storm1977 0 #1 June 18, 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #2 June 18, 2004 OK...Clicky now!!!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #3 June 18, 2004 Ooooooh this will piss off left-wingers! I like it! Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #4 June 18, 2004 Considering that everyone here reads the news, I don't understand why there's nothing posted here but a link to an article? Is this supposed to be the beginning of a discussion? What's interesting about this "news" is that it comes one day after the independant panel investigating 9/11 found no credible link between Al-Queda and Iraq... I don't exactly understand why it's showing up in the news today. Strange coincidence. Didn't we support the independant investigation into 9/11 so that we could reach some objective answers and conclusions into the reason's behind and the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks? If so, then why are political leaders still arguing against their results and conclusions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #5 June 18, 2004 QuoteConsidering that everyone here reads the news, I don't understand why there's nothing posted here but a link to an article? Is this supposed to be the beginning of a discussion? What's interesting about this "news" is that it comes one day after the independant panel investigating 9/11 found no credible link between Al-Queda and Iraq... I don't exactly understand why it's showing up in the news today. Strange coincidence. Didn't we support the independant investigation into 9/11 so that we could reach some objective answers and conclusions into the reason's behind and the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks? If so, then why are political leaders still arguing against their results and conclusions? The article doesn't say there was necessarily a link between SH and Al Qaeda. I states SH was planning on carrying out terrorist attacks on his own. Not that it makes any difference in our justifications for going to war. Here's another source that says basically the same thing. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/06/18/012.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #6 June 18, 2004 QuoteOoooooh this will piss off left-wingers! I like it! Doesn't piss me off at all. Nothing would make me happier than to find out that we haven't been getting lied to and deceived by our President all this time. Hell, I hope I'm completely wrong about GWB and that he's not really the loose canon that he appears to be by all evidence up to this point. Finally, there is one piece of evidence that supports what the administration has said. Hopefully there will be more to contradict the dozens of apparent lies and falsehoods that we've already been exposed to. Nothing would make me happier than to find out I'm wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #7 June 18, 2004 For your information - from WSJ: REVIEW & OUTLOOK Spinning 9/11 The press ignores the commission's most interesting findings. Friday, June 18, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT We'll say this on behalf of the latest staff reports from the 9/11 Commission: They are far more interesting than the media coverage suggests. Americans who go online to read the reports will actually learn a few things. For example, they'll discover new details about the links between al Qaeda and Iran. The conventional wisdom has been that these Shiite and Sunni cultures couldn't meet, but the report says they did so "to cooperate against a common enemy"--the infidel U.S. Specifically, al Qaeda operatives trained in Iran, and al Qaeda helped Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists obtain explosives. Al Qaeda was also probably involved in two attacks on U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, including the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers that killed 19 Americans and injured 372 and had previously been blamed largely on Hezbollah. This certainly sheds some useful light on State Department attempts to "engage" Tehran's mullahs as they attempt to build a nuclear bomb. Another revelation concerns al Qaeda and anthrax. The 9/11 panel says al Qaeda had an "ambitious" biological weapons program and "was making advances in its ability to produce anthrax prior to September 11." It cites CIA Director George Tenet as saying that al Qaeda's ability to conduct an anthrax attack is "one of the most immediate threats the United States is likely to face." Given that we already were attacked by anthrax, and that we still don't know who did it, this sounds like news too. Yet nearly all of the media coverage has focused on what the 9/11 panel claims it didn't find--namely, smoking-gun proof that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were working together. The country has traveled a long way psychologically from the trauma of September 11 if we are now focusing on the threats that allegedly don't exist instead of those that certainly do. Or, to be more precise, we're further from 9/11 but very close to an election. The "no Saddam link" story is getting so much play because it fits the broader antiwar, anti-Bush narrative that Iraq was a "distraction" from the broader war on terror. So once again the 9/11 Commission is being used to tarnish the Iraqi effort and damage President Bush's credibility in fighting terror. John Kerry surely thinks so because he jumped on the coverage to once again assail Mr. Bush on Iraq. Even here, though, the staff report is less a "slam dunk," as the CIA likes to say, than the coverage asserts. We are supposed to believe, for example, that the Commission has found out once and for all that there was no meeting in Prague between the Iraqi agent al-Ani and 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. But