PhillyKev 0 #26 June 18, 2004 QuoteI'm definately not going to influence any of your opinions, nor do I wish to take the time to try. Hell, I know that. This is the biggest group of hard headed, non-bending, bad ass debaters around. Holy frickin' type A personality, batman. I participate in these threads because I enjoy the verbal and intellectual competition. Excersing the brain and waxing on things philosophicaly keeps you from losing your marbles. But the main reason I express my opinions on here is because there are a lot of lurkers, who don't post, but just read. And maybe I can have some influence in opening someone's eyes to a different perspective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #27 June 18, 2004 From what I've read on the report and various news sites, including the one listed in the first post on this thread... Here's something from the second paragraph: QuoteThe report by commission staff said al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 and had explored the possibility of cooperation, but the plans apparently never came to fruition. So, the idea had been tossed around about working with OBL before, is it really that hard to believe that he worked with some of OBL associates at some point?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #28 June 18, 2004 QuoteThe report by commission staff said al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 and had explored the possibility of cooperation, but the plans apparently never came to fruition. He was turned down. You're quoting evidence that they didn't work together to support a theory that may possible have logically worked together. Last week at the bar, I approached a girl about having sex with me. She turned me down. So, logically, we had sex at some point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #29 June 18, 2004 QuoteI think it is irresponsible and heinous that the administration would mislead congress and the public because of their partisan views. How can you conclude it was because of their partisan views? It was official policy (with no action) of the Clinton admin to pursue regime change in Iraq. Was he also doing it because of his partisan views? You're ability to know other's motives is limited. edit-everyone (the UN, European countries, Clinton, etc.) was misled to a degree. Even Sadam was misled by his officials that did not want to admit the truth about what weapons and capability he really had. There is an important difference in being misled and wanting to misleadPeople are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #30 June 18, 2004 Because half the administration is on record since 1993 calling for another invasion of Iraq, setting up a military base there, and having quick strike capabilities to the rest of the region to protect our oil interests there. But you're right, it's not, by definition, a partisan issue. It's a unique view by this administration. I do believe that most republicans are ignorant of the heinous actions of this administration for one reason or another, and aren't actually in agreement with their evil actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #31 June 18, 2004 My point in quoting the paragraph was to illustrate that even in a critical article, it acknowledged that there were lines of communication between the Iraqi govt and Al Qaeda. Sorry you got turned down for sex, but it looks like it worked out okay for you.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #32 June 18, 2004 QuoteAnswer is easy, no. You mean your opinion is no. Don't confuse fact with your warped views. Not everyone's pumpkin lurks in the far left field. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #33 June 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnswer is easy, no. You mean your opinion is no. Don't confuse fact with your warped views. Not everyone's pumpkin lurks in the far left field. Warped? Just stating some simple truths. Did Saddam every meet with any AQ or OBL? Did Saddam or Iraq actively help AQ or OBL? You still didnt anwser my question. Why would Saddam help a man who wanted to fight him in 1991 and kill him? OBL even offered to form an anti-Saddam Hussein Arab coaltion in 1991. Or is that a fact you didnt know. Also in which is prob the most comprehensive book on OBL and AQ, Rohan Guneratna only mentions Saddam Hussein once and he even states AQ aproached Iraq, but Iraq didn't reply. Now in your part of the world that might be a link. If you want to talk about connections, look at Pakistan, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
