Condoleezza Rice Says She's `Proud' of Decision to Invade Iraq

[OzmO]

Public information means little?  What else are you relying on the form you opinion?  You have friends in the CIA?      

  Some things are just a no-brainer.

I don't know.  What difference would that make?

What difference does 750 dead and 4000 wouldn't make to the world being safer?  Much less Israel?   

Israel isn't the world, but Israel is safer with Saddam gone.  Lybia, Iran, and and North Korea aren't the world either, but the world is a safer place if they don't have or try to develop WMDs.

Do you believe Iran and N. Korea aren't trying to develop nuclear weapons?

[OzmO]

So we have:

More death in and from Iraq.

Iran a bigger player and a threat to the USA

War potentially brewing with IRan

N Korea conducting missile tests and NOt allowing inspectors

Iran not allowing inspectors

Both they both publicly state they aren't pursuing nuclear weapons

and the largest terrorist strike on US soil

and I'm will to bet terrorist attacks are up in the aftermath of the Iraq war.

BUT!   Saddam is no longer giving money to the widowed families of suicide bombers so the world must be safer!

[Dos Equis]

  Some things are just a no-brainer.


What difference does 750 dead and 4000 wouldn't make to the world being safer?  Much less Israel?   

Do you believe Iran and N. Korea aren't trying to develop nuclear weapons?

Yes, some things are a no brainer.   

You asked the following question:  "was Saddam killing roughly 750 and wounding 4000+ Israelis a year?"  I don't know how many deaths in Israel Saddam was responsible for, but what difference does that make? 

I don't know if Iran and North Korea are trying to develop nuclear weapons.  If I had to guess, I'd say "yes," covertly.  What we've done is make it much harder for them to do so.   

[OzmO]

Yes, some things are a no brainer.   

You asked the following question:  "was Saddam killing roughly 750 and wounding 4000+ Israelis a year?"  I don't know how many deaths in Israel Saddam was responsible for, but what difference does that make?    

It makes a big difference.  750 & 4000/year wasn't happening before he was removed.  And the suicide bombings continued if not increase after his death.  On to of all of that, he wasn't responsible for the bombings.  he didn't decide, he didn'y direct, he only gave money to the widowed families.

I don't know if Iran and North Korea are trying to develop nuclear weapons.  If I had to guess, I'd say "yes," covertly.  What we've done is make it much harder for them to do so. 

Harder or easier makes no difference if they make em.  If we really wanted to make  "harder" be a difference then inspectors coud do that.   Is that happening?  No. 

So, N. Korea and Iran's alleged public capitulant behaviors mean little if you agree they are still pursuing nukes covertly.

Going into Iraq has created more danger for us (750-4000/year), more danger than Israel faced by Saddam giving widowed families money.  If Israel were losing 750-4000/year they'd have invaded Lebanon completely already after 1 month of "attacks" of that magnitude. 

So we removed a threat to israel by not giving widow families money and replaced it with 750-4000/year to the USA. 

Iran has been outwardly threatening Israel since.

Afghanistan is better off the way it is to the USA, but AQ still has a strong presence there.

Going back to the original "undisputed statements"

They mean little, maybe nothing in terms of supporting Rice's delusional idea that the BUSH presidency has made the world a safer place.

again......ROTFLMAO at her.

[Dos Equis]

It makes a big difference.  750 & 4000/year wasn't happening before he was removed.  And the suicide bombings continued if not increase after his death.  On to of all of that, he wasn't responsible for the bombings.  he didn't decide, he didn'y direct, he only gave money to the widowed families.

Harder or easier makes no difference if they make em.  If we really wanted to make  "harder" be a difference then inspectors coud do that.   Is that happening?  No. 

So, N. Korea and Iran's alleged public capitulant behaviors mean little if you agree they are still pursuing nukes covertly.

Going into Iraq has created more danger for us (750-4000/year), more danger than Israel faced by Saddam giving widowed families money.  If Israel were losing 750-4000/year they'd have invaded Lebanon completely already after 1 month of "attacks" of that magnitude. 

