PDA

View Full Version : "We support the troops but not the mission"



Pages : [1] 2

stephanie
06-03-2007, 11:18 PM
Short......but to the point...

NBC reporter embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq for 4 years asks them if they buy the "We support the troops but not the mission" mantra. The answer is "NO."

<embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf" width="450" height="370" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" flashvars="autostart=false&token=dcf_1180752079" scale="showall" name="index"></embed>

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dcf_1180752079

Dilloduck
06-03-2007, 11:34 PM
Short......but to the point...

NBC reporter embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq for 4 years asks them if they buy the "We support the troops but not the mission" mantra. The answer is "NO."

<embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf" width="450" height="370" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" flashvars="autostart=false&token=dcf_1180752079" scale="showall" name="index"></embed>

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dcf_1180752079

You think we're gonna hear any cries of " We need to listen to our troops on th ground" ??? NOT

stephanie
06-03-2007, 11:44 PM
You think we're gonna hear any cries of " We need to listen to our troops on th ground" ??? NOT

Sadly......No..

nevadamedic
06-04-2007, 12:27 AM
Short......but to the point...

NBC reporter embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq for 4 years asks them if they buy the "We support the troops but not the mission" mantra. The answer is "NO."

<embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf" width="450" height="370" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" flashvars="autostart=false&token=dcf_1180752079" scale="showall" name="index"></embed>

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dcf_1180752079

Awesome find.

chum43
06-04-2007, 01:21 AM
it's not possible... thats why i respect people who have the balls to say they don't support either.

nevadamedic
06-04-2007, 01:53 AM
Short......but to the point...

NBC reporter embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq for 4 years asks them if they buy the "We support the troops but not the mission" mantra. The answer is "NO."

<embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf" width="450" height="370" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" flashvars="autostart=false&token=dcf_1180752079" scale="showall" name="index"></embed>

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dcf_1180752079

:bow2:

Gunny
06-04-2007, 07:09 AM
"We support the troops but not the mission"

Again?:bang3:

Rahul
06-04-2007, 07:16 AM
Support the troops, but not the mission?

It's certainly possible if you ask me. I don't see why support for troops has to be equated to support for an immoral and illegal war of aggression against Iraq ...

And even the soldiers want out of it now so I doubt they would disagree. The Iraqis have been saying it for a while. Only Bush wants to stay there ... :S

chum43
06-04-2007, 04:05 PM
Support the troops, but not the mission?

It's certainly possible if you ask me. I don't see why support for troops has to be equated to support for an immoral and illegal war of aggression against Iraq ...

And even the soldiers want out of it now so I doubt they would disagree. The Iraqis have been saying it for a while. Only Bush wants to stay there ... :S

then you can support the troops when they come home, or support them coming home, but you can't support troops when they are out their carrying out a mission you disagree with voluntarily... I don't support the mission, I don't support the troops in that mission, but I do appreciate the sacrifice... I can't feel sympathy for anyone who would put themselves in a situation where they could be in a war they didn't believe they should be fighting, thats why I needed out, I need control over my own actions. I appreciate and respect them, but I certainly don't support them and I don't think we should fund them.

Guernicaa
06-04-2007, 04:47 PM
"You have to support the mission in order to support the troops" is probably one of the most retarded statements I've ever heard.

FYI, The troops do not make the mission.
The mission is created by our President and his administration.
We do not have to support that mission and the decisions made in order to support our troops.

Supporting the troops means you hope for their safe and well return and that you support the sacrifices made, regardless of what the mission is.
You honor them for their bravery and for their effort.

When we say "we don’t support the mission" were saying we don’t support the President.

chum43
06-04-2007, 05:00 PM
my contention is that support is the wrong word to be using, you can't support the troops in their mission if you don't support the mission... that doesn't mean you can't feel for the troops and honor and respect them... but you don't support them, if you support them you support what they do...

I don't support them or what they do... the troops don't make the mission but they did put their lives in the trust of the government and choose to stick it out for a little money and honor, if they don't believe in the war they shouldn't be fighting it, pure and simple... like i said i have no sympathy for people who sign their lives over and then complain about it later when they could get out if they wanted to(same reason I have no sympathy for the dems doing the same thing)... I respect and understand that they are sacrificing alot, but i don't support what they are sacrificing for and I don't support them... you can't support one and not the other... it's simply not the right word.

Abbey
06-04-2007, 06:14 PM
To my dear husband,

"Honey, I hate your boss, I hate your job, and I think the work you voluntarily took on is illegal, immoral and an embarassment. In fact, I am going to publicly protest until you stop doing this job.

But... but... I support you!"

Love,
Your wife

Mr. P
06-04-2007, 06:17 PM
To my dear husband,

"Honey, I hate your boss, and I hate your job, I think the work you voluntarily took on is illegal, immoral and an embarassment. In fact, I am going to publicly protest until you stop doing this job.

But... but... I support you!"

Love,
Your wife

PS. In the mean time, I'll still spend the paycheck.
xoxoxoxox

gabosaurus
06-04-2007, 07:14 PM
I support the troops. They are only doing their jobs, what they have been told to do.

I do not support the dumass fool who has sent them to suffer meaningless death.

glockmail
06-04-2007, 08:29 PM
it's not possible... thats why i respect people who have the balls to say they don't support either.
They should all be deported to Cuba.

Dilloduck
06-04-2007, 08:30 PM
I support the troops. They are only doing their jobs, what they have been told to do.

I do not support the dumass fool who has sent them to suffer meaningless death.

Actually many troops are going way beyond what is expected of them. They're not dumb shits Gabby. They are humans.
Would you please describe what you feel to be a meaningful death ?

Gunny
06-04-2007, 09:42 PM
Support the troops, but not the mission?

It's certainly possible if you ask me. I don't see why support for troops has to be equated to support for an immoral and illegal war of aggression against Iraq ...

And even the soldiers want out of it now so I doubt they would disagree. The Iraqis have been saying it for a while. Only Bush wants to stay there ... :S

It's actually relatively simple. You can support the troops but not the mission so long as you are vocal only about the former and not the latter.

When you damn the mission, calling it illegal and immoral (which is factually incorrect, btw), you are telling the troops what they are doing is immoral and illegal.

You call THAT support?

Gunny
06-04-2007, 09:43 PM
"You have to support the mission in order to support the troops" is probably one of the most retarded statements I've ever heard.

FYI, The troops do not make the mission.
The mission is created by our President and his administration.
We do not have to support that mission and the decisions made in order to support our troops.

Supporting the troops means you hope for their safe and well return and that you support the sacrifices made, regardless of what the mission is.
You honor them for their bravery and for their effort.

When we say "we don’t support the mission" were saying we don’t support the President.

As just explained in my previous post, "I support the troops but not the mission" is in actuality, one of the most retarded things ever heard.

Gunny
06-04-2007, 09:44 PM
To my dear husband,

"Honey, I hate your boss, and I hate your job, I think the work you voluntarily took on is illegal, immoral and an embarassment. In fact, I am going to publicly protest until you stop doing this job.

But... but... I support you!"

Love,
Your wife

:clap:

Rahul
06-04-2007, 10:16 PM
then you can support the troops when they come home, or support them coming home, but you can't support troops when they are out their carrying out a mission you disagree with voluntarily... I don't support the mission, I don't support the troops in that mission, but I do appreciate the sacrifice... I can't feel sympathy for anyone who would put themselves in a situation where they could be in a war they didn't believe they should be fighting, thats why I needed out, I need control over my own actions. I appreciate and respect them, but I certainly don't support them and I don't think we should fund them.

I understand your point. I am just saying the troops are out there, doing a job, and I wouldn't blame them personally for the whole War ...



When you damn the mission, calling it illegal and immoral (which is factually incorrect, btw), you are telling the troops what they are doing is immoral and illegal.

You call THAT support?

Please explain how I am facutally incorrect. Also, telling the troops what they are doing is immoral and illegal is being honest more than anything else. To be quite frank, no-one should have to even TELL them that ...

Doniston
06-04-2007, 10:26 PM
It's actually relatively simple. You can support the troops but not the mission so long as you are vocal only about the former and not the latter.

When you damn the mission, calling it illegal and immoral (which is factually incorrect, btw), you are telling the troops what they are doing is immoral and illegal.

You call THAT support? It is only that simple to you. I do not agree at all with you. and most of us simple call it wrong, and that we shouldn't be there. or losing soldiers as a result of it.

So you are Gung Ho. that's OK, but you don't speak for the majority.

Gunny
06-04-2007, 10:47 PM
I understand your point. I am just saying the troops are out there, doing a job, and I wouldn't blame them personally for the whole War ...



Please explain how I am facutally incorrect. Also, telling the troops what they are doing is immoral and illegal is being honest more than anything else. To be quite frank, no-one should have to even TELL them that ...

Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire agreement with the US that stated among other things that hostilites could be resumed if he failed to comply with its terms. So much for the legality.

You consider removing a despot from power to be immoral? They must teach different "morals" where you come from.

You call it being honest to justify to yourself doing it. The fact is, the statement "I support the troops but not the illegal and immoral war" is a contradiction in terms.

There's NO quicker way to fuck with a troop's head than to tell him/her what he/she is doing is illegal or immoral. While you sit back here being an expert on everything and thinking "I support the troops but not the illegal and immoral war" is a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, those troops are looking down the barrel of loaded weapons at other human beings in the name of their cause and their Nation, and they, not you, have to drop that hammer.

And you're calling them murderers.

Gunny
06-04-2007, 10:53 PM
It is only that simple to you. I do not agree at all with you. and most of us simple call it wrong, and that we shouldn't be there. or losing soldiers as a result of it.

So you are Gung Ho. that's OK, but you don't speak for the majority.

Did I say I speak for the majority? I speak from having been a fucking troop ... get THAT? I speak from being the son of Vietnam vet and watching what you dimbulbs and your lies and bullshit did to their heads, not to mention almost tearing this Nation apart even as you're trying to now.

You don't like the war? me niether. I don't like ANY war. Some peopel have to die and there's always those that have to kill them, and there's times when I'm not so sure being the former isn't better than being the latter.

When you walk a mile in my fucking combat boots and carry my fucking load, THEN you can presume to tell me what fucking troops think.

MtnBiker
06-04-2007, 11:40 PM
I know people who support Dale Earnhardt Jr, they just don't think he should race.

Rahul
06-05-2007, 12:28 AM
Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire agreement with the US that stated among other things that hostilites could be resumed if he failed to comply with its terms. So much for the legality.

That agreement was hardly signed on equal terms - if Saddam didn't sign the agreement, the US would never have stopped the first war. The agreement was made purely on American terms, and was not fair. Someone could put a gun to your head tomorrow and force you to give up your wallet, but that doesn't mean you want to or that the implicit agreement in giving up your wallet is in anyway legal.


You consider removing a despot from power to be immoral?

I consider waging a war against another nation solely for the purpose of milking it's resources (oil) highly immoral and imperalistic.



You call it being honest to justify to yourself doing it.

Yes.



The fact is, the statement "I support the troops but not the illegal and immoral war" is a contradiction in terms.

There's NO quicker way to fuck with a troop's head than to tell him/her what he/she is doing is illegal or immoral.

I disagree. In fact, it's a good way to tell the troops to voluntarily LEAVE ...



While you sit back here being an expert on everything

I did not claim to be an expert on anything.



and thinking "I support the troops but not the illegal and immoral war" is a "Get Out of Jail Free" card,

It isn't anything of the sort. I am simply saying I don't believe in bashing the soldiers personally, rather, the administration and it's stupid policies.


those troops are looking down the barrel of loaded weapons at other human beings in the name of their cause and their Nation, and they, not you, have to drop that hammer.

You expect me to feel sorry? Or what? They are in a war zone - it's pretty obvious people would be pointing weapons at them ... If they don't like it, they should not have GONE in the first place.

After all, it's not Iraq invaded the US and they are simply defending their country. It's the other way around - the US is the aggressor here.



And you're calling them murderers.

When making an absurd claim, it helps to provide a source. Where is yours?

Rahul
06-05-2007, 12:32 AM
I speak from being the son of Vietnam vet and watching what you dimbulbs and your lies and bullshit did to their heads, not to mention almost tearing this Nation apart even as you're trying to now.



Insults are unnecessary. Further, you haven't expounded on the lies and deceit propogated by the US administration at that time which was a very major factor as well.

chum43
06-05-2007, 01:37 AM
I support the troops. They are only doing their jobs, what they have been told to do.

I do not support the dumass fool who has sent them to suffer meaningless death.

I suppose then you support mafia hitmen too?... oh and how about george bush, you support him too, it is his job as commander in chief and surely someone has told him it has to be done.

with people that always talk about honor and character it's amazing how anyone who believes in those things can say "their just doing their jobs"... they are, and that is my point... I quit the military because i couldn't be a mindless drone who killed on command.

remie
06-05-2007, 09:11 AM
Support the troops, but not the mission?

It's certainly possible if you ask me. I don't see why support for troops has to be equated to support for an immoral and illegal war of aggression against Iraq ...

And even the soldiers want out of it now so I doubt they would disagree. The Iraqis have been saying it for a while. Only Bush wants to stay there ... :S

Well pal nobody asked you. You are not the one getting shot at every day so until your sorry ass is on the line STFU.

Gaffer
06-05-2007, 09:51 AM
That agreement was hardly signed on equal terms - if Saddam didn't sign the agreement, the US would never have stopped the first war. The agreement was made purely on American terms, and was not fair. Someone could put a gun to your head tomorrow and force you to give up your wallet, but that doesn't mean you want to or that the implicit agreement in giving up your wallet is in anyway legal.

The cease fire was mostly because Bush was honoring the un commitment of only getting saddam out of kuwaite. saddam was defeated and as the victors we had the right to dictate terms. It comes with winning the war. Comparing a robbery to a war is not a good analogy. Your boy lost the war, he also lost the second part of the war and was hung. You just feel bad about losing.

I consider waging a war against another nation solely for the purpose of milking it's resources (oil) highly immoral and imperalistic.

How about for deposing a dictator who is dangerous to the whole world? Ahh but you don't consider him a threat.

Yes.



I disagree. In fact, it's a good way to tell the troops to voluntarily LEAVE ...

The troops don't HAVE that option. But our pulling out would be great for the islamists who you support and enable. Does your pay check come directly from iran or does it get funneled through another country?

I did not claim to be an expert on anything.

Your definately not an expert on the military or anything to do with war.

It isn't anything of the sort. I am simply saying I don't believe in bashing the soldiers personally, rather, the administration and it's stupid policies.

But you are bashing the soldiers personally by not supporting what they are doing. he bashing of the CIC is carried on down to the troops.

You expect me to feel sorry? Or what? They are in a war zone - it's pretty obvious people would be pointing weapons at them ... If they don't like it, they should not have GONE in the first place.

Once again you don't understand how the military works. They don't have an option. No one asks you to feel sorry for them. Just respect them.

After all, it's not Iraq invaded the US and they are simply defending their country. It's the other way around - the US is the aggressor here.

Would you rather all the fighting be done in the streets of this country? Taking down saddam was an act of defense by pre-emptive means. Kinda like your robbery analogy. If you know the guy has a gun and is about to rob you and you can stop him by drawing a gun and disarming him wouldn't that be the prudent thing to do?

When making an absurd claim, it helps to provide a source. Where is yours?

The only absurd claims being made are yours and I don't see where you can provide sources for being ignorant. But there are a lot of ignorant sources out there so I'm sure you can find some to back up what you spouting.

Gaffer
06-05-2007, 10:00 AM
Insults are unnecessary. Further, you haven't expounded on the lies and deceit propogated by the US administration at that time which was a very major factor as well.

The lies propagated by the left during those years far out do the lies of the administrations of the time. The communist supported left, aka democrats, were responsible for the debacle of Vietnam, both begining and end. They also were responsible for demonizing the military. I DO know what went on then as I lived through it. I am a combat vet and I despise the left with a passion.

darin
06-05-2007, 10:19 AM
I understand your point. I am just saying the troops are out there, doing a job, and I wouldn't blame them personally for the whole War ...


'Not-blaming' the troops is NOT 'supporting the troops'. I saw about 700 troops a few weeks ago lining up outside a hangar as their unit colors were cased to make the trip to Iraq. I can attest to the fact NOBODY felt 'blame' - I can also attest to the fact the leadership - to a man and woman - felt Pride in their coming deployment. They knew the job which would be expected of them. They were eager, if a little scared, to get-on with it. Next time I speak w/ their commander I'll be sure and tell him you don't 'blame' him.

Gaffer
06-05-2007, 10:19 AM
I suppose then you support mafia hitmen too?... oh and how about george bush, you support him too, it is his job as commander in chief and surely someone has told him it has to be done.

with people that always talk about honor and character it's amazing how anyone who believes in those things can say "their just doing their jobs"... they are, and that is my point... I quit the military because i couldn't be a mindless drone who killed on command.

Supporting the troops is the equivalent of supporting mafia hit men? I don't think you have any honor or character or you would not say things like that.

What part of the military were you in. I'm sure you were not a combat troop. Anyone with real military experience knows they are not mindless drones.

Doniston
06-05-2007, 12:48 PM
Did I say I speak for the majority? I speak from having been a fucking troop ... get THAT? I speak from being the son of Vietnam vet and watching what you dimbulbs and your lies and bullshit did to their heads, not to mention almost tearing this Nation apart even as you're trying to now.

You don't like the war? me niether. I don't like ANY war. Some peopel have to die and there's always those that have to kill them, and there's times when I'm not so sure being the former isn't better than being the latter.

When you walk a mile in my fucking combat boots and carry my fucking load, THEN you can presume to tell me what fucking troops think. When you are in ALL their heads,(and our heads) then "YOU" can presume to speak for them. (and us) AND NOT BEFORE

Doniston
06-05-2007, 12:55 PM
Well pal nobody asked you. You are not the one getting shot at every day so until your sorry ass is on the line STFU. you are not in the position to make such a demand (at least to expect anyone to follow you orders.) and this is not just about that the soldiers on the line may or may not think. There are those of us who think on a higher plane.

Doniston
06-05-2007, 12:59 PM
The lies propagated by the left during those years far out do the lies of the administrations of the time. The communist supported left, aka democrats, were responsible for the debacle of Vietnam, both begining and end. They also were responsible for demonizing the military. I DO know what went on then as I lived through it. I am a combat vet and I despise the left with a passion.depise all you wish. I'm sure the feeling is mutual. I am strongly opposed to bloodthirsty gung ho militants.

Doniston
06-05-2007, 01:03 PM
Anyone with real military experience knows they are not mindless drones. I really think you should restate that.

Mr. P
06-05-2007, 01:12 PM
I really think you should restate that.

Why? He's correct.

Rahul
06-05-2007, 01:43 PM
Well pal nobody asked you. You are not the one getting shot at every day so until your sorry ass is on the line STFU.

That is hardly an argument. Try again.

:beer:

Rahul
06-05-2007, 01:53 PM
The only absurd claims being made are yours and I don't see where you can provide sources for being ignorant. But there are a lot of ignorant sources out there so I'm sure you can find some to back up what you spouting.

There is nothing absurd about what I am saying. You were the one that made the stupid remark, not me. Also, please try and use the quote function instead of responding in the post. It makes things a lot easier.

Your post quoted beneath:



The cease fire was mostly because Bush was honoring the un commitment of only getting saddam out of kuwaite. saddam was defeated and as the victors we had the right to dictate terms. It comes with winning the war. Comparing a robbery to a war is not a good analogy. Your boy lost the war, he also lost the second part of the war and was hung. You just feel bad about losing.

He isn't "my boy", and whether or not the victor has the right to dictate terms is irrelevant as I wasn't arguing that. I was saying the agreement was hardly fair. Or are you saying the US should dictate what goes on in every country of the world since the US has the strongest army in the world?


How about for deposing a dictator who is dangerous to the whole world? Ahh but you don't consider him a threat.

You ignored the entire point I made. Will you address it?



The troops don't HAVE that option.

Of course the troops have that option. Further you are conveniently ignoring the fact that this entire mess only started after the US invaded, and was unable to even maintain a tiny semblance control of the country (except for the puppet government they installed in Iraq). Saddam, despite all his faults, kept the country relatively peaceful.




But our pulling out would be great for the islamists who you support and enable.

Maybe you could stop with the ludicrous statements.


Does your pay check come directly from iran or does it get funneled through another country?

Baits are commonly used by some debaters when they don't have an actual argument to employ. I will not take yours.


Your definately not an expert on the military or anything to do with war.

How many times have you attempted to insult me already in this post?


