It really seems like you are getting desperate to play with words like this.......
2. No it's not enough. Where was this giant arsenal that could threaten us when we got there? It would have to be an arsenal that could threaten us more than any other country that has a few missles and so on to make this viable.
3. It's seems like you are getting confused again. You mention the 911 attack in a paragraph about Iraq.
You really have to stop thinking like you're in the 18th century. We really do have to consider other opinions in this matter or we'll become isolated. A country isolated will wither and die in this world economy. Even the chinese know this.
You mean this?
Quote:
WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found ?no credible evidence? of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida[b] in attacks against the United States.[b]
But of course, the ABB crowd has perverted this to mean that there were no ties to Iraq and Al-Qaeda. My god..it's in the first paragraph, jimmac. Please read more than just what would seem to support your Bush hatred.
Read carefully: Chemicals such as Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found. Warheads have been found. Iraq was trying to buy missile technology from North Korea. In fact, Iraq POSESSED longer range missles than wera llowed by UN resolutions. Iraq had a hatred for the US. Iraq had tried to assasinate a former President, and openly praised the 9/11 attacks. Iraq fired on our aircraft. According to your logic though, one or two chemical warheads launched against the US or Israel would not be enough. How many would be enough? 5? 10? 100?
As for the 9/11 attack and Iraq, you really need to go back and read what I posted. I said that the 9/11 attack changed the way we percieve threats and deal with them. Iraq was one of these threats. On Setember 10th 2001, we didn't need to look at threats like Saddam's Iraq the way we need to now. That was the clear intent of my posts on the topic, though you (as usual) feel it necessary to twist these words and turn them into a personal attack. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.
The Logic is simple: the 'ties' in question are as flimsy as the ties that relate the US to Iraq . . . in fact, they are flimsier as our 'ties' involved Huge amounts of money and armorments while Saddam was KILLING his own people and was fighting a horrendous war of Attrition against Iran: which killed hundreds of thousands.
(note: that war was not one against communism)
and another note : that war was against Iran: Iran, a country which our administration then dealt arms to in illegal and immoral and secret arms-for-cash deals . . . remember that . . .no 'I can't recall'
Plus note: Iran, a country that turned to Fundamentalism in order to overthrow a completely corrupt and abusive and thouroughly decadent regime (the Shah's regime) that came into power through the aid of the CIA
The fact that the administration is puppetting these flimsiest of ties on stage in the same paragraph, or even the same sentence with 911 is the most bald-faced sort of disinformation* possible: admit it!! it is sickeningly obvious and yet the arse-liskers here refuse to acknowledge . . .
SDW used the phrase 'intellectual dishonesty' . . . he likes to pose with such nice sounding phrases, however, the thought of actually applying such 'principled' ideas never seems to enter his skull . . . nor apparently yours
*'disinformation' = part truth but formally and in content mostly misleading, utilizing the half-truth as a means to mislead
I'll say this for you...you're good at using a lot of words to make no point whatsoever. We once supported Saddam. Well, no shit pfflam! What would you like to do about that? At the time we saw Iran and the greater of two evils. Perhaps it was a mistake...but I don't see the relevance to today's discussion.
But of course, the ABB crowd has perverted this to mean that there were no ties to Iraq and Al-Qaeda. My god..it's in the first paragraph, jimmac. Please read more than just what would seem to support your Bush hatred.
Read carefully: Chemicals such as Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found. Warheads have been found. Iraq was trying to buy missile technology from North Korea. In fact, Iraq POSESSED longer range missles than wera llowed by UN resolutions. Iraq had a hatred for the US. Iraq had tried to assasinate a former President, and openly praised the 9/11 attacks. Iraq fired on our aircraft. According to your logic though, one or two chemical warheads launched against the US or Israel would not be enough. How many would be enough? 5? 10? 100?
As for the 9/11 attack and Iraq, you really need to go back and read what I posted. I said that the 9/11 attack changed the way we percieve threats and deal with them. Iraq was one of these threats. On Setember 10th 2001, we didn't need to look at threats like Saddam's Iraq the way we need to now. That was the clear intent of my posts on the topic, though you (as usual) feel it necessary to twist these words and turn them into a personal attack. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.
