You've forgotten the KEY element of the argument(s):
They threw everything at the wall to see what would stick, moving from one argument to the next when they didn't play well. And when it's all over, no one can say "hey, that wasn't what you said!" because they actually tried a little bit of everything.
" The United States never cited Russian intelligence when it was making its case for the war and Putin said the information did not change his country's opposition to the war. "
"WANA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani security forces killed a top tribal warrior wanted for sheltering al Qaeda militants in an overnight swoop on his hideout in a remote region bordering Afghanistan, officials said Friday."
"WANA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani security forces killed a top tribal warrior wanted for sheltering al Qaeda militants in an overnight swoop on his hideout in a remote region bordering Afghanistan, officials said Friday."
This is the same Pakistan that founded the Taliban with Us blessing. right?
This is the same Pakistan that founded the Taliban with Us blessing. right?
Yes. This is the same Taliban that married AQ and is now perpetrating terrorist tactics inside Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is also the same Taliban that is being hunted by the US and it's allies.
Yes. This is the same Taliban that married AQ and is now perpetrating terrorist tactics inside Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is also the same Taliban that is being hunted by the US and it's allies.
okidoki, just found it kinda ironic how Pakistan suddenly turned into a good ally of the US in the holy WOT... You don't find that slightly problematic?
okidoki, just found it kinda ironic how Pakistan suddenly turned into a good ally of the US in the holy WOT... You don't find that slightly problematic?
Don't forget that Pakistan's current government came to power through a military coup.
The only thing that matters here really is did SH have WOMD shortly ( months ) before the war. Going back to 1998 ( the last century )isn't relevant in this particular matter. If he did that would be a different matter. Maybe if the Bush Administration had shared this " secret " evidence with these others at the time you might have a point. However SH had no WOMD at the time that's clear. There was no reason for this war.
Bush seems to like playing his cards close to his chest and bluffing. They were so sure that there was WOMD. Just like they still contend that there was a connection between 911 and Saddam. Which it's clear now there wasn't.
You're a riot. "The last century"!!! Well, excuse me!
First, while we have not found stockpiles of WMD, we have found chemicals and nerve agents...and the warhead that they could be delivered in. None of this was disclosed as it was required to be. We've also found evidence tht Iraq was trying to buy missle technology from North Korea. Hmmm...missles plus warheads plus chemicals=WMD threat, if you ask me.
There was no reason for this war? Bullshit. There was every reason. Violation of 17 UN resolutions. Firing on our aircraft. Genocide. Open hostility towards the US. A US public law calling for regime change. No...no reason at all.
This aspect of 9-11 is interesting; the wiring from Pakistan (ISI) of a large sum, $100,000+ to the man who went by the name "Mohamed Atta", the alleged leader of the hijack teams.
Quote:
We also looked at the links between the I.S.I, Pakistan, Mohamed Atta, and top U.S. government officials. Why was head of Pakistan's I.S.I., Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, the "money man behind 9-11," who had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta meeting with top U.S. officials from September 4th- the 13th? When we marched on our Senators demanding an investigation of 9-11, this was one of the questions we raised, only to have Bush and Cheney ask to have the Inquiry limited and overseen by the CI,A and the very men who breakfasted with Lt. Gen. Mahoud Ahmad, Pakistani's I.S.I. chief, on the morning of September 11th (Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham- headed the House/Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee which conducted the official Inquiry into 9-11)..... etc etc etc
extremely suspect stuff...and I bet that pathetic fiasco, AKA the 9-11 "inquiry" (yeah, right, as if) disallowed the ISI material from being discussed. They even refused to allow evidence from the firefighters, the people who were closest to the disaster from giving evidence....the guys who went up to the impact floors on both towers of the WTC on 9-11 to report that the fires were virtually out.
2. We needed to find stockpiles to make the excuse for this war viable.
3. We need to pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks unless we're in imimnent danger. Which it's clear now we weren't.
1. Lie.
2. That's your opinion. Is one chemical attack not enough?
3. Who is the "rest of the world"? France? Germany? And really...what are you implying...that we should take a poll of what other world leaders think before taking action? Maybe we should give them veto powers! Oh...wait...we have that. It's called the UN...and it's a splineless, corrupt, ineffective and anti-semetic joke of an organization.
2. We've found chemicals and warheads. No stockpiles...agreed.
3. Weak? Then why was it so important to win UN approval to invade? Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not?
