The recent uptick of attacks on Western targets in Afghanistan and suicide bombings in Pakistan (see photo) expose the faulty premise of the Bush administration’s terrorism strategy: the notion that Iraq is the “central front†in the war on terror.
There is an al-Qaida element in Iraq, and U.S. troops have made progress in hunting down terrorists, but clearly the situation is much more complicated.
The terrorists have no need to fight where we think they should. After all, this isn’t a conventional war. Even if we put terrorists on the run in Iraq, they can regroup in Pakistan and Afghanistan and cause trouble there with a guerrilla war, as they’re doing now, while we’re still in Iraq.
219 Comments
Last speeding ticket I got was in Oklahoma, 61 in a 55 – after I had passed someone. Paid it right away, never heard a thing about it again.
The way some people drive on Kellogg is suicidal and reckless. People exceeding the speed limit by 30mph should have their license suspended automatically.
Regular, its just a guess but is it possible that is on the wrong topic?
But your point is taken and I agree some of the drivers act like it is a race and one car length will make a difference.
So what is the choice? Do we continure to focus on all terror groups worldwide or do we wait until they come here. It is well known that groups linked to al-Qaida are already in the US. We need to secure our borders so that we know who is here. At this point we have no idea who is or is not in our country legally or illegally, nor do we know where they all came from.
Securing our national borders and establishing reasonable means to identify those who are here illegally would be a lot less expensive than just a few of the smart bombs being dropped eacha and every day by our military in Afganistan and Iraq, but our congress is too caught up in politics to make some simple security commitments. Shame on them.
Now, the quick answer to the question of Is there a central front in the war on terror?
Is duh! Of course we here in the U.S. are the only ones that have ever believed that pipe dream. And PLEASE, before someone throws up that B.S. about “Well Bin Laden said it is!”. That is like answering the question of “How stupid are you” with “well how stupid do you want me to be?”.
Al-Qaeda has no Army, no Navy, no armor and NO COUNTRY! For them it is where ever they hang their hats. I have seen the accusation many times of you are aiding the enemy. Well face the truth, the invasion of Iraq aided Bin Laden better then giving him the keys to every 767 in the United States ( And no I do not think that 767s have keys)!
Dance as much as you like but that is the tone of the music, it enabled Al-Qaeda to regroup, rearm and kick back and plan the next attack in relative safety. WE have been fighting for the most part the very people that we were claiming to be there delivery from evil! You can dress them as Al-Qaeda and pretend they are bad guys. But in reality if our country was invaded by a foreign force and occupied after our military was defeated. What name would you like to be referred by?
I could rehash everything I have ever said about this invasion and the claim of Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. But that is as redundant as saying the sun is up somewhere, the fact is that no one told Al-Qaeda there was a central front in this battle. They never have seen Iraq as they end zone and it was all to make us feel warm and fuzzy about invading a country that had not attack us while letting those that had attacked us be safe. Al-Qaeda is a bunch of Mosquitoes and we are going after them with Mouse traps.
Sorry Randy but you did ask….
The correct choice was to focus on groups like Saudi-based alQuada and not their enemies like Saddam. While Saddam was a thug he was at least a contained thug. And, ever since he lost his main benefactor (the US), he was a toothless thug.
I wonder if there is such a thing as a perfect war. You have to kill AlQuada where ever they are. AlQuada was before Bush. I don’t think the news media at times want this country to win with all the barriers they talk about. Please prove me different.
The central front in the war on terror is the White House and the Republican leadership itself. Republicans have done more to arm, recruit, and further the goals of the terrorists than anyone else.
Can you say Iran/Contra?
“The terrorists have no need to fight where we think they should. After all, this isn’t a conventional war.”
This to my way of thinking is the most telling sentence of Randy’s opinion piece. We can’t fight an unconventional war with our hands tied with conventional war tools. The Geneva convention shouldn’t be in play here. If the enemy will not identify themselves they shouldn’t be treated fairly when captured.
Sad but true. We have liberals who think the enemy combatants should be protected by our civil liberties. Until we take politics out of the picture we will never be safe from a very real attack by those who hate us.
We didn’t start this war (IMOHO) but have to protect ourselves whatever that entails.
The tactical front is in the Afghan/Paki border area, among the Pashtuns, where al Qaeda is trying desperately to break out to something approaching a world-wide movement. Right now, of course, al Qaeda has enjoyed almost no tactical success on the battlefield, although thanks to GW Bush they’ve been allowed to enjoy a previously unfilled alliance with Hezbollah. Through his proxy GW Bush, Dick Cheney has provided the greatest strategic gift to al Qaeda since Yuri Andropov of the KGB decided that the USSR was to invade Afghanistan in 1979. The alliance of al Qaeda and Hezbollah is unquestionably stronger now than it was in 2000.
