Wikileaks nomination for Nobel....

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

You need to take a chill-pill, this is a discussion, no one's life is on the line here.....

That is the point. The catalyst for extreme emotion is that you and some others are supporting a low-life who is willing to place American lives in unnecessary danger on the world's stage.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

You need to take a chill-pill, this is a discussion, no one's life is on the line here.....

That is the point. The catalyst for extreme emotion is that you and some others are supporting a low-life who is willing to place American lives in unnecessary danger on the world's stage.

Watching the morning news, I see that the Pentagon is calling Iraq a major base for terrorist operations. Hmmm... Before our then President decided to invade a country that poised zero threat to the U.S. there was not terrorist one in Iraq. Now it is a hot bed for terrorist training and the people of Iraq are in far greater danger than they ever were under Saddam. According to the morning report terror sleeper cells have been coming from Iraq and may already be in the U.S.. So tell me, who has put Americans and people around the world at greater danger? Assange or the President who decided to not go after Bin Laden, but focus on invading a country that was no danger to the U.S. or anyone else for that matter.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Wasting bandwidth? Who is the one that asks questions that have already been answered? That would be YOU.
Do you really think I care if you think I have no credibility? You think too highly of your own opinion.
And I am not backtracking. I have been consistent in my stance.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

focus on invading a country that was no danger to the U.S. or anyone else for that matter.

That decision is/was above my pay grade. The President had/has information that we do not have. That is why they are called national secrets in America's best interest.

We don't kill bad guys by popular vote. We kill bad guys because those who see the big picture know it needs to be done.

Bring in the sheepdogs.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

That is why they are called national secrets in America's best interest.

So much has been revealed that they trumped up their claims that Iraq was going to invade the U.S.. All of their claims were manufactured lies. How is invading a country that poised zero threat and trying to keep it a secret in the best interest of the U.S.? With over 100,000 dead and still counting someone and all of them in back of that person needs to be held accountable for making the world a far more dangerous place.
Had the U.S. held it's course and focused on taking out Bin Laden, the world would be a far more safer place. Putting a noose around Saddam's neck and pulling the lever did zero to curb terrorism. In fact, the U.S. did a favor for them by taking out Saddam. Saddam would had been a great ally in the war against al Qaeda such as he was during our confrontation with Iran.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[wmw999 2,460]

Quote

We kill bad guys because those who see the big picture know it needs to be done.

And where is the check on those bad guys having a system well enough entrenched that there's not really a check on them?

That is exactly what the free press is for. I'm not saying it's always a good thing, but it's part of who we are as a country.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Before our then President decided to invade a country that poised zero threat to the U.S. there was not terrorist one in Iraq.

Interesting reality you live in - is the sky blue there?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,460]

I'll be honest; that was a disingenuous statement, but I'd have to say that Iraq had orders of magnitude fewer terrorists (yes, because they were being suppressed), and it clearly posed a minimal threat to the US. It's 7000 miles away, and they don't have the infrastructure to send missiles all the way over here, or to bomb us from submarines, etc.

Chemical weapons had demonstrably been used 15-20 years earlier (I think), but weapons inspectors were of the opinion that Iraq was not building new ones.

So Saddam was an evil, despotic asshole. I submit that the damage that we've done to the US and Iraq by going to war far outstrips what would have happened without it.

Casualties, financial, reputation. Take your pick.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Before our then President decided to invade a country that poised zero threat to the U.S. there was not terrorist one in Iraq.

Interesting reality you live in - is the sky blue there?

So, are you saying that Iraq was a far greater danger than the people who did attack the U.S.?

To answer your question, why yes the sky here today is blue.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So, are you saying that Iraq was a far greater danger than the people who did attack the U.S.?

Nope, that was more in response to the "not terrorist one in Iraq". Nice attempt to move the goalposts, though.

Quote

To answer your question, why yes the sky here today is blue.

Must make it confusing for you when you come back to visit the rest of us in the real world, then.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

So, are you saying that Iraq was a far greater danger than the people who did attack the U.S.?

Nope, that was more in response to the "not terrorist one in Iraq". Nice attempt to move the goalposts, though.

Quote

To answer your question, why yes the sky here today is blue.

Must make it confusing for you when you come back to visit the rest of us in the real world, then.

Given that Bin Laden had an intense hatred for Saddam, I doubt that Saddam would had given al Qaeda safe haven in Iraq.

Kindly remove your rose tinted glasses when entering the real world, Mike.

I still maintain that Saddam would had been a great ally against al Qaeda. The U.S. has been to bed with some of the worst dictators in history. How is it that Saddam demanded that we destroy a country and kill well over 100,000 people just to take out one person? Hell, China poises more of a threat to the U.S. than Saddam ever had. Sad that so many people had to die for nothing. Iraq is far more dangerous to the U.S. today than it had ever been in the past.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 3,008]

>The President had/has information that we do not have.

Which turned out to be completely, spectacularly wrong. That's the sort of information we want to keep as our deepest secrets? We would all have been better off had the sources of his information (or lack thereof) had been revealed sooner rather than later.

>We kill bad guys because those who see the big picture know it needs to be done.