You show your true willingness to believe that crumbs mean cake . . . but really they are feeding cracker bits:
1-- 'ties' are technically true in that there was a meeting between the two . . . we knew even then that nothing came of it.
By saying that there were ties you are admitting that taking the above mentioned meeting as satisfactory, and that that is all that you demand of your leaders: stretch minor half truths that are truly inconsequential into giant balloons worth waging war against a soveriegn country . . . that is sad
2-- A coupla old mortar shells etc, any other supposed and viable 'chemicals and warheads' are the fictions of ultra-right websites . . . same as #1 -- why can't you see how flimsy it all is?!?!
3-- Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not? If you think the UN is irrelevant then why go to war for breaking a UN agreement?
Firing on our aircrafts? . . .haha . . which would result in absolutely no damage, not even remotely . .. except when the American planes would proceed to obliterate the offending guns and gunners . . . and this was nothing new . . it had been going on for years and years hurting nobody but Iraq and Iraqi soldiers.
"Open hostility towards the US. A US public law calling for regime change." --are you serious? That's more absurd than green eggs and ham!!!
Comments
They threw everything at the wall to see what would stick, moving from one argument to the next when they didn't play well. And when it's all over, no one can say "hey, that wasn't what you said!" because they actually tried a little bit of everything.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBAR1NGMVD.html
Originally posted by NaplesX
This tends to support the admins reasons for war, no?
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBAR1NGMVD.html
Uh, no.
This is really vague and if it was a supporting reason it would be big news. Not just at some florida website.
Also why didn't we hear about this until now?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ror/index.html
But they seem to be drawing the same conclusions I am.
Also if true why was Russia one of the strongest critics of our invasion?
From the article :
-----------------------------------------------------------
" The United States never cited Russian intelligence when it was making its case for the war and Putin said the information did not change his country's opposition to the war. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jimmac
Uh, no.
This is really vague and if it was a supporting reason it would be big news. Not just at some florida website.
Also why didn't we hear about this until now?
Associated Press is just some florida website?
It is dated June 15th, no?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Associated Press is just some florida website?
It is dated June 15th, no?
Read above.....
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5457910
"WANA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani security forces killed a top tribal warrior wanted for sheltering al Qaeda militants in an overnight swoop on his hideout in a remote region bordering Afghanistan, officials said Friday."
Originally posted by NaplesX
More news on the WOT front:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5457910
"WANA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani security forces killed a top tribal warrior wanted for sheltering al Qaeda militants in an overnight swoop on his hideout in a remote region bordering Afghanistan, officials said Friday."
This is the same Pakistan that founded the Taliban with Us blessing. right?
Originally posted by New
This is the same Pakistan that founded the Taliban with Us blessing. right?
Yes. This is the same Taliban that married AQ and is now perpetrating terrorist tactics inside Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is also the same Taliban that is being hunted by the US and it's allies.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Yes. This is the same Taliban that married AQ and is now perpetrating terrorist tactics inside Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is also the same Taliban that is being hunted by the US and it's allies.
okidoki, just found it kinda ironic how Pakistan suddenly turned into a good ally of the US in the holy WOT... You don't find that slightly problematic?
Originally posted by New
okidoki, just found it kinda ironic how Pakistan suddenly turned into a good ally of the US in the holy WOT... You don't find that slightly problematic?
Don't forget that Pakistan's current government came to power through a military coup.
I already knew the truth about this so called " War On Terror.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ror/index.html
1. Ties to Al Quaeda - proved false (although most Americans probably still believe it)
2. Weapons of Mass destruction - ditto (ditto)
3. Violation of UN Resolutions - viewed by many as weak reason to invade, kill, bomb, overrun.
First, thanks for the earlier praise...but:
1. The ties have not been proven false.
2. We've found chemicals and warheads. No stockpiles...agreed.
3. Weak? Then why was it so important to win UN approval to invade? Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not?
Originally posted by SDW2001
1337_5L4Xx0R writes:
First, thanks for the earlier praise...but:
1. The ties have not been proven false.
2. We've found chemicals and warheads. No stockpiles...agreed.
3. Weak? Then why was it so important to win UN approval to invade? Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not?
1. There are no ties.
2. We needed to find stockpiles to make the excuse for this war viable.
3. We need to pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks unless we're in imimnent danger. Which it's clear now we weren't.