This discussion of tactical vs strategic fronts is important because an old tactical front may reemerge soon. And that would be here, in the USA. Think about it. If (and this is a big if) al Qaeda/Hezbollah has the mojo to actually sustain a fight against the West, on a scale that actually proposes a credible threat to the West (they’re not there yet, not by a longshot), they need recruits and Euros. Is there a more efficient path to the required recruitment and financing than to carry out new terrorist attacks in the media capital of the world, the USA? If they could sway another American election, like they did in 2004, would that not prove enormously valuable to them?
In support of John’s 7:45AM comment above, I think one thing many of us overlook this election season is how open we are to manipulation by radical Islam. A new attack here would probably result in the election of Rudi Giuliani, which in turn would result in at least 4 more years of Bush-style foreign policy. Which in turn could very well cripple the US as the global financial capital while ensuring steady growth, in financing as well as boots, for radical Islam.
It’s probably too late to happen before the election, but there’s a helluva lot to be said for securing points of entry to the US. The key word there is “secure,” as in I don’t mean to crush Mexican migrant workers. I do, however, think it’s crucial to the US to have greater control over all points of entry.
There is no such thing as “terrorism.” There is, however, Arabs whom the Israelis murder and abuse and then the Arabs strike back.
Terrorism: It’s a costly sham.
Ed
You are a racist hate filled kook.
Many terrorists have never even met an Israeli.
Israel is the “boogey man” that failed leaders, dictators and jihadists use to whip up hate among their people.
You say that “terrorism” is a sham.
You are wrong. The idea that Israel is the cause of terrorism is the real sham.
I think that it telling that the only al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the invasion was a small training camp beneath the No Fly Zone in the Kurdish north of Iraq.
Had we had any interest in addressing the issue, we could have taken it out at any time.
In the Hussein controlled portion of Iraq, there was no terrorist element, given that Saddam was a mortal enemy of Islamic fundamentalists. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor did he support the radical fundamentalist terrorist organizations mostly because they wanted to see him overthrown. Hussein was a secular Muslim that violated many of the standards that the radicals prescribed for Muslims.
What the War on Iraq has accomplished it to destabilize the Mid East and to provide an opening for radical Islamics to control another Mid East government.
In other words, what we have done is to fulfill the aspirations of al Qaeda.
We did their heavy lifting for them.
Good job, George.
The only kooks are the ones who deny that the Republicans led by George Bush (both) and Reagan have promoted, funded, and supported the goals of the terrorists. The Republicans have become traitors to their country in order to profit politically and monetarily.
The War on Terror is such a bunch of bs. If it’s a war of any kind, it’s a war on Americans and our freedoms. I’ve said it before, Eisenhower warned us about this shit when he left office. He coined the term “Military-Industrial Complex”.
Is “Hate -Week” coming up already?? Oh, I’ll bet you all have never read 1984 have you?
“we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
(read this wiki and go down to the “War” section)
I’m gonna get off this topic right now before I begin insulting those that believe this crap.
WAR on Terror, kiss my ass Bush.
The “central front” in the “war on terror” is down the street on the corner: the gas pump.
The only-est reason anyone in the United States gives a rat’s patoot about the Middle East is all that black gooey stuff beneath their sand.
We Americans are so money-centric we cannot understand how anyone might object to all the bucks we’ve given oil sheiks. We paid them! Money! And they still don’t love us?!
No, they don’t. It’s their country, their culture, their religion and (not altogether different from people in this country who resent the influx of Hispanics), they’re motivated to return to some idealized version of the past, as sweet-talked by demagogic power-seekers.
In our lust for oil, Americans have given so much money to the Middle East that money is no longer an issue to them. The people of Islam are to money what a fish is to water. It sustain them and surround them to the point they’re not even aware of it; it’s just there, thanks to the West’s addiction to oil.
Given the freedom of unlimited petro-dollars, the people of the Middle East are free to explore other threats to their culture and traditions.
It’s a pretty superficial reason to want to blow us up; all those crazy Islamic rites and medieval attitudes toward prayer and women and cutting-off-thieves’-hands and banning women drivers… not substantive, *important* stuff like pretending you’re eating Jesus’ body and drinking his blood every Sunday.
Remember that old story about the guy who’s cabin in the woods is getting inundated by rising flood waters? People drive to his cabin and offer to evacuate him and he refuses, saying, “The Lord will protect me!” The waters rise and a boat comes and offers to take him to dry land and the old guy refuses; “The Lord will protect me!” He’s forced by the flood waters to the top of his roof and a rescue helicopter offers to save him and he refuses because, “The Lord will protect me!” Then the flood takes him and he drowns and shows up in Heaven and asks God, “Lord, why didn’t you protect me?” and the Lord says, “I sent a car, a boat, and a helicopter. Why didn’t you get the hint?”
So today, the price of oil – in blood and money – is becoming a serious threat to the prosperity of Western Civilization. And today, the burning of oil is threatening the very ecosystem that sustains this tiny little planet on the edge of the Universe. And today, the prospect of developing energy from sources other than other peoples’ oil is daunting.
