Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 233
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    So now we invaded Iraq not in response to 9/11, and not because Saddam is in league with Osama, and not because Saddam has WMD, but because we needed to punish him for being a bad old murdering dictator? For 23 years? But not Pinochet? No help for the Congo? Rwanda? East Timor?
    WOW, what are you smoking today? Again take a statement and then add your ramblings, take out what does not fit and spin it into what you want it to say to make an argument. Or, is this todays tactic to show approval of Saddam and his regime?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    lol, i think you mean 99% pregnant, lmao
    Nah, I'll explain it for you.

    You can not be part pregnant and part not pregnant, you are either pregnant or not (if you need more details ask your dad) either Saddam had ties to Al-Q or he did not. If the pregnancy test comes back positive....if there were Al-Q training camps in Iraq, if they had meetings.....
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    WOW, what are you smoking today? Again take a statement and then add your ramblings, take out what does not fit and spin it into what you want it to say to make an argument. Or, is this todays tactic to show approval of Saddam and his regime?
    lol, Your first 2 sentences accuse me of spin, your last sentence suggest I support Saddam. Whew.
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Nah, I'll explain it for you.

    You can not be part pregnant and part not pregnant, you are either pregnant or not (if you need more details ask your dad) either Saddam had ties to Al-Q or he did not. If the pregnancy test comes back positive....if there were Al-Q training camps in Iraq, if they had meetings.....
    lol, Your analogy was backwards, but I am farmiliar with the phrase.

    In any event, if you are using the analogy for foreign policy, I can see why your ideas get rejected.

    If I try to kill Osama, does that mean I have "Ties to Al Quaida"? Am I pregnant? If I call him to ask him to stop attempting to overthrow my secular government, do I have "Ties to Al Quaida"? Am I 50% pregnant?

    If there are camps in the portion of Iraq that the United States made sure Saddam was NOT in contol of, does that mean "Saddam has ties to Al Quiada? Perhaps it means the the USA has "ties to al quaida". Am I pregnant yet?

    Your pregnancy analogy even if it werent backward is silly in this case.

    And the reason this president used the phrase "ties to al quaida" was because it was suggestive but so vague he could not be called on it, not matter how silly.
  5. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    lol, Your analogy was backwards, but I am farmiliar with the phrase.

    In any event, if you are using the analogy for foreign policy, I can see why your ideas get rejected.

    If I try to kill Osama, does that mean I have "Ties to Al Quaida"? Am I pregnant? If I call him to ask him to stop attempting to overthrow my secular government, do I have "Ties to Al Quaida"? Am I 50% pregnant?

    If there are camps in the portion of Iraq that the United States made sure Saddam was NOT in contol of, does that mean "Saddam has ties to Al Quiada? Perhaps it means the the USA has "ties to al quaida". Am I pregnant yet?

    Your pregnancy analogy even if it werent backward is silly in this case.

    And the reason this president used the phrase "ties to al quaida" was because it was suggestive but so vague he could not be called on it, not matter how silly.
    Oh, I see now they did talk, but just to ask to not overthrow my gov't, sounds like the Saddam I have read about, and holding onto that ol' really was not in Iraq theory. Well I see this is going nowhere so have a good day (several actually I am out of here for a week or so).
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Oh, I see now they did talk, but just to ask to not overthrow my gov't, sounds like the Saddam I have read about, and holding onto that ol' really was not in Iraq theory. Well I see this is going nowhere so have a good day (several actually I am out of here for a week or so).
    Wow, whew. Have a good trip.
  7. #127  
    How about if you have repeated meetings to discuss how you can work together? And what if those meetings were documented by the 9/11 Commission? And what if people who never heard of those meetings, and never read about them or knew what was known about them made up their minds that those meetings never occurred? And what if the Democratic leadership led an active campaign for years to confuse the public by reframing the question to be about whether Saddam was behind 9/11, as opposed to whether Saddam had ties to al Qaeda? Are you pregnant then?
  8. #128  
    How about you post a few excerpts. The way I recall it the 911 commission was not half as emphatic as you pretend they were, and did not come to the conclusion they ever worked together on any projects.

    Surur
  9. #129  
    cardio, your argument has nothing to do with what I said, it is irrelevant if Saddam killed 1 or 1 million, so if Saddam killed innocent civilians how different are we if we are doing the same thing. And the number killed by terrorists would have been 0 if we weren't there to begin with.
    Treoing & Loving it
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    You are correct, my apologies. I should have stated the numbers are estimated at over 1,000,000 by some human rights groups, but only approximatley 500,000 can be verified with any real certainty and another approximately 300,000 deaths are highly suspect to be directly tied to his 23 year reign.
    Are they including the Iran/Iraq war?
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yea, that's the incorrect arguement used. You have to support the troops andif you don't support the mission then you denegrate the troops thus do not support them.

    Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.
    This from a guy that claims to "support the troops, not their mission" yet has already convicted the Marines that fought at Haditha.

    More LibThink from DA, who doesn't have the conviction to read my posts anymore.
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    This from a guy that claims to "support the troops, not their mission" yet has already convicted the Marines that fought at Haditha.

    More LibThink from DA, who doesn't have the conviction to read my posts anymore.
    step
    1.) call attention to an idea to which you dont agree
    2.) invent a strawman argument
    3.) insult the argument calling in to question his patriotism
    4.) insult the poster of the idea
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    step
    1.) call attention to an idea to which you dont agree
    2.) invent a strawman argument
    3.) insult the argument calling in to question his patriotism
    4.) insult the poster of the idea
    Bottom line is that DA has claimed to support the troops on numerous occasions. He demonstrates this by calling the Marines that fought at Haditha guilty of a war crime before the investigation is complete, let alone a court martial. This, from a guy that argues for a presumption of innocence and claims to be a great defender of the Constitution.