Or they just make bad decisions.

>Bring in the sheepdogs.

Some of those "sheepdogs" are now either on trial or in jail for their criminal acts. Good.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Given that Bin Laden had an intense hatred for Saddam, I doubt that Saddam would had given al Qaeda safe haven in Iraq.

From the US vs. Usama bin Laden indictment, Section 4, unsealed Nov 1998:

Quote

In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Quote

Kindly remove your rose tinted glasses when entering the real world, Mike.

Maybe you should enter the real world, period.

***IRAQ

NAME: Abu Nidal organization (ANO) a.k.a. Fatah Revolutionary Council, Arab Revolutionary Brigades, Black September, and Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims.

DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Split from the PLO in 1974.

Relocated to Iraq in the 90's.

NAME: Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO) a.k.a. The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK), the People's Mujahidin of Iran (PMOI), National Council of Resistance (NCR), Muslim Iranian Student's Society (front organization used to garner financial support).

DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1960s.

Relocated to Iraq in the 80's.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

focus on invading a country that was no danger to the U.S. or anyone else for that matter.

That decision is/was above my pay grade. The President had/has information that we do not have. That is why they are called national secrets in America's best interest.

No, he did not have such information. They manufactured the case to present to the public. That said, they did have a reasonable, in my opinion, concern that Iraq could have such weapons. But that's not the same as having evidence.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

so...Daniel Ellsberg got off easy, then, right?

Hard to say what would have happened had the government not FUBAR'ed the case.

that wasn't the question.

Yes, he got off easy.

And I think the country had a right to know when it's government is lying to it. Vietnam was a divisive war for Americans and made worse by the actions of multiple Presidents.

Quote

The Papers revealed that the U.S. had deliberately expanded its war with bombing of Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks, none of which had been reported by media in the US.[7] The most damaging revelations in the papers revealed that four administrations, from Truman to Johnson, had misled the public regarding their intentions. For example, the John F. Kennedy administration had planned to overthrow South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem before his death in a November 1963 coup. President Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising "we seek no wider war" during his 1964 presidential campaign,[3] including plans to bomb North Vietnam well before the 1964 Election. President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

.....and some others are supporting a low-life who is willing to place American lives in unnecessary danger on the world's stage.

for the fourth time:
No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done.

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

.....and some others are supporting a low-life who is willing to place American lives in unnecessary danger on the world's stage.

for the fourth time:
No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done.

That is because all clandestined and black ops assassinations are not publicized.

Policies and negotiations that benifit the US or whomever are not necessarily going to be publicized. Is it unreasonable that those negotiations have been damaged because of leaks?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

.....and some others are supporting a low-life who is willing to place American lives in unnecessary danger on the world's stage.

for the fourth time:
No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done.

That is because all clandestined and black ops assassinations are not publicized.

Policies and negotiations that benifit the US or whomever are not necessarily going to be publicized. Is it unreasonable that those negotiations have been damaged because of leaks?

No, it's because it's just not true. Even Gates has admitted as such.

Were it true, the soldier behind the release would be charged with murder, and the anti Wikileaks propaganda would trumpet it non stop.

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

.....and some others are supporting a low-life who is willing to place American lives in unnecessary danger on the world's stage.

for the fourth time:
No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done.

That is because all clandestined and black ops assassinations are not publicized.

Policies and negotiations that benifit the US or whomever are not necessarily going to be publicized. Is it unreasonable that those negotiations have been damaged because of leaks?

No, it's because it's just not true. Even Gates has admitted as such.

Were it true, the soldier behind the release would be charged with murder, and the anti Wikileaks propaganda would trumpet it non stop.

So you think that all other countrie's black ops are going to be known by Gates?

You REALLY think that there was no damage done to negotiations?

If a common citizen is upset by what was posted, what do you think an ambassador is thinking?

I'll tell you what . . . lets get all the Assange supporters to a Hold 'em tournement, ill randomly walk around and tell everyone at the table what one of the players has in thier hand.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Yes, a country has a right to know when its government is lying to the citizens.
Every war is decisive, some more than others.
Citizens do not have the right, or the need, to know the details of every negotiation made by the government as long as those negotiations arelegal and in the best interest of the people. In many cases the effectiveness of those negotiations is dependent upon secrecy.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yes, a country has a right to know when its government is lying to the citizens.

Yet you say that Ellsberg got off easy? Which is it?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So you think that all other countrie's black ops are going to be known by Gates?

You REALLY think that there was no damage done to negotiations?

I REALLY think that if there was more bad stuff that could be blamed on Assange, they wouldn't be holding onto it.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, a country has a right to know when its government is lying to the citizens.

Yet you say that Ellsberg got off easy? Which is it?

The government bungled the case from start to finish. He could have been convicted and served a lengthy sentence. Clear enough?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[wmw999 2,460]

Do you see a time when a government (or some people in it) might want to keep things secret that the public should know about?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Do you see a time when a government (or some people in it) might want to keep things secret that the public should know about?

Wendy P.

. . . and Assange is the person that not only has the right, but the authority and responsibility to determine what that level is, and determine who should be informed.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun