometimes it is better to nip a troublesome country in the bud, as it were. We need to invade the USA right this instant. There is good evidence that they have acquired a mighty arsenal of WMDs and they have recently demonstrated that they are quite capable of using cluster weapons, carpet bombing and other destructive devices on their own initiative when presented with zero threat. Further to this, they refuse to disarm.

Even worse is the nation of Israel. This nation is actively arming itself yet defies the UN more than Saddam ever did - they need to be stopped too, especially when you consider the various condemned acts made by this country in regards to the "new Berlin wall".

Oh, and Europe. They've started two world wars and slaughtered more people on this earth than any other nation. They are actively keeping WMD programs operational and many members have demonstrated an ability to use force on other nations for falsified reasons (an activity since apologised for by Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom). Even worse, we have just heard that the UK (a member of Europe) has just initiated a program to update their Trident nuclear missile system to an even more flexible and deadly one. They must be stopped.

Of course, I'm having you all on. I have no desire to invade any of the aforementioned countries, even though the complaints filed against them are well documented and widely accepted throughout the world.

What we have to discern is intention, or mens rea.

You see, a nation (such as the UK) that constructs an elaborate and extensive WMD system without intent to ever use it is safer than a country that constructs the same system with said intent. A nation that commits human rights atrocities in order to protect themselves and no more is not as "bad" as a nation that commits the same atrocities out of cruel intentions.

According to Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, Saddam and the regime was living on borrowed time and would never intend to use WMDs even if they were developed (and indeed built) for fear of the obliteration that would surely follow.

No mens rea at law means no offence.

Israel is trickier to defend. It certainly has mens rea in certain acts it commits and it is up to the internation community as a whole to decide whether or not these acts contain any malicious intent. Obviously there are deep concerns, reflected in the record number of defied UN instructions, resolutions and so forth.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you can't justify a war based on intent that is widely known and agreed not to be present regardless of personal opinion. Why regardless of opinion? Well, how would you feel if Tony Blair nuked LA based on a personal opinion that the USA was planning to attack France when this opinion was not supported by evidence of any kind?

Exactly.

When dealing with something as grave as war and termination of life - forbidden under the fundamental commandments that God supposedly handed down - we have to be darn sure we know what we are doing. We need evidence and proof, more than an assumption made by a small group of politicians in a localised area of the world. We need to further admit that opinion only carries weight where that opinion is widely held - no Hitlers passing singular judgements on Canada, please.

Bluntly put, we need to grow up and soon.

This isn't the wild west.

This is the world.



Rich::

Thanks for a well thought out and presented repsonse.

 

[DawnCt1]

And Bush held the leader of that country's hand and you thought, and still think using the most ridiculous rationalizations, it was hunky-dory.

And you STILL do not understand that we have to work with the Saudi's on the war in terrorism. That we expect that they will make vital reforms and we need to have a diplomatic relationship in order for them to achieve that. You do not see a difference between the twice elected President of the United States and a disgruntled ex candidate who was paid by the Bin Laden family and other
Saudi interests to go to their country and bash the USA.

 

[DawnCt1]

Not calling for violence, but not good either:

So you showed us pictures of posters and signs. Do you have any of Americans burning down mosques and beheading Muslims??

Edited to add: Have you looked up Surah 8-65 and do you know what it says??

 

[dcentity2000]

So you showed us pictures of posters and signs. Do you have any of Americans burning down mosques and beheading Muslims??

I found some pictures of abused Muslims after street brawls over their ethnicity (following the riots), but cannot post them or a link to them (DIS Boards TOS - inappropriate content).

The best I can do is suggest looking for yourself. There are plenty of (IMO) sick sources on the net that cater for this type of thing.

They looked really badly hurt

Oh well. Evil begets evil, I suppose.

[EDIT]: According to Pratchett, two exclamation or question marks is a sign of growing insanity!!



Rich::

 

[DawnCt1]

I found some pictures of abused Muslims after street brawls over their ethnicity (following the riots), but cannot post them or a link to them (DIS Boards TOS - inappropriate content).

The best I can do is suggest looking for yourself. There are plenty of (IMO) sick sources on the net that cater for this type of thing.

They looked really badly hurt

Oh well. Evil begets evil, I suppose.



Rich::

Which riots and where? People get injured in riots. Because it was suggested that it was their ethnicity, it does not make it so. Did you look up Surah 8-65? You may find it interesting.

 

[dcentity2000]

Which riots and where? People get injured in riots. Because it was suggested that it was their ethnicity, it does not make it so.

Riots in other countries leading to violence against Muslims in our countries. I'm ashamed that some of our people would do such a thing

All attacks I'm referring to were racially motivated ones, usually initiated by drunken thugs.

It's sick.

[EDIT]: Humanity has a lot to answer for... I just found a pic of one guy shot in the head. Sicksicksick!



Rich::