    I call that rank, unpatriotic hypocrisy. And cowardice, since DA has put me on his banned list.
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Bottom line is that DA has claimed to support the troops on numerous occasions. He demonstrates this by calling the Marines that fought at Haditha guilty of a war crime before the investigation is complete, let alone a court martial. This, from a guy that argues for a presumption of innocence and claims to be a great defender of the Constitution.

    I call that rank, unpatriotic hypocrisy. And cowardice, since DA has put me on his banned list.
    Can someone help me? How can i put 1911 on my ban list?
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Can someone help me? How can i put 1911 on my ban list?
    Another tolerant liberal, willing to fight for his ideas in an open forum.

    As for help, I suggest the yellow pages. Look under, "counselling"...
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    How about you post a few excerpts. The way I recall it the 911 commission was not half as emphatic as you pretend they were, and did not come to the conclusion they ever worked together on any projects.

    Surur
    Emphatic? I just said that these meetings took place. And the 9/11 Commission said so too.

    You're correct that there's no evidence that they worked together on any terrorist plot against the US. There's no evidence they had any "collaborative operational relationship."

    According the the 9/11 Commission, there were at least several meetings between al Qaeda and Iraq in the mid 90s, where bin Laden was mostly reaching out to Saddam, but there's no indication that these meetings led anywhere.

    But then...
    "In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998,after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

    Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

    The notion that the religious bin Laden and the secular Saddam were natural enemies is a myth that was promoted by Democrats who knew better and by some who didn't. We don't know the details of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. We don't know how much they trusted each other, and how much information they shared with each other. We do know they met repeatedly and that they were on friendly terms.

    The point of talking about their "ties" isn't to claim that Iraq was behind 9/11, as some like to focus on. I think revenge is an awful reason to go to war and an awful reason to send troops to die.

    The issue is national security. The nightmare scenario for us, and the ultimate victory for al Qaeda, is for them to get their hands on a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon and to use it to kill hundreds of thousands, or millions of Americans. In fact, Uday Hussein, in an editorial in his Iraqi newspaper the day we learned of the anthrax attacks in September 2001, spoke hypothetically about how a nation can deliver a WMD attack via a third party. Perhaps he was playing mind games, but that was enough for me to consider Iraq a threat.

    Combine that with their obstruction of inspectors, their prior cheating on inspections, and their mysterious relationship with al Qaeda, and that paints a picture that we couldn't ignore.
  17. #137  
    Almost everything in your post is a carefully worded fabrication put together after every other justification for this action fell through.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The notion that the religious bin Laden and the secular Saddam were natural enemies is a myth that was promoted by Democrats who knew better and by some who didn't.
    Huh? Which part? The part that Saddam was secular? The part that Osama was a religious fanatic? The part where Osama wanted to undermine Saddam's regime? The part where their meetings at attempting a truce were fruitless?

    You know better than just about everything in that post.
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Emphatic? I just said that these meetings took place. And the 9/11 Commission said so too.

    You're correct that there's no evidence that they worked together on any terrorist plot against the US. There's no evidence they had any "collaborative operational relationship."

    According the the 9/11 Commission, there were at least several meetings between al Qaeda and Iraq in the mid 90s, where bin Laden was mostly reaching out to Saddam, but there's no indication that these meetings led anywhere.

    But then...
    "In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998,after Bin Ladinís public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladinís Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

    Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sidesí hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

    The notion that the religious bin Laden and the secular Saddam were natural enemies is a myth that was promoted by Democrats who knew better and by some who didn't. We don't know the details of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. We don't know how much they trusted each other, and how much information they shared with each other. We do know they met repeatedly and that they were on friendly terms.

    The point of talking about their "ties" isn't to claim that Iraq was behind 9/11, as some like to focus on. I think revenge is an awful reason to go to war and an awful reason to send troops to die.

    The issue is national security. The nightmare scenario for us, and the ultimate victory for al Qaeda, is for them to get their hands on a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon and to use it to kill hundreds of thousands, or millions of Americans. In fact, Uday Hussein, in an editorial in his Iraqi newspaper the day we learned of the anthrax attacks in September 2001, spoke hypothetically about how a nation can deliver a WMD attack via a third party. Perhaps he was playing mind games, but that was enough for me to consider Iraq a threat.

    Combine that with their obstruction of inspectors, their prior cheating on inspections, and their mysterious relationship with al Qaeda, and that paints a picture that we couldn't ignore.
    Fact backed up with proof, beats the hell out of opinion. Nice job.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    You're correct that there's no evidence that they worked together on any terrorist plot against the US. There's no evidence they had any "collaborative operational relationship."
    There are pieces and bits of info coming out from the hundreds of thousands of docs and thousands of hours of audio tapes that belonged to Saddam's Regime that are now being translated, that though they currently do not directly support or corroborate any definitive answers yet, they are interesting in contemplating the possible realities:

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=809

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=814

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=817

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=806

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=548

    BLAZE WARNING: Links contain a substantial amount of text, links, and facts.
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    There are pieces and bits of info coming out from the hundreds of thousands of docs and thousands of hours of audio tapes that belonged to Saddam's Regime that are now being translated, that though they currently do not directly support or corroborate any definitive answers yet, they are interesting in contemplating the possible realities:

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=809

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=814

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=817

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=806

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showp...&postcount=548

    BLAZE WARNING: Links contain a substantial amount of text, links, and facts.
    Too bad the only thing right-wingers have is proof. Can't we be more like the libs and rely solely on opinion?
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.

Posting Permissions