With this kind of argumentation, almost every country on earth is a possible threath to the US... Even Micronesia. (Hey, there's got to be atleast 11 people there that dislike the US. And they probably have access to paper-cutters!!!)
question directed towards those who support the iraq war:
knowing what you know now, do you believe that starting a war in Iraq after 9-11 was the MOST EFFECTIVE way to root out the sort of terrorism that resulted in the WTC attacks? Or would you have preferred focusing our efforts on countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?
note that i am not asking if the Iraq war was justified, but if it was the best route to fighting a war on terror.
I'll say this for you...you're good at using a lot of words to make no point whatsoever. We once supported Saddam. Well, no shit pfflam! What would you like to do about that? At the time we saw Iran and the greater of two evils. Perhaps it was a mistake...but I don't see the relevance to today's discussion.
You simply don't get it: the point was to show the 'no shit' nature of the 'ties' that are supposedly enough for an invasion.
If you call the Iraq/AQ ties viable and enough then the ties with Iraq and the US should be considered as absolutely incriminating.
The nature of the ties are NIL, they are bogus non-entities!!
It is like this: because George Bush clowned around with his brother's kids at a wedding it is now legitimate to call George Bush a 'Clown'? . . . not false, but not true either.
Because some gov functionary had a meeting with a member of AQ at the behest of the Sudanese Gov we can now say that AQ and Iraq 'had ties' and use that supposed 'tie' in sentences and paragraphs with 911 and imply the tie continues there? and therefor invade another country?
You are holding on to straws that are as thin as whisps . . .
No, I don't. Saying that people are tied together by bloodlust is ignorant and stupid. "Common goals" I can accept. Bloodlust? sounds very close to racist.
No, I don't. Saying that people are tied together by bloodlust is ignorant and stupid. "Common goals" I can accept. Bloodlust? sounds very close to racist.
You simply don't get it: the point was to show the 'no shit' nature of the 'ties' that are supposedly enough for an invasion.
If you call the Iraq/AQ ties viable and enough then the ties with Iraq and the US should be considered as absolutely incriminating.
The nature of the ties are NIL, they are bogus non-entities!!
It is like this: because George Bush clowned around with his brother's kids at a wedding it is now legitimate to call George Bush a 'Clown'? . . . not false, but not true either.
Because some gov functionary had a meeting with a member of AQ at the behest of the Sudanese Gov we can now say that AQ and Iraq 'had ties' and use that supposed 'tie' in sentences and paragraphs with 911 and imply the tie continues there? and therefor invade another country?
You are holding on to straws that are as thin as whisps . . .
Ok.
If these are mundane ties between SH and terrorist groups, one of which is AQ, what were they doing?
What are SH, a professed enemy of the US and AQ, professed enemy of the US doing in these meetings? Who were the terrorist training camps in Iraq set up for, the training to be used against who?
Putin's revelation that SH was planning to attack US soil, is this not considered a threat anymore?
If you can come up with some answers that are reasonable, you might have an argument.
BTW, let us see these massive piles of found chemical weapons . . . I mean, any that are not old enough to have been virtually useless and in quantities that are not idiotically small . . certainly not nearly large enough for an invasion
and let's see this N Korea purchase order . . . from somewhere other than neoconsRus.com that is
BTWBTW: why are we now working WITH N Korea? isn't that the tactic that all the Neo-cons consistently and constantly gave Clinton shit for?
Hmmm?!?!
Maybe its because our stupid-ass bomb-first attitude has proven itself worthy of microcephalic neanderthals.
If these are mundane ties between SH and terrorist groups, one of which is AQ, what were they doing?
What are SH, a professed enemy of the US and AQ, professed enemy of the US doing in these meetings? Who were the terrorist training camps in Iraq set up for, the training to be used against who?
Putin's revelation that SH was planning to attack US soil, is this not considered a threat anymore?
If you can come up with some answers that are reasonable, you might have an argument.
The meetings showed the incompatibility of a secular dictator and a religious fanaticism, that's all, and that's been known . . . it was all, its over . . .
a meeting is not enough to invade, and is not relatable to 911 . . . but that has not stopped the falsifying rhetoric from flowing.