the only new evidence the report turns up is that some calls were made from Florida on Atta's cell phone at the same time he was reportedly in Prague. And since that phone would not have worked in Europe anyway, how do we know someone else wasn't using it? The Czechs still believe the Atta meeting took place, and the truth is we still don't know for sure. There's also the testimony the Commission heard Wednesday from Patrick Fitzgerald. The former Manhattan prosecutor was asked about his 1998 indictment against Osama bin Laden that asserted that al Qaeda had an "understanding" with Iraq that it would not "work against that government" and that "on certain projects, specifically including weapons development," they would "work cooperatively." Mr. Fitzgerald testified that "there was that relationship that went from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other." Somehow the Commission also omitted any reference to Mr. Tenet's 2002 letter to Congress. "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade," he wrote. And, "We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda's leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. 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." We could go on, but suffice to say that the report hardly disproves any Saddam-al Qaeda link. Mr. Bush was entirely correct when he said yesterday that, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." The extent of those ties is the issue, and it is essential to U.S. security that we keep probing them. In particular, the President should order the release of some of the official Iraqi documents that coalition forces have captured in Iraq and that shed additional light on that relationship. We thought everyone had learned the hard way on 9/11 that the greatest security danger comes not from taking threats too seriously but from dismissing them too easily. Apparently some people have forgotten that lesson alreadyVinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #8 June 18, 2004 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025 Further reading. Quite interesting. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #9 June 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteConsidering that everyone here reads the news, I don't understand why there's nothing posted here but a link to an article? Is this supposed to be the beginning of a discussion? What's interesting about this "news" is that it comes one day after the independant panel investigating 9/11 found no credible link between Al-Queda and Iraq... I don't exactly understand why it's showing up in the news today. Strange coincidence. Didn't we support the independant investigation into 9/11 so that we could reach some objective answers and conclusions into the reason's behind and the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks? If so, then why are political leaders still arguing against their results and conclusions? The article doesn't say there was necessarily a link between SH and Al Qaeda. I states SH was planning on carrying out terrorist attacks on his own. Not that it makes any difference in our justifications for going to war. Here's another source that says basically the same thing. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/06/18/012.html QuoteJust a minor technicality in what you wrote... You wrote that "I states SH was planning on carrying out terrorist attacks on his own. "... but that's not exactly true... The articles states that Russia said that they warned the US of attacks by Iraq both within the US and abroad... Still a funny coincidence, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #10 June 18, 2004 "Ooooooh this will piss off left-wingers! " Nah, not really, "Mr Putin said he had no information the Iraqi ex-leader was behind any attacks. .......... But we did not have information that they were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things........ "But he said it did not change Russia's opposition to the war in Iraq. " It doesn't change my opposition either. From the usual source.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm Planning is one thing, doing is another, when did Bush start planning to invade Iraq? Someone remind me please......-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freeflydrew 0 #11 June 18, 2004 Quote"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." The extent of those ties is the issue, and it is essential to U.S. security that we keep probing them. In particular, the President should order the release of some of the official Iraqi documents that coalition forces have captured in Iraq and that shed additional light on that relationship. If perhaps they showed us the proof, instead of showing us disproof of a lack of a relationship, people may actually begin to believe the whole arguement, but it's been a year and 70 days since we went into Iraq and we still have no concrete evidence that there was any specific relationship between Al-queda and the governing body of Iraq (SH). How can you reach such a conclusion without proof? And at the same time, how can we just be expected to believe in such a connection until it's been disproven? "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." <--this sounds like some sort of math equation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #12 June 18, 2004 ""The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." <--this sounds like some sort of math equation" Nope, this sounds like someone saying. "I am not a crook" -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #13 June 18, 2004 Quote"Ooooooh this will piss off left-wingers! " Nah, not really, "Mr Putin said he had no information the Iraqi ex-leader was behind any attacks. .......... But we did not have information that they were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things........ "But he said it did not change Russia's opposition to the war in Iraq. " It doesn't change my opposition either. From the usual source.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm Planning is one thing, doing is another, when did Bush start planning to invade Iraq? Someone remind me please...... So you think we should have waited until they actually "did" a terrorist attack instead of stopping it in the planning stage by pre-emptive action? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #14 June 18, 2004 "So you think we should have waited until they actually "did" a terrorist attack instead of stopping it in the planning stage by pre-emptive action?" No, I think life would have been simpler for us all if Bush could have produced something substantial to justify invading another country. He told us the reason for invading was over the WMD issue. If he had substantial evidence for that, I wouldn't be discussing this with you. If the reason for invading was because Saddam was supporting terrorism, and Bush could demonstrate it, and could use it as justification... Again, you and I would probably be discussing RSLs, rig colour schemes, or favourite beers. Actually, given the timing of the invasion, and the global support for the war on terror, this would probably have been a better way of legitimising his invasion plans. But it is generally frowned upon (by the international community) to cause an awful lot of civilian casualties based on suspicion, hearsay, forged evidence, bad intelligence, personal vendetta, whatever. If you are prepared to support such a course of action, expect a little criticism until you can formally justify your actions. From the moment Bush took power, it appears he wanted to invade Iraq, regardless of justification. At least, thats the impression I got from the recent enquiry. When you want to believe something bad enough, all sorts of ropey evidence, and hair brained justification becomes realistic. This is well known by Chalabi et al.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites miked10270 0 #15 June 18, 2004 The important thing is that we can now blame the Russians! Don't old habits die hard... Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Casurf1978 0 #16 June 18, 2004 QuoteSo you think we should have waited until they actually "did" a terrorist attack instead of stopping it in the planning stage by pre-emptive action? If we were to attack every group or nation that was "planning" an attack, damn huge list. We have limited resources to fight terrorism and the threats should be ranked accordingly. We just cant go off and start invading every nation we think is "planning" an attack. How much of our man power, money, intel and other tools are being used in Iraq when they could be employed else where. Just out of curiosity I would like to see what percentage of our regular forces are in Iraq as well as special forces too. How many billions of dollars are going into Iraq when that money could be used to better train our military, intel community, etc to better deal with AQ and other splinter groups. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #17 June 18, 2004 QuoteWe have limited resources to fight terrorism We do? QuoteHow many billions of dollars are going into Iraq when that money could be used to better train our military, intel community, etc to better deal with AQ and other splinter groups. "to better deal with" How? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tunaplanet 0 #18 June 19, 2004 QuoteNo, I think life would have been simpler for us all if Bush could have produced something substantial to justify invading another country. Wow, either you guys don't listen or are just too far in left field to comprehend. We went to war as a pre-emptive strike so something like 9/11 will not happen again. Period. Hussein was capable of terrorist attacks against the US. He is no longer. And guess what? Iraq now doesn't pose a threat to the US. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #19 June 19, 2004 Quote"So you think we should have waited until they actually "did" a terrorist attack instead of stopping it in the planning stage by pre-emptive action?" QuoteNo, I think life would have been simpler for us all if Bush could have produced something substantial to justify invading another country. QuoteHe told us the reason for invading was over the WMD issue. If he had substantial evidence for that, I wouldn't be discussing this with you. If the reason for invading was because Saddam was supporting terrorism, and Bush could demonstrate it, and could use it as justification... Again, you and I would probably be discussing RSLs, rig colour schemes, or favourite beers. Actually, given the timing of the invasion, and the global support for the war on terror, this would probably have been a better way of legitimising his invasion plans. But it is generally frowned upon (by the international community) to cause an awful lot of civilian casualties based on suspicion, hearsay, forged evidence, bad intelligence, personal vendetta, whatever. If you are prepared to support such a course of action, expect a little criticism until you can formally justify your actions. From the moment Bush took power, it appears he wanted to invade Iraq, regardless of justification. At least, thats the impression I got from the recent enquiry. When you want to believe something bad enough, all sorts of ropey evidence, and hair brained justification becomes realistic. This is well known by Chalabi et al. I'm not even going down this well trod road about how almost all world leaders including US Democrats voted to go to war based on the same itel Bush had. Do we really need to continiously post what Kerry, Hillary etc said before the war until you get it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tunaplanet 0 #20 June 19, 2004 QuoteNot that it makes any difference in our justifications for going to war. Uh, bro, seriously...back down here to earth for a nanosecond please. Attacking a nation as a pre-emptive measure due to intel that they were about to attack your country and carry out terrorist attacks against you is possibly a reason. Wether it is or not is a matter of opinion. Personally I feel it's a good reason. Self defense. Now, as to what specific intel was delivered...that's another story. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #21 June 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteNot that it makes any difference in our justifications for going to war. Uh, bro, seriously...back down here to earth for a nanosecond please. Attacking a nation as a pre-emptive measure due to intel that they were about to attack your country and carry out terrorist attacks against you is possibly a reason. Wether it is or not is a matter of opinion. Personally I feel it's a good reason. Self defense. Now, as to what specific intel was delivered...that's another story. I only meant that in and by itself, it didn't change anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #22 June 19, 2004 Quoteindependant panel investigating 9/11 found no credible link between Al-Queda and Iraq The panel didn't find "no credible link between Al-Qaida and Iraq". They found no credible link between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11. The media is distorting this finding. Take for example the MSNBC headline "9/11 commission: No link between bin Laden and Saddam" found here http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5228545. The commission never said there was no link between UBL and Saddam. If you read through the article this is what the commissioner actually said: "CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. " Notice the word "9/11" not "Iraq"? Here was Thomas Kean's answer: "THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that." Yeah, there is no Liberal media bias. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #23 June 19, 2004 QuotePlanning is one thing, doing is another, when did Bush start planning to invade Iraq? Someone remind me please...... We've been planning to invade North Korea since the 1950's. We had plans to go to war with the USSR for 40-50 years. We have plans on what we will do if we have to go to war with China. If we eventually have to conduct any of these wars will that make them illigitimate in your eyes? The military constantly tries to forecast the next conflict and try to be prepared for it. That is how they figure out their training, equipment, readiness posture, etc. We didn't have a plan for 19 lunatics to hijack four planes and crash them into three large buildings before it happened. I'm assuming, based on your dislike of war preparation, that makes our response legitimate. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tunaplanet 0 #24 June 19, 2004 Right on. Hit the nail on the head. I am neither a republican nor democrat, but have to side with Bush on this one. Liberals are notorious for throwing smokescreen when they are in the wrong. Let's eliminate all the bullshit and look at the facts. - The report stated that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda regarding 9/11. - Bush has stated all along that there was never a link between Iraq and Al Queda regarding 9/11. - The reason for us going to war in Iraq was for a pre-emptive measure to ensure an incident as 9/11 would not happen again. Iraq had the capability, motive not to mention we had evidence they were attempting something. Russian intel recently has supported our claim that Iraq was in the process of terrorist attacks both on our soil as well as other installations around the world. - The war on Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,174 #25 June 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteindependant panel investigating 9/11 found no credible link between Al-Queda and Iraq The panel didn't find "no credible link between Al-Qaida and Iraq". They found no credible link between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11. The media is distorting this finding. Take for example the MSNBC headline "9/11 commission: No link between bin Laden and Saddam" found here http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5228545. The commission never said there was no link between UBL and Saddam. If you read through the article this is what the commissioner actually said: "CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. " Notice the word "9/11" not "Iraq"? Here was Thomas Kean's answer: "THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that." Yeah, there is no Liberal media bias. Al Quaeda operatives trained in Florida, so clearly there's a link between OBL and Jeb Bush. The IRA raised $millions in the USA, so the US is supporting Irish terrorists. Makes as much sense as your statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