Originally posted by jimmac
SDW,
The only thing that matters here really is did SH have WOMD shortly ( months ) before the war. Going back to 1998 ( the last century )isn't relevant in this particular matter. If he did that would be a different matter. Maybe if the Bush Administration had shared this " secret " evidence with these others at the time you might have a point. However SH had no WOMD at the time that's clear. There was no reason for this war.
Bush seems to like playing his cards close to his chest and bluffing. They were so sure that there was WOMD. Just like they still contend that there was a connection between 911 and Saddam. Which it's clear now there wasn't.
You're a riot. "The last century"!!! Well, excuse me!
First, while we have not found stockpiles of WMD, we have found chemicals and nerve agents...and the warhead that they could be delivered in. None of this was disclosed as it was required to be. We've also found evidence tht Iraq was trying to buy missle technology from North Korea. Hmmm...missles plus warheads plus chemicals=WMD threat, if you ask me.
There was no reason for this war? Bullshit. There was every reason. Violation of 17 UN resolutions. Firing on our aircraft. Genocide. Open hostility towards the US. A US public law calling for regime change. No...no reason at all.
Originally posted by giant
Or that there is no dividing line between Pakistan's ISI and al-qaeda.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/01/inv.pakistan.funds/
and
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive....3eb610c8.html
This aspect of 9-11 is interesting; the wiring from Pakistan (ISI) of a large sum, $100,000+ to the man who went by the name "Mohamed Atta", the alleged leader of the hijack teams.
We also looked at the links between the I.S.I, Pakistan, Mohamed Atta, and top U.S. government officials. Why was head of Pakistan's I.S.I., Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, the "money man behind 9-11," who had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta meeting with top U.S. officials from September 4th- the 13th? When we marched on our Senators demanding an investigation of 9-11, this was one of the questions we raised, only to have Bush and Cheney ask to have the Inquiry limited and overseen by the CI,A and the very men who breakfasted with Lt. Gen. Mahoud Ahmad, Pakistani's I.S.I. chief, on the morning of September 11th (Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham- headed the House/Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee which conducted the official Inquiry into 9-11)..... etc etc etc
extremely suspect stuff...and I bet that pathetic fiasco, AKA the 9-11 "inquiry" (yeah, right, as if) disallowed the ISI material from being discussed. They even refused to allow evidence from the firefighters, the people who were closest to the disaster from giving evidence....the guys who went up to the impact floors on both towers of the WTC on 9-11 to report that the fires were virtually out.
Originally posted by jimmac
1. There are no ties.
2. We needed to find stockpiles to make the excuse for this war viable.
3. We need to pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks unless we're in imimnent danger. Which it's clear now we weren't.
1. Lie.
2. That's your opinion. Is one chemical attack not enough?
3. Who is the "rest of the world"? France? Germany? And really...what are you implying...that we should take a poll of what other world leaders think before taking action? Maybe we should give them veto powers! Oh...wait...we have that. It's called the UN...and it's a splineless, corrupt, ineffective and anti-semetic joke of an organization.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1337_5L4Xx0R writes:
First, thanks for the earlier praise...but:
1. The ties have not been proven false.
2. We've found chemicals and warheads. No stockpiles...agreed.
3. Weak? Then why was it so important to win UN approval to invade? Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not?
You show your true willingness to believe that crumbs mean cake . . . but really they are feeding cracker bits:
1-- 'ties' are technically true in that there was a meeting between the two . . . we knew even then that nothing came of it.
By saying that there were ties you are admitting that taking the above mentioned meeting as satisfactory, and that that is all that you demand of your leaders: stretch minor half truths that are truly inconsequential into giant balloons worth waging war against a soveriegn country . . . that is sad
2-- A coupla old mortar shells etc, any other supposed and viable 'chemicals and warheads' are the fictions of ultra-right websites . . . same as #1 -- why can't you see how flimsy it all is?!?!
3-- Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not? If you think the UN is irrelevant then why go to war for breaking a UN agreement?
Firing on our aircrafts? . . .haha . . which would result in absolutely no damage, not even remotely . .. except when the American planes would proceed to obliterate the offending guns and gunners . . . and this was nothing new . . it had been going on for years and years hurting nobody but Iraq and Iraqi soldiers.
"Open hostility towards the US. A US public law calling for regime change." --are you serious? That's more absurd than green eggs and ham!!!