So we removed a threat to israel by not giving widow families money and replaced it with 750-4000/year to the USA. 

Iran has been outwardly threatening Israel since.

Afghanistan is better off the way it is to the USA, but AQ still has a strong presence there.

Going back to the original "undisputed statements"

They mean little, maybe nothing in terms of supporting Rice's delusional idea that the BUSH presidency has made the world a safer place.

again......ROTFLMAO at her.

We didn't replace the murders of innocent civilians in Israel with combat deaths in the war.  I never do the simplistic body count analysis.  It never makes any sense. 

Rather than just repeat what I've already said, let's say you think the world is a more dangerous place today than eight years ago and I believe it's a safer place. 

[OzmO]

We didn't replace the murders of innocent civilians in Israel with combat deaths in the war.  I never do the simplistic body count analysis.  It never makes any sense. 

You point was, Israel is a safer place because Saddam was removed.   The reasoning for this was that Saddam was paying widowed families of suicide bombers. 

We removed Saddam (in the interest of making the world a safer place becuase he had WMD's) and the suicide bombers didn't decrease, and the world became a more dangerous place to us as we started losing 750/4000 per year.   And on top of all of that Iran started making some serious threats to Israel and started supplying our enemy, the ones who mostly responsible for the 750/4000 per year.

Sorry, that point of yours goes nowhere.

Rather than just repeat what I've already said, let's say you think the world is a more dangerous place today than eight years ago and I believe it's a safer place. 

That's why we are having this discussion.   

[Dos Equis]

You point was, Israel is a safer place because Saddam was removed.   The reasoning for this was that Saddam was paying widowed families of suicide bombers. 

We removed Saddam (in the interest of making the world a safer place becuase he had WMD's) and the suicide bombers didn't decrease, and the world became a more dangerous place to us as we started losing 750/4000 per year.   And on top of all of that Iran started making some serious threats to Israel and started supplying our enemy, the ones who mostly responsible for the 750/4000 per year.

Sorry, that point of yours goes nowhere.

That's why we are having this discussion.   

My point was Saddam was sponsoring terrorism in Israel, which facilitated the deaths of innocent men, women, and children.  His lack of sponsorship has made Israel a safer place.  You disagree and believe we “replaced” saved lives in Israel with American war dead and wounded.  That makes no sense. 

I also mentioned Afghanistan hosting Al Qaeda, Lybia, North Korea, and Iran.  You believe there has been no improvement with those countries.  I disagree.

It really doesn't matter to me if you think my point goes nowhere.  I'm fairly comfortable with my position.  And besides, Condi Rice agrees with me.   

But this horse is about dead . . . . 

[OzmO]

My point was Saddam was sponsoring terrorism in Israel, which facilitated the deaths of innocent men, women, and children.  His lack of sponsorship has made Israel a safer place.  You disagree and believe we “replaced” saved lives in Israel with American war dead and wounded.  That makes no sense. 

Getting rid of one threat that results in a greater threat with more kills?  Makes all the sense in the world even if you just use basic math.

I also mentioned Afghanistan hosting Al Qaeda, Lybia, North Korea, and Iran.  You believe there has been no improvement with those countries.  I disagree.

Libya = yes
Afghanistan = yes, but qualified.
N. Korea & Iran, you believe that they are likely covertly pursuing nukes, but because of their public stance they less a threat?  That makes no sense. 

It really doesn't matter to me if you think my point goes nowhere.  I'm fairly comfortable with my position.  And besides, Condi Rice agrees with me.

As it should, because Condi's statements are designed to appeal to BUSH supporters.  After all, she works for him. 

But this horse is about dead . . . . 

It's dead becuase your postiion has been shown to be quite weak.  Therefore it's best for you to declare it's passing.   

[Dos Equis]

Getting rid of one threat that results in a greater threat with more kills?  Makes all the sense in the world even if you just use basic math.