I’m a lapsed agnostic; I’m not sure what it is I don’t believe in. But if we end up facing the Lord, I have a suspicion He’ll say, “I sent you $3 gasoline, I sent you warnings of Global Warming, and I sent you an unwinnable war to try to convince you there’s something in the Universe better than killing others over oil. Why didn’t you get the hint?”
And then we’ll all be sent to Hell.
Obviously, Al Qaeda strongholds were in the lawless provinces of Pakistan.
That’s where our army should be.
Unfortunately, there’s no oil there, so Halliburton et al. can’t make money on the taxpayer dime.
Israel Guilty of War Crimes in Gaza: UN
Agence France Presse
GENEVA, 20 January 2008 — Israel’s targeting of a Hamas government office which caused serious casualties at a nearby wedding party was a “war crime” and those responsible should be punished, a United Nations official said yesterday.
John Dugard, UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied territories, slammed the killing of Palestinians in other attacks and the closing of border crossings.
“Those responsible for such cowardly action are guilty of serious war crimes and should be prosecuted and punished for their crimes,” Dugard said.
“Recent action violates the strict prohibition on collective punishment contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention,” said Dugard in the statement put out by the UN Human Rights Commission. “It violates one of the basic principles of international humanitarian law that military action must distinguish between military and civilian targets.”
He said that “Israel must have known” about the wedding party in the Gaza Strip close to the Interior Ministry when it launched missiles at the building on Friday.
The massive airstrike destroyed the ministry building, sending a tide of shrapnel crashing against adjacent apartment buildings and killing a 47-year-old woman.
Around 50 people were wounded in the blast, including several children. At least 30 of the victims had been attending the wedding party near the building.
“The killing of some 40 Palestinians in Gaza in the past week, the targeting of a government office near a wedding party venue with what must have been foreseen loss of life and injury to many civilians, and the closure of all crossings into Gaza raise very serious questions about Israel’s respect for international law and its commitment to the peace process,” Dugard said in a statement.
The United States and other participants in the Annapolis conference in November to relaunch the Middle East peace process “are under both a legal and a moral obligation to compel Israel to cease its actions against Gaza and to restore confidence in the peace process, ensure respect for international law and protect civilian life,” he said.
In Cairo, Arab League chief Amr Moussa condemned the attacks on Gaza, saying they could affect current Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
Moussa “strongly condemns the actions of the occupying Israeli authorities, including killings, destruction and the threat of death to more than 1.5 million people in Gaza,” according to a League statement.
He urged the so-called international Quartet — made up of the United Nations, European Union, Russia and the United States — to exert pressure on Israel.
“The Quartet must immediately move to stop the series of aggressions and to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza in order to end the humanitarian crisis … and to avoid the collapse of current Palestinian-Israeli talks,” Moussa said.
In Jeddah, the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) called on the United Nations to intervene to stop the bloodshed in Gaza.
OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu accused the Israeli military of “committing successive massacres in the Gaza Strip, in which civilians were killed.” He called upon the United Nations and its Security Council to “assume their responsibilities and work to end the ongoing aggression against the Palestinian people and to end the arbitrary blockade of the Gaza Strip”.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=105886&d=20&m=1&y=2008
The leader of “Al Queda in Iraq” has been in Iraq since 2001:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-9.html
We have been at war, with Iraq or in Iraq, under 3 Presidents. Yes, even Bill Clinton was, officially, at war with Iraq. The policy of the Clinton administration was “regime change” in Iraq. George W. Bush did not order the current invasion of Iraq until March of 2003.
One of the problems with trying to “prove” or “disprove” any “links” is the rather amorphous nature of these terrorist cells. They are secretive, by definition. “Members” may have allegiance to more than one organization, or to a country AND to an organization. The same person can move, rather freely, from one terrorist organization to another. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” is an old Mid East philosophy.
There WERE links between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein. OBL actually took some heat, from his own militants, for trying to cooperate with OBL. Please read this ENTIRE link before dismissing it. It is footnoted and referenced. If you dont want to believe the WS, then GO to the sources the author used, and try to disprove THOSE documents:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
I do not know why so many government officials want to paper over the connections between OBL and Saddam Hussein. It is perfectly honest and reasonable to question the intensity and the extent of such connections, but there WERE connections.
Also, this “Secular Saddam would not cooperate with religious radicals” is just not consistent with what we know Saddam did, with other groups.
Saddam DID provide financial rewards to PLO suicided bombers, in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. I do not think Saddam ever requested an “agnostic/secular terrorist” pledge, from those families or terrorists, before awarding his blood money.
Here are some more documented links between Saddam and Al Queda:
http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/linkconfirmed.htm
I am not saying that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. I don’t think anyone makes that claim. I don’t think you can show anyone in the Bush administration making that claim.
However, Saddam supported 9-11, praised the 9-11 attack and wanted to be associated with 9-11.