Putin? We either trust Russia or we don't. Let's have it.
They didn't think the reasons for going to war were enough to go to war . . .
Are their intelligence agencies any good?
Is Putin making shit up to endear himself to Bush?
Let's see the 'plans' . . . and let's understand why, if they are true and relevant beyond 'Hussain hated the US' then why wasn't it enough to justify going to war in Putin's eyes.
Is there a benefit in relation to Chechnia and any future Russian plans to have a sudden warm-feelings for all-out invasions?
Besides, these so called 'plans' are not a collaborative relationship to AQ . . . even if they are real or anything worth mentioning.
Putin's revelation that SH was planning to attack US soil, is this not considered a threat anymore?
Whatever happened to russia's iraq policy being led by business interests? Whatever happened to all of the accusations of russia spying for saddam? All of a sudden putin has a "revelation" that feeds your political fantasies and all is forgiven?
Of course, note this buried at the end of one article on putin's statements:
Quote:
Some Russian political analysts said Friday that, although Putin may have given the U.S. information about Iraqi terrorist plots, he was probably disclosing it now to boost Bush's chances for reelection.
"It's apparent that Russians and President Putin are interested in a second term for Bush," said Liliya Shevtsova of the Carnegie Moscow Center. "We've always had good relations with Republicans. We dislike Democrats, because Democrats always care about democracy in Russia."
Some analysts say the controversy over Bush's policies in the Middle East is distracting Europe from Putin's increasing authoritarianism and human rights abuses in Chechnya.
"Once [presumed Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry comes to power, the U.S. and Europe will most likely engage in a new honeymoon ? and it means they may jointly turn their attention back to Russia," Belkovsky said. "Thus the Kremlin is interested in seeing the Republicans cling to power, despite all the differences on many issues between Putin and Bush."
You simply don't get it: the point was to show the 'no shit' nature of the 'ties' that are supposedly enough for an invasion.
If you call the Iraq/AQ ties viable and enough then the ties with Iraq and the US should be considered as absolutely incriminating.
The nature of the ties are NIL, they are bogus non-entities!!
It is like this: because George Bush clowned around with his brother's kids at a wedding it is now legitimate to call George Bush a 'Clown'? . . . not false, but not true either.
Because some gov functionary had a meeting with a member of AQ at the behest of the Sudanese Gov we can now say that AQ and Iraq 'had ties' and use that supposed 'tie' in sentences and paragraphs with 911 and imply the tie continues there? and therefor invade another country?
You are holding on to straws that are as thin as whisps . . .
Your argument essentially is that the ties were not sufficient to warrant invasion.
Pre-9/11, I might have agreed. However, we know there was at least some relationship. Given that we also know Saddam was violating WMD-related UN resolutions all over the place, and that was a widespread belief that he had functioning weapons and was seeking to aquire more, that he was a sworn enemy of the United States, that he took provocative action against our aircraft on a daily basis, that he sought some sort of alliance with North Korea, we could not afford to take the risk.
Are you saying we should have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt on this one? Are you serious?
This war was justified from so many different angles. Bush's mistake was to focus too heavily on the WMD aspect. There were many, many others...including establishing Democracy in the middle east..which in tself will lead to more stable and prosperous nations...which will in turn prevent future terrorism.
BTW, let us see these massive piles of found chemical weapons . . . I mean, any that are not old enough to have been virtually useless and in quantities that are not idiotically small . . certainly not nearly large enough for an invasion
and let's see this N Korea purchase order . . . from somewhere other than neoconsRus.com that is
BTWBTW: why are we now working WITH N Korea? isn't that the tactic that all the Neo-cons consistently and constantly gave Clinton shit for?
Hmmm?!?!
Maybe its because our stupid-ass bomb-first attitude has proven itself worthy of microcephalic neanderthals.
OMFG. What would you like to do? Invade NK? Now hold on...I thought you weren't in support of that approach. It's quite obvious that no matter what approach the Bush administration takes, you won't support it...even if it's your beloved "multi-lateral negotiation", which is exactly what we're doing with NK.