Libya = yes
Afghanistan = yes, but qualified.
N. Korea & Iran, you believe that they are likely covertly pursuing nukes, but because of their public stance they less a threat?  That makes no sense. 
As it should, because Condi's statements are designed to appeal to BUSH supporters.  After all, she works for him. 

It's dead becuase your postiion has been shown to be quite weak.  Therefore it's best for you to declare it's passing.   

I never use basic math when talking about dead people.  That's what makes no sense to me. 

Makes perfect sense to me that making it harder for dangerous countries to obtain WMDs makes us safer.  I really can't even debate that one.  It's too obvious. 

IMO, an exchange becomes a dead horse when both sides start repeating the same thing.  Happens with Decker and me a lot.    

Plus I don’t need the last word.  If I have nothing to add other than what I’ve already said, then I’ll usually just shut up. 

[OzmO]

The government used to publish a report every year called Patterns on Global Terrorism which listed very detailed info the acts of terrorism from the prior year.  Some may recall that in the 2003 report it was alleged that the State Department "cooked the books" to show a decline in terroris when in fact it was at the highest level yet (at that time).  The next year they changed the name to Country Reports on Terrorism and didn't include any numbers at all

So, how exactly can we measure whether the  The War on Terror (aka TWAT) is a success?

How about the first front in TWAT?  Last month  we had the most casualties in Afghanistan since the war started.  There was a massive jail break about a month ago and then a few days later stories of the Taliban taking over cities.

Pakistan actually has nuclear weapons, their government is a cluster fuck and they seem to allow al queda to have a safe haven in certain areas.

So far Iran has been the big winner in TWAT.   We were kind enough to take out their main enemy and they got to just sit back and watch.

When Bush goes to Iraq he has to fly in during the middle of the nights with all the lights turned off on the plane.

When the nutty prez of Iran visits he shows up in broad daylight and it met with a red carpet and a band. 

the old report
Patterns on Global Terrorism:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Global_Terrorism

the new Bush State Department Report - sans those pesky numbers
Country Reports on Terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_Reports_on_Terrorism

You should really quit using facts.  It's doesn't become the drone in you.

[Straw Man]

whoops - I meant to modify and I accidently deleted
------
The government used to publish a report every year called Patterns on Global Terrorism which listed very detailed info the acts of terrorism from the prior year.  Some may recall that in the 2003 report it was alleged that the State Department "cooked the books" to show a decline in terroris when in fact it was at the highest level yet (at that time).  The next year they changed the name to Country Reports on Terrorism and didn't include any numbers at all

So, how exactly can we measure whether the  The War Against Terror (aka TWAT) is a success?

How about the first front in TWAT?  Last month  we had the most casualties in Afghanistan since the war started.  There was a massive jail break about a month ago and then a few days later stories of the Taliban taking over cities.

Pakistan actually has nuclear weapons, their government is a cluster fuck and they seem to allow al queda to have a safe haven in certain areas.

So far Iran has been the big winner in TWAT.   We were kind enough to take out their main enemy and they got to just sit back and watch.

When Bush goes to Iraq he has to fly in during the middle of the nights with all the lights turned off on the plane.

When the nutty prez of Iran visits he shows up in broad daylight and it met with a red carpet and a band. 

the old report
Patterns on Global Terrorism:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Global_Terrorism

the new Bush State Department Report - sans those pesky numbers
Country Reports on Terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_Reports_on_Terrorism

[OzmO]

I never use basic math when talking about dead people.  That's what makes no sense to me. 

So seeing that less people died as a result of a course of action versus much more people dying as a result of a related course of action.

Good point.   That way you don't have to deal with any accountability.   

Makes perfect sense to me that making it harder for dangerous countries to obtain WMDs makes us safer.  I really can't even debate that one.  It's too obvious. 

2 issues that make that point moot.

1.  If making it harder prevents them from obtaining the inevitable then it would be significant. 

2.  Anything outside of direct unfettered access by inspectors makes anything you wold use to support their cooperation/submission completely irrelevant. 

[Dos Equis]

So seeing that less people died as a result of a course of action versus much more people dying as a result of a related course of action.