Once again you don't understand how the military works. They don't have an option. No one asks you to feel sorry for them. Just respect them.

I do respect them and do not wish for them to lose their lives for Bush and hence advocate the position I am advocating.



Would you rather all the fighting be done in the streets of this country?

So, would you rather go into another country and completely destroy it for your greed?



Taking down saddam was an act of defense by pre-emptive means. Kinda like your robbery analogy. If you know the guy has a gun and is about to rob you and you can stop him by drawing a gun and disarming him wouldn't that be the prudent thing to do?

Your statment is inaccurate as Saddam never had any WMD's as he was originally purported to have. Yet more lies propogated by Bush and his administration.

Rahul
06-05-2007, 02:00 PM
'Not-blaming' the troops is NOT 'supporting the troops'.

So, how do you define "supporting the troops"?



The lies propagated by the left during those years far out do the lies of the administrations of the time.

Proof, please.


The communist supported left, aka democrats, were responsible for the debacle of Vietnam, both begining and end.

Nonsense. Chanting "the dems did it, the dems did it" like a slogan does not make the statement any less factually accurate either.



They also were responsible for demonizing the military. I DO know what went on then as I lived through it. I am a combat vet and I despise the left with a passion.

So, are you saying all those who demonized the military are part of the left? Got any proof?

darin
06-05-2007, 02:09 PM
I really think you should restate that.

Geesh - why you gotta be an asshole?

OCA
06-05-2007, 03:16 PM
Support the troops, but not the mission?

It's certainly possible if you ask me. I don't see why support for troops has to be equated to support for an immoral and illegal war of aggression against Iraq ...

And even the soldiers want out of it now so I doubt they would disagree. The Iraqis have been saying it for a while. Only Bush wants to stay there ... :S

I love asking this question: care to prove that its immoral and illegal?

Lets wait to see if we get a factual answer:laugh2:

chum43
06-05-2007, 03:27 PM
Supporting the troops is the equivalent of supporting mafia hit men? I don't think you have any honor or character or you would not say things like that.


do you people have no sense of context? I didn't say they were the equivelant, I was responding to the fact that gabosaurus said that we should support them because they are only doing their jobs and what they have been told to do... in that context, yes, it is the equivelant of supporting mafia hitmen who only do their job and what they have been told to do... it is that sort of "it's only their job" attitude that disregards the nature of the work or what they are being told to do... tell me why again that doesn't make sense and I shouldn't say things like that if i had honor or character?

Doniston
06-05-2007, 04:13 PM
Why? He's correct. Oh, OK, but I beleive he meant "BATTLEFIELD" experience rather than "MILITARY" experience. HEH HEH.

chum43
06-05-2007, 04:21 PM
What part of the military were you in. I'm sure you were not a combat troop. Anyone with real military experience knows they are not mindless drones.

just for the record I didn't mean to imply that all troops are mindless drones... it wasn't so much that I experienced meeting mindless drones, it was more the constant attempt to turn me into a mindless drone, and if you don't comply they kick you out... so I guess yeah, i'm implying a little bit that you do have to sell your soul a tad to be in the military at all... and don't get me wrong, it's absolutely necessary in order to have a functioning military of this size and scope, but it's just not for me, and I have no sympathy for anyone who goes through it, signs the contract, and still goes through with things they disagree with because their superiors say so, I just can't do that... if that is dishonorable or bad character, then so be it, but I don't see it that way.

Gaffer
06-05-2007, 05:19 PM
Oh, OK, but I beleive he meant "BATTLEFIELD" experience rather than "MILITARY" experience. HEH HEH.

I have battlefield experience.

Gaffer
06-05-2007, 06:25 PM
Originally Posted by chum43 View Post
I suppose then you support mafia hitmen too?

This is what you stated. That implies you are comparing mafia hit men to our soldiers.


Originally Posted by Gaffer View Post
Taking down saddam was an act of defense by pre-emptive means.
Kinda like your robbery analogy.
If you know the guy has a gun and is about to rob you and you can
stop him by drawing a gun and disarming him wouldn't that be
the prudent thing to do?

Rahul: Your statment is inaccurate as Saddam never had any
WMD's as he was originally purported to have.
Yet more lies propogated by Bush and his administration.

I didn't say anything about the WMD's That's a stupid arguement as its history since nothing of importance was found. I was saying he was a threat to the region and the world. He was allying himself with anyone that was an enemy of the US, he was supporting terror organizations. He was slaughtering his own people, he was stealing money from the un and ignoring the resolutions and the cease fire obligations.


Originally Posted by Gaffer View Post
The lies propagated by the left during those years far out do the
lies of the administrations of the time.


Rahul: Proof, please.

Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell? The 68 tet offensive which we won hands down, declared a huge loss by the media. kerry telling lies to a congressional commitee. hanoi jane posing on a AA gun. The dem congress voting to suspend all funding to South Vietnam so they could not defend themselves. There's lots of proof.


Rahul :So, are you saying all those who demonized the military
are part of the left?
Got any proof?

Only the left demonizes the military. My proof...anything said by the left for the past 40 years.


Rahul: He isn't "my boy", and whether or not the victor
has the right to dictate terms is irrelevant as I wasn't arguing that.
I was saying the agreement was hardly fair. Or are you saying
the US should dictate what goes on in every country of the
world since the US has the strongest army in the world?

You talk like you sympathize with him and wish he was still in power. As for "agreement", there was no agreement. There were the terms of the cease fire. Terms are not an agreement. He was to comply or the fighting would resume. It has nothing to do with what's fair. There were 40 other countries involved in dictating terms to saddam besides the US. It wasn't the US acting alone. We just shouldered the biggest share of the burden.

We should dictate to any country in the world that poses a threat to us. And every country that harbors or supports terrorists is our enemy and should be dealt with accordingly.

chum43
06-05-2007, 06:31 PM
This is what you stated. That implies you are comparing mafia hit men to our soldiers.


I stated it in response to another poster which stated "it's just their job"... but you never mention that.

I am comparing the support for one with the support for the other within a certain CONTEXT

and yet you continue to insist on taking it out of context because it suits your argument, that i'm just some crazy fool saying our troops are a bunch of mafia hitmen, which i'm not saying, but obviously you can't read more than the end of a sentence and only one per paragraph or you'd realize that.

Gaffer
06-05-2007, 07:25 PM
I stated it in response to another poster which stated "it's just their job"... but you never mention that.

I am comparing the support for one with the support for the other within a certain CONTEXT

and yet you continue to insist on taking it out of context because it suits your argument, that i'm just some crazy fool saying our troops are a bunch of mafia hitmen, which i'm not saying, but obviously you can't read more than the end of a sentence and only one per paragraph or you'd realize that.

I quoted it from your post. I couldn't go back to the full text you said it came from. But I still think you used the wrong analogy. The troops are subject to UCMJ and don't arbitrarily shoot people and are not ordered to do so by officers, who are under the same laws. In most cases in iraq they respond to attacks on them rather than initiate the the firefights.

gabosaurus
06-05-2007, 07:29 PM
I have battlefield experience.

That plus 10 bucks will buy you (or anyone) a latte and a lemon square at Starbucks.
It comes down to accountability. Bush started a war of his own choosing. As commander in chief, he has the right to send American military to fight his war. Just as a plant manager can send men into work at a facility he knows if unsafe. If you are trained to follow order, then you follow orders.

The American soldier has no choice as to where he or she is to serve. They could be sent into an ambush and have no choice but to do their job.
It is up to their superiors to make proper judgments. In this case, the Bushies are compelling the military to make the ultimate sacrifice, for no reason other than a bunch of vindictive fools want it to happen.

Gaffer
06-05-2007, 08:03 PM
That plus 10 bucks will buy you (or anyone) a latte and a lemon square at Starbucks.
It comes down to accountability. Bush started a war of his own choosing. As commander in chief, he has the right to send American military to fight his war. Just as a plant manager can send men into work at a facility he knows if unsafe. If you are trained to follow order, then you follow orders.

The American soldier has no choice as to where he or she is to serve. They could be sent into an ambush and have no choice but to do their job.
It is up to their superiors to make proper judgments. In this case, the Bushies are compelling the military to make the ultimate sacrifice, for no reason other than a bunch of vindictive fools want it to happen.

Bush ordered military action against a despot. The despot was taken down. Mission accomplished. Now its a matter of pacifying the country and establishing a government that will not be belligerent to us or its neighbors. That will take many more years.

Your analogy sucks as Bush sent the troops in knowing it was dangerous and they knew it as well. They are trained for just that. The military doesn't train you to follow orders. You are trained to accept the orders and do what needs to be done.

Troops are not sent into an ambush. They do have to go into areas where an ambush can occur. And they do so prepared. You have no idea what even constitutes an ambush.

The military makes the ultimate sacrifice because they are patriots, not because they are compelled to do so. They go where they are ordered to accomplish their mission. But I don't expect you to understand any of that in your blind Bush hatred. Your own vindictiveness shows in your first sentence.

chum43
06-05-2007, 08:37 PM
I quoted it from your post. I couldn't go back to the full text you said it came from. But I still think you used the wrong analogy. The troops are subject to UCMJ and don't arbitrarily shoot people and are not ordered to do so by officers, who are under the same laws. In most cases in iraq they respond to attacks on them rather than initiate the the firefights.

I didn't say you had to, but to pull it out and then comment that I was doing something I clearly wasn't is a whole different story, my comparison is simply in the "it's just their job" realm of things, not in the profession itself... and I do think the analogy works, I'm not saying they are mafia hitmen, I'm just saying if you are going to support troops with the dismissal that it's just their jobs, no matter how righteous their ddefensive killing is, then you can't really argue against also supporting mafia hitmen, no matter how immoral their killing is, under the same guideline, that it's "just their job"... I'm not argueing that morally their jobs are equal just because they both involve killing, I'm simply saying they are both just jobs, and if you have a problem with the job then you have to have a problem with the person doing the job, to me it's completely legitimate to not have a problem with either, i'm simply saying you can't have a problem with one and then dismiss the other as just doing their job. support the troops and the war, or don't support either, there is no middle ground as far as i'm concerned.

OCA
06-05-2007, 08:52 PM
I love asking this question: care to prove that its immoral and illegal?

Lets wait to see if we get a factual answer:laugh2:

Hey cum you sort of conveniently skipped this!

Hows about humoring me, eh?

chum43
06-05-2007, 08:58 PM
Hey cum you sort of conveniently skipped this!

Hows about humoring me, eh?

if you mean me, then I "conveniently skipped" it because it wasn't directed at me and rightly so, because I never made the point that the war was immoral or illegal, the only point I ever tried to make was that you can't support the troops and be against the war at the same time. But you wouldn't know that because you don't actually read my posts, you people just look for damning words and pull together your own little conclusion of what vile shit I must be spewing even though it's not there.

Gaffer
06-05-2007, 09:00 PM
I didn't say you had to, but to pull it out and then comment that I was doing something I clearly wasn't is a whole different story, my comparison is simply in the "it's just their job" realm of things, not in the profession itself... and I do think the analogy works, I'm not saying they are mafia hitmen, I'm just saying if you are going to support troops with the dismissal that it's just their jobs, no matter how righteous their ddefensive killing is, then you can't really argue against also supporting mafia hitmen, no matter how immoral their killing is, under the same guideline, that it's "just their job"... I'm not argueing that morally their jobs are equal just because they both involve killing, I'm simply saying they are both just jobs, and if you have a problem with the job then you have to have a problem with the person doing the job, to me it's completely legitimate to not have a problem with either, i'm simply saying you can't have a problem with one and then dismiss the other as just doing their job. support the troops and the war, or don't support either, there is no middle ground as far as i'm concerned.

In looking back I think I was confusing part of your post with rahul's posts. I agree there is no middle ground for supporting the troops. And I believe most libs do not support them.

Gunny
06-05-2007, 09:02 PM
That agreement was hardly signed on equal terms - if Saddam didn't sign the agreement, the US would never have stopped the first war. The agreement was made purely on American terms, and was not fair. Someone could put a gun to your head tomorrow and force you to give up your wallet, but that doesn't mean you want to or that the implicit agreement in giving up your wallet is in anyway legal.

Who gives a shit. He lost. Read your history. The victor dictates the terms. The agreement was quite fair. Sotp being an asshole, stop pursuing WMDs and don't screw with our allies. How HARD is that?


I consider waging a war against another nation solely for the purpose of milking it's resources (oil) highly immoral and imperalistic.

When the US does that you be sure and let me know.


Yes.

At least you're honest. Wrong, but honest.


I disagree. In fact, it's a good way to tell the troops to voluntarily LEAVE ...

You can disagree all you want. You're wrong in this as well.


I did not claim to be an expert on anything.



It isn't anything of the sort. I am simply saying I don't believe in bashing the soldiers personally, rather, the administration and it's stupid policies.

Sure it is. After the backlash libs got when the smoke cleared on Vietnam, libs have this time made sure they have that check in the box.


You expect me to feel sorry? Or what? They are in a war zone - it's pretty obvious people would be pointing weapons at them ... If they don't like it, they should not have GONE in the first place.

I don't expect you to do anything but perhaps display a bit more intelligence than this. Military personnel don't get to pick and choose which wars they fight in.

After all, it's not Iraq invaded the US and they are simply defending their country. It's the other way around - the US is the aggressor here.

I guess I should have had you figured as some anti-American apologista.



When making an absurd claim, it helps to provide a source. Where is yours?

Your own words, Einstein. Immoral and illegal killing is called "murder."

OCA
06-05-2007, 09:04 PM
if you mean me, then I "conveniently skipped" it because it wasn't directed at me and rightly so, because I never made the point that the war was immoral or illegal, the only point I ever tried to make was that you can't support the troops and be against the war at the same time. But you wouldn't know that because you don't actually read my posts, you people just look for damning words and pull together your own little conclusion of what vile shit I must be spewing even though it's not there.

You are correct, it was Rahul, maybe I should've asked him in Spanish.

You only called the troops mafia hitmen and mindless drones....very complimentary of you.

Gunny
06-05-2007, 09:06 PM
When you are in ALL their heads,(and our heads) then "YOU" can presume to speak for them. (and us) AND NOT BEFORE

Horseshit. Dishonest, defelctive bullshit. I've got 20 years experience of either being one, or leading them. It isn't hard to figure out what makes them work, and what makes them break. And I hardly need to know each and every one to make that assessment.

You're just full of shit.

chum43
06-05-2007, 09:15 PM
You are correct, it was Rahul, maybe I should've asked him in Spanish.

You only called the troops mafia hitmen and mindless drones....very complimentary of you.

ok lets see how many times I can repeat myself before you figure out that you are full of shit...

first, I never called them mafia hitmen, I said supporting them and not the war simply because it's their job is the same as supporting ANYONE "just doing their job", no matter how much you morally disagree with the job, including mafia hitmen

second, I never called them mindless drones, I said I couldn't stay in the military because it felt as though they were trying to turn me into a mindless drone, granted it is hard to imagine that anyone makes it to the front lines without at least putting on an act as such, but I never said the troops were mindless drones.

these are both indirect assumptions that are simply misleading, I don't think troops are like mafia hitmen, and I don't think they are all mindless drones, but supporting them and not the war because it's just their job is like supporting mafia hitmen doing theirs or postal workers doing their's, or school teacher's doing their's the job is irrelevant, I simply chose a job that most people disagree with, and although I don't believe most troops to be mindless drones, it is certainly the desired outcome of the US military training, and as I said before that is completely necessary and makes tactical sense given the size and scope of dangerous operations, the point was it is simply not for me.

Gunny
06-05-2007, 09:16 PM
depise all you wish. I'm sure the feeling is mutual. I am strongly opposed to bloodthirsty gung ho militants.

Not only are you despicable, but you're using terms you have no freakin' clue what they mean, so how about you quit opening your suck and spewing "gungo ho" as if it's something bad until you learn what it means?

Gunny
06-05-2007, 09:18 PM
That is hardly an argument. Try again.

:beer:

It works for me.

Gunny
06-05-2007, 09:25 PM
That plus 10 bucks will buy you (or anyone) a latte and a lemon square at Starbucks.

Bullshit. For one, gaffer's response was to a comment concerning battliefied experience, so it is a completely relevant answer. And two, So long as you goobers keep saying you "support the troops but not the war," those of us with combat experience are going to call bullshit because we KNOW what is and is not support.

It comes down to accountability. Bush started a war of his own choosing. As commander in chief, he has the right to send American military to fight his war. Just as a plant manager can send men into work at a facility he knows if unsafe. If you are trained to follow order, then you follow orders.

The American soldier has no choice as to where he or she is to serve. They could be sent into an ambush and have no choice but to do their job.
It is up to their superiors to make proper judgments. In this case, the Bushies are compelling the military to make the ultimate sacrifice, for no reason other than a bunch of vindictive fools want it to happen.

Really? The American soldier you speak for has had MORE THAN AMPLE OPPRTUNITY to GET THE F-- OUT if he/she doesn't agree with what's going on. There are NO first term military personnel currently on active duty who have been serving since before this nation was at war. That means they VOLUNTEERED, eyes wide open, because they believe what they are doing is right.

Your partisan handbook opinion does NOT negate theirs.

Rahul
06-05-2007, 10:08 PM
Your own words, Einstein. Immoral and illegal killing is called "murder."

You apparently forgot that you responded to this bunch of quotes, but no problems, we'll try again. :lol:

For the second time, can you at least try and use the quote function like it was meant to be used so I don't have to pick through the posts and retype the quotes?



Who gives a shit. He lost. Read your history. The victor dictates the terms. The agreement was quite fair. Sotp being an asshole, stop pursuing WMDs and don't screw with our allies. How HARD is that?

I disagree. The agreement was not fair. The US was violating Saddam's airspace, and he had every right to shoot at the planes violating his territory. And you are factually incorrect on the WMD's part.


When the US does that you be sure and let me know.

They are now in Iraq. Duh.



You can disagree all you want. You're wrong in this as well

You haven't articulated how.


I don't expect you to do anything but perhaps display a bit more intelligence than this. Military personnel don't get to pick and choose which wars they fight in.


They do unless there's a draft. No-one's forced them to sign up for the military.



I guess I should have had you figured as some anti-American apologista.


Maybe you could stop with the personal remarks.




Your own words, Einstein. Immoral and illegal killing is called "murder."


That isn't a source for what I asked.


I love asking this question: care to prove that its immoral and illegal?

Immoral or not cannot be proven, and if the morality of this has to be explained to you, then you must have not have many morals to start with.

Illegal because the US violated another nation's sovereign territory. Stole their oil. Just two things, for starters.



I didn't say anything about the WMD's That's a stupid arguement as its history since nothing of importance was found. I was saying he was a threat to the region and the world. He was allying himself with anyone that was an enemy of the US, he was supporting terror organizations. He was slaughtering his own people, he was stealing money from the un and ignoring the resolutions and the cease fire obligations.

Saddam was NOT sponsoring any terrorist organizations and had no links to 9/11 either.


Gulf of Tonkin ring a bell? The 68 tet offensive which we won hands down, declared a huge loss by the media. kerry telling lies to a congressional commitee. hanoi jane posing on a AA gun. The dem congress voting to suspend all funding to South Vietnam so they could not defend themselves. There's lots of proof.

Funding or not, the military was still way more powerful that the Vietnamese military, and they still not. History states you cannot defeat a people who'd rather die than be conquered by an invading army. You can't defeat people like that.


You talk like you sympathize with him and wish he was still in power.

Whether you like him or hate him, the fact remains there wasn't any civil war in Iraq during his reign.


We should dictate to any country in the world that poses a threat to us.

And who decides what country poses a threat? On what basis?


And every country that harbors or supports terrorists is our enemy and should be dealt with accordingly.

Again, Saddam never dealt with terrorists. You are, as you say, factually incorrect.


You are correct, it was Rahul, maybe I should've asked him in Spanish.

Why? Your English not good enough? :lol:

OCA
06-05-2007, 10:15 PM
Where the hell is the oil if we stole it? Sovereignty? U.N. resolutions, bunches of them........all violated. This war is moral and legal.

Saddam dealt with terrorists, hell he paid 25,000 to the family of every Gypsy Palestinian homicide bomber. I can link you to links between Al Qaeda and Saddam, is it wirth my time though?

Gunny
06-05-2007, 11:08 PM
You apparently forgot that you responded to this bunch of quotes, but no problems, we'll try again. :lol:

For the second time, can you at least try and use the quote function like it was meant to be used so I don't have to pick through the posts and retype the quotes?

I do use the quote function. I just don't use it in the manner in which you like. Too bad.


