Soldiers facing more attacks..

[eric]

I do not think he gets the point that sometimes we must work with undesirable elements to defeat a common enemy. Growing up during the cold war I remember the chess games the US and the Soviet Union played all over the world. These were required to keep the balance of power without direct confrontation which we all know would more than likely have been nuclear war. As you pointed out NT would it have been better if Iran had defeated Iraq? I think not.

And this oil company crap he keeps harping on is getting played out! Does he also think that george & dick flew remote controlled jets into the WTC so they could make a buck?

 

[NightTrain]

I think you're right on target, Eric.

I remember the constant maneuvers between the USSR & USA too... they gave us Vietnam & Korea, we gave them Afghanistan. There were hundreds of other skirmishes too, that won't be made public for quite a few years yet; but it will be fascinating study... what we were told during the Cold War was just the tip of the iceberg of what was really going on.

 

[NightTrain]

Not quite Elton John..

 

[spillmind]

ok, not elton john, but i didn't know eric estrada and jose canseco had a kid!

anyone who thinks an H2 is 'awesome' hasn't a damn thing to teach me unless you are thinking gluttony.

 

[Dan]

Holy crap! NT, is that you?

You look a lot different than I thought. For some reason, I was picturing a guy in his late-40's, early 50's with a big mustache (not sure why a big mustache).

...Oh, wait, you're the one on the left. YUK YUK YUK.

 

[NightTrain]

ok, not elton john, but i didn't know eric estrada and jose canseco had a kid!

Yeah, the chicks really dig me! Cool, huh?


So, you posted and bolted. Admit you're whipped, Grasshopper.

 

[NightTrain]

Yeah, Dan, you're really a jokester...

That's my son sittin on my lap, I'm teaching him to drive gas-guzzling toys, and how to kill animals properly so he can eat them.

 

[spillmind]

oh please.

you act like i have the hours in the day to sit down and type up a paper to your same old tired retreat to the same old conversation. btw, sorry i capped on your mullet. don't make the little guy wear that, PLEASE!

and i won't be whipped by the likes of you!

i am resigned to believing you have a skewed view incapable of being objective.

 

[spillmind]

oh!

i saw this:

'Yeah, the chicks really dig me! Cool, huh?' um NT... um yeah.



if you have to state it... it's only an attempt to convince yourself of it. i'm sure your wife loved that one. it doesn't matter if you are single dad, whatever... some of us work 60+ hours a week. your post was easily refuted, and mainly off topic... now don't go holding your breath

(in the back of my head)

 

[NightTrain]

It was good for a chuckle, a little light hearted banter whilst I await your completely devastating response, Spill! I do have a sense of humor, after all... why do you think I continue responding to your paranoid posts??

Seriously, are you whipped? If not, let's get down to business.

As far as time constraints go, I work full time & commute 100 miles every day. I still have time. We Republicans have to pay the taxes, after all.... those Cluster Bombs cost money!

 

[spillmind]

maybe if your kid stepped on a cluster bomb, you wouldn't laugh so hard ...

 

[spillmind]

how is stating that large companies lobby the politicians and the politicians give them tax breaks, large contracts, domestically and in the internatioinally community? it's people like you who watch tears of the sun pounding your wanna be silver back warmonger chest, without even realising it was CHEVRON who provided most of the turmoil there with the oil plundering?

this is not paranioa, like you try to convince yourself of day in and day out, but REALITY. don't kill the messenger, instead- call a spade a spade (at lesat once). it's good for the soul.

i guess i am obligated to debate this same old tired subject since you have some difficulty remaining on topic.

'Since '91, several things have happened that proved to the world that Saddam was more of a threat than originally thought.' ...BS! I think he was just as bad IF NOT WORSE THEN !

still! this does not explain why the safety of the iraqi people is suddenly so damn important!

' Since there was a proven Al Qaeda / Saddam connection, we couldn't afford to take the chance of Saddam giving one of his newfound friends a weapon that was capable of wiping out millions of Americans or our Allies. '

i implore you to post a link or anything that PROVES these ties, or stop pluggin this crap. i'm sure rummy would be interested. I’d sure LOVE TO SEE IT!

'Saddam clearly had terrorist links & you can't dispute that.'

yeah that's great speculation, you are conveniently missing the consistency issue here. You pick iraq because it is an easy target, and one also rich in resources. this is an attempt to re-write the middle east political map (and it is taken so by the neighboring countries) and an OIL GRAB. tell us AGAIN (oh i mean never) your prediction on when halliburton is leaving.

'After 9/11, it was painfully made clear to us that we couldn't afford to sit back and wait for terrorist plots to mature - being proactive rather than reactive is the new watchword. To not actively eliminate threats before they arrive on our shores would be completely asinine.'

now this shit borders on the verge of pissing me off. it's a mentality like this that will make this world LESS SAFE for our kids. shooting first? since WHEN is that the american way?
your pre-emption policy sounds great until you realize that there is NO CEILING on the extent of how far to take this. can you tell us where to draw the line? <---- answer me that, if nothing else.

...a free ticket to waste anyone we think might be a threat would sure as hell piss me off if i didn't i wasn't a citizen of the states. it sure as hell irks the crap out of me. as it does millions. go on and ride that arrogance, the kind that is in denial about there ever being another terror attack on our soil.

you haven't spelled out anything, just rehashed the same old hyped up nonsense that doesn't answer my question, but it makes you feel better at night. well good for you. and you are still chasing your tail!

i have to admit:

'That being said... there were a great many of us back in '91 that thought it was silly NOT to drive all the way to Baghdad since we were already there, but I just wasn't running the show. It was hoped that after the stunning ass kicking his military suffered in Desert Storm that there would be a coup - that didn't occur. Shit happens.'