A “shrine” of the WTC in flames was painted, in large mural form, on the walls of the Iraqi Defense building.
upthread, meant to say “OBL took some heat for trying to cooperate with Saddam”
By the way, Urban Legends says that the Iraq 9-11 mural is TRUE, and not a myth.
Interesting point: Saddam had the IRAQ airlines logo painted on the airplanes:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/mural.php
Fake “terrorism” tries to hide Israeli atrocities.
The world is finally seeing through it.
Hey libs
There is no oil in Afganistan, and we did go there!
Paul, EVEN your boy, George W Bush has stated that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and that there was NO connection between al Qaeda and the government of Iraq.
Why do you keep trying to push opinions that are obviously false?
9/11 = primarily Saudi radical fundamentalist Muslims.
Iraq = none of the above.
Paul, as justification for the invasion, you often comment that Saddam Hussein celebrated 9/11
So did Saudis, Syrians, Jordanians, Somalis, Yemenis, Lebanese, Pakis, Afghanis, Egyptians, Libyans, Iranians and a host of other Arab counties.
Why didn’t we invade them?
Ed
The “Religion of Peace”:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Al_Qaeda_and_Taliban_Atrocities.html
Islamic terrorism is real. They want all of us dead.
Islamic radicals want to “push Israel into the sea” that is what the CHARTER of the PLO demands!
How can Israel make any kind of peace with organizations that want them dead?
http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm
WS
Show me the national leader of any other country, in the entire world, that openly celebrated 9-11, would you please?
Outside of the Taliban in Afganistan, and the Palestinians, you will be hard pressed to come up with anyone.
He’ll get shriller.
Paulthecon I mean?
His party IS scared. Scared and desperate.
You watch paul. As his party’s fortunes continue to sink, he’ll have scary terrorist popping out of toasters and toilets! He’ll evoke the 1930’s and rail that we’re all gonna blather on until we’re gurgling on our own blood.
They ruled us a good several years with fear. Now? It’s all slipping away. So their gonna project their own fear on us.
Don’t let them.
“Show me the national leader of any other country, in the entire world, that openly celebrated 9-11, would you please?”
Your comment is irrelevant, Rossell, it certainly would not justify invading a sovereign nation that was NO threat to us, spending $1 trillion, losing the lives of 4,000 Americans and leaving thousands more wounded.
That is, even IF your statement was true.
Econ101’s scared shitless because all his party can come up with is another warmonger named McCain. An old geezer that has less chance of winning than Ron Paul.
Econ, you better go live with your Arab buddies cause the US is on to your party of crooks!
BTW, I wonder how much Rupert Murdoch pays Econ101 for the crap he spews here? The paid Blog shills are starting to become well known.
I’ve been beating the guy around for nigh onto two years now.
I’ve picked up on a few things in his, well, the word doesn’t quite fit…style and manner.
Ya know how you’ve got him really flummoxed?
He goes to “would you please?” after trying and failing to make a point.
Like a wheedling, plaintive child.
Whoever is stealing nics here needs to stop. We know Kansas is posting on this thread right now. Get back to the subject.
WS
The truth is the truth.
I don’t care that there are people who do not agree with me.
It makes no difference who those people are, either. George Bush is, sometimes wrong. Also, I do not think that the White House was very smart, politically, in much of what it has said and done, coconcerning this issue. The White House also had very weak representation on the 9-11 Commission, and that group was highly partisan and politicized AGAINST the White House.
It is clear, from the evidence, that those who have stated that there were NO connections were wrong, onthat specific point.
Repeating that falsehood, several times over, does not make it true, no matter who says it.
There WERE some links and connections between OBL and Saddam. I don’t overstate those connections, but they DID exist.
There WERE some links and connections between OBL and Saddam. I don’t overstate those connections, but they DID exist.
And pigs fly!
“There WERE some links and connections between OBL and Saddam. I don’t overstate those connections, but they DID exist.”
Paul, read this CAREFULLY – Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were MORTAL enemies. Osama bin Laden wanted to see Hussein overthrown.
There is absolutely NO credible evidence that Iraq was involved with 9/11 or Islamic fundamental terrorists.
Zero.
Your government says so.
“Repeating that falsehood, several times over, does not make it true, no matter who says it.”
Heed your own admonishment.
“By Laurie Mylroie, FrontPageMagazine.com / May 11, 2004
Important new information has come from Edward Jay Epstein about Mohammed Atta’s contacts with Iraqi intelligence. The Czechs have long maintained that Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official, posted to the Iraqi embassy in Prague. As Epstein now reports, Czech authorities have discovered that al-Ani’s appointment calendar shows a scheduled meeting on April 8, 2001 with a “Hamburg student.”
That is exactly what the Czechs had been saying since shortly after 9/11: Atta, a long-time student at Germany’s Hamburg-Harburg Technical University, met with al-Ani on April 8, 2001. Indeed, when Atta earlier applied for a visa to visit the Czech Republic, he identified himself as a ÒHamburg student.Ó The discovery of the notation in al-Ani’s appointment calendar about a meeting with a ÒHamburg studentÓ provides critical corroboration of the Czech claim.