I disagree. The agreement was not fair. The US was violating Saddam's airspace, and he had every right to shoot at the planes violating his territory. And you are factually incorrect on the WMD's part.

I think not. He used chem weapons on Kurds in Halbja. He used chem weapons on Iran. And in case you've missed it genius, they've just narrowed "Gulf War Syndrome" down to military personnel destroying an ammo dumb containing unmarked chemical weapons.

He was busted in 1993 for having a bio lab.

All of the above would of course make YOU wrong.

Saddam's airspace was patrolled to provide safe haven for Kurds and shia who Saddam immediately set out to completely annihilate following Desert Storm. So genocide is just, but stopping it is unfair?


They are now in Iraq. Duh.

You of course can provide documentation to substantiate your allegation that the US is there to steal oil? No you can't.

This would be uneducated assertion #2.


You haven't articulated how.

Sure I have. You're just so busy believing all of your mistruthes you don't hear a word anyone else is saying.


They do unless there's a draft. No-one's forced them to sign up for the military.

:lame2:



Maybe you could stop with the personal remarks.

Did it NOT occur to you that someone making a dishonest argument like you are about my country and the military I served in for 20 years would not personally insult me?

And since the shoe fits, wear it.



That isn't a source for what I asked.

It most certainly is. I said you were calling US servicemembers murderers by stating they are participating in an illegal and immoral war. THAT is EXACTLY what you are saying, and it specifically addresses your question in its entirety.


Immoral or not cannot be proven, and if the morality of this has to be explained to you, then you must have not have many morals to start with.

Illegal because the US violated another nation's sovereign territory. Stole their oil. Just two things, for starters.

You are one uneducated individual. We have stolen NO oil, and since I have to repeat myself over and over to your dense ass ... there was nothing but a ceasefire in place between the US and Iraq. The US had the LEGAL right to resume hostilites the very second Saddam violated a term of that ceasefire. You are wrong. End of story.

Saddam was NOT sponsoring any terrorist organizations and had no links to 9/11 either.



Funding or not, the military was still way more powerful that the Vietnamese military, and they still not. History states you cannot defeat a people who'd rather die than be conquered by an invading army. You can't defeat people like that.



Whether you like him or hate him, the fact remains there wasn't any civil war in Iraq during his reign.



And who decides what country poses a threat? On what basis?



Again, Saddam never dealt with terrorists. You are, as you say, factually incorrect.



Why? Your English not good enough? :lol:

/

Gaffer
06-05-2007, 11:18 PM
Rahul: Saddam was NOT sponsoring any terrorist organizations and had no
links to 9/11 either.

He was sponsoring hamas and al queda. Including allowing al queda members to take refuge in iraq. There was also an al queda training camp in the north near the iranian border. As the tons of captured evidence is sifted through they are finding more and more connections he had. No one ever said he had connection to 9/11.



Funding or not, the military was still way more powerful that the
Vietnamese military,
and they still not. History states you cannot defeat a people who'd
rather die than be conquered by an invading army.
You can't defeat people like that.

Not sure what you are saying in this sentence. You asked for proof that the dems lied during Vietnam. As for defeating people, the dems defeated south Vietnam. There were no US troops there to be defeated by the north. The south was conquered by an invading army with the help of our democrat congress.


Whether you like him or hate him, the fact remains
there wasn't any civil war in Iraq during his reign.

No he kept the country well terrorized so no one dared rise against him. Gassing villages, executing whole families, mass torture and rape rooms. He kept them in line alright. You must really miss him.



And who decides what country poses a threat? On what basis?

I guess we leave that to the state department.


Again, Saddam never dealt with terrorists. You are, as you say,
factually incorrect.

As I said above he was harboring al queda, such as zarquewi. He had an al queda training camp in the north. He was supplying money to hamas and paying families of suicide bombers. No matter what ideology differences he may have had with islamic groups, if they were against the US they were his friends.

Doniston
06-05-2007, 11:57 PM
[QUOTE=Gunny;72553]Really? The American soldier you speak for has had MORE THAN AMPLE OPPRTUNITY to GET THE F-- OUT if he/she doesn't agree with what's going on. There are NO first term military personnel currently on active duty who have been serving since before this nation was at war. That means they VOLUNTEERED, eyes wide open, because they believe what they are doing is right.



QUOTE]Or because they thought it was in their financial best interests, I spent 12 years in the service before I finally wised up.

Rahul
06-06-2007, 12:59 AM
He was sponsoring hamas and al queda.

Nonsense. Saddam did not suport terrorists or Al Quaeda.



http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddam-had-no-links-to-alqaeda/2006/09/09/1157222383981.html

Saddam had no links to al-Qaeda

THERE is no evidence of formal links between former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders before the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, a long-awaited declassified US Senate report has revealed.

The finding, contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee, is a major embarrassment for President George Bush and casts more doubt on the reasons why the so-called "Coalition of the willing" went to war.

President Bush has said the presence of the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, before the war was evidence of a link. But the report revealed that US intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush Administration officials were publicly asserting them to justify invasion.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Zarqawi, Saddam repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Saddam "only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden".

The report also said that exiles from the Iraqi National Congress tried to influence US policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After sceptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that US funding for the INC be continued.

The newly declassified intelligence report provided Administration critics with fresh ammunition less than two months before mid-term elections and in the middle of President Bush's campaign to refocus the public's attention away from Iraq and towards the threat of terrorism.

Senior Senate Democrats immediately seized on the findings, using some of their strongest language yet to say that the President continues to wilfully and falsely connect Saddam to al-Qaeda.

... ... ...






Not sure what you are saying in this sentence.

I am saying it's impossible to defeat those who don't accept defeat. Simple.



No he kept the country well terrorized so no one dared rise against him. Gassing villages, executing whole families, mass torture and rape rooms. He kept them in line alright. You must really miss him.

You ignored the fact I presented. Here it is again: There was no civil war under Saddam.



I guess we leave that to the state department.

I guess you don't need proof, then?
As I said above he was harboring al queda, such as zarquewi. He had an al queda training camp in the north. He was supplying money to hamas and paying families of suicide bombers.

I have not seen any proof of this, and strongly disagree.

Rahul
06-06-2007, 01:09 AM
I do use the quote function. I just don't use it in the manner in which you like. Too bad.


You don't use it as it's meant to be used.



You of course can provide documentation to substantiate your allegation that the US is there to steal oil? No you can't.

This would be uneducated assertion #2.




http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/24/1422/

Kucinich Claims War Masks the Real Objective: Iraqi Oil
by Stephen Koff

Published on Thursday, May 24, 2007 by the Plain Dealer (Ohio)
Kucinich Claims War Masks the Real Objective: Iraqi Oil
by Stephen Koff

WASHINGTON - It’s all about Iraq’s oil - rich, abundant, and coveted by multinational companies waiting to line their deep pockets.

Or so said Rep. Dennis Kucinich Wednesday in an unusual hourlong address on the House floor. He laid out his contention that the White House and Democratic-led Congress are helping oil companies grab a stake in Iraq’s vast oil fields while claiming to be interested merely in winding down the Iraq war.

The claim has brought Kucinich derision within his own Democratic Party. Leaders reject the suggestion that they would help “privatize” Iraqi oil. And Republicans dismiss him altogether, with Republican Party spokesman Dan Ronayne saying, “It sounds like congressman Kucinich is trying to get noticed with a nutty conspiracy theory.”

But elements of Kucinich’s claim appear to be based on theories about geopolitics and oil as much as on any conspiracy.

At the heart of the issue is a measure that, if ratified by the Iraqi parliament, would set the stage for rebuilding the war-torn country’s oil industry. Oil in Iraq, with the world’s third-biggest reserves, could pay for massive reconstruction and modernization.

But Iraq’s pipelines and terminals have been neglected or sabotaged. The industry needs to be rebuilt - yet there is promise, since only 15 of Iraq’s 74 discovered oil fields have been developed, according to a study by Amy Myers Jaffe, a fellow in energy studies at Rice University in Houston.

Who should develop that? What role should Baghdad play and what role should provincial governments have? If private industry helps, how should it be rewarded?

The framework for answering these questions is in the bill before the Iraqi parliament - a bill that’s been gaining detractors in Iraq. Some members of Congress - but not Kucinich - say it or some other so-called hydrocarbon act could serve as a benchmark for Congress and the administration to measure Iraq’s progress. It could be a measure on which to base eventual withdrawal of American troops.

But the measure itself is mired in disagreement in Iraq, with Sunnis and Kurds differing on the central question of provincial versus central control. Some in Iraq also see the measure as a way for Western corporations to gain control through revenue- sharing provisions.

“Everyone knows that the oil law does not serve the Iraqi people, and that it serves Bush, his supporters and the foreign companies at the expense of the Iraqi people who have been wronged and deprived of their right to their oil despite enduring all difficulties,” Hasan Jum’a Awwad, head of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, said in a May 12 letter to Democrats in the U.S. Congress.
There’s another view. Iraq’s oil industry is in shambles. It needs help, but outside experts keep getting killed. Multinational oil companies, whose shareholders expect a return on investment, could help.

Iraq could go it alone, but getting higher oil output could require hard decisions, including “possible under-investment in other areas of the country’s economy,” Jaffe’s analysis said. Iraq needs up to $10 billion to restore production to pre-war levels, she said, and more than $20 billion - “a major investment program” - to raise output to about 5 million barrels a day, the high end of its historical production levels.

“If it is decided that higher levels of production are desired,” Jaffe wrote, “it is inevitable that the potential role of outside in vestors and lenders will loom large.”

While that does not mean companies would give their resources and expertise out of charity, Karen Matusic, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, says it does not mean privatization, either. She asks why Kucinich would not want to help Iraq, which lacks the tools.

“They don’t have the kinds of funds or even technology needed to develop those fields,” she said.

Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, shares that view.

“That oil is capital,” and all sides in Iraq need it, said Voinovich spokesman Chris Paulitz.

Kucinich agrees with the sentiment. But he worries it won’t work out that way.

“It’s clear,” he said, “that the people of Iraq are under enormous pressure to give up their oil.”
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: skoff@plaind.com, 216-999-4212






http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4020


Oil Grab in Iraq
Antonia Juhasz and Raed Jarrar | February 22, 2007


While debate rages in the United States about the military in Iraq, an equally important decision is being made inside of Iraq--the future of Iraq’s oil. A new Iraqi law proposes to open the country’s currently nationalized oil system to foreign corporate control. But emblematic of the flawed promotion of “democracy” by the Bush administration, this new law is news to most Iraqi politicians.

A leaked copy of the proposed hydrocarbon law appeared on the Internet last week at the same time that it was introduced to the Iraqi Council of Ministers. The law is expected to go to the Iraqi Council of Representatives within weeks. Yet the Internet version was the first look that most members of Iraq’s parliament had of the new law.

Many Iraqi oil experts, like Fouad Al-Ameer who was responsible for the leak, think that this law is not an urgent item on the country's agenda. Other observers and analysis share Al-Ameer's views and believe the Bush administration, foreign oil companies, and the International Monetary Fund are rushing the Iraqi government to pass the law.

Not every aspect of the law is harmful to Iraq. However, the current language favors the interests of foreign oil corporations over the economic security and development of Iraq. The law’s key negative components harm Iraq’s national sovereignty, financial security, territorial integrity, and democracy.

National Sovereignty and Financial Security
The new oil law gives foreign corporations access to almost every sector of Iraq’s oil and natural gas industry. This includes service contracts on existing fields that are already being developed and that are managed and operated by the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). For fields that have already been discovered, but not yet developed, the proposed law stipulates that INOC will have to be a partner on these contracts. But for as-yet-undiscovered fields, neither INOC nor private Iraqi companies receive preference in new exploration and development. Foreign companies have full access to these contracts.

The exploration and production contracts give firms exclusive control of fields for up to 35 years including contracts that guarantee profits for 25-years. A foreign company, if hired, is not required to partner with an Iraqi company or reinvest any of its money in the Iraqi economy. It’s not obligated to hire Iraqi workers train Iraqi workers, or transfer technology.

The current law remains silent on the type of contracts that the Iraqi government can use. The law establishes a new Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council with ultimate decision-making authority over the types of contracts that will be employed. This Council will include, among others, “executive managers of from important related petroleum companies.” Thus, it is possible that foreign oil company executives could sit on the Council. It would be unprecedented for a sovereign country to have, for instance, an executive of ExxonMobil on the board of its key oil and gas decision-making body.

The law also does not appear to restrict foreign corporate executives from making decisions on their own contracts. Nor does there appear to be a “quorum” requirement. Thus, if only five members of the Federal Oil and Gas Council met--one from ExxonMobil, Shell, ChevronTexaco, and two Iraqis--the foreign company representatives would apparently be permitted to approve contacts for themselves.

Under the proposed law, the Council has the ultimate power and authority to approve and re-write any contract using whichever model it prefers if a "2/3 majority of the members in attendance" agree. Early drafts of the bill, and the proposed model by the U.S. advocate very unfair, and unconventional for Iraq, models such as Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) which would set long term contracts with unfair conditions that may lead to the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars of the Iraqi oil money as profits to foreign companies.

The Council will also decide the fate of the existing exploration and production contracts already signed with the French, Chinese, and Russians, among others.

The law does not clarify who ultimately controls production levels. The contractee--the INOC, foreign, or domestic firms--appears to have the right to determine levels of production. However, a clause reads, “In the event that, for national policy considerations, there is a need to introduce limitations on the national level of Petroleum Production, such limitations shall be applied in a fair and equitable manner and on a pro-rata basis for each Contract Area on the basis of approved Field Development Plans.” The clause does not indicate who makes this decision, what a “fair and equitable manner” means, or how it is enforced. If foreign companies, rather than the Iraqi government, ultimately have control over production levels, then Iraq’s relationship to OPEC and other similar organizations would be deeply threatened.

Democracy and Territorial Integrity

Many Iraqi oil experts are already referring to the draft law as the "Split Iraq Fund," arguing that it facilitates plans for splitting Iraq into three ethnic/religious regions. The experts believe the law undermines the central government and shifts important decision-making and responsibilities to the regional entities. This shift could serve as the foundation for establishing three new independent states, which is the goal of a number of separatist leaders.

The law opens the possibility of the regions taking control of Iraq’s oil, but it also maintains the possibility of the central government retaining control. In fact, the law was written in a vague manner to help ensure passage, a ploy reminiscent of the passage of the Iraqi constitution. There is a significant conflict between the Bush administration and others in Iraq who would like ultimate authority for Iraq’s oil to rest with the central government and those who would like to see the nation split in three. Both groups are powerful in Iraq. Both groups have been mollified, for now, to ensure the law's passage.

But two very different outcomes are possible. If the central government remains the ultimate decision-making authority in Iraq, then the Iraq Federal Oil and Gas Council will exercise power over the regions. And if the regions emerge as the strongest power in Iraq, then the Council could simply become a silent rubber stamp, enforcing the will of the regions. The same lack of clarity exists in Iraq's constitution.

The daily lives of most people in Iraq are overwhelmed with meeting basic needs. They are unaware of the details and full nature of the oil law shortly to be considered in parliament. Their parliamentarians, in turn, have not been included in the debate over the law and were unable to even read the draft until it was leaked on the Internet. Those Iraqis able to make their voices heard on the oil law want more time. They urge postponing a decision until Iraqis have their own sovereign state without a foreign occupation.

Passing this oil law while the political future of Iraq is unclear can only further the existing schisms in the Iraqi government. Forcing its passage will achieve nothing more than an increase in the levels of violence, anger, and instability in Iraq and a prolongation of the U.S. occupation.


Raed Jarrar Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange. He is an Iraqi blogger and architect. He runs a blog called "Raed in the Middle." Antonia Juhasz is the Ida Tarbell Fellow at Oil Change International, a Visiting Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, and author of The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time (HarperCollins, April 2006).






Did it NOT occur to you that someone making a dishonest argument like you are about my country and the military I served in for 20 years would not personally insult me?

And since the shoe fits, wear it.

Your entire post is nothing but a personal attack. Personal attacks are common when there isn't a logical argument to be made.



You are one uneducated individual.

You are the one that is not schooled in manners. If you were, you wouldn't keep insulting me like you just have ...



We have stolen NO oil,

... Or ignore the evidence.



and since I have to repeat myself over and over to your dense ass ...

... And insult me over and over again. These type of insults get reported, FYI.

Gunny
06-06-2007, 06:59 AM
[QUOTE=Gunny;72553]Really? The American soldier you speak for has had MORE THAN AMPLE OPPRTUNITY to GET THE F-- OUT if he/she doesn't agree with what's going on. There are NO first term military personnel currently on active duty who have been serving since before this nation was at war. That means they VOLUNTEERED, eyes wide open, because they believe what they are doing is right.



QUOTE]Or because they thought it was in their financial best interests, I spent 12 years in the service before I finally wised up.

Not everyone is a financial opportunist who will use any and everything to further their self-interest just because you were. I should have snapped to your slinging around the term gung ho ... used by self-centered, marginalist skaters to disparage those servicemembers around them who actually believe in what they are doing.

Be that as it may, your response is illogical. People such as you who joined to sponge of the benefits without having to give back DO NOT joind during a time of war.

Gunny
06-06-2007, 07:27 AM
You don't use it as it's meant to be used.

Sure I do. I don't use it the way YOU do.










Your entire post is nothing but a personal attack. Personal attacks are common when there isn't a logical argument to be made.

Calling your statements uneducated responses is a personal attack? That's a lame cop-out.

Neither of your links prove a damned thing except that you are willing to attempt to misprepresent opinion as fact.




You are the one that is not schooled in manners. If you were, you wouldn't keep insulting me like you just have ...

So this is your MO? Whine "foul" to deflect from the fact that you cannot substantiate even one of your baseless America-hating accusations except with a link from a tinfoil hat wearer?

If you're going to be an overly-sensitive baby, you might need to find someone else to spew your lies to since I haven't even BEGUN to insult you.


... Or ignore the evidence.

I'm STILL waiting for some evidence that isn't someone's poltical, fishing expedition.


... And insult me over and over again. These type of insults get reported, FYI.

"Wah ...I'm telling." Get yourself a box of kleenex and a mirror so you can discuss it with the only one who cares.

THIS is an insult: Go ahead and report away, pussy. Your argument is what I'd expect from a second-grader ... baseless lies that serve only as a means for you to bash the US. I call you on your bullshit and all I get as substantiation for your lies and rhetoric is an attempted deflection to a personal attack on my manners, not to mention you presume to tell me how to use a quote function.

You suck. You'r nothing but a wannabe elitists trying to play the game with an unloaded weapon. You don't belong on a message board where adults discuss real topics and back their arguments with more than lies and political rhetoric. You've made allegtions and supported NOT ONE OF THEM.

Gunny
06-06-2007, 08:00 AM
Nonsense. Saddam did not suport terrorists or Al Quaeda.

Wrong. Saddam supported Hamas financially. Documented fact. He also had ties to AQ. The only unknown is to what extent. Your link only states he had no "formal" ties to AQ; which, is probably true. And does not otherwise negate his other ties with terrorists/terrorst organizations at all.

Whether or not Saddam participated in 9/11 is irrelevant since.





I am saying it's impossible to defeat those who don't accept defeat. Simple.

Incorrect. It is very possible to defeat anyone by destroying them; regardless, their personal resolve.


You ignored the fact I presented. Here it is again: There was no civil war under Saddam.

So there was no civil war under Saddam. You were presented with the reasons WHY there was no civil war under Saddam; which, does not ignore your statement, but adresses it directly.


I guess you don't need proof, then?

Funny thing about a representative democracy ... we elect representatives to assess and make those decisions for us. We were presented with sufficient proof to justify removing Saddam from power. Just because you choose to ignore the factual evidence presented doesn't mean everyone does.

I have not seen any proof of this, and strongly disagree.

It is documented fact that Zarqawi was treated in a Baghdad hospital after being wounded in Afghanistan. It is also fact there was an AQ training camp on the Iraq Iran border run by Zarqawi.

You haven't seen it because you apparently don't see too much if it doesn't support your argument. You can disagree all you want and it won't change the facts one bit.

OCA
06-06-2007, 08:37 AM
June 29, 2005, 9:12 a.m.
It’s All About 9/11
The president links Iraq and al Qaeda — and the usual suspects moan.



President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night — some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull — why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.




It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans — as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found.

It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. They are among a host of developments that could help defeat the enemy.

But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.

That is why we are in Iraq.

