July 23, 200422 yr Author One has to believe they considered the possible outcomes, including international scorn, because the pessimists were predicting thousands of US combat deaths - yet they voted for it knowing that was a possibility. THOUSANDS. I would hope our senators aren't so mentally retarded they don't consider worst case scenarios. That would be a very depressing thought. The bottom line is that Kerry, no matter what the intel outcome happened to be, WAS INDEED willing to spend possibly thousands of American lives when he cast his vote. 471205[/snapback] Thousands of American lives that he intended to be used when ABSOLUTELY necessary not when Mr. Bush felt like invading a country without considering the "possible outcomes". They did not vote to go to Iraq they voted to authorize him to use force IF NECESSARY, which is the part the Mr. Bush abused to no end. Not only he went to war without checking that the intelligence was indeed "good", but he stepped on international allies on his path to destruction. You may try to put it as if it is Kerry's fault that Bush has no idea what the hell he is doing. The truth is that Bush would have gone to war even if the evidence wasn't there... Which is pretty much what he did, whether you and your hard core right wing friends want to believe it or not.
July 23, 200422 yr Author Clearly I'm out of my league here - please educate me on this. Hardcore right wing? Bwaaaah. You are so funny. :lol You should try this schtik out at the comedy club - it would go ever well. You have no idea what hardcore right wing is - there hasn't been any significant hardcore right wing politics in this country since its inception. 471264[/snapback] You are unable to carry out a debate without getting personal and stupid. And yes, you are clearly out of your league, I can't educate you, nor I want to. :mischief
July 23, 200422 yr Dont tell me that abu nidal wasnt in Iraq, because its a known fact that he was there, under the protection of hussein, and nidal was definetely a terrorist. That we are more unsafe now cannot be proven with any facts at all, and those 'allies' we lost such as france were allies of saddam and thats why they were against the war (all the money hussein owed them), and because none of those countries like america, they just wait for chnces to go against us b/c they are scared that the US may get to powerful 470630[/snapback] First, who the hell is "Nidal" anyway? Is he part of an international terrorist group planning attacks on America????? NOOOOOOO they're not. Then why don't we bomb Israel they are harbouring terrorists, you know like Hamas? We are more unsafe, for the simple fact that we've sparked the anger of millions in the middle east to the point that they hate us with a passion beyond belief. They feared us before, now that we invaded a country on false pretenses there is no stopping them. Das, Canada is Bush's next target, don't tell anyone :whistle 470713[/snapback] Totally absurd, first of all Israel's government isnt harboring terrorists, which is what the big deal is about. Harboring terrorists doesnt mean terrorists live in your country, because then everyone would be harboring terrorists. What it means is that the government aides these terrorists and protects them against prosecution for their crimes against foreign countries. And Nidal was the leader of a terrorist group named Black september, and he also did a lot of work with the militant factors of the PLO until he lost favor with arafat. Nidal is now dead, but when he was alive he was one of the most dangerous and most sought after terrorists in the world for his crimes against Israel, his involvment in the Munich olympic massacre, and for helping to plot terrorist attacks against U.S., British, and Israeli interests around the world. So sorry to say Nidal was part of an internaitonal terror organization planning attacks against the U.S., AND on top of that he often met with al-qaeda operatives in several parts of the world to help al-qaeda with training for would be terrorists. And he was being protected by Saddam Hussein for at least 10 years, until he was assassinated in Iraq around 2000
July 23, 200422 yr Totally absurd, first of all Israel's government isnt harboring terrorists, which is what the big deal is about. Harboring terrorists doesnt mean terrorists live in your country, because then everyone would be harboring terrorists. What it means is that the government aides these terrorists and protects them against prosecution for their crimes against foreign countries. And Nidal was the leader of a terrorist group named Black september, and he also did a lot of work with the militant factors of the PLO until he lost favor with arafat. Nidal is now dead, but when he was alive he was one of the most dangerous and most sought after terrorists in the world for his crimes against Israel, his involvment in the Munich olympic massacre, and for helping to plot terrorist attacks against U.S., British, and Israeli interests around the world. So sorry to say Nidal was part of an internaitonal terror organization planning attacks against the U.S., AND on top of that he often met with al-qaeda operatives in several parts of the world to help al-qaeda with training for would be terrorists. And he was being protected by Saddam Hussein for at least 10 years, until he was assassinated in Iraq around 2000 471767[/snapback] I think she was referring to the terrorist groups residing in the disputed territories, which are nominally under Israeli control (if the rest of the world weren't such Islamist appeasers (I'm not just talking about this issue, but also about Iran and the Sudan), there wouldn't be such groups to talk about, as they would have been wiped out long ago). Arafat technically has absolute power there, which is why he's virtually under lockdown in the Muqata (if you ask me, he should be taking the perp-walk instead of being placed under continuous siege).