But of course, the ABB crowd has perverted this to mean that there were no ties to Iraq and Al-Qaeda. My god..it's in the first paragraph, jimmac. Please read more than just what would seem to support your Bush hatred.
Read carefully: Chemicals such as Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found. Warheads have been found. Iraq was trying to buy missile technology from North Korea. In fact, Iraq POSESSED longer range missles than wera llowed by UN resolutions. Iraq had a hatred for the US. Iraq had tried to assasinate a former President, and openly praised the 9/11 attacks. Iraq fired on our aircraft. According to your logic though, one or two chemical warheads launched against the US or Israel would not be enough. How many would be enough? 5? 10? 100?
As for the 9/11 attack and Iraq, you really need to go back and read what I posted. I said that the 9/11 attack changed the way we percieve threats and deal with them. Iraq was one of these threats. On Setember 10th 2001, we didn't need to look at threats like Saddam's Iraq the way we need to now. That was the clear intent of my posts on the topic, though you (as usual) feel it necessary to twist these words and turn them into a personal attack. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.
All of the above while still illustrating that Saddam wasn't a nice person and didn't like us ( as there are many such individuals in the world ) is still a weak case ( at best ) for war.
What was the range of the said missles that Iraq had. If they couldn't reach the continental U.S. it negates your argument.
Tried to assasinate a former president? Remind me please.
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
1. Uh, SDW read the title of this artcle :
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932
It's the only kind of link that would matter.
It really seems like you are getting desperate to play with words like this.......
2. No it's not enough. Where was this giant arsenal that could threaten us when we got there? It would have to be an arsenal that could threaten us more than any other country that has a few missles and so on to make this viable.
3. It's seems like you are getting confused again. You mention the 911 attack in a paragraph about Iraq.
You really have to stop thinking like you're in the 18th century. We really do have to consider other opinions in this matter or we'll become isolated. A country isolated will wither and die in this world economy. Even the chinese know this.
You mean this?
WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found ?no credible evidence? of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida[b] in attacks against the United States.[b]
But of course, the ABB crowd has perverted this to mean that there were no ties to Iraq and Al-Qaeda. My god..it's in the first paragraph, jimmac. Please read more than just what would seem to support your Bush hatred.
Read carefully: Chemicals such as Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found. Warheads have been found. Iraq was trying to buy missile technology from North Korea. In fact, Iraq POSESSED longer range missles than wera llowed by UN resolutions. Iraq had a hatred for the US. Iraq had tried to assasinate a former President, and openly praised the 9/11 attacks. Iraq fired on our aircraft. According to your logic though, one or two chemical warheads launched against the US or Israel would not be enough. How many would be enough? 5? 10? 100?
As for the 9/11 attack and Iraq, you really need to go back and read what I posted. I said that the 9/11 attack changed the way we percieve threats and deal with them. Iraq was one of these threats. On Setember 10th 2001, we didn't need to look at threats like Saddam's Iraq the way we need to now. That was the clear intent of my posts on the topic, though you (as usual) feel it necessary to twist these words and turn them into a personal attack. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.
Originally posted by pfflam
No
The Logic is simple: the 'ties' in question are as flimsy as the ties that relate the US to Iraq . . . in fact, they are flimsier as our 'ties' involved Huge amounts of money and armorments while Saddam was KILLING his own people and was fighting a horrendous war of Attrition against Iran: which killed hundreds of thousands.
(note: that war was not one against communism)
and another note : that war was against Iran: Iran, a country which our administration then dealt arms to in illegal and immoral and secret arms-for-cash deals . . . remember that . . .no 'I can't recall'
Plus note: Iran, a country that turned to Fundamentalism in order to overthrow a completely corrupt and abusive and thouroughly decadent regime (the Shah's regime) that came into power through the aid of the CIA
The fact that the administration is puppetting these flimsiest of ties on stage in the same paragraph, or even the same sentence with 911 is the most bald-faced sort of disinformation* possible: admit it!! it is sickeningly obvious and yet the arse-liskers here refuse to acknowledge . . .
