Bush's speech last night.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Even with 9-11 and 3,000 dead Americans, you still don't realize how dangerous terrorism is.

Is it more dangerous than cigarette smoking? (400,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dangerous than eating unhealthy food? (300,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dangerous than driving? (20,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dangerous than golfing when there's a thunderstorm nearby? (2,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dagerous than working? (5,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dagerous than alcohol? (100,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dagerous than crime? (20,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dangerous than natural gas? (600 dead Americans per year)

[Immortal Wombat]

Is it more dangerous than cigarette smoking? (400,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dangerous than eating unhealthy food? (300,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dangerous than driving? (20,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dagerous than working? (5,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dagerous than alcohol? (100,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dagerous than crime? (20,000 dead Americans per year)

Is it more dangerous than natural gas? (600 dead Americans per year)

You can't sue terrorists.

[Alexander's Horse]

Its obvious the diplomat's posts are on the same childish level as Bush's speech.

Major powers won't help the Bush Administration for one simple reason. It's good their operation is failing. It will teach America a lesson about the perils of unilateralism.

If the Bush Administration loses power as a result, so much the better. It has few international friends and is a threat to world peace and stability. The Bush Administration is a far bigger threat than terrorism.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by oedo
but what has the war on Iraq to do with this?

Why do you think there are FOREIGN terrorist groups in Iraq trying to blow up American and even UN facilities? Because the terrorists know that if they can push American forces out of Iraq, and Iraq falls back into tyranny, then they wil be able to use Iraq for their purposes. On the other hand, if the US succeeds in stabilizing Iraq, then the terrorists lose a potential ally.

That is why winning in Iraq is so crucial and why it is most definitely part of the war on terror. If Iraq is stable and free, it will an ally of the US, but if Iraq slides back into tyranny, it will be a potential ally of terrorists.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Is it more dagerous than working? (5,000 dead Americans per year)

. . . which is what the people in the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were doing on 9/11 before the attack.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
. . . which is what the people in the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were doing on 9/11 before the attack.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

[DanS]

I'd have supported a war which was supported by the UN undertaken by a genuine international coallition of forces willing to work towards rebuilding Iraq.

A good post-war plan could have done it without UN support or a genuine coalition. When we went in, you didn't know what plan they had for after the war. I certainly didn't. There is value in not giving out your plan to the enemy.

Here's the same question I ask for every Bush's speech: What was the use ?

It was a ritual whereby Bush gave the American people a short description of on what he's going to be spending their money and a price tag. He was going over the head of Congress (who appropriates the funds and could make life hell for him) straight to the taxpayers. A good strategy.

[MrFun]

never mind

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
A good post-war plan could have done it without UN support or a genuine coalition. When we went in, you didn't know what plan they had for after the war. I certainly didn't.

Actually, they said what their plan was before the war. They planned to decapitate Iraq, and leave everything else in place. Then put some new "democratic" leaders on top of the old Ba'athist state and voila. They were genuinely surprised at the complete collapse of the Iraqi state. MtG was regularly blasting them before the war for not having a realistic plan for what to do after winning the war.

[DanS]

Actually, they said what their plan was before the war. They planned to decapitate Iraq, and leave everything else in place. Then put some new "democratic" leaders on top of the old Ba'athist state and voila.

There were only hints. Not a complete plan revealed.

They were genuinely surprised at the complete collapse of the Iraqi state.

So was I. So am I.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by DanS
When we went in, you didn't know what plan they had for after the war. I certainly didn't.

That was the problem, and this was a big issue in the UK, which was what MikeH and IW were refering to. We never got firm details for a plan after the war, and what we did get we didn't necessarily agree with. That was a large part why I was against the war too. We did not go in knowing what the point of it was, or how we were going to stabalise it afterwards. If we had known that, and that we could stabalise it, we would have been more pro-war.

[SpencerH]

Given that we couldn't even convince the security council to back up their own resolutions, how long would it take to get agreement on a post-war plan?

[DanS]

We did not go in knowing what the point of it was

Well that was the problem and is a principled objection. If there was a good post war plan, you still would have had that problem.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by DanS


There were only hints. Not a complete plan revealed.



So was I. So am I.

Because they didn't have a plan.

Why?

[mindseye]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Even with 9-11 and 3,000 dead Americans, you still don't realize how dangerous terrorism is.

Uh-oh, another one who fell for the line that Iraq was connected with the 9-11 attack.

Originally posted by The diplomat
Why do you think there are FOREIGN terrorist groups in Iraq trying to blow up American and even UN facilities?

Actually, I'd like to ask you why there are foreign terrorists in Iraq blowing things up? What has brought them there?

Does this mean that those who warned that an invasion of Iraq would be an al Qaeda recruiter's dream come true were ... right? That's what it sounds like, anyway.