July 23, 200422 yr Totally absurd, first of all Israel's government isnt harboring terrorists, which is what the big deal is about. Harboring terrorists doesnt mean terrorists live in your country, because then everyone would be harboring terrorists. What it means is that the government aides these terrorists and protects them against prosecution for their crimes against foreign countries. And Nidal was the leader of a terrorist group named Black september, and he also did a lot of work with the militant factors of the PLO until he lost favor with arafat. Nidal is now dead, but when he was alive he was one of the most dangerous and most sought after terrorists in the world for his crimes against Israel, his involvment in the Munich olympic massacre, and for helping to plot terrorist attacks against U.S., British, and Israeli interests around the world. So sorry to say Nidal was part of an internaitonal terror organization planning attacks against the U.S., AND on top of that he often met with al-qaeda operatives in several parts of the world to help al-qaeda with training for would be terrorists. And he was being protected by Saddam Hussein for at least 10 years, until he was assassinated in Iraq around 2000 471767[/snapback] I think she was referring to the terrorist groups residing in the disputed territories, which are nominally under Israeli control (if the rest of the world weren't such Islamist appeasers (I'm not just talking about this issue, but also about Iran and the Sudan), there wouldn't be such groups to talk about, as they would have been wiped out long ago). Arafat technically has absolute power there, which is why he's virtually under lockdown in the Muqata (if you ask me, he should be taking the perp-walk instead of being placed under continuous siege). 471775[/snapback] She is referring to the terrorist groups residing in those terroritories, but when the term 'harboring terrorists' is used, it means that they are there under the protection of the state, not that they just so happen to be there.
July 23, 200422 yr Author She is referring to the terrorist groups residing in those terroritories, but when the term 'harboring terrorists' is used, it means that they are there under the protection of the state, not that they just so happen to be there. 471781[/snapback] Is there evidence that Hussein was actually aiding this "terrorist" to attack the US? The 9/11 report says Iraq had no collaboration with Al-Qaeda... So I don't know if Nidal was just "living there" or Saddam was actually collaborating with him. Do you have specific evidence to claim that Saddam was "harbouring" terrorists by your definition?
July 23, 200422 yr Goddamn, why is Black September being brought up again. When they had power in the terrorism world, it was 7 years before Saddam was in power. Second of all Lina, watch what you say about harbouring, because Israel doesn't harbor terrorist groups at the moment. (I only recall the Israeli Security Association, or whatever it is called, as a terrorist group being harbored by Israel). Anyway back to the main point and I only have 10 words to say. Saddam was the most secular leader in the ME. Now why would the most secular leader want to support Al Qaeda?
July 23, 200422 yr Author Second of all Lina, watch what you say about harbouring, because Israel doesn't harbor terrorist groups at the moment. (I only recall the Israeli Security Association, or whatever it is called, as a terrorist group being harbored by Israel). I used the term loosely on purpose. They keep bringing up the "terrorist links" that Saddam Hussein had because an old terrorist guy was in Iraq some time in the past. By their definition of harbouring, every country harbours terrorists and that is why I brought up Israel, to show how idiotic their explanations sound. Face it guys, the US made the biggest mistake by going into Iraq. I don't care what the reasons for the day (given by the admin.) are.
July 23, 200422 yr I think you mean Kach (Rabbi Kahane's political party in Israel), but the "terrorist" label on that group is very debatable, in my opinion. Do they have extreme political positions? Yes, but so does Hadash (which has an alternate name, the Israeli Communist Party), and I don't believe there is anyone calling that party terrorist.
July 23, 200422 yr Author Hamas is a terrorist group, but not an international terrorist group looking to attack Americans. Hezbollah and other groups are militant extremists that have no particular interest in harming Americans. Although, that may have changed since our invasion to Iraq. These groups hated America for siding with Israel, but there is no evidence that these groups ever tried to plot against America. The only group which was solely formed to harm "westerners" was Al-Qaeda. Remember Al-Qaeda, whose main guy we haven't catched? I know many of you will continue to argue that Saddam "harboured" terrorists, but I really could give a damn if Saddam aided Hamas or other militant extremist groups, because my main concern is the safety of this country and none of those groups that Saddam supposedly harboured ever attacked America.... AL-Qaeda did.