On September 12, 2001, no one in America cared about whether there would be enough Sunni participation in a fledgling Iraqi democracy if Saddam were ever toppled. No one in lower Manhattan cared whether the electricity would work in Baghdad, or whether Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia could be coaxed into a political process. They cared about smashing terrorists and the states that supported them for the purpose of promoting American national security.

Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.

The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had “nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen’s words “offended” about use of the 9/11 “trump card.”

If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it’s because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they’ve been invited to dig in for years.

The president needs to be talking about Saddam and terror because that’s what will get their attention in Damascus and Teheran. It’s not about the great experiment in democratization — as helpful as it would be to establish a healthy political culture in that part of the world. It’s about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us.

On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.


There's more. Stephen Hayes’s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there’s “nothing whatsoever” there — will provide more still.

So Gergen, Reid, the Times, and the rest are “offended” at the president's reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the “nothing whatsoever” crowd’s inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren't you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp

Dilloduck
06-06-2007, 09:01 AM
June 29, 2005, 9:12 a.m.
It’s All About 9/11
The president links Iraq and al Qaeda — and the usual suspects moan.



President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night — some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull — why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.




It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans — as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found.

It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. They are among a host of developments that could help defeat the enemy.

But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.

That is why we are in Iraq.

On September 12, 2001, no one in America cared about whether there would be enough Sunni participation in a fledgling Iraqi democracy if Saddam were ever toppled. No one in lower Manhattan cared whether the electricity would work in Baghdad, or whether Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia could be coaxed into a political process. They cared about smashing terrorists and the states that supported them for the purpose of promoting American national security.

Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.

The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had “nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen’s words “offended” about use of the 9/11 “trump card.”

If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it’s because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they’ve been invited to dig in for years.

The president needs to be talking about Saddam and terror because that’s what will get their attention in Damascus and Teheran. It’s not about the great experiment in democratization — as helpful as it would be to establish a healthy political culture in that part of the world. It’s about making our enemies know we are coming for them if they abet and harbor and promote and plan with the people who are trying to kill us.

On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.


There's more. Stephen Hayes’s book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there’s “nothing whatsoever” there — will provide more still.

So Gergen, Reid, the Times, and the rest are “offended” at the president's reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the “nothing whatsoever” crowd’s inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren't you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp

Good article and I gotta agree that one of the Bush administrations BIGGEST failures is not doing a decent job in explaining the WOT (not that any opponent would objectively listen to it anyway)

Doniston
06-06-2007, 01:31 PM
[QUOTE=Doniston;72647]

Not everyone is a financial opportunist who will use any and everything to further their self-interest just because you were. I should have snapped to your slinging around the term gung ho ... used by self-centered, marginalist skaters to disparage those servicemembers around them who actually believe in what they are doing.

Be that as it may, your response is illogical. People such as you who joined to sponge of the benefits without having to give back DO NOT joind during a time of war. 1. Are you suggeting that a lot of those "military types" didn't reenlist because of the humungus reip bonuses?

2. What do you mean by "Snapped"? showing your chagrin for being disparaged?

3. In my terminology, "Gung Ho" refers to those miltary types who have nothing of pride in their lives but their military service, and think everyone should forever respect them for it, and especially those who think killing someone is some sort of sport rather than necessity.

4. I agree there are some who are partiotically inclined to join the service. but I do beleive that at the present time. Most are there for the present and furture financial benifits that they will earn (my honest opinion)

5. as for when I joined. I was too young for WWII, tho I was considered a part of it, Now you figure the dates I was in, and if there were any wars to be fought? March 46 to Nov 48 -Airlift, Korea, suez crises. Not that it makes the slightest bit of difference. I was there for duty while I was in. and FYI, the only benefits I took advantage of was buying a house under the GI BILL.

Rahul
06-06-2007, 01:52 PM
Sure I do. I don't use it the way YOU do

I disagree. You do not use it as everyone else uses it on here either.



Calling your statements uneducated responses is a personal attack? That's a lame cop-out.

My statements are not uneducated. What part did you not understand, BTW?



Neither of your links prove a damned thing except that you are willing to attempt to misprepresent opinion as fact.


You haven't been forthcoming with sources of your own.


[COLOR="olive"]"Wah ...I'm telling." Get yourself a box of kleenex and a mirror so you can discuss it with the only one who cares.

If you would care to stop with the histrioics, I'd discuss it with you.




THIS is an insult: Go ahead and report away, pussy.

Thats three times already. I suspect insults are against forum rules and will report them.


[
Your argument is what I'd expect from a second-grader ... baseless lies that serve only as a means for you to bash the US.

They were not lies. Do you always resort to flaming when presented with facts?


[to a personal attack on my manners,

It's important to point these things out so the thread stays civil.


not to mention you presume to tell me how to use a quote function.

It would help if you used the quote function as it was supposed to be used.



You suck.

This is an example of an unwarranted insult. You simply concentrate on the debater's personality and character instead of the argument, as you do in your next statement also.



You'r nothing but a wannabe elitists trying to play the game with an unloaded weapon.



You don't belong on a message board where adults discuss real topics and back their arguments with more than lies and political rhetoric.

And your next statement, for that matter.

darin
06-06-2007, 01:54 PM
Please - lets all tone things down a bit, okay? We don't need to call names, or instigate to have a discussion. Thanks folks!

OCA
06-06-2007, 01:59 PM
"Waaaah, you called me a name and i'm gonna report you, waaaaaaah":laugh2:

Jesus where are the balls around here?

Rahul
06-06-2007, 02:00 PM
Wrong. Saddam supported Hamas financially. Documented fact. He also had ties to AQ. The only unknown is to what extent. Your link only states he had no "formal" ties to AQ; which, is probably true. And does not otherwise negate his other ties with terrorists/terrorst organizations at all.

Did you even read the source I provided? Mouse over it? Scroll through? Scan it? Something? Anything?


Incorrect. It is very possible to defeat anyone by destroying them; regardless, their personal resolve.


It isn't possible to defeat people who don't accept defeat. I disagree totally.




So there was no civil war under Saddam.

Correct. There is now.


Funny thing about a representative democracy ... we elect representatives to assess and make those decisions for us. We were presented with sufficient proof to justify removing Saddam from power. Just because you choose to ignore the factual evidence presented doesn't mean everyone does.


There wasn't a single reason to remove Saddam from power from a US point of view except to grab Iraq's oil.

Doniston
06-06-2007, 03:02 PM
"Waaaah, you called me a name and i'm gonna report you, waaaaaaah":laugh2:

Jesus where are the balls around here? You certainly don't have em. but you overwork the ones hidden inside like you do. Why can't you be civil.

OCA
06-06-2007, 03:05 PM
You certainly don't have em. but you overwork the ones hidden inside like you do. Why can't you be civil.

Why can't you work the quote function properly 100% of the time? Mine are giant, yours are probably whithered and shrunken.

glockmail
06-06-2007, 03:24 PM
Why can't you work the quote function properly 100% of the time? Mine are giant, yours are probably whithered and shrunken.

Was that you I saw walking around with a "ball bra". :laugh2:

OCA
06-06-2007, 03:38 PM
Was that you I saw walking around with a "ball bra". :laugh2:

Specialized jockeys!

glockmail
06-06-2007, 03:48 PM
Specialized jockeys!
Extra strength kevlar? What happens if you get a creeper during the day?

OCA
06-06-2007, 03:54 PM
Extra strength kevlar? What happens if you get a creeper during the day?

Creeper? Uhh not familiar with that terminology.

glockmail
06-06-2007, 04:20 PM
Creeper? Uhh not familiar with that terminology. Sort of like a soft woodie, or what happens to a man when he sees something like this: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=65000&postcount=1

OCA
06-06-2007, 04:48 PM
Sort of like a soft woodie, or what happens to a man when he sees something like this: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=65000&postcount=1

Oh, the old tent pitch...uh the jockeys have room for adjustment on the fly.

glockmail
06-06-2007, 05:00 PM
Oh, the old tent pitch...uh the jockeys have room for adjustment on the fly. So when she adjusts her bra then you can adjust yours. :laugh2:

OCA
06-06-2007, 05:32 PM
So when she adjusts her bra then you can adjust yours. :laugh2:


Never been afraid to adjust in public, would rather suffer a few seconds embarrassment than an hour of chafing.

Doniston
06-06-2007, 06:01 PM
Why can't you work the quote function properly 100% of the time? Mine are giant, yours are probably whithered and shrunken. Strange you bring up something that isn't happening. Oh well, to answer, I'm not perfect but apparently neither are you---- (see below)

Aren't you afraid of contracting Ovarian Cancer, if they are so overgrown.

glockmail
06-06-2007, 06:06 PM
Never been afraid to adjust in public, would rather suffer a few seconds embarrassment than an hour of chafing.

I'm never embarassed to adjust my frank and beans.

Gunny
06-06-2007, 10:29 PM
Did you even read the source I provided? Mouse over it? Scroll through? Scan it? Something? Anything?

No source you can provide will change the fact that saddam supported terrorists.



It isn't possible to defeat people who don't accept defeat. I disagree totally.

Let me draw you a picture. One 7.62 mm round right between the eyes will defeat anyone completely.



Correct. There is now.

So? There wasn't a civil war in the US until there was one. What's your point?


There wasn't a single reason to remove Saddam from power from a US point of view except to grab Iraq's oil.

Complete lie. He was a ruthless despotic dictator who murdered his own people at whim. If teh US had not begun Operations Northern and Southern Watch he would have ruthlessly murdered the kurds and shia.

He broke the ceasefire agreement time after time and did not comply with UN sanctions. He threatened the US every other month.

He manufactured, possessed and used WMDs. He attacked to neighboring nations to steal their oil.

Sounds like plenty of reasons to me.

But not to you. Your agenda is pretty damned clear. Since we're so wrong, feel free to go join the militant islamic group of faggots of your choice.

chum43
06-07-2007, 01:03 AM
I believe wholeheartedly in taking out sadam, which is why I supported the war in the beginning(didn't last too long since we had planned to stay there forever right from the start)... there are dozens of reasons to take him out... not the so-called war on terrorism however, I can't help but chuckle everytime I hear the excuse he supported terrorists as the biggest reason to go over there, haha, if he does, then so do we... we support isreal for pete's sake.

Rahul
06-07-2007, 01:33 AM
Complete lie.

What is?


He was a ruthless despotic dictator who murdered his own people at whim. If teh US had not begun Operations Northern and Southern Watch he would have ruthlessly murdered the kurds and shia.

The US was never worried about the Iraqis, more about their oil as that is the only thing that benefits them there.



He broke the ceasefire agreement time after time and did not comply with UN sanctions. He threatened the US every other month.

US planes should not have flown over Iraqi airspace. It's that simple.



He attacked to neighboring nations to steal their oil.

Take away the word "neigboring", and you've described Bush to a T.



Sounds like plenty of reasons to me.

Sounds like a partisan post to me. :beer:



But not to you. Your agenda is pretty damned clear.

I don't have an agenda and am here to debate rationally not indulge in insults and name calling as you are famous for.



Since we're so wrong, feel free to go join the militant islamic group of faggots of your choice. [/COLOR]

You sound angry and upset once more. Perhaps you could explain what has you so worked up.

glockmail
06-07-2007, 06:47 AM
I believe wholeheartedly in taking out sadam, which is why I supported the war in the beginning(didn't last too long since we had planned to stay there forever right from the start)... there are dozens of reasons to take him out... not the so-called war on terrorism however, I can't help but chuckle everytime I hear the excuse he supported terrorists as the biggest reason to go over there, haha, if he does, then so do we... we support isreal for pete's sake.

Saddam was supporting terrorism. He had bin Laden in his country and their nderlings met many times. Israel is not a terrorist supporter.

How can you be so wrong on these three things?

Rahul
06-07-2007, 08:01 AM
Saddam was supporting terrorism. He had bin Laden in his country and their nderlings met many times. Israel is not a terrorist supporter.

How can you be so wrong on these three things?

You are wrong all three counts and have it backwards.

1. Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist supporter. There were NO terrorists under Saddam.

2. There was NO connection between Saddam and Bin Laden.

3. As for Israel, they are not just "terrorist supporters". The government of Israel IS a government composed of terrorists.

OCA
06-07-2007, 08:26 AM
You are wrong all three counts and have it backwards.

1. Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist supporter. There were NO terrorists under Saddam.

2. There was NO connection between Saddam and Bin Laden.

3. As for Israel, they are not just "terrorist supporters". The government of Israel IS a government composed of terrorists.

You completely ignored a post of mine a while back containing facts that linked Saddam to international terrorism and Saddam to Al Qaeda. You simply are a liar because lying is the only way to support your position.

Psychoblues
06-07-2007, 08:34 AM
Maybe he has caught on to your dishonest tricks, oca.



You completely ignored a post of mine a while back containing facts that linked Saddam to international terrorism and Saddam to Al Qaeda. You simply are a liar because lying is the only way to support your position.

If not for lies, false accusations and foul language you could not exist.

I'm waiting for your payoff?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!

OCA
06-07-2007, 08:41 AM
Maybe he has caught on to your dishonest tricks, oca.




If not for lies, false accusations and foul language you could not exist.

I'm waiting for your payoff?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!


Uhhhh hellooooooooo! Still waiting for you to post in the Cosa Nostra thread, seeing how you claimed you were going to kick my ass in that thread and even made a bet to that effect don't you think you should be a man for once in your life, pay up and get the fuck off my board?

Anyway you ignored the post proving the ties, didn't you? I know, I know, its much easier to just label me a liar then to actually read.

Psycho, politics just ain't your thing.

Psychoblues
06-07-2007, 08:53 AM
Done been there and done that, oca.


Uhhhh hellooooooooo! Still waiting for you to post in the Cosa Nostra thread, seeing how you claimed you were going to kick my ass in that thread and even made a bet to that effect don't you think you should be a man for once in your life, pay up and get the fuck off my board?

Anyway you ignored the post proving the ties, didn't you? I know, I know, its much easier to just label me a liar then to actually read.

Psycho, politics just ain't your thing.

Were you in the slow class in school? Or were you educated in a Yankee school?

OCA
06-07-2007, 08:56 AM
Saddam and Al Qaeda ties:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/628wqxma.asp

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4198_0_2_0_C/

http://www.nysun.com/article/39631

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/02/more_evidence_of_saddams_links.html

OCA
06-07-2007, 08:57 AM
Done been there and done that, oca.





No, you haven't, get the fuck off my board.

How many slaves did you great great great granddaddy own? How many churches did your daddy bomb?

Psychoblues
06-07-2007, 09:02 AM
I don't believe you have a board, oca.



No, you haven't, get the fuck off my board.

How many slaves did you great great great granddaddy own? How many churches did your daddy bomb?

My great, great great granddaddy didn't own any slaves and my daddy never bombed a church. You are one sicko son of a bitch, oca.

OCA
06-07-2007, 09:05 AM
I don't believe you have a board, oca.




My great, great great granddaddy didn't own any slaves and my daddy never bombed a church. You are one sicko son of a bitch, oca.

Sure, everybody with Mississippi lineage had em or bombed em at one time or another, its one of the state's crowning achievements, what else is there besides a failing educational system and a system that abuses foster kids?

OCA
06-07-2007, 09:10 AM
Hey drunk don't forget to ignore post #101!:laugh2:

Psychoblues
06-07-2007, 09:12 AM
Lemme correct that.



Sure, everybody with Mississippi lineage had em or bombed em at one time or another, its one of the state's crowning achievements, what else is there besides a failing educational system and a system that abuses foster kids?

You are not only sicko but clearly stupid as well. Clarify your idiotic statements or let mine stand as expressed.

OCA
06-07-2007, 09:32 AM
Lemme correct that.




You are not only sicko but clearly stupid as well. Clarify your idiotic statements or let mine stand as expressed.


http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10222950

Wow ranked 48th in the U.S. way to go rednecks!

And you guys abuse and kill foster kids...cool!

Psychoblues
06-07-2007, 09:43 AM
You're not into sports, are you, oca?



http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10222950

Wow ranked 48th in the U.S. way to go rednecks!

And you guys abuse and kill foster kids...cool!

If you were then you would completely understand that last place includes you as a competitor. Somebody has to come in first and somebody has to come in last and there are a lot of teams that come in between.

I'll take my Mississippi education against your whatever ignorance anyday and give 30 to 1 odds I can kick your ass on the academics. Like I said in another thread, hook, line and sinker, you are simply the most stupid of all fish that I ever caught.

OCA
06-07-2007, 09:55 AM
You're not into sports, are you, oca?




If you were then you would completely understand that last place includes you as a competitor. Somebody has to come in first and somebody has to come in last and there are a lot of teams that come in between.

I'll take my Mississippi education against your whatever ignorance anyday and give 30 to 1 odds I can kick your ass on the academics. Like I said in another thread, hook, line and sinker, you are simply the most stupid of all fish that I ever caught.


Psycho your stupid little quips won't save you this time, probably should leave and save whatever you have left of face.

Psychoblues
06-07-2007, 10:07 AM
My face in yours just scares the hell out of you, doesn't it, oca?



Psycho your stupid little quips won't save you this time, probably should leave and save whatever you have left of face.

You can't even respond on a simple question or thread or question on this board without demonstrating your ignorance of the subjects or even intimating that you understand the topic at large.

You think I'm gonna leave on that? Think again, double dimple chin.

OCA
06-07-2007, 10:13 AM
My face in yours just scares the hell out of you, doesn't it, oca?




You can't even respond on a simple question or thread or question on this board without demonstrating your ignorance of the subjects or even intimating that you understand the topic at large.

You think I'm gonna leave on that? Think again, double dimple chin.

Still ignoring post #101 aren't you? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Your knowkedge doesn't even begin to approach mine on this or any other topic, you are a hallucinatory drunk, a self-admitted hallucinatory drunk.

glockmail
06-07-2007, 10:47 AM
You are wrong all three counts and have it backwards.

1. Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist supporter. There were NO terrorists under Saddam.

2. There was NO connection between Saddam and Bin Laden.

3. As for Israel, they are not just "terrorist supporters". The government of Israel IS a government composed of terrorists.This is an example of someone being an ass, as you simply repeat your BS with no facts to back them up.

Gaffer
06-07-2007, 11:02 AM
You are wrong all three counts and have it backwards.

1. Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist supporter. There were NO terrorists under Saddam.

2. There was NO connection between Saddam and Bin Laden.

3. As for Israel, they are not just "terrorist supporters". The government of Israel IS a government composed of terrorists.

So your a jahidi. Now we know what we're dealing with.

:pee: islam :pee: mohamad

I will no longer waste my time with you, your just another islamic piece of shit.

Doniston
06-07-2007, 12:57 PM
HA HA HA, Come on Psycho, join the crowd, Us psychos, drunks, lushes have to stick together. But if we do, we will outnumber posters like OCA, because if the posters disagree with him, they all get included in our catogory. he is showing himself to be the South end of a northbound horse more and more with ever post.

Face of Debate policy? Nuts. more like the ass end.

OCA
06-07-2007, 01:12 PM
HA HA HA, Come on Psycho, join the crowd, Us psychos, drunks, lushes have to stick together. But if we do, we will outnumber posters like OCA, because if the posters disagree with him, they all get included in our catogory. he is showing himself to be the South end of a northbound horse more and more with ever post.

Face of Debate policy? Nuts. more like the ass end.

Uhh Fidel, you haven't been around too long so i'll let you know that he has admitted in the past to being a drunk......oh and BTW he got 86'd today for nefarious actions on his part so I wouldn't be getting to chummy with ol'Psycho.

Rahul
06-07-2007, 01:43 PM
You completely ignored a post of mine a while back containing facts that linked Saddam to international terrorism and Saddam to Al Qaeda.

How about this report? From the 911 commission?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

I won't post all 580 plus pages here, but I am sure you can find the part where it says there isn't any connection between Saddam and AlQuaeda.

Here is another link for your reference.




http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1183


Here is a small but telling explanation. Last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell held a wide-ranging press conference, his first in months. During this session, he was asked about a report produced by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that concluded there was no evidence of a prewar connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and no evidence that Hussein had been likely to transfer weapons of mass destruction to Osama bin Laden's network. Powell replied, "There is not--you know, I have not seen smoking-gun concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

No concrete evidence? The possibility of such connections? That is not how Bush depicted the supposed link between Iraq's dictator and America's number-one foe. In a press conference in November 2002, he declared that Hussein was "dealing with" al Qaeda. And during his high-profile May 1, 2003, speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln--remember the flight suit, the "Mission Accomplished" banner?--Bush said that Hussein was an "ally" of al Qaeda.