nacmacfeegle 0 #10 June 18, 2004 "Ooooooh this will piss off left-wingers! " Nah, not really, "Mr Putin said he had no information the Iraqi ex-leader was behind any attacks. .......... But we did not have information that they were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things........ "But he said it did not change Russia's opposition to the war in Iraq. " It doesn't change my opposition either. From the usual source.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm Planning is one thing, doing is another, when did Bush start planning to invade Iraq? Someone remind me please......-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #11 June 18, 2004 Quote"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." The extent of those ties is the issue, and it is essential to U.S. security that we keep probing them. In particular, the President should order the release of some of the official Iraqi documents that coalition forces have captured in Iraq and that shed additional light on that relationship. If perhaps they showed us the proof, instead of showing us disproof of a lack of a relationship, people may actually begin to believe the whole arguement, but it's been a year and 70 days since we went into Iraq and we still have no concrete evidence that there was any specific relationship between Al-queda and the governing body of Iraq (SH). How can you reach such a conclusion without proof? And at the same time, how can we just be expected to believe in such a connection until it's been disproven? "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." <--this sounds like some sort of math equation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #12 June 18, 2004 ""The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." <--this sounds like some sort of math equation" Nope, this sounds like someone saying. "I am not a crook" -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #13 June 18, 2004 Quote"Ooooooh this will piss off left-wingers! " Nah, not really, "Mr Putin said he had no information the Iraqi ex-leader was behind any attacks. .......... But we did not have information that they were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things........ "But he said it did not change Russia's opposition to the war in Iraq. " It doesn't change my opposition either. From the usual source.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3819057.stm Planning is one thing, doing is another, when did Bush start planning to invade Iraq? Someone remind me please...... So you think we should have waited until they actually "did" a terrorist attack instead of stopping it in the planning stage by pre-emptive action? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #14 June 18, 2004 "So you think we should have waited until they actually "did" a terrorist attack instead of stopping it in the planning stage by pre-emptive action?" No, I think life would have been simpler for us all if Bush could have produced something substantial to justify invading another country. He told us the reason for invading was over the WMD issue. If he had substantial evidence for that, I wouldn't be discussing this with you. If the reason for invading was because Saddam was supporting terrorism, and Bush could demonstrate it, and could use it as justification... Again, you and I would probably be discussing RSLs, rig colour schemes, or favourite beers. Actually, given the timing of the invasion, and the global support for the war on terror, this would probably have been a better way of legitimising his invasion plans. But it is generally frowned upon (by the international community) to cause an awful lot of civilian casualties based on suspicion, hearsay, forged evidence, bad intelligence, personal vendetta, whatever. If you are prepared to support such a course of action, expect a little criticism until you can formally justify your actions. From the moment Bush took power, it appears he wanted to invade Iraq, regardless of justification. At least, thats the impression I got from the recent enquiry. When you want to believe something bad enough, all sorts of ropey evidence, and hair brained justification becomes realistic. This is well known by Chalabi et al.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #15 June 18, 2004 The important thing is that we can now blame the Russians! Don't old habits die hard... Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #16 June 18, 2004 QuoteSo you think we should have waited until they actually "did" a terrorist attack instead of stopping it in the planning stage by pre-emptive action? If we were to attack every group or nation that was "planning" an attack, damn huge list. We have limited resources to fight terrorism and the threats should be ranked accordingly. We just cant go off and start invading every nation we think is "planning" an attack. How much of our man power, money, intel and other tools are being used in Iraq when they could be employed else where. Just out of curiosity I would like to see what percentage of our regular forces are in Iraq as well as special forces too. How many billions of dollars are going into Iraq when that money could be used to better train our military, intel community, etc to better deal with AQ and other splinter groups. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #17 June 18, 2004 QuoteWe have limited resources to fight terrorism We do? QuoteHow many billions of dollars are going into Iraq when that money could be used to better train our military, intel community, etc to better deal with AQ and other splinter groups. "to better deal with" How? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #18 June 19, 2004 QuoteNo, I think life would have been simpler for us all if Bush could have produced something substantial to justify invading another country. Wow, either you guys don't listen or are just too far in left field to comprehend. We went to war as a pre-emptive strike so something like 9/11 will not happen again. Period. Hussein was capable of terrorist attacks against the US. He is no longer. And guess what? Iraq now doesn't pose a threat to the US. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #19 June 19, 2004 Quote"So you think we should have waited until they actually "did" a terrorist attack instead of stopping it in the planning stage by pre-emptive action?" QuoteNo, I think life would have been simpler for us all if Bush could have produced something substantial to justify invading another country. QuoteHe told us the reason for invading was over the WMD issue. If he had substantial evidence for that, I wouldn't be discussing this with you. If the reason for invading was because Saddam was supporting terrorism, and Bush could demonstrate it, and could use it as justification... Again, you and I would probably be discussing RSLs, rig colour schemes, or favourite beers. Actually, given the timing of the invasion, and the global support for the war on terror, this would probably have been a better way of legitimising his invasion plans. But it is generally frowned upon (by the international community) to cause an awful lot of civilian casualties based on suspicion, hearsay, forged evidence, bad intelligence, personal vendetta, whatever. If you are prepared to support such a course of action, expect a little criticism until you can formally justify your actions. From the moment Bush took power, it appears he wanted to invade Iraq, regardless of justification. At least, thats the impression I got from the recent enquiry. When you want to believe something bad enough, all sorts of ropey evidence, and hair brained justification becomes realistic. This is well known by Chalabi et al. I'm not even going down this well trod road about how almost all world leaders including US Democrats voted to go to war based on the same itel Bush had. Do we really need to continiously post what Kerry, Hillary etc said before the war until you get it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tunaplanet 0 #20 June 19, 2004 QuoteNot that it makes any difference in our justifications for going to war. Uh, bro, seriously...back down here to earth for a nanosecond please. Attacking a nation as a pre-emptive measure due to intel that they were about to attack your country and carry out terrorist attacks against you is possibly a reason. Wether it is or not is a matter of opinion. Personally I feel it's a good reason. Self defense. Now, as to what specific intel was delivered...that's another story. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #21 June 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteNot that it makes any difference in our justifications for going to war. Uh, bro, seriously...back down here to earth for a nanosecond please. Attacking a nation as a pre-emptive measure due to intel that they were about to attack your country and carry out terrorist attacks against you is possibly a reason. Wether it is or not is a matter of opinion. Personally I feel it's a good reason. Self defense. Now, as to what specific intel was delivered...that's another story. I only meant that in and by itself, it didn't change anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #22 June 19, 2004 Quoteindependant panel investigating 9/11 found no credible link between Al-Queda and Iraq The panel didn't find "no credible link between Al-Qaida and Iraq". They found no credible link between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11. The media is distorting this finding. Take for example the MSNBC headline "9/11 commission: No link between bin Laden and Saddam" found here http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5228545. The commission never said there was no link between UBL and Saddam. If you read through the article this is what the commissioner actually said: "CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. " Notice the word "9/11" not "Iraq"? Here was Thomas Kean's answer: "THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that." Yeah, there is no Liberal media bias. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #23 June 19, 2004 QuotePlanning is one thing, doing is another, when did Bush start planning to invade Iraq? Someone remind me please...... We've been planning to invade North Korea since the 1950's. We had plans to go to war with the USSR for 40-50 years. We have plans on what we will do if we have to go to war with China. If we eventually have to conduct any of these wars will that make them illigitimate in your eyes? The military constantly tries to forecast the next conflict and try to be prepared for it. That is how they figure out their training, equipment, readiness posture, etc. We didn't have a plan for 19 lunatics to hijack four planes and crash them into three large buildings before it happened. I'm assuming, based on your dislike of war preparation, that makes our response legitimate. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tunaplanet 0 #24 June 19, 2004 Right on. Hit the nail on the head. I am neither a republican nor democrat, but have to side with Bush on this one. Liberals are notorious for throwing smokescreen when they are in the wrong. Let's eliminate all the bullshit and look at the facts. - The report stated that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda regarding 9/11. - Bush has stated all along that there was never a link between Iraq and Al Queda regarding 9/11. - The reason for us going to war in Iraq was for a pre-emptive measure to ensure an incident as 9/11 would not happen again. Iraq had the capability, motive not to mention we had evidence they were attempting something. Russian intel recently has supported our claim that Iraq was in the process of terrorist attacks both on our soil as well as other installations around the world. - The war on Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,174 #25 June 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteindependant panel investigating 9/11 found no credible link between Al-Queda and Iraq The panel didn't find "no credible link between Al-Qaida and Iraq". They found no credible link between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11. The media is distorting this finding. Take for example the MSNBC headline "9/11 commission: No link between bin Laden and Saddam" found here http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5228545. The commission never said there was no link between UBL and Saddam. If you read through the article this is what the commissioner actually said: "CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. " Notice the word "9/11" not "Iraq"? Here was Thomas Kean's answer: "THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that." Yeah, there is no Liberal media bias. Al Quaeda operatives trained in Florida, so clearly there's a link between OBL and Jeb Bush. The IRA raised $millions in the USA, so the US is supporting Irish terrorists. Makes as much sense as your statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