July 23, 200422 yr I think you mean Kach (Rabbi Kahane's political party in Israel), but the "terrorist" label on that group is very debatable, in my opinion. Do they have extreme political positions? Yes, but so does Hadash (which has an alternate name, the Israeli Communist Party), and I don't believe there is anyone calling that party terrorist. 472100[/snapback] No I meant the Jews in the 1948 war who went around and terrorized anyone who stood in their way to protect the interests of jews in Palestine at the time.
July 24, 200422 yr canada and al-qeada are like this }{ Little known fact, Canada plans to bomb the f*** out of us in 3 weeks. we better make sure they dont do that.
July 24, 200422 yr Now why would the most secular leader want to support Al Qaeda? 472039[/snapback] The enemy of my enemy is my friend sounds pretty plausible. Pretty much the same reason we backed the Muj against the Soviets in Afganistan. If you could have loons like AQ willingly do the dirty work, why do it yourself? Setup a textbook Spook 101 "false flag" op and you could make'em think they're dealing with another terrorist group rather than you. 472527[/snapback] The Muj wasn't the taliban though Tonyi. Get your facts straight. :mischief
July 24, 200422 yr Canada is Bush's next target, don't tell anyone :whistle 470713[/snapback] Am I the only one that thinks that would be cool as hell? :mischief2
July 24, 200422 yr Canada is Bush's next target, don't tell anyone :whistle 470713[/snapback] Am I the only one that thinks that would be cool as hell? :mischief2 473086[/snapback] Hell Ya!!! Gimme 10 drunk Coastguardsmen and 3 cases of beer and we'd conquer overnight without a shot being fired!!!! Besides, I think we need more well lighted and convienient parking.
July 25, 200422 yr Now why would the most secular leader want to support Al Qaeda? 472039[/snapback] The enemy of my enemy is my friend sounds pretty plausible. Pretty much the same reason we backed the Muj against the Soviets in Afganistan. If you could have loons like AQ willingly do the dirty work, why do it yourself? Setup a textbook Spook 101 "false flag" op and you could make'em think they're dealing with another terrorist group rather than you. 472527[/snapback] The Muj wasn't the taliban though Tonyi. Get your facts straight. :mischief 472864[/snapback] Maybe I need to elaborate further. Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere here in representing your position. You seem to think AQ would apparently have no desire to deal with Saddam to obtain weapons or support since he was "secular". True or False? (I'm presuming true) Perhaps an intro lesson in intel ops is needed here since you apparently don't know what a "false flag" op is. A "false flag" is when you get someone to do something on your behalf by misrepresenting who you are. You do this when your target would never deal with you if you declared yourself up front. A lot of stunning Mossad successes in the past have been due to false flag ops - they are very good at it. AQ may, as you claim, want nothing to do with Saddam, but this notion isn't necessarily symetric. Saddam could have been very keen to deal with AQ as willing dupes to attack his enemys. Saddam would also be aware AQ wouldn't deal if Iraq represented itself "as Iraq". [i don't buy that AQ wants nothing to do with Saddam BTW - AQ is pragmatic, they would take any of his weapons they thought would serve their purposes if they thought they could get them cleanly] Enter a false flag strategy. Operating under a "false flag", Iraqi intel can make make contact and not queer AQ. The possible false flag misdirection could be many things here - it could be a fabricated cleric, it could even be a real Cleric who had been compromised by Iraqi intelligence and turned, it could be an Iraqi intel agent previously inserted into some other terrorist group, it could be a "closet religiously radical" Iraqi army officer who is willing to raid the armories "for the cause". Many many possibile scenarios here. The only key thing is that AQ believe its dealing with some one representing themself to AQ as sympathetic and doesn't represent the "official Iraqi regime". Once the contact and relationship with the falsly flagged operators is established, Saddam is free to provide AQ with whatever he wants and provide subtle influence on their actions and choices of targets through the falsly flagged operators. 472889[/snapback] No its the other way around Tonyi. Thats the 3 millionth time you've taken what I wrote and gleaned something entirely different off me. Saddam doesn't want anything to do with Al Qaeda. You want a bigger threat of given them weapons? Russia. They are so poor that they sell the nukes off.
July 25, 200422 yr Author Also, from the 9/11 commission report (page 134). It appears your contention that Saddam wanted nothing to do with AQ is in conflict with the 9/11 report. I'd like to hear your explanation of this apparent disconnect. In February 1999,Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage. Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin?s having met with Iraqi officials, who ?may have offered him asylum.? Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein?s service, and it would be ?virtually impossible? to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and ?Pak[istan?s] intel[ligence service] is in bed with? Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: ?Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.?135Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad,Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred. 473640[/snapback] And here you are once again trying to distort and spin the facts to suit your needs. The 9/11 commission Report clearly states that there was never a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. The 9/11 report also points out that the intelligence was not only faulty but out right false. Saddam had not WMDs capabilities. The reasons for wich we went to war have no base. PERIOD.