Epstein also explains how Atta could have traveled to Prague at that time without the Czechs having a record of such a trip. Spanish intelligence has found evidence that two Algerians provided Atta a false passport. “
Well whoever is stealing nics here stole mine for the SECOND 12:25 post that uses my nic.
Two posts in one minute? I aint that fast.
Paul, read carefully, YOUR GOVERNMENT, YOUR PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY all say that there is no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.
All of the links you post will not change that.
“The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America’s most determined and dangerous enemies.
According to the memo–which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points–Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.
The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent “emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials.” At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, “Iraq sought Sudan’s assistance to establish links to al Qaeda.” The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, “bin Laden wanted to expand his organization’s capabilities through ties with Iraq.”
The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that “al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors.”
One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein’s henchmen. As the memo details:
4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting–the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.”
The above from the WS “case closed” link, already posted.
Paul, GEORGE W BUSH stated recently in a news freakin’ conference that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!
Is he a liar or is he stupid in your view?
What makes you think that the sources you are quoting are accurate and the US government is wrong?
Christ.
If nothing else, Paul, no one can accuse you of being swayed by the facts.
Of course, if you were admit that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda and 9/11, you would also be forced to admit that the War on Iraq had nothing to do with the (so called) War on Terror(ism.)
Perhaps that is why you are being so willfully ignorant.
Also, after the 1993 WTC bombing, Iraq allowed one of the bombers to hide, in Iraq:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm
Money talks and the money that these Bushcon bloggers get for their posts make it easier to be willfully ignorant.
WS
Please read what I have said.
Adolf Hitler had NOTHING to do with Pearl Harbor. However, Eisenhower and FDR were in agreement to attack Hitler, first!
Yes, Hitler had declared war on the US, after Pearl Harbor.
So what?
Iraq had declared war, on the US, long before 9-11!
Well, Paul, just don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Rave on…………………………………
“Iraq had declared war, on the US, long before 9-11!”
When? Name a date.
WS
Hillary Clinton said EVERYTHING that Bush said, concerning the risks posed by Saddam Hussein, prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Was Hillary telling the truth?
Nobody ever said Saddam planed or financed 9-11. Just as nobody ever said that Hitler planned or financed Pearl Harbor.
George W. Bush is a terrible public speaker and not the best strategist, when on his feet. Being able to speak well, in public, is only one quality required of a good President. It is W’s weakest quality. I can not explain why he said it the way he said it, but I THINK he meant that Saddam did not PLAN 9-11. That is true! But, so what?
W. misspoke. Cheney has “corrected” Bush, on this issue, several times, and W. has NEVER corrected Cheney, on this issue.
There were links between Saddam and OBL. Debate the frequency or quality of those links, but they were united against a common enemy: The United States of America!
“Debate the frequency or quality of those links, but they were united against a common enemy”
Wrong, Saddam Hussein and the USA had a common enemy – al Qaeda.
The is absolutely NO reason to think differently.
The only things that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had in common was/is they are both ugly Arab men.
And, Paul, why do you conveniently ignore the fact that the US Intelligence has stated conclusively that there was no connection?
And Paul, I am not a supporter of Hillary – I support Obama.
But Hillary DID have to rely on the Intel given to Congress by the Bush Administration.
“I can not explain why he said it the way he said it, but I THINK he meant that Saddam did not PLAN 9-11.”
It was a pretty straight forward question: “What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?”
If he failed to answer the question correctly, then he is even dumber than some on the Left make him out to be.
WS
It is an act of war to attempt the assasination of a foreign leader. Saddam Hussein attempted to kill George H.W. Bush.
http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html
It is an act of war to violate all of these U.N. Resolutions:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
The Resolutions, themselves, allow for individual states to enforce said resolutions. (Read them)
It was an act of war for Saddam to fire on our aircraft, in the “No Fly Zone” — and Saddam did this, repeatedly.
An Act of War carries all the legal weight of a Declaration of War.
WS
WRONG, Hillary also had the intellegence she gained through her husband, a former President.
Hey, guys –
I posted what I thought was a rational answer to the questtion presented on this thread.
Nothing in response.
Either my thesis, that the “central front on the war on terror” is your local gas pump… or isn’t… has left everyone on both sides of the issue with nothing to object to.
That’s interesting to me.
Never in my life have I thought of myself of being a centrist. But the extremists on both side shy away from my analyisis, so what am I to believe.
Yeah, I tend to disagree with some arguments on the left and, yeah, I tend to disagree with some arguments from the right… and yet neither side wants to discuss our disagreements. Sounds like I’m in the middle-middle.
The “central front in the war on terror” *isn’t* your local gas pump?
Tell me why I’m wrong.