SDW used the phrase 'intellectual dishonesty' . . . he likes to pose with such nice sounding phrases, however, the thought of actually applying such 'principled' ideas never seems to enter his skull . . . nor apparently yours
*'disinformation' = part truth but formally and in content mostly misleading, utilizing the half-truth as a means to mislead
I'll say this for you...you're good at using a lot of words to make no point whatsoever. We once supported Saddam. Well, no shit pfflam! What would you like to do about that? At the time we saw Iran and the greater of two evils. Perhaps it was a mistake...but I don't see the relevance to today's discussion.
Originally posted by New
These people? Who exactly? What other entities?
Stop being a troll. You know what he meant.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You mean this?
But of course, the ABB crowd has perverted this to mean that there were no ties to Iraq and Al-Qaeda. My god..it's in the first paragraph, jimmac. Please read more than just what would seem to support your Bush hatred.
Read carefully: Chemicals such as Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found. Warheads have been found. Iraq was trying to buy missile technology from North Korea. In fact, Iraq POSESSED longer range missles than wera llowed by UN resolutions. Iraq had a hatred for the US. Iraq had tried to assasinate a former President, and openly praised the 9/11 attacks. Iraq fired on our aircraft. According to your logic though, one or two chemical warheads launched against the US or Israel would not be enough. How many would be enough? 5? 10? 100?
As for the 9/11 attack and Iraq, you really need to go back and read what I posted. I said that the 9/11 attack changed the way we percieve threats and deal with them. Iraq was one of these threats. On Setember 10th 2001, we didn't need to look at threats like Saddam's Iraq the way we need to now. That was the clear intent of my posts on the topic, though you (as usual) feel it necessary to twist these words and turn them into a personal attack. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.
With this kind of argumentation, almost every country on earth is a possible threath to the US... Even Micronesia. (Hey, there's got to be atleast 11 people there that dislike the US. And they probably have access to paper-cutters!!!)
knowing what you know now, do you believe that starting a war in Iraq after 9-11 was the MOST EFFECTIVE way to root out the sort of terrorism that resulted in the WTC attacks? Or would you have preferred focusing our efforts on countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?
note that i am not asking if the Iraq war was justified, but if it was the best route to fighting a war on terror.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'll say this for you...you're good at using a lot of words to make no point whatsoever. We once supported Saddam. Well, no shit pfflam! What would you like to do about that? At the time we saw Iran and the greater of two evils. Perhaps it was a mistake...but I don't see the relevance to today's discussion.
You simply don't get it: the point was to show the 'no shit' nature of the 'ties' that are supposedly enough for an invasion.
If you call the Iraq/AQ ties viable and enough then the ties with Iraq and the US should be considered as absolutely incriminating.
The nature of the ties are NIL, they are bogus non-entities!!
It is like this: because George Bush clowned around with his brother's kids at a wedding it is now legitimate to call George Bush a 'Clown'? . . . not false, but not true either.
Because some gov functionary had a meeting with a member of AQ at the behest of the Sudanese Gov we can now say that AQ and Iraq 'had ties' and use that supposed 'tie' in sentences and paragraphs with 911 and imply the tie continues there? and therefor invade another country?
You are holding on to straws that are as thin as whisps . . .
Originally posted by SDW2001
Stop being a troll. You know what he meant.
No, I don't. Saying that people are tied together by bloodlust is ignorant and stupid. "Common goals" I can accept. Bloodlust? sounds very close to racist.
Originally posted by New
No, I don't. Saying that people are tied together by bloodlust is ignorant and stupid. "Common goals" I can accept. Bloodlust? sounds very close to racist.
Not unless you want it to be racist.
Originally posted by pfflam
You simply don't get it: the point was to show the 'no shit' nature of the 'ties' that are supposedly enough for an invasion.
If you call the Iraq/AQ ties viable and enough then the ties with Iraq and the US should be considered as absolutely incriminating.
The nature of the ties are NIL, they are bogus non-entities!!
It is like this: because George Bush clowned around with his brother's kids at a wedding it is now legitimate to call George Bush a 'Clown'? . . . not false, but not true either.
Because some gov functionary had a meeting with a member of AQ at the behest of the Sudanese Gov we can now say that AQ and Iraq 'had ties' and use that supposed 'tie' in sentences and paragraphs with 911 and imply the tie continues there? and therefor invade another country?