July 25, 200422 yr Also, from the 9/11 commission report (page 134). It appears your contention that Saddam wanted nothing to do with AQ is in conflict with the 9/11 report. I'd like to hear your explanation of this apparent disconnect. In February 1999,Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage. Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible.He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin?s having met with Iraqi officials, who ?may have offered him asylum.? Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein?s service, and it would be ?virtually impossible? to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and ?Pak[istan?s] intel[ligence service] is in bed with? Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: ?Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.?135Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad,Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred. 473640[/snapback] And here you are once again trying to distort and spin the facts to suit your needs. The 9/11 commission Report clearly states that there was never a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. The 9/11 report also points out that the intelligence was not only faulty but out right false. Saddam had not WMDs capabilities. The reasons for wich we went to war have no base. PERIOD. 473981[/snapback] Yet again Lina is the sensible one. If only more republicans had half of her sense.
July 25, 200422 yr Author And here you are once again trying to distort and spin the facts to suit your needs. The 9/11 commission Report clearly states that there was never a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. The 9/11 report also points out that the intelligence was not only faulty but out right false. Saddam had not WMDs capabilities. The reasons for wich we went to war have no base. PERIOD. 473981[/snapback] Actually you are the one spinning and distorting here. The comission only states there's no evidence of collaboration (leaving open the possibility that subsequent evidence could prove otherwise). That is a considerably different stance than YOUR statement declaring there was "no collaboration" (definitive, unchanging in the face of any other evidence that may come to light). 474032[/snapback] You said to someone up a couple of posts: "You don't get it do you!" I say the same thing to you now. You don't get it. There is NO LINK. NO WMDs. NONE, ZERO, NULE! Why don't you stop defending the indefensible and focus your attention on something else... How about.... Fighting the terrorists that actually attacked us and catching Bin Laden????
July 25, 200422 yr Do you really think that the one sarin shell isn't from the load Rumsfeld gave the Iraqi's? Come on. Oh sure you didn't claim it happened, you only imply it did every sentance. :thumbdown Why don't republicans get it? Follow Markkotsay7's lead and actually try to believe the truth. How do you know there were links. I mean only the Cia, FBI, and every other intelligience agency said that they over-exagerrated the information. There was never a proven link and thus is innocent on that charge until I see concrete evidence for otherwise.
July 25, 200422 yr Hey Ly.... I understood long ago that you had issues with the reasoning behind the war, and I'll even grant you that some of your reasons retain a significant amount of resonance, even to a conservative like me. But Iran is an apples and oranges comparison. Iran's council of elders has so alienated a burgeoning and rapidly evolving quasi-western Iranian society that it's only a matter of time before the Iranian gov't falls, regardless of western intervention. Anyways, methinks there is enough meat left on the bone for you Dems out there to snipe on the reasonings used for the war without resorting to this type of stuff. Okay, sorry for the interruption. You all go back to arguing with Tonyi. That is all.
July 25, 200422 yr Do you really think that the one sarin shell isn't from the load Rumsfeld gave the Iraqi's? Come on. Who cares where it originated? That's not relevant to this discussion. The fact is it was found somewhere in Iraq, not Passadena CA or Winslow AZ. Oh sure you didn't claim it happened, you only imply it did every sentance. :thumbdown What is this "it" that you're saying "happened"? How do you know there were links. The 9/11 commission says there were. This nominally a nonpartisan group agreed unanimously on the end result report product. I mean only the Cia, FBI, and every other intelligience agency said that they over-exagerrated the information. Indeed they seem to have. Much of the link intel came from other countries intel organizations though. There was never a proven link and thus is innocent on that charge until I see concrete evidence for otherwise. 474272[/snapback] Your opinion stands in isolation from the 9/11 commission then - which is of course your right. You can believe anything you want in the USA. Given the acrimony and partisan finger pointing involved in this commission, I have to believe that the unanimously approved results, though perhaps incomplete, have to be fairly solid when taken for what they are. The passing of time will eventually fill in any holes that couldn't be agreed upon in a non-partisan manner. 474391[/snapback] Where did you hear this. Cause I sure as hell heard that there was NOT a connection at all. Oh yeah, knowing where it came from is relevant. It just goes to show that it came from the criminal Rumsfeld and that they haven't found anything else...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.