Econ101: It was FDR and MARSHALL that concluded Germany was the greater threat. Ike was appointed after 1941 to oversee the N. Africa landings, rising in rank and taking charge of Overlord and thence Supreme Commander, Allied Fores in Europe. He was also a smart enough military tactician to know the basic tenet of never to get bogged down in a land war on the continent of Asia. Truman (Korea), Kennedy (Vietmnam), and now Bush forgot this basis of American political/military policy, with attendant results, something the British took 300 years too figure out as have the Russians more recently.
WS,
EXACTLY:
“WSClark
Posted January 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
“I can not explain why he said it the way he said it, but I THINK he meant that Saddam did not PLAN 9-11.”
It was a pretty straight forward question: “What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?”
—–
You have quoted the QUESTION correctly. (Perhaps by accident?)
Bush was asked what connection Saddam had to 9-11, NOT about Saddam and terrorism, in general, or Saddam and Al Queda, in particular.
You Liberals are taking both that question, and the answer, completely out of context.
It’s not worth even discussing with you Paul – you are just looking for any excuse to justify the invasion of Iraq.
But let me ask this question, if Saddam had “declared war” on the US in the Nineties, why weren’t the REPUBLICANS SCREAMING FOR AN INVASION AT THAT TIME!
And don’t try to tell me that they were and Bill Clinton kept them from doing it.
I know that you TRY to blame the Clinton’s for everything from hangnails to potholes, but that argument just won’t fly.
— and the fact that Saddam protected and gave medical assistance to one of the previous, 1993 WTC bombers, is evidence that Saddam certainly supported BOTH attacks!
“You Liberals are taking both that question, and the answer, completely out of context.”
Bullshit, Paul, once again you are twisting and turning, desperately try to justify the Invasion.
For the last time, Paul, the US Intelligence community says that Saddam had no connection to al Qaeda and radical fundamentalist Muslims.
What makes you think that YOU know better than the CIA military intelligence?
NN
Agreed, Marshall and FDR made the decision.
However, Ike did not disagree.
The point remains:
Japan had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but Japan was allied with Germany.
Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, but Germany was allied with Japan!
“and the fact that Saddam protected and gave medical assistance to one of the previous, 1993 WTC bombers, is evidence that Saddam certainly supported BOTH attacks!”
You are nothing if not a kool-aid drinker, Paul.
Nothing.
WS
The policy of the Clinton Administration, towards Iraq and Saddam, was “regimen change” — this is an historical fact.
Bill Clinton was, legally, at war with Iraq.
WS
Do you ALWAYS agree with US Intelligence memos and briefings?
Can you show me a single statement, or any statements, from any government official, to show that:
1.) Saddam did not harbor one of the 1993 WTC bombers? (Abdul Rahman Yasin)
2.) Saddam did not celebrate 9-11, even painting murals of the burning WTC on several buildings?
3.) That Saddam did not provide diplomatic cover to terrorists?
4.) That Saddam did not provide financial support to terrorists?
5.) That Saddam did not have secret meetings, between his intelligence officers and OBL associates, as stated by Chech Intelligence?
NO, WS, you can’t.
You can not give me any, specific refutation of the 5 points that I have listed, above.
“Bill Clinton was, legally, at war with Iraq.”
Name the resolution, approved by the Republican controlled Congress that gave Clinton the authorization to use military force against Iraq.
And remember, that policy came about because Saddam refused UN inspections.
Hussein allowed the UN Inspectors back in in November 2002.
Econ101: Agreed, with the recognition of Italy, part the “Pact Of Steel” which bound the original Axis Powers. I do not agree about the Iraq comments you are making, but seldom do I agree with you. I like your persuasive attitudes though, will you come to the bank with me when next I need a loan?
WS
The Veterans Administration states clearly that anyone who served in the U.S. Military, under the term of Commander in Chief Bill Clinton, served at a time of a Declared War!
From the War in Kuwait, until present, the VA states that we have been in a Congressionally Sanctioned War!
VA Benefits are enhanced, with that designation.
Those who served in Grenada, for instance, do not get the same benefits.
NN
As long as I don’t have to co-sign.
I have 5 kids.
I do that enough!
Paul, Paul, Paul, do you even have the most rudimentary knowledge of Arab/Muslim culture?
Saddam Hussein was a secular Muslim. He did not practice his “faith” as prescribed by the Qu’uan.
Saddam had wine cellars in his palaces and drank fancy French wines with his meals. He was a womanizer. He shaved his face with the exception of his mustache. He dressed in Western clothes. He allowed women to expose their faces and legs.
He was the exact opposite of a fundamentalist Muslim.
And for that, he was HATED by bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Monkeyhawk
As I said when you posted the same post on the open…
Your take is brilliant. No one is assaulting it because it is unassailable.
I’ve said much the same not quite as well.
What is one side’s big issue? The war on scary terror!
One of the other side’s principle issues? Human caused global warming due to carbon emissions.
The ironic THING is that BOTH these issues have the same answer. Namely getting off fossil fuels. It’s win win and GOOD for America in the long run.