tunaplanet 0 #20 June 19, 2004 QuoteNot that it makes any difference in our justifications for going to war. Uh, bro, seriously...back down here to earth for a nanosecond please. Attacking a nation as a pre-emptive measure due to intel that they were about to attack your country and carry out terrorist attacks against you is possibly a reason. Wether it is or not is a matter of opinion. Personally I feel it's a good reason. Self defense. Now, as to what specific intel was delivered...that's another story. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #21 June 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteNot that it makes any difference in our justifications for going to war. Uh, bro, seriously...back down here to earth for a nanosecond please. Attacking a nation as a pre-emptive measure due to intel that they were about to attack your country and carry out terrorist attacks against you is possibly a reason. Wether it is or not is a matter of opinion. Personally I feel it's a good reason. Self defense. Now, as to what specific intel was delivered...that's another story. I only meant that in and by itself, it didn't change anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #22 June 19, 2004 Quoteindependant panel investigating 9/11 found no credible link between Al-Queda and Iraq The panel didn't find "no credible link between Al-Qaida and Iraq". They found no credible link between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11. The media is distorting this finding. Take for example the MSNBC headline "9/11 commission: No link between bin Laden and Saddam" found here http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5228545. The commission never said there was no link between UBL and Saddam. If you read through the article this is what the commissioner actually said: "CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. " Notice the word "9/11" not "Iraq"? Here was Thomas Kean's answer: "THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that." Yeah, there is no Liberal media bias. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #23 June 19, 2004 QuotePlanning is one thing, doing is another, when did Bush start planning to invade Iraq? Someone remind me please...... We've been planning to invade North Korea since the 1950's. We had plans to go to war with the USSR for 40-50 years. We have plans on what we will do if we have to go to war with China. If we eventually have to conduct any of these wars will that make them illigitimate in your eyes? The military constantly tries to forecast the next conflict and try to be prepared for it. That is how they figure out their training, equipment, readiness posture, etc. We didn't have a plan for 19 lunatics to hijack four planes and crash them into three large buildings before it happened. I'm assuming, based on your dislike of war preparation, that makes our response legitimate. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #24 June 19, 2004 Right on. Hit the nail on the head. I am neither a republican nor democrat, but have to side with Bush on this one. Liberals are notorious for throwing smokescreen when they are in the wrong. Let's eliminate all the bullshit and look at the facts. - The report stated that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda regarding 9/11. - Bush has stated all along that there was never a link between Iraq and Al Queda regarding 9/11. - The reason for us going to war in Iraq was for a pre-emptive measure to ensure an incident as 9/11 would not happen again. Iraq had the capability, motive not to mention we had evidence they were attempting something. Russian intel recently has supported our claim that Iraq was in the process of terrorist attacks both on our soil as well as other installations around the world. - The war on Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,174 #25 June 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteindependant panel investigating 9/11 found no credible link between Al-Queda and Iraq The panel didn't find "no credible link between Al-Qaida and Iraq". They found no credible link between Iraq and the attacks on 9/11. The media is distorting this finding. Take for example the MSNBC headline "9/11 commission: No link between bin Laden and Saddam" found here http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5228545. The commission never said there was no link between UBL and Saddam. If you read through the article this is what the commissioner actually said: "CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This is a development a lot of people will find clarifying is that there was no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. " Notice the word "9/11" not "Iraq"? Here was Thomas Kean's answer: "THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what our staff has found. Now, it doesn't mean there weren't al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They're somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that." Yeah, there is no Liberal media bias. Al Quaeda operatives trained in Florida, so clearly there's a link between OBL and Jeb Bush. The IRA raised $millions in the USA, so the US is supporting Irish terrorists. Makes as much sense as your statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
