MJDuncan1982
Member
I hadn't wanted a quick little joke to evolve into such a large discussion but it has. It seems that things have gone of course as to what I've said and much has been assumed as to what I tried to say. I'll try my best to correctly address everything from the post.
I didn't get involved in this post until I commented on Gop_Jeff's signature. He claims that all the terrorists would want anybody but Bush to be elected. My return was the opposite because Bush did not attack them when he responded to being attacked. I clarified before and I will again that Iraq was the implication there and not Afghanistan. As far as my knowledge allows Afghanistan was a great decision.
Afterwards, I was accused of not paying attention and I responded by saying I do and referring to the 9/11 Commission which found no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. It should be noted here that I did not say Iraq and 9/11. Refer back to the post and I said Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
I never said that Bush said there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Please pay attention to what I say before accusing me of not paying attention.
As to attacking Iraq because of links to terrorists in general, I do not disagree with that idea. However, as a personal opinion based upon following this over the last few years I do not believe that was one of the major reasons for attacking Iraq. I believe (and this is certainly open to debate) that the reasons for war were: WMD, Ties to Al-Qaeda and Links to 9/11 (again, not accusing Bush of making any connection). The Admin. did make claims regarding the first two and the third was generally assumed by the American people. If we are going to say that the reasons were WMD and ties to terrorists in general we have something more to discuss because these were reasonable reasons.
And yes I would inquire as to those nations which you mention because I want to understand the doctrine we are working under. I fully understand that dealing with life on the basis of each particular situation is preferable to following a restrictive general rule. However, I feel we disagree that in the case of Iraq, military action was required when Bush decided to invade.
And Freeandfun1...please point on the post where I claimed Bush asserted a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Why should I try to find evidence for a claim I never made?
For the post made by Comrade: I did what you advised and did the search. Yes, Saddam comes up 22 times but did you read in what context? Here are the relevant ones:
Willingness to explore possibilities is certainly not a collaborative relationship...more like the dance analogy I posted earlier.
One of those 22 was this.
Yes, the word Saddam appears but no in a context suggesting a collaborative relationship.
Specifically rebutts link between the two on unconventional weapons but as any logician will tell you, not denying conventional weapons links is not an affirmation of those links.
I think this just about covers it. One final note. To those who say some don't understand we are fighting terrorism in general and not just Al-Qaeda: I for one understand that though cannot speak for anyone else.
I didn't get involved in this post until I commented on Gop_Jeff's signature. He claims that all the terrorists would want anybody but Bush to be elected. My return was the opposite because Bush did not attack them when he responded to being attacked. I clarified before and I will again that Iraq was the implication there and not Afghanistan. As far as my knowledge allows Afghanistan was a great decision.
Afterwards, I was accused of not paying attention and I responded by saying I do and referring to the 9/11 Commission which found no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. It should be noted here that I did not say Iraq and 9/11. Refer back to the post and I said Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
I never said that Bush said there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Please pay attention to what I say before accusing me of not paying attention.
As to attacking Iraq because of links to terrorists in general, I do not disagree with that idea. However, as a personal opinion based upon following this over the last few years I do not believe that was one of the major reasons for attacking Iraq. I believe (and this is certainly open to debate) that the reasons for war were: WMD, Ties to Al-Qaeda and Links to 9/11 (again, not accusing Bush of making any connection). The Admin. did make claims regarding the first two and the third was generally assumed by the American people. If we are going to say that the reasons were WMD and ties to terrorists in general we have something more to discuss because these were reasonable reasons.
And yes I would inquire as to those nations which you mention because I want to understand the doctrine we are working under. I fully understand that dealing with life on the basis of each particular situation is preferable to following a restrictive general rule. However, I feel we disagree that in the case of Iraq, military action was required when Bush decided to invade.
And Freeandfun1...please point on the post where I claimed Bush asserted a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Why should I try to find evidence for a claim I never made?
For the post made by Comrade: I did what you advised and did the search. Yes, Saddam comes up 22 times but did you read in what context? Here are the relevant ones:
Bin Laden was willing to explore possibilites for cooperation with Iraq
Willingness to explore possibilities is certainly not a collaborative relationship...more like the dance analogy I posted earlier.
Bin Laden had been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists
One of those 22 was this.
Saddam Hussein stayed clear of Bin Laden while attempting to rebuild ties with Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern regimes
Yes, the word Saddam appears but no in a context suggesting a collaborative relationship.
No confirmed reporting on Saddam Hussein cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons
Specifically rebutts link between the two on unconventional weapons but as any logician will tell you, not denying conventional weapons links is not an affirmation of those links.
I think this just about covers it. One final note. To those who say some don't understand we are fighting terrorism in general and not just Al-Qaeda: I for one understand that though cannot speak for anyone else.