Good point.   That way you don't have to deal with any accountability.   
2 issues that make that point moot.

1.  If making it harder prevents them from obtaining the inevitable then it would be significant. 

2.  Anything outside of direct unfettered access by inspectors makes anything you wold use to support their cooperation/submission completely irrelevant. 

Regarding Iran and North Korea, I completely disagree.  I view this similarly to law enforcement efforts.  Putting cops on the streets doesn't prevent criminals from breaking the law, but it makes it more difficult for them to do so, which helps make the streets safer.  Using your analysis, we would have to completely wipe out crime to consider the streets safer. 

We won't know if we have completely prevented Iran from developing WMDs, but our efforts to stop them, or at least slow them down, makes it safer for everyone.   

[Hugo Chavez]

She's right about the world being a safer place since Dubya took office.  Saddam and his sons are dead.  North Korea has caved.  Iran is trying to prove it isn't developing nuclear weapons.  Libya fell in line.  Afghanistan no longer plays host to Al Qaeda.   

LOL... NOT.... stats show increases in the numbers of radical groups and number of attacks. I don't know what you think is safer about it.

[Dos Equis]

LOL... NOT.... stats show increases in the numbers of radical groups and number of attacks. I don't know what you think is safer about it.

Go back and review my comments in the thread.  I don’t expect you to agree, but my rationale is explained (more than once).   

Increased number of radical groups and increased attacks, if true, are only part of the analysis.   

[OzmO]

Regarding Iran and North Korea, I completely disagree.  I view this similarly to law enforcement efforts.  Putting cops on the streets doesn't prevent criminals from breaking the law, but it makes it more difficult for them to do so, which helps make the streets safer.  Using your analysis, we would have to completely wipe out crime to consider the streets safer. 

We won't know if we have completely prevented Iran from developing WMDs, but our efforts to stop them, or at least slow them down, makes it safer for everyone.   

How do you know what we've done is even slowing them down or making it more difficult?  do you work for the CIA?   

[OzmO]

Go back and review my comments in the thread.  I don’t expect you to agree, but my rationale is explained (more than once).   

Increased number of radical groups and increased attacks, if true, are only part of the analysis.   

It seems to me that the part that causes death and violence are the biggest part of any analysis if you are looking to see if the world is safer. 

Unless of course you just want to limit your spectrum like not doing simplistic body counts so you can make your point make sense.

Yeah, the park down the street is much safer since BUSH so the world is safer also.   

[Dos Equis]

How do you know what we've done is even slowing them down or making it more difficult?  do you work for the CIA?   

Nah.  I read the news.   

[Dos Equis]

It seems to me that the part that causes death and violence are the biggest part of any analysis if you are looking to see if the world is safer. 

Unless of course you just want to limit your spectrum like not doing simplistic body counts so you can make your point make sense.

Yeah, the park down the street is much safer since BUSH so the world is safer also.   

The threat of use of nuclear weapons is about as big of a threat as you can get. 

Bush has very little to do with local policing, but we are all safer because of the war on terror.  Afghanistan no longer serves as an unencumbered host for terrorists planning attacks on American soil.   

[a_joker10]

the old report
Patterns on Global Terrorism:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Global_Terrorism

the new Bush State Department Report - sans those pesky numbers
Country Reports on Terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_Reports_on_Terrorism

The over lying aspect of this report is that most attacks are in side of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Where the attacks are used as a method of war.
For example A car bomb going off at a police station is both a terrorist attack and a military strike, depending on which side you are on.

There have only been a few major attacks in the US.
Oklahoma City.
the  WTC bombing
9-11.

In Europe,
Basque attacks
Spanish train bombing
UK attack
Moscow

The major Al Qaeda attacks on countries outside of the Muslim Crescent has dissipated since Al Qaeda decided to fight the US and coalition in Iraq.

This has quite a bit to do with Bush's strategies including your hated patriot act and interrogation's at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

[Straw Man]

The over lying aspect of this report is that most attacks are in side of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Where the attacks are used as a method of war.
For example A car bomb going off at a police station is both a terrorist attack and a military strike, depending on which side you are on.

