The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections

[5.10 leader]

Originally posted by nbdysfu
originally posted by aclu
Shouldn't we either ignore everything of the UN or recognize everything they do?
________________ _______________
To do either without the other would be feeble minded policy. We're doing both.

The UN is like any committee, prevarication rules.

Sometimes the only way forward is to take unilateral action and face the consequences after.

This does not necessarily mean that the perpetrator should leave the organisation.

In this case the US was not alone in ignoring the UN and I think it should be recognised, speaking as a Brit, that without the US, the organisation would be far, far weaker financially, militarily and morally.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
The american people also don't like candidates who play politics with national security.

Which is exactly what the Bush administration ahs been doing from Sept 12, 2001 to the present. It started with branding anyone who opposed or questioned administration policies as "unpatriotic", this from mouths that sully the word "patriot" every time they utter it.

And, of course, there was the grossly mis-named "USA PATRIOT" Act, which sought to agressively undermine the Constitution, and which the Administration still seeks to augment. Nothing like a sneek-and-peek search to make your day.

Then there was the arest and indefinite detention without charge or right to counsel, on US soil, of some worn out gang banger named Jose Padila who is, apparently, guitly of nothing more than stupidity.

Let's not forget the crass, emotional and political symbolism of holding the Republican National Convantion in New York City on the anniversary of the Fall.

And what about letting the US petro/chem industry slide on plant security? If that's not playing politics with national security, I don't know what is.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Which is exactly what the Bush administration ahs been doing from Sept 12, 2001 to the present. It started with branding anyone who opposed or questioned administration policies as "unpatriotic", this from mouths that sully the word "patriot" every time they utter it.

And, of course, there was the grossly mis-named "USA PATRIOT" Act, which sought to agressively undermine the Constitution, and which the Administration still seeks to augment. Nothing like a sneek-and-peek search to make your day.

Then there was the arest and indefinite detention without charge or right to counsel, on US soil, of some worn out gang banger named Jose Padila who is, apparently, guitly of nothing more than stupidity.

Let's not forget the crass, emotional and political symbolism of holding the Republican National Convantion in New York City on the anniversary of the Fall.

And what about letting the US petro/chem industry slide on plant security? If that's not playing politics with national security, I don't know what is.

Saddam was a tyrant, he WAS working with Alquaeda, making him one of those who aids or abets terrorist organizations. He was in violation of terms of a previous cease fire agreement. He was in violation of several U.N. resolutions. The French and german opposition to war was based mainly on the existence of their many backroom deals with Saddam, not on anything resembling principle. This was a no-brainer, well evidently it was a some-brainer, technically, judging from your apparent inability to grasp the situation.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Saddam was a tyrant

so what's your point? There are dozens on this earth as we speak. There are dozens more in the making.

he WAS working with Alquaeda

As Secretary Powell has stated, at this time there is no 'smoking gun' or concrete evidence. What do you base your 'theory' on?

He was in violation of terms of a previous cease fire agreement.

He was but why wasn't THIS used as the primary reason for ousting his regime?

He was in violation of several U.N. resolutions.

So is Israel, your point is what?

The French and german opposition to war was based mainly on the existence of their many backroom deals with Saddam, not on anything resembling principle.

Is there a country on this planet, besides switzerland maybe, that doesn't do backroom dealings with other governments? They opposed the war, who cares, we went anyway, didn't we? We've opposed many resolutions against Israel for similar reasons.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
so what's your point? There are dozens on this earth as we speak. There are dozens more in the making.



As Secretary Powell has stated, at this time there is no 'smoking gun' or concrete evidence. What do you base your 'theory' on?



He was but why wasn't THIS used as the primary reason for ousting his regime?



So is Israel, your point is what?



Is there a country on this planet, besides switzerland maybe, that doesn't do backroom dealings with other governments? They opposed the war, who cares, we went anyway, didn't we? We've opposed many resolutions against Israel for similar reasons.

Typical fuzzy logic, "unless we depose all tyrants, deposing one is wrong". Moronic. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.