You are holding on to straws that are as thin as whisps . . .
Ok.
If these are mundane ties between SH and terrorist groups, one of which is AQ, what were they doing?
What are SH, a professed enemy of the US and AQ, professed enemy of the US doing in these meetings? Who were the terrorist training camps in Iraq set up for, the training to be used against who?
Putin's revelation that SH was planning to attack US soil, is this not considered a threat anymore?
If you can come up with some answers that are reasonable, you might have an argument.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Not unless you want it to be racist.
hence my question.
Originally posted by New
hence my question.
/holding hand
Terrorists and those who support them in any way.
Happy?
/end holding hand
and let's see this N Korea purchase order . . . from somewhere other than neoconsRus.com that is
BTWBTW: why are we now working WITH N Korea? isn't that the tactic that all the Neo-cons consistently and constantly gave Clinton shit for?
Hmmm?!?!
Maybe its because our stupid-ass bomb-first attitude has proven itself worthy of microcephalic neanderthals.
Originally posted by NaplesX
/holding hand
Terrorists and those who support them in any way.
Happy?
/end holding hand
Are you saying that there is a link of bloodlust between, say, the ETA, people like Thimothy McVeigh, AQ, Kurdish rebels and so on...?
or are we just talking muslims here?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok.
If these are mundane ties between SH and terrorist groups, one of which is AQ, what were they doing?
What are SH, a professed enemy of the US and AQ, professed enemy of the US doing in these meetings? Who were the terrorist training camps in Iraq set up for, the training to be used against who?
Putin's revelation that SH was planning to attack US soil, is this not considered a threat anymore?
If you can come up with some answers that are reasonable, you might have an argument.
The meetings showed the incompatibility of a secular dictator and a religious fanaticism, that's all, and that's been known . . . it was all, its over . . .
a meeting is not enough to invade, and is not relatable to 911 . . . but that has not stopped the falsifying rhetoric from flowing.
Putin? We either trust Russia or we don't. Let's have it.
They didn't think the reasons for going to war were enough to go to war . . .
Are their intelligence agencies any good?
Is Putin making shit up to endear himself to Bush?
Let's see the 'plans' . . . and let's understand why, if they are true and relevant beyond 'Hussain hated the US' then why wasn't it enough to justify going to war in Putin's eyes.
Is there a benefit in relation to Chechnia and any future Russian plans to have a sudden warm-feelings for all-out invasions?
Besides, these so called 'plans' are not a collaborative relationship to AQ . . . even if they are real or anything worth mentioning.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Putin's revelation that SH was planning to attack US soil, is this not considered a threat anymore?
Whatever happened to russia's iraq policy being led by business interests? Whatever happened to all of the accusations of russia spying for saddam? All of a sudden putin has a "revelation" that feeds your political fantasies and all is forgiven?
Of course, note this buried at the end of one article on putin's statements:
Some Russian political analysts said Friday that, although Putin may have given the U.S. information about Iraqi terrorist plots, he was probably disclosing it now to boost Bush's chances for reelection.
"It's apparent that Russians and President Putin are interested in a second term for Bush," said Liliya Shevtsova of the Carnegie Moscow Center. "We've always had good relations with Republicans. We dislike Democrats, because Democrats always care about democracy in Russia."
Some analysts say the controversy over Bush's policies in the Middle East is distracting Europe from Putin's increasing authoritarianism and human rights abuses in Chechnya.
"Once [presumed Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry comes to power, the U.S. and Europe will most likely engage in a new honeymoon ? and it means they may jointly turn their attention back to Russia," Belkovsky said. "Thus the Kremlin is interested in seeing the Republicans cling to power, despite all the differences on many issues between Putin and Bush."
Originally posted by pfflam
You simply don't get it: the point was to show the 'no shit' nature of the 'ties' that are supposedly enough for an invasion.
If you call the Iraq/AQ ties viable and enough then the ties with Iraq and the US should be considered as absolutely incriminating.
The nature of the ties are NIL, they are bogus non-entities!!