….is a step in the right direction if people are going to say we went in there to help out the iraqi citizens... this *was* the topic, wasn't it?

'So, what we gave Saddam is termed 'perishable' aid. IE : intelligence that has a limited life span, such as pictures of the battle front, troop locations, convoys, etc. The reason this was done was to balance out the war & it worked. It finally ground to a halt with neither side making massive gains. '

thank you for admitting it, albeit begrudgingly.

You want records of what we supplied… didn’t the moderator go off on you for posting a totally skewed chart saying that we supplied ‘much less’ to iraq?

How about a story like this:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/10/sproject.irq.documents/ oh yeah we all know CNN is liberal, right? please. and as far as us acting out our roles in the cold war goes, for one, you are going on a tangent and back to the ‘why we went to iraq’ debate minus the humanitarian plug. Instead you always start in on an angle, and back to the old conversation.

 

[jimnyc]

i implore you to post a link or anything that PROVES these ties, or stop pluggin this crap. i'm sure rummy would be interested. I’d sure LOVE TO SEE IT!

If you would "LOVE TO SEE IT", why didn't you do a search as I just have? It took me all of about 5 seconds to find the following:

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

Your references to "rummy" is clearly about his denial that now he believes Iraq had no ties to 9/11, NOT CONNECTIONS WITH AL QAEDA!

Would you like more links?

 

[spillmind]

i'm sure you can find links from everyone to everyone.

what's your point when you apply it out of context?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
i'm sure you can find links from everyone to everyone.

what's your point when you apply it out of context?

You ask for some proof, you got it. Now you are going to downplay whatever you see as it "can be taken out of context". I'm gathering the only way to satisfy you would be for Saddam an company to come to you and admit it!

The information outlined on that link was not only gathered by Amercian intelligence, but from various other countries as well.

The UN has acknowledged that Iraq has/had ties with Al Qaeda, as did those who didn't even go to war, Germany and France. Whether they agreed with us that war was necessary at the time or not doesn't change the facts known to all except for you.

The following day, February 19, 1998, according to documents unearthed in Baghdad after the recent war by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing upcoming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered with Liquid Paper. The memo laid out a plan to step up contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. The Mukhabarat, one of Saddam's security forces, agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

This wasn't made up by the CIA, this was 100% bonafide proof!

How about some proof directly from someone IN IRAQ admitting to dealing with Al Qaeda?

Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997.

You may not want to believe it, but outright denial is making you look a bit ignorant. These aren't my opinions or the opinions of the USA - these are cold hard facts!

You said you "WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT", now that you have YOU WOULD LOVE TO dispute it, but you cannot!

 

[spillmind]

i think you missed your valium dose today.

i'm sure in the midst of you wanting to nuke arabs and foreigners alike, you manage to muster up something worth posting once in a while. this, however, is not.

i asked NT to provide a link from al qaeda's alleged involvement 9-11 to iraq directly. maybe it was not clear, but the only thing osama and saddam shared was a common, untrustworthy opponent.

we can go into southeast asia and all over the feaking world to link terror groups all over the place. this is not what i asked for, too bad it's one of the few things you managed to hold down.

the tangent is not the topic, once again

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
i think you missed your valium dose today.

i'm sure in the midst of you wanting to nuke arabs and foreigners alike, you manage to muster up something worth posting once in a while. this, however, is not.

i asked NT to provide a link from al qaeda's alleged involvement 9-11 to iraq directly. maybe it was not clear, but the only thing osama and saddam shared was a common, untrustworthy opponent.

we can go into southeast asia and all over the feaking world to link terror groups all over the place. this is not what i asked for, too bad it's one of the few things you managed to hold down.

the tangent is not the topic, once again

Original statement made by NT, which even you quoted in your post:

' Since there was a proven Al Qaeda / Saddam connection, we couldn't afford to take the chance of Saddam giving one of his newfound friends a weapon that was capable of wiping out millions of Americans or our Allies. '

Your reply to that statement:

i implore you to post a link or anything that PROVES these ties, or stop pluggin this crap. i'm sure rummy would be interested. I’d sure LOVE TO SEE IT!

I provided a link as you asked. I think an Iraqi officials own statement is plenty of proof, although there is tons more.

The part you replied to, and what NT said, AND WHAT I QUOTED IN MY ORIGINAL REPLY had absolutely nothing to do with proving Iraq had ties to 9/11.

Let's face it, you've been beaten on this issue and now you'll try to spin it as if you asked for something else. The problem is that what you have asked for was quoted as were the original statements.

NT knocked you down. I've knocked you down. Eric has knocked you down. Your personal insults just become more apparent every time you get knocked down! You can keep delivering your lame insults, we'll just keep chugging along making you look like the foolish liberal you are!

You are finished.

Good day, Sir!

For Spilly:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/ww.wav

 

[spillmind]

you WISH i was finished.

you still haven't even replied to the ORIGINAL TOPIC!

is everyone brain dead around here?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
you WISH i was finished.

you still haven't even replied to the ORIGINAL TOPIC!

is everyone brain dead around here?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/ww.wav

 

[spillmind]

jim, you are going off on something irrelevant.

you are taking in your own context, and not how i meant them.

by saying that there was communication between iraq and the taliban doesn't mean shit. i am sorry. rummy even said so.

face the facts. must you insist on denial? we are not talking about this large network you are reaching for to link iraq to 9-11.
we are talking about plugging a humanitarian issue as grounds for invading iraq. does this make ANY sense to you?

your posts have time and time again tried to dismiss me, and it's only a front your put when you wish there was closure. in your mind there may well be. but then again, you think nukes are a good idea. marker, anyone?