As to my Iraq-Alquaeda connection theory, see the initial post in this thread. Then see the very next post for my explanation as the why the administration does not openly stand behind this data yet.

And the resolutions against Israel were bogus. I admit the U.N. has a values problem, placing tyrannical nations with horrible human rights abuses on equal footing with democracies. In general I support the resolutions which support the aims and objectives of the U.S. and our allies. What's your rule of thumb?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I admit the U.N. has a values problem, placing tyrannical nations with horrible human rights abuses on equal footing with democracies.

The US has similar values problems in its international dealings. We need look no further that South and Central America for proof of that pudding.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Typical fuzzy logic, "unless we depose all tyrants, deposing one is wrong". Moronic. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.

As to my Iraq-Alquaeda connection theory, see the initial post in this thread. Then see the very next post for my explanation as the why the administration does not openly stand behind this data yet.

And the resolutions against Israel were bogus. I admit the U.N. has a values problem, placing tyrannical nations with horrible human rights abuses on equal footing with democracies. In general I support the resolutions which support the aims and objectives of the U.S. and our allies. What's your rule of thumb?

make up your mind, is this about deposing tyrants, eliminating threats to the middle east, or protecting the US against WMD's from hussein? talk about fuzzy, you need a shave.

I read your post about your 'explanation' and I'll tell you again, its political dynamite. To keep that a secret for so long just to get re-elected will only be applauded by the die-hard republicans while the rest of the people will light that stick of dynamite. Not only that but you know as well as I that if theres a secret between two people the only way its going to stay a secret is if one person dies.

your last paragraph only proves that you are all for terrorism when it supports your needs. You obviously have no problem when it comes to human rights abuses by the Israelis when what you should be doing as a human being is supporting resolutions that promote human decency and dignity protecting those that can't defend themselves, Otherwise all your crap spewing out of your mouth is exactly that....crap.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
make up your mind, is this about deposing tyrants, eliminating threats to the middle east, or protecting the US against WMD's from hussein? talk about fuzzy, you need a shave.

I read your post about your 'explanation' and I'll tell you again, its political dynamite. To keep that a secret for so long just to get re-elected will only be applauded by the die-hard republicans while the rest of the people will light that stick of dynamite. Not only that but you know as well as I that if theres a secret between two people the only way its going to stay a secret is if one person dies.

your last paragraph only proves that you are all for terrorism when it supports your needs. You obviously have no problem when it comes to human rights abuses by the Israelis when what you should be doing as a human being is supporting resolutions that promote human decency and dignity protecting those that can't defend themselves, Otherwise all your crap spewing out of your mouth is exactly that....crap.

Bwahaha! Nice try. Sorry. You're just plain wrong again.

 

[jones]

"Just plain wrong" Sounds familiar, dont it?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
"Just plain wrong" Sounds familiar, dont it?

To you, it should, it's been said about 95% of your posts.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
make up your mind, is this about deposing tyrants, eliminating threats to the middle east, or protecting the US against WMD's from hussein.

I have to go with D, all of the above. Why isn't this option on your quiz?

The war on terror is not about Bush.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Bwahaha! Nice try. Sorry. You're just plain wrong again.

and you're just a plain idiot. your partisanship shines through in flying colors.

I have to go with D, all of the above. Why isn't this option on your quiz?

Because thats not what was stressed by the administration before the invasion. All the above only came to the forefront when it became obvious that the threat from WMD's and the connections between OBL and Hussein could not be proven.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

originally posted by DKSuddeth
and you're just a plain idiot. your partisanship shines through in flying colors.

Thanks for another personal insult. You're a real charmer!

Because thats not what was stressed by the administration before the invasion. All the above only came to the forefront when it became obvious that the threat from WMD's and the connections between OBL and Hussein could not be proven.

Who cares what was stressed by the administration? Is your only source of information the Bush administration? You should get out more. I was for this war for several multisource reasons. The only possible reason to limit the argument to "what was stressed" would be to score political points for dems in an election year.

Am I right? or am it right? or am I right ---Groundhog Day