It is like this: because George Bush clowned around with his brother's kids at a wedding it is now legitimate to call George Bush a 'Clown'? . . . not false, but not true either.
Because some gov functionary had a meeting with a member of AQ at the behest of the Sudanese Gov we can now say that AQ and Iraq 'had ties' and use that supposed 'tie' in sentences and paragraphs with 911 and imply the tie continues there? and therefor invade another country?
You are holding on to straws that are as thin as whisps . . .
Your argument essentially is that the ties were not sufficient to warrant invasion.
Pre-9/11, I might have agreed. However, we know there was at least some relationship. Given that we also know Saddam was violating WMD-related UN resolutions all over the place, and that was a widespread belief that he had functioning weapons and was seeking to aquire more, that he was a sworn enemy of the United States, that he took provocative action against our aircraft on a daily basis, that he sought some sort of alliance with North Korea, we could not afford to take the risk.
Are you saying we should have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt on this one? Are you serious?
This war was justified from so many different angles. Bush's mistake was to focus too heavily on the WMD aspect. There were many, many others...including establishing Democracy in the middle east..which in tself will lead to more stable and prosperous nations...which will in turn prevent future terrorism.
Originally posted by pfflam
BTW, let us see these massive piles of found chemical weapons . . . I mean, any that are not old enough to have been virtually useless and in quantities that are not idiotically small . . certainly not nearly large enough for an invasion
and let's see this N Korea purchase order . . . from somewhere other than neoconsRus.com that is
BTWBTW: why are we now working WITH N Korea? isn't that the tactic that all the Neo-cons consistently and constantly gave Clinton shit for?
Hmmm?!?!
Maybe its because our stupid-ass bomb-first attitude has proven itself worthy of microcephalic neanderthals.
OMFG. What would you like to do? Invade NK? Now hold on...I thought you weren't in support of that approach. It's quite obvious that no matter what approach the Bush administration takes, you won't support it...even if it's your beloved "multi-lateral negotiation", which is exactly what we're doing with NK.
Originally posted by New
Are you saying that there is a link of bloodlust between, say, the ETA, people like Thimothy McVeigh, AQ, Kurdish rebels and so on...?
or are we just talking muslims here?
I say again...TROLL.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's the first I've heard of that. Can you provide some backing for it?
It was on live TV during the first couple of days after the buildings collapsed. You Google, I'll Google, and we'll meet somewhere in the middle.
Here it is.
"Yes, the hand of God is on the arrogant and the oppressor, but that does not change our concern for people."
Originally posted by SDW2001
You mean this?
But of course, the ABB crowd has perverted this to mean that there were no ties to Iraq and Al-Qaeda. My god..it's in the first paragraph, jimmac. Please read more than just what would seem to support your Bush hatred.
Read carefully: Chemicals such as Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found. Warheads have been found. Iraq was trying to buy missile technology from North Korea. In fact, Iraq POSESSED longer range missles than wera llowed by UN resolutions. Iraq had a hatred for the US. Iraq had tried to assasinate a former President, and openly praised the 9/11 attacks. Iraq fired on our aircraft. According to your logic though, one or two chemical warheads launched against the US or Israel would not be enough. How many would be enough? 5? 10? 100?
As for the 9/11 attack and Iraq, you really need to go back and read what I posted. I said that the 9/11 attack changed the way we percieve threats and deal with them. Iraq was one of these threats. On Setember 10th 2001, we didn't need to look at threats like Saddam's Iraq the way we need to now. That was the clear intent of my posts on the topic, though you (as usual) feel it necessary to twist these words and turn them into a personal attack. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.
All of the above while still illustrating that Saddam wasn't a nice person and didn't like us ( as there are many such individuals in the world ) is still a weak case ( at best ) for war.
What was the range of the said missles that Iraq had. If they couldn't reach the continental U.S. it negates your argument.
Tried to assasinate a former president? Remind me please.
------------------------------------------------------------
" I said that the 9/11 attack changed the way we percieve threats and deal with them. "
------------------------------------------------------------
Who decides this you?
I don't think so.
The president?
Not entirely.
In the end it's the good people of the United States. You know the ones that vote the president into office ( or not ).