And this will make paulthecon bubble and fizz like alka seltzer!
1.) Saddam did not harbor one of the 1993 WTC bombers? (Abdul Rahman Yasin)
Unproven
2.) Saddam did not celebrate 9-11, even painting murals of the burning WTC on several buildings?
So what, many others did the same. Also, there is no proof that Saddam had the mural painted.
3.) That Saddam did not provide diplomatic cover to terrorists?
Unproven.
4.) That Saddam did not provide financial support to terrorists?
With the except of paying a bonus to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, there is/was no proven support.*
5.) That Saddam did not have secret meetings, between his intelligence officers and OBL associates, as stated by Chech Intelligence?
Unproven, actually proven to be false.
* Paul, you do know that there is a significant difference between a Palestinian suicide bomber and al Qaeda, right?
Paul, there is every reason NOT to believe that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and NO reason to believe it.
They were mortal enemies.
End of story.
Out of here for now – got to make a pot of chili and catch the playoff games.
Back later.
Keep working on that intel, Paul.
Ya can’t use truth with paulie th econ WS.
The guy has his own version of it. In the form of half ass links, a warped view of history and the occasional talking point pitched in.
“May 11, 2004
Important new information has come from Edward Jay Epstein about Mohammed Atta’s contacts with Iraqi intelligence. The Czechs have long maintained that Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official, posted to the Iraqi embassy in Prague. As Epstein now reports, Czech authorities have discovered that al-Ani’s appointment calendar shows a scheduled meeting on April 8, 2001 with a “Hamburg student.” ”
PauhTheCon – that silly BS has been refuted time and time again. It wasn’t ‘new’ in 2004; it isn’t new in 2008.
“J R” –
Thanks for the kudos.
But it’s not like it’ll make any difference.
I know that people who disagree with my observations choose to not respond to my posts because they’ve got nothin’.
It’s kind of the flip side to the “Don’t Feed the Trolls” attitude.
The trolls know they can post something like “Cute Fuzzy Kittens are Communists,” and there will be a legion of cute fuzzy kitten-lovers will object and present perfect evidence that cute fuzzy kittens are *not* communists…
And that will distract Internet conversations for a while from the true political discussions this society needs to approach.
I posted a couple of days ago about the Global Warming merry-go-round happens in these forums, and I’ve seen it played out.
First, they deny there’s Global Warming.
Then, they admit there’s Global Warming but contend it has nothing to do with greenhouse gasses. Then they assert greenhouse gasses have nothing to do with Global Warming. Then they say greenhouse gasses are “the same as jogging two miles.” Then they assert Global Warming is a good thing (”We’ll all be warmer in winter!”) Then there’s a cold snap somewhere on the planet and they return to point zero and deny there’s Global Warming.
Cassandra was an optimist.
Well Monkeyhawk
I’m not the wordsmith you are.
I USED to be. But when you’ve done every issue again and again, eventually you get your best said and just try to light backfires. To fight the little blazes that pop up?
In a way, this makes me optimistic. All the merry go round thing? It’s like I say with folks like paul. The louder and shriller THEY get? The more I’m convinced that they are scared. And the only thing that they could be afraid of is that they are losing. The more and different ways they spin an argument. The more it looks like they are running out of places to run TO.
It’s like I was just saying over on the open.
Didn’t mean to speak for you Ben. I hope you don’t mind. Anyway, I was saying that Ben used to post as to global warming alot. Now not so much. I speculated that maybe he is just weary of dealing with the spinning desperation of the deniers. That it’s obvious the game is winding down. So maybe why bother.
You are one of the best posters we have Monkeyhawk. Don’t despair that it doesn’t seem to get through. It DOES. Sometimes it’s more what you do read than what you don’t. Sooner or later. The merry go round will stop. The other side? They’re just not wanting to get off the ride.
Many of you libs don’t beleive that “terrorism” is a threat, at all.
Therefore, us rational people tend to ignore your advice when it comes to national security matters.
Also, if you deny a terrorist threat, why are we supposed to listen to you, when you endorse a presidential candidate, claiming that person will be “srong on defense”?
—-
WS, You think that I am, somehow, clueless, because I do not understand that Saddam and OBL had their differences?
First, I DO understand such, I even reference the fact that some of OBL’s followers were upset with OBL for offering the “olive branch” to Saddam.
Furthermore, I do not think that Hitler was Budhist, do you? Yet Hitler, a weird Pagan who hated Christians and Jews, but pretended to be Christian, in some of his early speaches, Hitler, who thought that the “Aryan race” was superior, had not problem dealing with an “inferior” Asian race. Likewise, Japan knew of Hitler’s racism, but Hitler wasn’t gassing Asians, or at least not Japenese, (Hitler did gas “Roma” or Gypsies, with Indian roots) well, Japan made an alliance with a man who did not like other races.