There have only been a few major attacks in the US.
Oklahoma City.
the  WTC bombing
9-11.

In Europe,
Basque attacks
Spanish train bombing
UK attack
Moscow

The major Al Qaeda attacks on countries outside of the Muslim Crescent has dissipated since Al Qaeda decided to fight the US and coalition in Iraq.

This has quite a bit to do with Bush's strategies including your hated patriot act and interrogation's at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

Don't forget Pakistan - you know the place where we allow Al Queda to hide

btw - I was with you all the way until your last sentence.

There's absolutely no proof to support your last statement

[Straw Man]

More Suicide Bombers, New Tactics, More Victims
U.S. Has Bad News on Terror War
By JONATHAN KARL and KIRIT RADIA
WASHINGTON, April 30, 2008—


Are we winning? Looking at the just-released State Department report on terrorism, the answer appears to be "no."

The number of terror victims killed or injured is on the rise worldwide, according to the report, and al Qaeda's senior leadership has restored some of its control over the terror group's operations, and increased its mobility and ability to plan attacks.

Most dramatically, there was a 50 percent increase worldwide in suicide bombings last year. All told, 66,995 people were killed or wounded in terror attacks in 2007 (up from 59,327 in 2006 and 39,469 in 2005).

Some key figures:

- Iraq was the country most heavily hit by suicide bombings, accounting for 45 percent of the attacks and 60 percent of the victims.

- The number of attacks in Pakistan doubled, and injuries and fatalities in Pakistan quadrupled.

- Well over 50 percent of those killed or injured in terror attacks were Muslims.

- 2,400 children were killed or injured in 2007 by suicide attacks, an increase of 25 percent.

- Algeria and Thailand also saw big increases in the number of terror victims.

"Around the globe people are getting increasingly efficient at killing other people," said Russ Travers of the National Counterterrorism Center, which compiled the data for the report. One factor contributing the increased lethality of terror attacks: increased use of backpacks by suicide bombers that are easier to sneak into crowded areas.

The report says al Qaeda "and associated networks" remain "the greatest threat to the United States and its partners." That threat increased last year because al Qaeda's senior leaders had "greater mobility and ability to conduct training and operational planning, particularly that targeting Western Europe and the United States."

Officials also blame al Qaeda's ability to operate in Pakistan's lawless tribal regions has allowed the terror network to reconstitute itself and plan attacks elsewhere.

Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, restored some of his control over al Qaeda last year. Bin Laden remained the group's "ideological figurehead," but "Zawahiri has emerged as AQ's strategic and operational planner," according to the report.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4756556
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

[a_joker10]

I know its how I feel.
Tracking terrorism or other effects of these policies is impossible.

I do know that the integrations have led to quite a bit of information being handed to the US government, if this has reduced attacks its hard to know. Especially since the government, with good reason, will not let us know.

Pakistan will have a major US presence before Iran does, IMO, The tribal regions will have to be dealt with sooner then later.

[Straw Man]

I know its how I feel.
Tracking terrorism or other effects of these policies is impossible.

I do know that the integrations have led to quite a bit of information being handed to the US government, if this has reduced attacks its hard to know. Especially since the government, with good reason, will not let us know.

Pakistan will have a major US presence before Iran does, IMO, The tribal regions will have to be dealt with sooner then later.

I think some conflict with Pakistan  (rather within their borders but not necessarily against the country)  is inevitable.  The only problem is, how many more fronts in TWAT can we open up until we button up the ones we already have?

[OneBigMan]

I still have a significant amount of respect for Ms.Condoleezza Rice despite her saying how proud she is of the decision to invade Iraq as well as the rest of the middle east. Condoleeza Rice is probably one of the brightest and smartest minorities among all african-americans. I'm sure she has the BRAINS that most people from her ethnic background didn't have the talent to be born with.

I don't believe in disliking a public figure in the political arena only because of his or her beliefs in implementing policies that work or fail since second-guessing doesn't count in reality to change what has already happened in the first place.