So what did those statements mean if there was no solid evidence tying Hussein to al Qaeda? Prior to the war, Bush had argued that invasion of Iraq was necessary because (1) Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and (2) Hussein maintained an operational alliance with al Qaeda. He claimed that Hussein could at any moment slip WMDs to bin Laden. Consequently, Bush's assertions about the relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda was an essential part of his case for war. Last February, Powell told the United Nations Security Council that there was a "sinister nexus" between Iraq and al Qaeda. Now he was saying his warning of an alliance between Hussein and al Qaeda was based on "prudent" concern, not actual facts. That is not how Bush presented the matter to the American public. Powell's press conference comment offered more--and glaring--evidence of the gap between reality and Bush's rhetoric and was yet another indication Bush (and Powell) had misled the nation on the way to war.

What does this have to do with Dean and the Democrats? As for the latter, apparently not much. After the media reported Powell comments, there was--as far as I could tell--no response from the "Washington Democrats." (Powell's comments about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection--or lack thereof--was reported by the New York Times, but The Washington Post's piece on the press conference did not note this exchange.) A day later, the anti-Bush news focused on the revelations contained in Ron Suskind's new book, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill (Bush was disengaged in Cabinet meetings but hell-bent on attacking Iraq from the first days of his presidency). Democratic Party chairman Terry McAullife pounced on these gotcha disclosures, and other Democratic-leaning pundits used O'Neill's much-publicized observations as a club to bash Bush as an out-of-touch president.

But Powell's admission--perhaps more serious--received much less attention and provoked no ire among official Democrats in the capital. Why was that? After all, he was essentially confirming one of the most serious charges leveled against Bush: that he had hornswoggled the nation into war.

... ...





You simply are a liar because lying is the only way to support your position.

Your personal remarks are unwarranted and unwelcome. Do you always insult those you engage in debate with?


So your a jahidi. Now we know what we're dealing with.

:pee: islam :pee: mohamad

I will no longer waste my time with you, your just another islamic piece of shit.

Your behavior is unacceptable and shall be reported to the moderators.

chum43
06-07-2007, 02:04 PM
well i personally never denied terrorist ties with saddam... but saying isreal isn't a terrorist supporting nation, you may be right, THEY ARE the terrorists... directly.

OCA
06-07-2007, 02:05 PM
How about this report? From the 911 commission?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

I won't post all 580 plus pages here, but I am sure you can find the part where it says there isn't any connection between Saddam and AlQuaeda.

Here is another link for your reference.






Your personal remarks are unwarranted and unwelcome. Do you always insult those you engage in debate with?



Your behavior is unacceptable and shall be reported to the moderators.


"Waaaaaaaaaaah i'm gonna report you to the moderators waaaaaaaaaaah":laugh2:

The 9/11 commission was a political witchhunt, it ignored evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Saddam because it did not fit their political view.

OCA
06-07-2007, 02:08 PM
I posted links that irrefuteably show evidence of a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, they have not been refuted.

Kathianne
06-07-2007, 02:49 PM
"Waaaaaaaaaaah i'm gonna report you to the moderators waaaaaaaaaaah":laugh2:

The 9/11 commission was a political witchhunt, it ignored evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Saddam because it did not fit their political view.

Actually they did point out the likelihood, but couched it in terms of unverifiable. If anyone bothered to translate all the documents out of Iraq, well there might be some verification, for some reason the administration has dropped the ball on this.

Doniston
06-07-2007, 03:10 PM
Uhh Fidel, you haven't been around too long so i'll let you know that he has admitted in the past to being a drunk......oh and BTW he got 86'd today for nefarious actions on his part so I wouldn't be getting to chummy with ol'Psycho.

I know he has admitted to being drunk on occasion. but your's was a blanket statement just as it was a knownothing statement regarding me.

So If you are not on the staff, how do you know he was 86'd today? That is supposed to be known only by the staff.

Further, you are an idiot for continuing to call me Fidel. but that is par for the course with you, right?

You are one of several who have gotten on my last nerve so expect no quarter- whatsoever from me.

OCA
06-07-2007, 03:10 PM
Actually they did point out the likelihood, but couched it in terms of unverifiable. If anyone bothered to translate all the documents out of Iraq, well there might be some verification, for some reason the administration has dropped the ball on this.


Might be because everytime the admin. mentions it the LMM noise machine gets going in and drowns it in an avalanche of bullshit.

Kathianne
06-07-2007, 03:18 PM
Might be because everytime the admin. mentions it the LMM noise machine gets going in and drowns it in an avalanche of bullshit.
Then again, it might be the administration wants out?

OCA
06-07-2007, 03:27 PM
I know he has admitted to being drunk on occasion. but your's was a blanket statement just as it was a knownothing statement regarding me.

So If you are not on the staff, how do you know he was 86'd today? That is supposed to be known only by the staff.

Further, you are an idiot for continuing to call be Fidel. but that is par for the course with you, right?

You are one of several who have gotten on my last nerve so expect no quarter- whatsoever from me.

Douchebag, you see banned under his name? Fuck you are fucking stupid!

Wow, no quarter from Fidel.....i'm trembling!

OCA
06-07-2007, 03:28 PM
Then again, it might be the administration wants out?

Out of what?

Kathianne
06-07-2007, 03:31 PM
Out of what?

Iraq. If not, why leave the translating to private interests? Why can't they be 'bothered'? They don't want to.

OCA
06-07-2007, 03:34 PM
Iraq. If not, why leave the translating to private interests? Why can't they be 'bothered'? They don't want to.


Interesting, but out of Iraq all together without victory will be disastorous, lets hope they are not considering that suicidal thought.

Kathianne
06-07-2007, 03:37 PM
Interesting, but out of Iraq all together without victory will be disastorous, lets hope they are not considering that suicidal thought.

Well unless the administration is willing to buck the MSM, the Democrats, and DOD and listen to the troops/boots on the ground, that is an unlikely outcome.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20070606.aspx

They are ignoring stuff like this, the administration, DOD, Democrats, ie, everyone.

Gaffer
06-07-2007, 03:51 PM
How about this report? From the 911 commission?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf




Your behavior is unacceptable and shall be reported to the moderators.

Does this mean it will be placed in my permanent file?

:pee: muslims

Gaffer
06-07-2007, 04:02 PM
Well unless the administration is willing to buck the MSM, the Democrats, and DOD and listen to the troops/boots on the ground, that is an unlikely outcome.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20070606.aspx

They are ignoring stuff like this, the administration, DOD, Democrats, ie, everyone.

Good find Kath. Gotta spread the rep tho.

Kathianne
06-07-2007, 04:44 PM
Good find Kath. Gotta spread the rep tho.

Thanks, lord knows, I know the drill. ;)

Doniston
06-07-2007, 06:05 PM
Douchebag, you see banned under his name? Fuck you are fucking stupid!

Wow, no quarter from Fidel.....i'm trembling! it wasn't there when you said it

OCA
06-07-2007, 08:53 PM
it wasn't there when you said it

Sure it was, been there since late this morning. Christ you got alzheimers or something?

Gunny
06-07-2007, 09:03 PM
What is?

Going to play this baby game, huh? The US did not invade Iraq to takes it oil. The US has taken no oil. Your statement that the US invaded Iraq to steal oil is a lie.


The US was never worried about the Iraqis, more about their oil as that is the only thing that benefits them there.

You are one, dumb MFer.



US planes should not have flown over Iraqi airspace. It's that simple.

You really aren't getting the part where the victors dictate the terms, are you? The US remained in a state of war with Iraq, with only a peacefire temporarily halting hostilities.

Had Saddam not tried to annihilate the shia and kurds, the US wouldn't have been flying over Iraqi airspace. So what you are in effect saying, is it is okay for Saddam to commit genocide, and he was "wronged" by the US for stopping him.

Just about says it all for you, doesn't it?



Take away the word "neigboring", and you've described Bush to a T.

The US invaded two countries with governments hostile to the US, and hostile to their own people, and one harbored Osama bin Laden. The invasions were justified.

Saddam's invasions of Iran and Kuwait were not. He invaded to expand his territory and do what you keep falsely accusing the US of doing -- steal oil.


Sounds like a partisan post to me. :beer:

It only sounds partisan to you because the actual facts don't fit yout anti-US handbook rehetoric.


I don't have an agenda and am here to debate rationally not indulge in insults and name calling as you are famous for.

Would you stop with the damned whining? The Hell you don't have an agenda. You're attempting to push your anti-US rhetoric, and I'm going to slap every one of your lies around with fact and common sense every time I see one.

I'm not famous for anything except being a hardass jarhead who isn't about to let some mealy-mouthed pansy drag my country through the dirt.


You sound angry and upset once more. Perhaps you could explain what has you so worked up.

Angry? Hardly. Your pansy ass would pee all over yourself if you ever saw ME angry.

Doniston
06-07-2007, 09:16 PM
Sure it was, been there since late this morning. Christ you got alzheimers or something?You are a liar, course I knew that all along.

Gunny
06-07-2007, 09:28 PM
Does this mean it will be placed in my permanent file?

:pee: muslims

:lol:

This dude is too much. The board crybaby tattletale. :gay:

OCA
06-07-2007, 09:39 PM
You are a liar, course I knew that all along.

Chrissakes, Donny get the meds back buddy. If you want I can prove it was there late this morning, want me to?

Gunny
06-07-2007, 09:59 PM
Chrissakes, Donny get the meds back buddy. If you want I can prove it was there late this morning, want me to?

No teasing. Just slap him down and get it over with.:laugh2:

Rahul
06-07-2007, 10:02 PM
Does this mean it will be placed in my permanent file?

:pee: muslims

It means you have no argument to make, and are instead using insults as your main debating tactic combined with loony right wing propoganda.


Angry? Hardly. Your pansy ass would pee all over yourself if you ever saw ME angry.


Going to play this baby game, huh? The US did not invade Iraq to takes it oil. The US has taken no oil. Your statement that the US invaded Iraq to steal oil is a lie.

Did you even read the sources I provided? Reading is fun, and educational sometimes. :)


You are one, dumb MFer.

Please stop with the personal insults already.


You really aren't getting the part where the victors dictate the terms, are you? The US remained in a state of war with Iraq, with only a peacefire temporarily halting hostilities.

It isn't about that. It's about whats fair, and what isn't. The US would likely shoot at Iraqi planes if they flew over the US too.



The US invaded two countries with governments hostile to the US, and hostile to their own people, and one harbored Osama bin Laden. The invasions were justified.

The US had no business invading Iraq.


Saddam's invasions of Iran and Kuwait were not. He invaded to expand his territory and do what you keep falsely accusing the US of doing -- steal oil.


I don't falsely accuse the US of stealing oil. It's a fact that it does.


Would you stop with the damned whining? The Hell you don't have an agenda. You're attempting to push your anti-US rhetoric, and I'm going to slap every one of your lies around with fact and common sense every time I see one.

I don't whine, and I don't have an agenda. You are factually incorrect. I believe in pointing out the truth regardless of the immense amount of name calling and insults it attracts on the Forum.




The 9/11 commission was a political witchhunt, it ignored evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Saddam because it did not fit their political view.

Putting down sources that you do not agree, even when they come from your own government agencies is a debating tactic used by those who are on the wrong side of an argument. You appear to be on the wrong side of this argument, OCA.

Gunny
06-07-2007, 10:26 PM
It means you have no argument to make, and are instead using insults as your main debating tactic combined with loony right wing propoganda.

It means YOU have no argument and what you ARE posting isn't worthy of response.




Did you even read the sources I provided? Reading is fun, and educational sometimes. :)

You've already aasked this question. Now you want to run around in circles because YOU have no argument?

Anti-AMerican rhetoric is NOT credible. Simple as that. Especially when your anti-American rhetoric has NOTHING to do with the truth or facts.


Please stop with the personal insults already.

You aren't getting it, are you? You and your lies are worthy of nothing better. You come on an American board, full of Americans and not a few vets, and expect us to just fall right into your lies.

To make it worse, you're a f-ing tattletale, and there just isn't much lower than a an anti-American pansy-ass tattletale.


It isn't about that. It's about whats fair, and what isn't. The US would likely shoot at Iraqi planes if they flew over the US too.

WRONG. It IS about "that." Stop deflecting. Either you do or you do not agree with Saddam committing genocide. Which is it?


The US had no business invading Iraq.

I've already provided you with more than ample justification. You have provided NOTHING in return but your distortions of the truth/opinion.


I don't falsely accuse the US of stealing oil. It's a fact that it does.

Prove it. Otherwise you are a liar. And don't pull out some op-ed, or anti-US bullshit propaganda rag. Verified, credible sources of information only.


I don't whine, and I don't have an agenda. You are factually incorrect. I believe in pointing out the truth regardless of the immense amount of name calling and insults it attracts on the Forum.

You have not the foggiest notion what the truth is. Nothing you have posted on this board has been anything but lies, propaganda and unsubstantiated allegations.


Putting down sources that you do not agree, even when they come from your own government agencies is a debating tactic used by those who are on the wrong side of an argument. You appear to be on the wrong side of this argument, OCA.

oh, and this is for you: :upyours:

Rahul
06-08-2007, 12:19 AM
oh, and this is for you: :upyours:

Your vulgar remarks are not appreciated.

Anyway, the fact remains Gunny that Saddam was not a Terrorist supporter. The US war of aggression in Iraq is illegal and immoral, and the troops should be pulled out ASAP.

Doniston
06-08-2007, 12:35 PM
Your vulgar remarks are not appreciated.

You are not the only one who feels that way, and the pros and cons of this issue are easily determined by those who use them, and those who don't

KUDOs to those who don't.

OCA
06-08-2007, 03:45 PM
Putting down sources that you do not agree, even when they come from your own government agencies is a debating tactic used by those who are on the wrong side of an argument. You appear to be on the wrong side of this argument, OCA.

I have already debunked each one of your myths with facts, why do you insist on propogating lies to back up your POV?

It is a fact that the 9/11 commission ignored mountains of evidence of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda to further a political agenda.

I will ask you this question once more, first off provide proof of U.S. stealing oil and secondly if the oil was stolen where is it?

I'm sure I won't get a credible response.

OCA
06-08-2007, 03:46 PM
You are not the only one who feels that way, and the pros and cons of this issue are easily determined by those who use them, and those who don't

KUDOs to those who don't.


Hey Fidel want me to repost some of your posts that include vulgarities? Do ya.......hypocrite?

This board is way over your old head.

Rahul
06-09-2007, 02:07 AM
It is a fact that the 9/11 commission ignored mountains of evidence of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda to further a political agenda.

Maybe you could share your sources with us.



I will ask you this question once more, first off provide proof of U.S. stealing oil and secondly if the oil was stolen where is it?

I'm sure I won't get a credible response.

I have provided proof repeatedly throughout the thread. Go back and re-read it instead of asking me the same question over and over again.

Gunny
06-09-2007, 10:30 AM
Your vulgar remarks are not appreciated.

Anyway, the fact remains Gunny that Saddam was not a Terrorist supporter. The US war of aggression in Iraq is illegal and immoral, and the troops should be pulled out ASAP.

Wrong. It's a fact he supported Hamas and Hezbollah, and even if he didn't openly support terrorists in his country he turned a blind eye to them.

Again, the war is completely moral and completely legal and you have failed to substantiate one word of your accusation. Matter of fact, your entire argument is lame. A concocted accusation simply to support your anti-US agenda.

As far as what you call my "vulgar comments," I can't be more direct and to the point ... I don't really give a rat's ass what your overly-sensitive, whiney-shit ass finds offensive. Do I need to draw you a picture with the big fat crayons, or what?

Gunny
06-09-2007, 10:34 AM
You are not the only one who feels that way, and the pros and cons of this issue are easily determined by those who use them, and those who don't

KUDOs to those who don't.

Right. And I'll bet you think everyone's just lost their mind and completely forgotten your nasty psycho act on USMB way back when? Matter of fact weren't you banned for it?

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Doniston
06-09-2007, 11:34 AM
Hey Fidel want me to repost some of your posts that include vulgarities? Do ya.......hypocrite?

This board is way over your old head. Post away "Obnoxuis" There is a big diference between vulgarities and Obsenities,(Obnoxicities)

and "over my head"? that's funny.-----And is just the opinion of a obnoxious self-delusioned superior person, who in reality is no great shakes as a person or as a so-called debater

Doniston
06-09-2007, 11:36 AM
[QUOTE=Rahul;74547]

Hobbit
06-09-2007, 11:38 AM
This has got to be the dumbest thread I have ever looked through. The sheer hubris of the liberals here and their squirming as they try to defend their indefensible position is downright depressing.


Main Entry: 1sup·port
Pronunciation: s&-'port
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French supporter, from Late Latin supportare, from Latin, to transport, from sub- + portare to carry -- more at FARE
1 : to endure bravely or quietly : BEAR
2 a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : ADVOCATE <supports fair play> (3) : to argue or vote for <supported the motion to lower taxes> b (1) : ASSIST, HELP <bombers supported the ground troops> (2) : to act with (a star actor) (3) : to bid in bridge so as to show support for c : to provide with substantiation : CORROBORATE <support an alibi>
3 a : to pay the costs of : MAINTAIN <support a family> b : to provide a basis for the existence or subsistence of <the island could probably support three -- A. B. C. Whipple> <support a habit>
4 a : to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for b : to maintain (a price) at a desired level by purchases or loans; also : to maintain the price of by purchases or loans
5 : to keep from fainting, yielding, or losing courage : COMFORT
6 : to keep (something) going
- sup·port·abil·i·ty /s&-"por-t&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- sup·port·able /-'por-t&-b&l/ adjective
- sup·port·ive /-'por-tiv/ adjective
- sup·port·ive·ness /-n&s/ noun

To the liberals, let's go over these definitions one at a time, shall we.

1. For you to endure troops bravely or quietly is nothing special, so I'm assuming you're not referring to this. If you are, then I say big deal that you support the troops.

2. You don't promote the interests or causes of the troops, nor do you defend them as valid or right or assist them. What they're trying to do is win. That's their interest and cause, and you oppose them winning. I also don't see too many "No war for oil" hippies sending them care packages, so we're going to say you're not supporting them with this definition.

3. Well, you do pay the costs of the troops, but I say "So what?" You're required to by law to do that. It's called taxes.

4. I'm guessing you're not physically holding up or serving as a foundation for the troops, as they're not standing on you, so that's out.

5. You are most certainly not stopping troops from fainting, yielding, or losing courage. Troops don't faint, and what you advocate is both yielding and losing courage by leaving and surrendering.

6. Last, but not least, you don't want to keep the troops going. Most of you openly advocate them to not re-enlist, so this one's out.

What's happened hear is that when liberals were called on not supporting the troops, they changed the definition of 'support' to 'like, as a person.' You can like the troops all you want. You may think they're wonderful people, and that's good. However, unless you are actively attempting to ensure the success of their mission, you do not support the troops, so be honest about it.

Edit: One final thing. The attitude liberals take towards bringing the troops home is about the same as the attitude of a parent going to a bar to drag their underage children home, kicking and screaming. Whether you think it's moral to yank troops out of a mission they believe in just because you, the armchair general, think it's for their own good is irrelevant to the discussion because, moral or not, it sure as hell ain't support.

Doniston
06-09-2007, 11:46 AM
This has got to be the dumbest thread I have ever looked through. The sheer hubris of the liberals here and their squirming as they try to defend their indefensible position is downright depressing.



To the liberals, let's go over these definitions one at a time, shall we.

1. For you to endure troops bravely or quietly is nothing special, so I'm assuming you're not referring to this. If you are, then I say big deal that you support the troops.

2. You don't promote the interests or causes of the troops, nor do you defend them as valid or right or assist them. What they're trying to do is win. That's their interest and cause, and you oppose them winning. I also don't see too many "No war for oil" hippies sending them care packages, so we're going to say you're not supporting them with this definition.

3. Well, you do pay the costs of the troops, but I say "So what?" You're required to by law to do that. It's called taxes.

4. I'm guessing you're not physically holding up or serving as a foundation for the troops, as they're not standing on you, so that's out.

5. You are most certainly not stopping troops from fainting, yielding, or losing courage. Troops don't faint, and what you advocate is both yielding and losing courage by leaving and surrendering.

6. Last, but not least, you don't want to keep the troops going. Most of you openly advocate them to not re-enlist, so this one's out.

What's happened hear is that when liberals were called on not supporting the troops, they changed the definition of 'support' to 'like, as a person.' You can like the troops all you want. You may think they're wonderful people, and that's good. However, unless you are actively attempting to ensure the success of their mission, you do not support the troops, so be honest about it. It is you who simply don't understand. We know the troops are doing their duties (by and large) As they have been ordered to do. for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter whether they are in favor of their duty or not. We are condemning the orders, not their actions. You don't seem to understsnd that.

Gunny
06-09-2007, 11:52 AM
It is you who simply don't understand. We know the troops are doing their duties (by and large) As they have been ordered to do. for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter whether they are in favor of their duty or not. We are condemning the orders, not their actions. You don't seem to understsnd that.

I'd say it's YOU who doesn't understand. Hobbit's post is perfectly and completely logical.

By condemning the mission, you condemn those who carry it out. Simple logic, and no amount of smoke and mirrors not rahul deflections, lies and or irrelevancies changes that simple fact one iota.

Hobbit
06-09-2007, 12:10 PM
I'd say it's YOU who doesn't understand. Hobbit's post is perfectly and completely logical.

By condemning the mission, you condemn those who carry it out. Simple logic, and no amount of smoke and mirrors not rahul deflections, lies and or irrelevancies changes that simple fact one iota.

Not quite the point I was making, but Doniston is, once again, wrong. By the definitions of the English word, support, those who oppose the war do not support the troops. It's a simple logical impossibility.

Doniston, if I 'don't get it' and you do, in fact, support the troops, then tell me by which definition you support them and how what you do fits within that definition.

Rahul
06-09-2007, 02:44 PM
Wrong. It's a fact he supported Hamas and Hezbollah, and even if he didn't openly support terrorists in his country he turned a blind eye to them.

You haven't substantiated those claims.

OCA
06-09-2007, 02:50 PM
You haven't substantiated those claims.

Nor have you substantiated claims about oil or any of the other erroneous claims you've made. I HAVE however given factual links betwen Saddam and Al Qaeda at least.

I'm sure Gunny will bring his proof.

Rahul
06-09-2007, 02:57 PM
I'm sure Gunny will bring his proof.

Where is it?

OCA
06-09-2007, 03:06 PM
Where is it?


Ask Gunny........but more to the point that was a sweet skip of my asking for you to backup anything.

Rahul
06-09-2007, 03:15 PM
Ask Gunny........but more to the point that was a sweet skip of my asking for you to backup anything.

I disagree. I haven't dodged anything, unlike Gunny.

OCA
06-09-2007, 03:22 PM
I disagree. I haven't dodged anything, unlike Gunny.


Yes you have, where is proof of the oil grab and if oil was grabbed where is it?

Plus I gave several links to factual evidence of links between Saddam/Al Qaeda and Saddam/international terrorism, you conveniently ignored them.

Rahul
06-09-2007, 03:24 PM
Yes you have, where is proof of the oil grab and if oil was grabbed where is it?

Have you not read the links that I provided showing the Iraqi oil laws overwhemingly favor the oil companies, and not the IRaqi public?


Plus I gave several links to factual evidence of links between Saddam/Al Qaeda and Saddam/international terrorism, you conveniently ignored them.

I don't believe your right wing links. Next time do as I do, and post something from a believable source for a change.

Pale Rider
06-09-2007, 03:41 PM
I don't believe your right wing links. Next time do as I do, and post something from a believable source for a change.

- - - - - :lol: - - - - :lmao: - - - - In other words... you're looney left garbage.

Give me a break.

Rahul
06-09-2007, 03:46 PM
- - - - - :lol: - - - - :lmao: - - - - In other words... you're looney left garbage.

Give me a break.

Insults do precious little to further the tone of discussion and are not tolerated.

OCA
06-09-2007, 04:03 PM
Insults do precious little to further the tone of discussion and are not tolerated.


Who the fuck are you to say what is tolerated and what isn't?

OCA
06-09-2007, 04:07 PM
Have you not read the links that I provided showing the Iraqi oil laws overwhemingly favor the oil companies, and not the IRaqi public?



I don't believe your right wing links. Next time do as I do, and post something from a believable source for a change.

Of course they favor the oil companies, they do the work, they reap the profits, thats how it should be.

So any link that doesn't jibe with your POV is a right wing link, eh Rajiv? Guess yesterday when I posted some facts from the NEW YORK TIMES on queers in fact being to blame for AIDS getting into the blood supply that I was just spouting right wing propoganda, eh Rajiv? Cause everyone knows the NEW YORK TIMES is nothing but a right wing rag:laugh2:

Your style of debate is bankrupt, hypocritical and disingenuous, in other words you can't debate.

OCA
06-09-2007, 04:08 PM
Insults do precious little to further the tone of discussion and are not tolerated.

Neither does labeling of facts as right wing just because they don't jibe with your POV.

Pale Rider
06-09-2007, 04:11 PM
Insults do precious little to further the tone of discussion and are not tolerated.

That's no insult rajiv. Grow a spine.

The mods let people know what is and isn't tolerated, not you. Give it a rest.

Gunny
06-09-2007, 04:14 PM
You haven't substantiated those claims.

I'm not doing homework for information that is so readily available all over the net when it would be wasted on a useless mind.

That he supported terrorists/terrorist organizations is FACT. If you choose to ignore the facts on this as you apparently do anything that shows your anti-US propaganda fro what it is, that's on YOU.

Rahul
06-10-2007, 07:31 AM
Neither does labeling of facts as right wing just because they don't jibe with your POV.

It is unclear as to what you mean by "don't jibe with your POV". Perhaps you could elaborate and be specific here.


I'm not doing homework for information that is so readily available all over the net when it would be wasted on a useless mind.

So in other words, you have no proof. Got it.


I
That he supported terrorists/terrorist organizations is FACT. If you choose to ignore the facts on this as you apparently do anything that shows your anti-US propaganda fro what it is, that's on YOU.

I disagree.



http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/phase-ii-report-conclusion/

On Sept. 11, 2001, Bush articulated the so-called Bush Doctrine: “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” Declassified portions of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Phase II report released Friday make definitively clear that Iraq never qualified for inclusion in the Doctrine.

Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist acts. Key portions of the new Intel Committee report indicate that Bush attacked an Iraqi regime that not only lacked an operational relationship with al Qaeda, but was hostile toward the terrorist network. By making the strategic mistake of attacking Iraq, Bush’s policy accomplished the goals of the al Qaeda network. Here’s what the report says:

[Bin] Ladin generally opposed collaboration [with Baghdad]. (p. 65)

According to debriefs of multiple detainees — including Saddam Hussein and former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz — and capture documents, Saddam did not trust al-Qa’ida or any other radical Islamist group and did not want to cooperate with them. (p. 67)

Aziz underscored Saddam’s distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Ladin, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, “the Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution.” (p. 67)

Another senior Iraqi official stated that Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called Saddam an “unbeliever.” (p.73)

Conclusion 1: … Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa’ida in particular… Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. (p. 105)

Conclusion 5:… Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109)



As I have repeatedly stated, the truth is out there for those who care to find it.

OCA
06-10-2007, 09:20 AM
It is unclear as to what you mean by "don't jibe with your POV". Perhaps you could elaborate and be specific here.





You are being purposely obtuse.

Gunny
06-10-2007, 11:21 AM
It is unclear as to what you mean by "don't jibe with your POV". Perhaps you could elaborate and be specific here.



So in other words, you have no proof. Got it.



I disagree.



As I have repeatedly stated, the truth is out there for those who care to find it.

Sure is, and you obviously don't.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Car chive%5C200410%5CSPE20041004a.html

The overwhelming amount of evidence does not support your twisted stance; which, is nothing but crap from other anti-American losers such as yourself.

Your attempt to play semantics is at about 1st grade level. My statement has from the beginning been that Saddam supported terrorism/terrorist organizations, not solely nor specifically bin Laden. So you can call that littel dishonest attempt EXPOSED.

Rahul
06-10-2007, 01:39 PM
Your attempt to play semantics is at about 1st grade level.

I don't play games with you.


My statement has from the beginning been that Saddam supported terrorism/terrorist organizations, not solely nor specifically bin Laden. So you can call that littel dishonest attempt EXPOSED.

Your statement is dishonest and I have exposed the truth in my last post. How sad it must be for you not to be able to get it.

Gaffer
06-10-2007, 02:22 PM
I don't play games with you.



Your statement is dishonest and I have exposed the truth in my last post. How sad it must be for you not to be able to get it.

Gunny's statement were facts backed with sources. Your statements are leftwing blogger opinions. And your own jihadi agenda.

:pee: islam

SassyLady
06-10-2007, 04:27 PM
Raul,

Just for fun, why don't you visit this website and see if it changes your POV about the connection between Saddam & world wide terrorism.

Be patient and read the entire article - even the source list........because then you can follow the source list for even more evidence.


http://www.husseinandterror.com/

If you still believe there was no connection after reading this presentation, then there is nothing left to debate with you.

SassyLady
06-10-2007, 04:31 PM
Raul,

Here's another one - from the WSJ.


The Paper Trail
Newly released documents provide more evidence of Saddam's terror ties.

BY LAURIE MYLROIE
Sunday, April 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

After substantial prodding--including from The Wall Street Journal--the U.S. government has finally begun to release its captured Iraqi documents and is posting them at the Web site of the Army's Foreign Military Studies Office. This material will take considerable time to absorb and analyze, but it may yet contribute significantly to our understanding of the nature of the threat Saddam Hussein posed.

Most dramatically, an Iraqi intelligence report, apparently written in early 1997, describes Iraqi efforts to establish ties with various elements in the Saudi opposition, including Osama bin Laden. Until 1996, the Saudi renegade was based in Sudan, then ruled by Hassan Turabi's National Islamic Front. One of Iraq's few allies, Sudan served as an intermediary between Baghdad and bin Laden, as well as other Islamic radicals. On Feb. 19, 1995, an Iraqi intelligence agent met with bin Laden in Khartoum. Bin Laden asked for two things: to carry out joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia and to broadcast the speeches of a radical Saudi cleric. Iraq agreed to the latter, but apparently not the former, at least as far as the author of this report knew. Notably, the report also states, "We are working at the present time to activate this relationship through new channels."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008174

Gaffer
06-10-2007, 06:11 PM
Raul,

Here's another one - from the WSJ.



http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008174

There's more of this stuff coming out all the time.

The libs and the media just refuse to accept it.

There's still tons of material that hasn't even been gone through yet just because of the sheer volume. Plus the interpreting of the arabic writing, which the islamist supporters all tell us can't be interpreted properly.

I bet it will eventually be shown saddam DID have WMD's and that they were removed by the russians to syria and to other destinations from there.

Gunny
06-10-2007, 08:15 PM
I don't play games with you.



Your statement is dishonest and I have exposed the truth in my last post. How sad it must be for you not to be able to get it.

You are either dumber than a red brick, or you are a liar. Doesn't matter much which to me.

There is NOTHING dishonest about my statement and you have provided absolutely NOTHING to disprove anything in any of the links I have provided.

You lose. End of story.

SassyLady
06-10-2007, 10:22 PM
You are either dumber than a red brick, or you are a liar. Doesn't matter much which to me.

There is NOTHING dishonest about my statement and you have provided absolutely NOTHING to disprove anything in any of the links I have provided.

You lose. End of story.


AMEN

Rahul
06-11-2007, 12:33 AM
You are either dumber than a red brick, or you are a liar. Doesn't matter much which to me.

I don't believe you. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't keep insulting me as you do.



There is NOTHING dishonest about my statement and you have provided absolutely NOTHING to disprove anything in any of the links I have provided.

You lose. End of story.

I don't lose anything. Further, I have shown you articles disproving your fallacious theories. You are wrong on this as well as a great many things.


There's more of this stuff coming out all the time.

The libs and the media just refuse to accept it.

We don't accept biased sources.




I bet it will eventually be shown saddam DID have WMD's and that they were removed by the russians to syria and to other destinations from there.


Nonsense. Saddam Hussein had NO WMD's and wasn't even producing them.



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.


In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

Duelfer, testifying at a Senate hearing on the report, said his account attempts to describe Iraq's weapons programs "not in isolation but in the context of the aims and objectives of the regime that created and used them."

"I also have insisted that the report include as much basic data as reasonable and that it be unclassified, since the tragedy that has been Iraq has exacted such a huge cost for so many for so long," Duelfer said.

The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."

"The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time," Bush said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained Wednesday that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said.

But Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seized on the report as political ammunition against the Bush administration.

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

"The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

But British Prime Minister Tony Blair had just the opposite take on the information in the report, saying it demonstrated the U.N. sanctions were not working and Saddam was "doing his best" to get around them.

He said the report made clear that there was "every intention" on Saddam's part to develop WMD and he "never had any intention of complying with U.N. resolutions."

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday, panel Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, called the findings "significant."

"While the ISG has not found stockpiles of WMD, the ISG and other coalition elements have developed a body of fact that shows that Saddam Hussein had, first, the strategic intention to continue to pursue WMD capabilities; two, created ambiguity about his WMD capabilities that he used to extract concessions in the international world of disclosure and discussion and negotiation.

"He used it as a bargaining tactic and as a strategic deterrent against his neighbors and others."

"As we speak, over 1,700 individuals -- military and civilian -- are in Iraq and Qatar, continuing to search for facts about Iraq's WMD programs," Warner said.

But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the committee, said 1,750 experts have visited 1,200 potential WMD sites and have come up empty-handed.

"It is important to emphasize that central fact because the administration's case for going to war against Iraq rested on the twin arguments that Saddam Hussein had existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that he might give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda to attack us -- as al Qaeda had attacked us on 9/11," Levin said.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, asked Duelfer about the future likelihood of finding weapons of mass destruction, to which Duelfer replied, "The chance of finding a significant stockpile is less than 5 percent."

Based in part on interviews with Saddam, the report concludes that the deposed Iraqi president wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction because he believed they kept the United States from going all the way to Baghdad during the first Gulf War and stopped an Iranian ground offensive during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, senior administration officials said.

U.S. officials said the Duelfer report is "comprehensive," but they are not calling it a "final report" because there are still some loose ends to tie up.

One outstanding issue, an official said, is whether Iraq shipped any stockpiles of weapons outside of the country. Another issue, he said, is mobile biological weapons labs, a matter on which he said "there is still useful work to do."

Duelfer said Wednesday his teams found no evidence of a mobile biological weapons capability.

The U.S. official said he believes Saddam decided to give up his weapons in 1991, but tried to conceal his nuclear and biological programs for as long as possible. Then in 1995, when his son-in-law Hussain Kamal defected with information about the programs, he gave those up, too.

Iraq's nuclear program, which in 1991 was well-advanced, "was decaying" by 2001, the official said, to the point where Iraq was -- if it even could restart the program -- "many years from a bomb."


Perhaps you should read the articles being quoted for a change.

Pale Rider
06-11-2007, 12:54 AM
I don't believe you. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't keep insulting me as you do.



I don't lose anything. Further, I have shown you articles disproving your fallacious theories. You are wrong on this as well as a great many things.



We don't accept biased sources.




Nonsense. Saddam Hussein had NO WMD's and wasn't even producing them.



Perhaps you should read the articles being quoted for a change.

Yup... you're dumber than a red brick... and ya know what? The "ONLY" thing you have "EXPOSED" here, is your hatred and anti-America agenda.

So... with that... I think I'll go have a nice, big, fat, juicy STEAK.

stephanie
06-11-2007, 02:02 AM
I don't believe you. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't keep insulting me as you do.



I don't lose anything. Further, I have shown you articles disproving your fallacious theories. You are wrong on this as well as a great many things.



We don't accept biased sources.




Nonsense. Saddam Hussein had NO Wmds and wasn't even producing them.



Perhaps you should read the articles being quoted for a change.


Well.....these people below......are damned biased....I guess..
All they and you all right now.......is bending the truth...OR??
For their own Political gain...




"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Rahul
06-11-2007, 04:28 AM
Yup... you're dumber than a red brick

Insults aren't required.


... and ya know what?

I know that you are wrong on this issue and are resorting to personal insults.



So... with that... I think I'll go have a nice, big, fat, juicy STEAK.

Enjoy the steak! I had a beef steak with rice/gravy meal last night, and enjoyed every minute.

;)

Gunny
06-11-2007, 10:07 PM
I don't believe you. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't keep insulting me as you do.



I don't lose anything. Further, I have shown you articles disproving your fallacious theories. You are wrong on this as well as a great many things.



We don't accept biased sources.




Nonsense. Saddam Hussein had NO WMD's and wasn't even producing them.



Perhaps you should read the articles being quoted for a change.

I guess you missed the part where you LOST? It's O-V-E-R? You've ben PROVEN wrong. End of story. Feel free to try and find another thread to practice your anti-Americna rehtoric in so I can slap that around too.

Rahul
06-12-2007, 12:33 AM
I guess you missed the part where you LOST? It's O-V-E-R? You've ben PROVEN wrong. End of story.

What was I proven wrong about?

nevadamedic
06-12-2007, 02:11 AM
:popcorn:

glockmail
06-12-2007, 07:39 AM
There's more of this stuff coming out all the time.

The libs and the media just refuse to accept it.

There's still tons of material that hasn't even been gone through yet just because of the sheer volume. Plus the interpreting of the arabic writing, which the islamist supporters all tell us can't be interpreted properly.

I bet it will eventually be shown saddam DID have WMD's and that they were removed by the russians to syria and to other destinations from there.

1. They've got that base covered, sort of a last ditch effort to perpetuate the lie.
2. Absolutely. Why do you think the Syrians refused to let us into Iraq through their borders at the last minute, in spite of months of planning and prep, forcing our troops to redeploy and go to the complete opposite end of Iraq? WTF does anybody think that all those trucks that went into Syria from Iraq subsequently were carrying? Baby food?

OCA
06-12-2007, 03:13 PM
I know that you are wrong on this issue and are resorting to personal insults.






Maybe thats why you are hated here because you are a condescending dothead.

Gunny
06-12-2007, 08:59 PM
I disagree. I haven't dodged anything, unlike Gunny.

Dodged? Dude, I coudn't possibly have hammered your pathetic argument any more into dust. Sadly, it required little to no effort because your responses are nothing but lies and deflections, and a refusal to look at the truth.

Just turn your little ass north, go to Afghanistan, join the Taliban and it'll all be over for you shortly.

Gunny
06-12-2007, 09:01 PM
What was I proven wrong about?

What HAVEN'T you been proven wrong about?

It's real simple. You're a liar. You post lies. They get shot down with facts, and you then simply pretend you have not seen the facts, and repeat your original assertion.

That's called living with your head stuffed up your ass.

Gunny
06-12-2007, 09:03 PM
Maybe thats why you are hated here because you are a condescending dothead.

Right. He *knows* you're wrong, even though he can't provde a damned thing with any credibility to prove it. The only thing he has proven is that he is capable of completely ignoring the truth when presented.

That just makes him a dishonest piece of shit, like the rest, trying to say he doesn't stink.

Rahul
06-12-2007, 10:07 PM
Maybe thats why you are hated here because you are a condescending dothead.

Name calling is a common tactic for those who have nothing to offer to the discussion.


Dodged? Dude, I coudn't possibly have hammered your pathetic argument any more into dust.

You haven't articulated how the argument was pathetic.


Just turn your little ass north, go to Afghanistan, join the Taliban and it'll all be over for you shortly.

Perhaps you could stop with the off topic postings.


What HAVEN'T you been proven wrong about?

The argument was not proven to be wrong.



It's real simple. You're a liar. You post lies. They get shot down with facts, and you then simply pretend you have not seen the facts, and repeat your original assertion.

What lies did I post?



That's called living with your head stuffed up your ass.

So, how many times do you plan to insult me today? Do you ever offer anything, except for name calling and insults?

Gunny
06-12-2007, 10:39 PM
Name calling is a common tactic for those who have nothing to offer to the discussion.

Blah, blah, blah. You're a broken record. I guess you haven't figured out the part where you're wrong about this too? It's also a common tactic when it becomes obvious I'm trying to debate with a moron who has no argument.


You haven't articulated how the argument was pathetic.

Sure I have. It's all over this thread. Try reading instead of thinking of something dishonest to say in response.


Perhaps you could stop with the off topic postings.

I'll post what I want and you can kiss my ass. Can you figure THAT one out? Do try and get off this little kick you're on thinking you have some authority to enforce the rules you wish to play by.


The argument was not proven to be wrong.



What lies did I post?

Your argument was proven wrong; therefore, you lies which ARE your argument exposed. It's been done. Go back and read. Maybe after 5 or 6 times you'll see just where you lost.

However, I'm not going to keep repeating the same responses to your same intellectually dishonest accusations and attempts at pretending each and every one hasn't been shot down.


So, how many times do you plan to insult me today? Do you ever offer anything, except for name calling and insults?

Do you ever offer an honest argument? No you don't. You're getting exactly what you're worth.

Rahul
06-13-2007, 12:21 AM
[COLOR="olive"]Do you ever offer an honest argument?

My arguments are honest and to the point.



No you don't.

You ask the question, and then answer it yourself. Why even ask it in the first place if you think you know? Why even debate on DP.com if you think you know it all? Do you think you know it all, Gunny?

gabosaurus
06-13-2007, 01:29 AM
Rahul, please verse yourself in DP basics before you argue:

Pale = stupid
Gunny = not stupid

Thanks for playing :coffee:

Rahul
06-13-2007, 01:44 AM
Rahul, please verse yourself in DP basics before you argue:

Pale = stupid
Gunny = not stupid

Thanks for playing :coffee:

:lol:

Gunny
06-13-2007, 08:19 PM
My arguments are honest and to the point.



You ask the question, and then answer it yourself. Why even ask it in the first place if you think you know? Why even debate on DP.com if you think you know it all? Do you think you know it all, Gunny?

Why do you even attempt to debate if you can't recognize a rhetorical question?

Nowhere will you find that I have claimed I know it all. Whooping your ass in a couple of arguments is hardly indicative of my thinking anything of the sort. Quite frankly, any good 6th grader could take you out, so it really is no major feat.

Gunny
06-13-2007, 08:23 PM
Rahul, please verse yourself in DP basics before you argue:

Pale = stupid
Gunny = not stupid

Thanks for playing :coffee:

I beg to differ. Pale is hardly stupid simply because he holds a political ideology contrary to yours.

Rahul however is as dishonest as the day is long.

Gunny
06-13-2007, 08:24 PM
:lol:

Too bad you and I never ran into one another when I was deployed over to your backwards-assed end of the world.

Rahul
06-14-2007, 02:40 AM
Too bad you and I never ran into one another when I was deployed over to your backwards-assed end of the world.

What is your point? Do you ever offer anything except insults and putdowns?

Gunny
06-15-2007, 07:25 PM
What is your point? Do you ever offer anything except insults and putdowns?

Look, if your continual ranting about my treatment of your anti-American, loser ass is some lame attempt to play to the crowd, most everyone on this board knows I'm more than capable of ripping you a new ass, and alredy have more than once. Your continued refusal to accept facts, the truth, and that several members as well as myself have shown you for the uninformed, lying anti-American dirtbag that you are that has earned you nothing but my contempt.

JohnDoe
06-15-2007, 08:11 PM
Too bad you and I never ran into one another when I was deployed over to your backwards-assed end of the world.Immature and useless, threatening, post imo.

Wtf is it with this childish name calling instead of debating the issues? Or are you only in to CIRCLE jerks, and patting backs with your like minded friends?:slap:

JohnDoe
06-15-2007, 08:18 PM
I'm not doing homework for information that is so readily available all over the net when it would be wasted on a useless mind.

That he supported terrorists/terrorist organizations is FACT. If you choose to ignore the facts on this as you apparently do anything that shows your anti-US propaganda fro what it is, that's on YOU.

saddam gave SUPPOSEDLY BUT NOT CONFIRMED by any means that i have read, 25 k to the families of palestinian suicide bombers in ISRAEL.

is this what YOUR claim means?

And wtf does that have to do WITH US? Or is that not the point? You just wanted to baffle Rahul with your BULLSHIT? :clap:

Rahul
06-15-2007, 10:19 PM
Look, if your continual ranting about my treatment of your anti-American, loser ass is some lame attempt to play to the crowd, most everyone on this board knows I'm more than capable of ripping you a new ass, and alredy have more than once.

You are not capable of mounting a decent argument and instead indulge in insults, putdowns and character assasinations.

Gunny
06-16-2007, 08:23 AM
Immature and useless, threatening, post imo.

Wtf is it with this childish name calling instead of debating the issues? Or are you only in to CIRCLE jerks, and patting backs with your like minded friends?:slap:

You have a question in regard to the topic, Einstein? All I see is you trying to convince yourself you're cool.

Gunny
06-16-2007, 08:28 AM
saddam gave SUPPOSEDLY BUT NOT CONFIRMED by any means that i have read, 25 k to the families of palestinian suicide bombers in ISRAEL.

is this what YOUR claim means?

And wtf does that have to do WITH US? Or is that not the point? You just wanted to baffle Rahul with your BULLSHIT? :clap:

I'm kind of wondering how you can go on the attack with an unloaded weapon .... the answer to your question has been made obvious more than once.

Who's trying to baffle WHO? Saddam supported terrorist organizations. That is FACT. Your new-found boyfriend has repreatedly attempted to blow smoke up everyone's ass and say that since it is unproven that Saddam had direct ties to OBL that he did not support terrorism, and trying to be some kind of hero or some shit just want to go down with your ass-buddy.

Rahul was baffled LONG before he ever got to me.

Gunny
06-16-2007, 08:29 AM
You are not capable of mounting a decent argument and instead indulge in insults, putdowns and character assasinations.

When you get an honest, legitimate argument ... y'all come back and see us, y'hear?:fu:

JohnDoe
06-16-2007, 10:05 AM
I'm kind of wondering how you can go on the attack with an unloaded weapon .... the answer to your question has been made obvious more than once.

Who's trying to baffle WHO? Saddam supported terrorist organizations. That is FACT. Your new-found boyfriend has repreatedly attempted to blow smoke up everyone's ass and say that since it is unproven that Saddam had direct ties to OBL that he did not support terrorism, and trying to be some kind of hero or some shit just want to go down with your ass-buddy.

Rahul was baffled LONG before he ever got to me.Yes, Saddam, if it could be proven true, supported terrorism, by giving money to the family of any suicide bomber who killed Israelis...and even though I don't remeber the 911 commission confirning this, I believe it to be true personally.

I do admit that I have not read this entire thread and began the thread from the last thread on up, reading backwards, starting with your comment, which I thought was inappropriate no matter what was said in the previous posts that I had not read yet, thus my outburst.

I admit now, that it is none of my business, keep threatening him and keep calling him whatever inappropriate name you wish. It's your call, not mine.:slap:

Getting back to the issue at hand,

Without me going through the entire thread, is your contention that because Saddam was supportining terrorism by giving money to sucide bomber families, that our Invaision and Occupation of Iraq, was justified, as a retalliation for 911?

Or justified because it was support of terrorism in one way or another?

And if this is the case, then we could virtually invade any country in the middle east and it would also be "justified"?

For example, the UAE, United Arab Emirates supported terrorism and the terrorists of 911, and were uncooperative with our CIA for the next two years on the investigation of their ties. The uae's port was used to transfer nukes or nuke material/plans- to Lybia, and north Korea, I believe they were complicit!

Pakistan supports terrorism and is probably harboring Bin Laden.

15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia with some financial support indirectly from some of the Princes there.

Chechnya and Russia support of terrorism.

Turkey and Kurdish support of terrorism.

Iran supports terrorism and Lebanon indirectly supported terrorism.

Columbia supports terrorism and a great deal of South American countires do too.

I can go on and on regarding the support of "terrorism" indirectly related to various governments or leaders, or royal families.

So, why would Saddam be so "special" to recieve our Ammo up his and his country's ass for just giving 25 k to a couple of families of suicide bombers in Israel?

Certainly THIS is not justification in sending our soldiers in to WAR to possibly die for, is it?

And IF NOT, then what is the point you are trying to make with Rahul, Gunny?

Rahul's point is that there was NO RELATIONs established between Saddam and Alqaeda or 911, or the support in any way for the terrorists that came after us on 911....from what I did get to read.

As I have said, I did not go through the entire thread, so I apologize if you had answered some of these questions of mine, or if "I got the gist of this thread all wrong".

Gunny
06-16-2007, 10:27 AM
Yes, Saddam, if it could be proven true, supported terrorism, by giving money to the family of any suicide bomber who killed Israelis...and even though I don't remeber the 911 commission confirning this, I believe it to be true personally.

I do admit that I have not read this entire thread and began the thread from the last thread on up, reading backwards, starting with your comment, which I thought was inappropriate no matter what was said in the previous posts that I had not read yet, thus my outburst.

I admit now, that it is none of my business, keep threatening him and keep calling him whatever inappropriate name you wish. It's your call, not mine.:slap:

Getting back to the issue at hand,

Without me going through the entire thread, is your contention that because Saddam was supportining terrorism by giving money to sucide bomber families, that our Invaision and Occupation of Iraq, was justified, as a retalliation for 911?

Or justified because it was support of terrorism in one way or another?

And if this is the case, then we could virtually invade any country in the middle east and it would also be "justified"?

For example, the UAE, United Arab Emirates supported terrorism and the terrorists of 911, and were uncooperative with our CIA for the next two years on the investigation of their ties. The uae's port was used to transfer nukes or nuke material/plans- to Lybia, and north Korea, I believe they were complicit!

Pakistan supports terrorism and is probably harboring Bin Laden.

15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia with some financial support indirectly from some of the Princes there.

Chechnya and Russia support of terrorism.

Turkey and Kurdish support of terrorism.

Iran supports terrorism and Lebanon indirectly supported terrorism.

Columbia supports terrorism and a great deal of South American countires do too.

I can go on and on regarding the support of "terrorism" indirectly related to various governments or leaders, or royal families.

So, why would Saddam be so "special" to recieve our Ammo up his and his country's ass for just giving 25 k to a couple of families of suicide bombers in Israel?

Certainly THIS is not justification in sending our soldiers in to WAR to possibly die for, is it?

And IF NOT, then what is the point you are trying to make with Rahul, Gunny?

Rahul's point is that there was NO RELATIONs established between Saddam and Alqaeda or 911, or the support in any way for the terrorists that came after us on 911....from what I did get to read.

As I have said, I did not go through the entire thread, so I apologize if you had answered some of these questions of mine, or if "I got the gist of this thread all wrong".

You would be incorrect. Rahul's "point" is that because there is no proven, established, operational link between Saddam and AQ, that Saddam had no ties to and/or did not support terrorism.

If you cannot see the dishonest semantics in THAT, I really don't know that it cam be explained any clearer.

I did not, and have not argued that Saddam's support of terrorists/terrorism alone was justification to invade Iraq and depose him. You not only are reading more into my current argument than is there, but also have done no research on the topic to know what my stance is concerning the removal of Saddam from power.

Finally, I suggest you read the anti-American drivel Rahul continually spews forth prior to attempting to judge me for responding on basically the same intellectual level as a liar.

Rahul
06-16-2007, 10:38 AM
You would be incorrect. Rahul's "point" is that because there is no proven, established, operational link between Saddam and AQ, that Saddam had no ties to and/or did not support terrorism

Saddam Hussein was a Socialist dictator who did not favor chaos and anarchy in his country. Socialists by their very nature come down hard on Terrorists. Further, there is not one shred of evidence linking Saddam and Al Quaeda. In fact, Saddam disliked Al Quaeda as I have shown before. You have it backwards as usual.

Gunny
06-16-2007, 10:53 AM
Saddam Hussein was a Socialist dictator who did not favor chaos and anarchy in his country. Socialists by their very nature come down hard on Terrorists. Further, there is not one shred of evidence linking Saddam and Al Quaeda. In fact, Saddam disliked Al Quaeda as I have shown before. You have it backwards as usual.

Not favoring anarchy and chaos has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was willing to support Islamic terrorism.

And as I have repeatedly stated and you absolutely REFUSE to accept, whether or not Saddam did not like nor support OBL and al Qaeda has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he supported Islamic terrorists/terrorism.

Your argument is blatantly and transparently dishonest.

JohnDoe
06-16-2007, 11:07 AM
Saddam Hussein was a Socialist dictator who did not favor chaos and anarchy in his country. Socialists by their very nature come down hard on Terrorists. Further, there is not one shred of evidence linking Saddam and Al Quaeda. In fact, Saddam disliked Al Quaeda as I have shown before. You have it backwards as usual.You've got it "right and wrong" in my opinion Rahul.

Right-Saddam did have no link to 911

Right- that saddam did not want chaos and anarchy in his country, thus did not support Islamic terrorism in his own country.

Wrong- that he did not possibly support the killing of Israelis by Palestinians willing to kill themselves, by paying the families of such suicide bombers, thus making him a supporter, indirectly, of terrorism, upon an adversary of his, but on to, an allie of ours.

Right- that this terrorism support of Saddam's was NOT support of AlQaeda.

Gunny
06-16-2007, 11:14 AM
You've got it "right and wrong" in my opinion Rahul.

Right-Saddam did have no link to 911

Right- that saddam did not want chaos and anarchy in his country, thus did not support Islamic terrorism in his own country.

Wrong- that he did not possibly support the killing of Israelis by Palestinians willing to kill themselves, by paying the families of such suicide bombers, thus making him a supporter, indirectly, of terrorism, upon an adversary of his, but on to, an allie of ours.

Right- that this terrorism support of Saddam's was NOT support of AlQaeda.

Can you produce evidence that one of the reasons given for invading Iraq is that Saddam supported OBL and/or al Qaeda?

I can save you the trouble. There is NONE. There IS however evidence to support the fact that the administration DID make it clear that there was no proof of a link between Saddam and 9/11, OBL and/or al Qaeda. The evidence that supports AQ operating Iraq during Saddam's reign is circumstantial at best.

There has however, recently been a turnout of previously classified information that DOES link Saddam to AQ. I haven't looked at it yet so I wil reserve any further commentary beyond the fact of its alleged existence until I do look at it.

Rahul
06-16-2007, 02:07 PM
Right-Saddam did have no link to 911

Agree.


Right- that saddam did not want chaos and anarchy in his country, thus did not support Islamic terrorism in his own country.


I agree. :beer:



Wrong- that he did not possibly support the killing of Israelis by Palestinians willing to kill themselves, by paying the families of such suicide bombers, thus making him a supporter, indirectly, of terrorism, upon an adversary of his, but on to, an allie of ours.

Yes, but that wasn't the central issue here - we were talkin about the US, Iraq and Al Queda.



Right- that this terrorism support of Saddam's was NOT support of AlQaeda.

I agree.

Gunny
06-16-2007, 03:23 PM
Agree.



I agree. :beer:



Yes, but that wasn't the central issue here - we were talkin about the US, Iraq and Al Queda.



I agree.

Liar. You have been attempting to push for several pages that the US lied because Saddam had no connection to al Qaeda, when Saddam was having a connection to TERRORISM was one of the reasons given, not a connection to AQ.

gabosaurus
06-16-2007, 07:25 PM
Saddam had no connection to AQ. If Saddam and bin Laden were huge butt buddies, why did bin Laden twice try to have Saddam assassinated?
Saddam was a secular leader. He did not believe in many of the tenets of Islam. That is why Iran and Iraq were at each other's throats for so many years.
Saddam was a paranoid despot. He wanted to share power with no one. That is why AQ was unable to function in Iraq -- until the U.S. invaded and opened the country to outside influences. Saddam had a long history of threatening and distrusting neighbor countries. Which is why he got no support in the Gulf War.

As for the Bushies linking Saddam to AQ, try this:

Defense briefing, Sept. 26, 2002:
Reporter: Are there linkages between al Qaeda and Iraq, and what are they?
Rumsfeld: The deputy director of Central Intelligence briefed me on that subject. I have no desire to go beyond saying that the answer is Yes.

Rahul
06-17-2007, 01:41 AM
Liar.

Name calling is not required.


You have been attempting to push for several pages that the US lied because Saddam had no connection to al Qaeda, when Saddam was having a connection to TERRORISM was one of the reasons given, not a connection to AQ.

Do you agree Saddam had no connections to AL Quaeda?

JohnDoe
06-17-2007, 10:36 AM
Can you produce evidence that one of the reasons given for invading Iraq is that Saddam supported OBL and/or al Qaeda?

I can save you the trouble. There is NONE. There IS however evidence to support the fact that the administration DID make it clear that there was no proof of a link between Saddam and 9/11, OBL and/or al Qaeda. The evidence that supports AQ operating Iraq during Saddam's reign is circumstantial at best.

There has however, recently been a turnout of previously classified information that DOES link Saddam to AQ. I haven't looked at it yet so I wil reserve any further commentary beyond the fact of its alleged existence until I do look at it.

I am not certain where you were when all of this was definately going on, but here is an article that supports my contention that the administration ''used'' an Al Qaeda link to Saddam, with an Al Qaeda link to 911, and this hyped connection which made normally ''reasoned'' citizens agree to, supporting the going in to, what would be considered an ''unjustified'' war according to Americanized Just War Theory or any normal standards.

That, along with the WMD hype and mushroom cloud in America as the smoking gun crapola, that scared the pants off many Americans, imo.




washingtonpost.com
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."

As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.

Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), sought to profit from the commission's finding. "The administration misled America, and the administration reached too far," Kerry told Michigan Public Radio. "I believe that the 9/11 report, the early evidence, is that they're going to indicate that we didn't have the kind of terrorists links that this administration was asserting. I think that's a very, very serious finding."

A Bush campaign spokesman countered that Kerry himself has said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." And Cheney's spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Cheney's office also pointed to a 2003 Tenet statement calling Zarqawi "a senior al Qaeda terrorist associate."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the commission finding of long-standing high-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq justified the administration's earlier assertions. "We stand behind what was said publicly," he said.

Bush, speaking to troops in Tampa yesterday, did not mention an Iraq-al Qaeda link, saying only that Iraq "sheltered terrorist groups." That was a significantly milder version of the allegations administration officials have made since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.

Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: ]"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding." [/U]

In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." He added: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."

Shortly after Cheney asserted these links, Bush contradicted him, saying: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th." But Bush added: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

In January, Cheney repeated his view that Iraq was tied to al Qaeda, saying that "there's overwhelming evidence" of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. He said he was "very confident there was an established relationship there."

The commission staff, in yesterday's report, said that while bin Laden was in Sudan between 1991 and 1996, a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan, and that he had a meeting with bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden was reported to have sought training camps and assistance in getting weapons, "but Iraq never responded," the staff said. The report said that bin Laden "at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."

As for the Atta meeting in Prague mentioned by Cheney, the commission staff concluded: "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred." It cited FBI photographic and telephone evidence, along with Czech and U.S. investigations, as well as reports from detainees, including the Iraqi official with whom Atta was alleged to have met. On the 1993 trade center bombing, the staff found "substantial uncertainty" about whether bin Laden and al Qaeda were involved.

At yesterday's hearing, commissioner Fred F. Fielding questioned the staff's finding of no apparent cooperation between bin Laden and Hussein. He pointed to a sentence in the first sealed indictment in 2001 of the al Qaeda members accused of the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; that sentence said al Qaeda reached an understanding with Iraq that they would not work against each other and would cooperate on acquiring arms.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand.

The staff report on Iraq was brief. Though not confirming any Iraqi collaboration with al Qaeda, it did not specifically address two of the other pieces of evidence the administration has offered to link Iraq to al Qaeda: Zarqawi's Tawhid organization and the Ansar al-Islam group.

In October 2002, Bush described Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, as "one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks."

Zarqawi wrote a January 2003 letter to bin Laden's lieutenants, intercepted at the Iraqi border, saying that if al Qaeda adopted his approach in Iraq, he would swear "fealty to you [bin Laden] publicly and in the news media."

In March, in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tenet described Zarqawi's network as among groups having "links" to al Qaeda but with its own "autonomous leadership . . . own targets [and] they plan their own attacks."

Although Zarqawi may have cooperated with al Qaeda in the past, officials said it is increasingly clear that he has been operating independently of bin Laden's group and has his own network of operatives.

The other group, Ansar al-Islam, began in 2001 among Kurdish Sunni Islamic fundamentalists in northern Iraq, fighting against the two secular Kurdish groups that operated under the protection of the United States. At one point, bin Laden supported Ansar, as did Zarqawi, who is believed to have visited their area more than once. Tenet referred to Ansar as one of the Sunni groups that had benefited from al Qaeda links.



© 2004 The Washington Post Company


Hopefully, this will clear up your misconception that the administration did not use an alqaeda link to saddam and 911, as a justification, and reason for going in to a war with Iraq.

gabosaurus
06-17-2007, 01:41 PM
The Bushies no longer have to lie about such things. They now conveniently fail to remember them.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa137/gabriella8406/TMW061007.jpg

Gunny
06-17-2007, 02:11 PM
I am not certain where you were when all of this was definately going on, but here is an article that supports my contention that the administration ''used'' an Al Qaeda link to Saddam, with an Al Qaeda link to 911, and this hyped connection which made normally ''reasoned'' citizens agree to, supporting the going in to, what would be considered an ''unjustified'' war according to Americanized Just War Theory or any normal standards.

That, along with the WMD hype and mushroom cloud in America as the smoking gun crapola, that scared the pants off many Americans, imo.



Hopefully, this will clear up your misconception that the administration did not use an alqaeda link to saddam and 911, as a justification, and reason for going in to a war with Iraq.

"Where I was" was not listening to a bunch of horseshit I knew wasn't true from BOTH sides concerning Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Regardless who said what, it seems a reasonable mind would want to see facts and/or evidence supporting an allegation, right? You know ... like the speculation that Saddam was linked to AQ?

As far as the BS that the Admin linked Saddam to 9/11 goes, that speculation was dismissed on 9/12, and somewhere on the net is a statement from the admin supporting that the admin clearly stated there was no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11 date WAY prior to your WP article.

The admin CLEARLY used a link that Saddam supported terrorists/terrorism, not specifically AQ in its justification for invasion.

The best evidence to support this would be that we invaded AFGHANISTAN as a response to 9/11. Had the admin turned around and tried to justify invading Iraq as a response to 9/11, I'd think more people than just I would have called "Bullshit."

So basically, what you are telling me is the American people are stupid, since there is no evidence to support anyone lying. There is only after-the-fact evidence that some of the information was incorrect.

And attempting to twist speculative statements into statements of fact is bad form.

Gunny
06-17-2007, 02:16 PM
Name calling is not required.

Calling you what you are is perfectly acceptable.


Do you agree Saddam had no connections to AL Quaeda?

No. I think just the opposite has been proven repeatedly. However, it isn't the "either or" choice you are trying to make it.

Whether or not Saddam had connections to AQ is irrelevant. The REAL question is whether or not Saddam supported AQ and/or vice-versa in any operational or financial manner. It is my opinion, based on current knowledge, that such a operational/financial/mutual support relationship did not exist.

All of which is completely irrelevant to the fact that Saddam did in fact support terrorism.

Gunny
06-17-2007, 02:17 PM
The Bushies no longer have to lie about such things. They now conveniently fail to remember them.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa137/gabriella8406/TMW061007.jpg

Nothing like having a cartoon to support your accusations.:slap:

Rahul
06-18-2007, 01:18 AM
Whether or not Saddam had connections to AQ is irrelevant.


Why did you bring it up?



The REAL question is whether or not Saddam supported AQ and/or vice-versa in any operational or financial manner.

In other words, did he have connections to AQ?


It is my opinion, based on current knowledge, that such a operational/financial/mutual support relationship did not exist.

Exactly. Saddam did not support Al Quaeda.



All of which is completely irrelevant to the fact that Saddam did in fact support terrorism.

Not.

Gaffer
06-18-2007, 07:21 PM
Saddam Hussein was a Socialist dictator who did not favor chaos and anarchy in his country. Socialists by their very nature come down hard on Terrorists. Further, there is not one shred of evidence linking Saddam and Al Quaeda. In fact, Saddam disliked Al Quaeda as I have shown before. You have it backwards as usual.

Are you familiar with the names abu nidal, and abu abbas. AQ high ranking terrorists harbored by saddam. al zarqawi also harbored by saddam. A training camp for terrorists called salman pak, located in northern iraq, with saddams full support. But you want to insist he had no ties to terrorists.

You can deny it all you want but the facts are there. And there are more facts being brought out everyday.

Gunny
06-18-2007, 09:03 PM
Why did you bring it up?

I'm responding to this for one reason ... to shine the light of truth on your ugly lies.

YOU are the one who has repeatedly stated in this thread that "the US lied because there was no link between Saddam and AQ." YOU brought it up. This is just concrete evidence of your deceitfulness, right out here in the open.



In other words, did he have connections to AQ?

You ARE really dumber than a red brick, aren't ya, Hadji? Let me get the big fat crayons out and Big Chief tablet ... again ... and draw you the saem picture I did in another thread:

This:

The REAL question is whether or not Saddam supported AQ and/or vice-versa in any operational or financial manner.

Does NOT say:


In other words, did he have connections to AQ?

Once again proving your inability to comprehend what you read.


Exactly. Saddam did not support Al Quaeda.

The part you aren't getting here (be sure and get out your Indian to English translator book) is I never said he did, jackass.

Not.

You are a liar, and a damned fool for purposefully blinding yourself to the facts, evidence and/or truth.

This ...http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml ... is a left-slanted news source.

What does it say, Hadji? It says Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers -- that would be murdering scumbag terrorists by definition.

Let's see if you can keep up here ... providing money to the families of terrorists for their terrorist actions IS SUPPORTING TERRORISM.

Now that you have had your ass handed to you ... again ... go slink back to whatever hole you crawled out of and pull a big rock in after you.

Rahul
06-19-2007, 02:00 AM
You are a liar, and a damned fool for purposefully blinding yourself to the facts, evidence and/or truth.

Insults and name calling are not required, and are common debating tactics for those who have nothing constructive to offer to the argument.



This ...http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml ... is a left-slanted news source.

Do you always put down the sources that you disagree with?



What does it say, Hadji? It says Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers -- that would be murdering scumbag terrorists by definition.

Nonsense. Saddam did not pay any money to terrorists. This has been shown repeatedly.


Now that you have had your ass handed to you ... again ... go slink back to whatever hole you crawled out of and pull a big rock in after you.

Your rude remarks are again not required. Do you ever offer anything of substance?

nevadamedic
06-19-2007, 02:05 AM
Insults and name calling are not required, and are common debating tactics for those who have nothing constructive to offer to the argument.



Do you always put down the sources that you disagree with?



Nonsense. Saddam did not pay any money to terrorists. This has been shown repeatedly.



Your rude remarks are again not required. Do you ever offer anything of substance?

There are your double standards again.

JohnDoe
06-19-2007, 06:15 PM
Are you familiar with the names abu nidal, and abu abbas. AQ high ranking terrorists harbored by saddam. al zarqawi also harbored by saddam. A training camp for terrorists called salman pak, located in northern iraq, with saddams full support. But you want to insist he had no ties to terrorists.

You can deny it all you want but the facts are there. And there are more facts being brought out everyday.

Saddam gave his full support for having a terrorist camp in the NO FLY ZONE area that we and the brits were protecting from saddam's interference?????

lol right, sure...great NON connection imo!

Gunny
06-19-2007, 06:26 PM
Immature and useless, threatening, post imo.

Wtf is it with this childish name calling instead of debating the issues? Or are you only in to CIRCLE jerks, and patting backs with your like minded friends?:slap:

WTF business is it of yours? When I start doing it to you, feel free to whine and cry about it like rahul does. Until then, STFU.

Gunny
06-19-2007, 06:30 PM
saddam gave SUPPOSEDLY BUT NOT CONFIRMED by any means that i have read, 25 k to the families of palestinian suicide bombers in ISRAEL.

is this what YOUR claim means?

And wtf does that have to do WITH US? Or is that not the point? You just wanted to baffle Rahul with your BULLSHIT? :clap:

Obviously, rahul isn't the ONLY one baffled. The administration said saddam supported terrorism. I stated saddam supported terrorism. I provided evidence Saddam supported terrorism.

I never made the claim that Saddam's support of terrorism had anything to do with us, Einstein.

Your newfound butt-buddy keeps claiming that because no one can produce a pic of saddam holding hands with OBL, that he did not support terrorism,as if OBL and AQ are the only terrorists/terrorist organizations on the Earth.

Next time you want to engage in a gunfight with me, try LOADING your weapon.

Gunny
06-19-2007, 06:34 PM
I am not certain where you were when all of this was definately going on, but here is an article that supports my contention that the administration ''used'' an Al Qaeda link to Saddam, with an Al Qaeda link to 911, and this hyped connection which made normally ''reasoned'' citizens agree to, supporting the going in to, what would be considered an ''unjustified'' war according to Americanized Just War Theory or any normal standards.

That, along with the WMD hype and mushroom cloud in America as the smoking gun crapola, that scared the pants off many Americans, imo.



Hopefully, this will clear up your misconception that the administration did not use an alqaeda link to saddam and 911, as a justification, and reason for going in to a war with Iraq.

This WP article is evidence of WHAT? That you're as dumb as rahul? The WP -- second only to the NYT for being a leftist mouthpiece -- states without substantiation that the admin claimed a link between Saddam and AQ.

Not good enough. If the admin cliamed it, produce the claim, not some second-hand hearsay leftist rag commentary.

Otherwise, MY statement stands and you're just a brainwashed fool willing to believe whatever the MSM feeds you.

Gunny
06-19-2007, 06:38 PM
Insults and name calling are not required, and are common debating tactics for those who have nothing constructive to offer to the argument.

Parrot.



Do you always put down the sources that you disagree with?

When they are not credible, yes.



Nonsense. Saddam did not pay any money to terrorists. This has been shown repeatedly.

It has been shown repeatedly that he did. I provide a link and all I get as refutation is your opinion. You are a liar.

Your rude remarks are again not required. Do you ever offer anything of substance?

Only enough to completely destroy YOUR pathetic argument which has NO substance whatsoever.

You obviously are just one, REAL dumb MFer. Has ANY of your repeated whining and snivelling got even one person to not call you what you are? A liar. A stupid liar. An anti-American piece of shit stupid liar.

Are you getting it now?

Gunny
06-19-2007, 08:27 PM
Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions.



In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.



Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.



Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.



Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.



In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."



Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

Here's the actual claim the admin makes. Odd how there is no mention of al Qaeda nor Osama bin Laden.

Isn't it?:laugh2:

JohnDoe
06-19-2007, 08:31 PM
This WP article is evidence of WHAT? That you're as dumb as rahul? The WP -- second only to the NYT for being a leftist mouthpiece -- states without substantiation that the admin claimed a link between Saddam and AQ.

Not good enough. If the admin cliamed it, produce the claim, not some second-hand hearsay leftist rag commentary.

Otherwise, MY statement stands and you're just a brainwashed fool willing to believe whatever the MSM feeds you.

You are a real looney toon. And you never, ever supply or post anything of susbstance or linked or documented in any manner. Just your high and mighty opinion not worth the post you type it on.

Then, you come off as though you are high and mighty by attacking the opposition's well thought out post or well documented post by trying to claim the newspaper is a lying piece of shit that you would never believe....chicken gunny? Can't support your convoluted way of viewing things so you, start attacking the messenger or the messenger's VERY LIGITIMATE source?

You're nothing but a loser, who thinks he's something special, when all that comes out of your mouth is crop fertilizer...at best.

You are an arrogant, ignorant, lacking in substance, joke! :laugh2:

Learn how to debate the issues, you've flunked the 6th grade level of such, you debate like a 3 yr old throwing a tantrum!

JohnDoe
06-19-2007, 08:37 PM
No one asked what the ''white house's'' official site states? wtf?

We are talking about what the President and vice President and Condi, and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Pearle and even Powel said and implied about Saddam's connection with Alqaeda and ties to them.

Not a f*ing white house site.

Gunny
06-19-2007, 08:50 PM
You are a real looney toon. And you never, ever supply or post anything of susbstance or linked or documented in any manner. Just your high and mighty opinion not worth the post you type it on.

Try post 223, Sherlock. I'm sure your great intellectual prowess will deduce that there is INDEED a link there.

Then, you come off as though you are high and mighty by attacking the opposition's well thought out post or well documented post by trying to claim the newspaper is a lying piece of shit that you would never believe....chicken gunny? Can't support your convoluted way of viewing things so you, start attacking the messenger or the messenger's VERY LIGITIMATE source?

When I see a well thought out or well documented post I'll let you know. The fact is, your oped is evidence of NOTHING.

You're nothing but a loser, who thinks he's something special, when all that comes out of your mouth is crop fertilizer...at best.

You are an arrogant, ignorant, lacking in substance, joke! :laugh2:

Learn how to debate the issues, you've flunked the 6th grade level of such, you debate like a 3 yr old throwing a tantrum!

Odd, but it appears to me your post is EXACTLY what you are accusing me of. You have NO argument, your so-called evidence is some writer's opinion, and YOU attacked ME first, sticking your nose in where it doesn't bleong, and now you're whining about having it bitch-slapped.

Not only do you have no argument, but you just jumped right in without reading the thread ... IIRC, a favorite MO of yours ... and started letting your mouth flat outrun your mind right off the bat. HAD you done your homework, unless you are just a flat-out liar like hadji, you'd know his argument is dishonest.

Either wipe that Similac off your lips and debate like a man or go sit in the corner with your new butt-buddy. I could care less which you choose, moron.

Gunny
06-19-2007, 08:53 PM
No one asked what the ''white house's'' official site states? wtf?

We are talking about what the President and vice President and Condi, and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Pearle and even Powel said and implied about Saddam's connection with Alqaeda and ties to them.

Not a f*ing white house site.

Of course you didn't because it DIRECTLY refutes the claim made in the oped your dumb ass tried to post as evidence. Got Bush's name right on top. The Bush Admin's official statement concerning Saddam and terrorism.

And your backpedallign sideways is cracking me up. Just another dishonest leftwingnut. Let's pretend the cold hard truth staring you right in your grubby little face isn't there.

Somebody warm this bitch's bottle for him. He's done.

Gaffer
06-19-2007, 09:02 PM
Nonsense. Saddam did not pay any money to terrorists. This has been shown repeatedly.




Shown repeatedly where? al jezera? al arabia? The hamas family channel? All you ever offer is opinion pieces. It's was a known fact back in the 90's saddam was paying bombers families.

Kathianne
06-19-2007, 09:05 PM
Shown repeatedly where? al jezera? al arabia? The hamas family channel? All you ever offer is opinion pieces. It's was a known fact back in the 90's saddam was paying bombers families.

Agreed, he went out of his way to show support for the Palestinian jihadis.

Rahul
06-19-2007, 10:17 PM
Shown repeatedly where? al jezera? al arabia? The hamas family channel? All you ever offer is opinion pieces. It's was a known fact back in the 90's saddam was paying bombers families.

Those were not op-eds, rather, news articles with sources at the end.

No, Saddam did not pay any bomber's families, but hey, feel free to ignore the facts if you wish!! :coffee:

Gaffer
06-19-2007, 10:27 PM
Those were not op-eds, rather, news articles with sources at the end.

No, Saddam did not pay any bomber's families, but hey, feel free to ignore the facts if you wish!! :coffee:

So show me the proof that he didn't pay hamas bombers families. His own foreign minister announced it to the world in the 90's. They made a big deal about it.

Those are the facts.

Gunny
06-19-2007, 10:35 PM
Those were not op-eds, rather, news articles with sources at the end.

No, Saddam did not pay any bomber's families, but hey, feel free to ignore the facts if you wish!! :coffee:

Incorrect and incorrect.

Look, Einstein, if Saddam wasn't paying Hamas families, why did his own freakin' foreign minister say he was? It's an established fact. Once again you are a liar.

A WP article that claims the Bush admin stated something is an OPED, and no there is NO substantiation.

I posted the facts, and they call you a liar too.

manu1959
06-19-2007, 10:40 PM
Those were not op-eds, rather, news articles with sources at the end.

No, Saddam did not pay any bomber's families, but hey, feel free to ignore the facts if you wish!! :coffee:

http://www.mideastnews.com/sucidereward.htm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=saddam+rewards+suicide+bombers&spell=1

Rahul
06-20-2007, 12:51 AM
http://www.mideastnews.com/sucidereward.htm


Anyone can put a web site up and state their opinion, but that doesn't make them right. I could say the sun rose in the West, but it wouldn't make me right.

Where are your references?

OCA
06-20-2007, 06:10 AM
Anyone can put a web site up and state their opinion, but that doesn't make them right. I could say the sun rose in the West, but it wouldn't make me right.

Where are your references?


Absolutely unbelievable! He asks for links, links are provided then he disses provided links.

Why anybody debates this dothead still I have no clue.

Gunny
06-20-2007, 06:56 AM
Absolutely unbelievable! He asks for links, links are provided then he disses provided links.

Why anybody debates this dothead still I have no clue.

His transparent, 1st grade level dishonest arguments are pretty-much played out.

Gaffer
06-20-2007, 09:05 AM
Anyone can put a web site up and state their opinion, but that doesn't make them right. I could say the sun rose in the West, but it wouldn't make me right.

Where are your references?

It applies to you too. It can apply to the regular media as well. They can make up stories and we really have no way of verifying them.

You haven't been right throughout this whole post. A lot of boneheaded statements backed up by op-eds and opinions.

Rahul
06-20-2007, 02:39 PM
It applies to you too. It can apply to the regular media as well. They can make up stories and we really have no way of verifying them.

First off, one of the links was a Google search thread which I did not look at. I much prefer to look at links with a snippet provided, otherwise, trying to find the relevant site amidst a bunch of others is like playing "Find Waldo".

Second, who is Adel Darwish? Why should I believe him over a media source?

My sources were at least sources from the media. This one is not a "media" source at all.

JohnDoe
06-21-2007, 04:22 AM
So show me the proof that he didn't pay hamas bombers families. His own foreign minister announced it to the world in the 90's. They made a big deal about it.

Those are the facts.


What a convoluted way of thinking.

If Saddam paid Hamas suicide bomber families money to support them, then there must be PROOF of such.

If he did not pay them, there would be NO proof to provide.

And one man's comments against another man's, do not in any way suffice, not without tangiable evidence also.

Kathianne
06-21-2007, 04:45 AM
What a convoluted way of thinking.

If Saddam paid Hamas suicide bomber families money to support them, then there must be PROOF of such.

If he did not pay them, there would be NO proof to provide.

And one man's comments against another man's, do not in any way suffice, not without tangiable evidence also.

This seems like what you are asking for?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml


Salaries For Suicide Bombers
WASHINGTON, April 3, 2002(CBS) Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered to relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 per family to $25,000, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday.

Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have recently received payments of $25,000.

Palestinians say the bombers are driven by a priceless thirst for revenge, religious zeal and dreams of glory — not greed.

Mahmoud Safi, leader of a pro-Iraqi Palestinian group, the Arab Liberation Front, acknowledged that the support payments for relatives make it easier for some potential bombers to make up their minds. "Some people stop me on the street, saying if you increase the payment to $50,000 I'll do it immediately," Safi said. He also suggested such remarks were made mostly in jest.

Saddam has said the Palestinians need weapons and money instead of peace proposals and has provided payments throughout a year and a half of Israeli-Palestinian battles. "I saw on Iraqi TV President Saddam saying he will continue supporting the (uprising) even if it means selling his own clothes," said Safi.

Rumsfeld, who said earlier this week that Saddam and the Iraqi government were offering the lower amount, elaborated on the issue at a Pentagon briefing.

"It turns out that he has raised that amount and it's $25,000 per family, not $10,000 per family," Rumsfeld said.

"Here is an individual who is the head of a country, Iraq, who has proudly, publicly made a decision to go out and actively promote and finance human sacrifice for families that will have their youngsters kill innocent men, women and children," Rumsfeld said.

Though he did not say so, he appeared to refer to the current wave of suicide bombings on Israeli civilian targets.

"I am simply trying to let the people of Iraq understand what their leadership is doing, to let the people of the Middle East and the rest of the world ... know what is in fact being done to arm young people and send them out to blow up restaurants and shopping malls and pizza parlors," he said.

Rumsfeld blasted Iraq, Iran and Syria on Monday for inflaming violence in the Middle East, and said he raised the issue of Iraq on Wednesday to suggest it was important to "recognize that there is an infrastructure to terrorism."

Rumsfeld said Saddam had stated publicly the payment for families "if they're able to persuade a family to have their teen-ager strap explosives on them and go out and kill themselves and kill innocent men, women and children."

"He is pleased with his idea and is promoting it in the region," Rumsfeld said of Saddam. "It is a matter of public record."

Under the new Iraqi payscale, decided on March 12 during an Arab conference in Baghdad, the families of gunmen and others who die fighting the Israelis will still receive $10,000, while the relatives of suicide bombers will get $25,000.

Safi and two others from the Arab Liberation Front visit families in the northern West Bank and make the payments. "We go to every family and give them a check," he said. "We tell them that this is a gift from President Saddam and Iraq."

But Saddam is not the only one giving money. Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both U.S. allies — pay money to families of Palestinians killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers.

Abbey
06-21-2007, 08:55 AM
Awesome find, Kathianne. :clap:

Gaffer
06-21-2007, 09:40 AM
What a convoluted way of thinking.

If Saddam paid Hamas suicide bomber families money to support them, then there must be PROOF of such.

If he did not pay them, there would be NO proof to provide.

And one man's comments against another man's, do not in any way suffice, not without tangiable evidence also.

Like I said, show me the proof that he DIDN'T pay suicide bombers. There's nothing convoluted about that.