In contemporatry times: North Korean nuclear techs were recently attacked, by Israel, in Syria.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/syria_nukes/2007/09/13/32293.html
Islam and Communism are not, exactly, easy to mesh, either. But, they work together when it benefits them.
Take a look at Iran and Venezuela!
Also
If we develop clean coal, shale oil and methane hydrate, as well as open ANWR to development, we will reduce the demand for Mid-East oil.
Nothing is wrong with alternatives, except that there is no near-term alternative available to reduce demand by very much.
Geez you’re right Monkeyhawk.
It never stops. They just change tune.
Less than 24 hours ago, paulthecon said we would be dependent on fossil fuels FOREVER.
And here he is today with what? DIFFERENT fossil fuels.
We are winning Monkeyhawk.
By the way WS
You have heard the accounts that some of the 9-11 hijackers went to a strip club, prior to meeting their virgins?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/04/MN102970.DTL
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/suspects/suspects-in-daytona-beach-strip-club-night-before.txt
Some attack the credibility of the accounts, but Florida and Las Vegas strippers claim to have served the terrorists. I doubt that the stippers know each other at all, let alone that they got together to hatch a “conspiracy”.
What was that, again, about how Moslems hated Saddam because he allowed women’s faces to be uncovered?
Ah
Juvenile
Learn to read.
I have been talking about methane hydrate for a very long time, in nearly every energy thread.
Methane hydrate might contain energy in higher concentrations than all the oil ever discovered.
And, we still have vast reserves of coal and shale oil.
Econ101
Posted January 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
Nobody ever said Saddam planed or financed 9-11. … I can not explain why he said it the way he said it, but I THINK he meant that Saddam did not PLAN 9-11. … W. misspoke. Cheney has “corrected” Bush, on this issue, several times, and W. has NEVER corrected Cheney, on this issue.
—
Don’t you guys ever get together and just run this kinda stuff up the ol’ flagpole a few times before you trot it out for public consumption? How in the world can you beat the “libs” up here for holding an irrational worldview and then turn around and write such crapola?
:lol:
I guess that at least we can agree that W is pathetic. :D
Heh heh
Yeah ped, it’s almost amusing some of the stuff.
Thank you for that. I kinda run through paul’s stuff anymore and I didn’t catch the wild textual gymnastics in that one!
“Many of you libs don’t beleive that “terrorism” is a threat, at all.”
Oh, bullshit, Paul!
That is just pure crap – we just understand that Saddam Hussein was not in league with al Qaeda.
That was an amazing leap of logic – I am surprised that you didn’t blow out a knee with a leap like that.
“What was that, again, about how Moslems hated Saddam because he allowed women’s faces to be uncovered?”
Dumber and dumber by the minute…………..
By seven o’clock tonight, Paul, you’ll have the IQ of a turnip.
Econ101:Islam hates communism for the latter is Godless, there is no connection at all. The contact ‘twixt Iran and Venezela is natural for the old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Both feel threatened by the US, one by reason of historical US actions in the Americas the other by by reason of the overthrow of a freely elected government by the US and imposing the Shah’s cruel rule again, plus antogonistic polices fostering distrust on boths sides. Persia is an ancient society that fostered so much good to-wards civilization. It’s sad, really sad. Je me souviens.
“”"Last speeding ticket I got was in Oklahoma, 61 in a 55 – after I had passed someone. Paid it right away, never heard a thing about it again.
The way some people drive on Kellogg is suicidal and reckless. People exceeding the speed limit by 30mph should have their license suspended automatically.”"”
This may be true but that does not mean that Oklahoma should be a central front in the war on terror. Although Oklahoma was attacked by terrorist, those terrorist proved to be domestic right wing Republicans and, yes, it was a traffic stop that snared them so while traffic enforcement in Oklahoma might snare terrorist, it does NOT mean that the state itself is a central front. Nor are there any signs that the speeders on Kellogg are terrorist either. Most of them are probably just regular speeders and have no intention of terrorism.
“If we develop clean coal,”
Yea, too bad the oil industry shelved it a quarter-century ago. I remember the SRC processes we researched to get both a liquid fuel feedstock and a clean solid fuel from coal.
As for methane hydrate that is a lot more problematical then a lay-person might realize. The same is true about shale. Remember Tosco, also about a quarter-century back?
MonkeyHawk
Posted January 20, 2008 at 1:18 pm | Permalink
Hey, guys – …
The “central front in the war on terror” *isn’t* your local gas pump?
Tell me why I’m wrong.
—
Up front let me say that humans are humans, thugs are thugs, and the world was built with both naturally in the mix. Therefore, it’s really important that the US bring to justice those who attacked NYC and Washington, DC, in 2001 (state-sanctioned murder is a sub-optimal solution for OBL: bringing to US justice would be absolutely ideal…although “US justice” has taken a beating in the court of world opinion due to Abu Graib, Gitmo, secret rendition programs, and US torture of enemy “combatants”).
The front for that effort is still firmly in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. It is not, nor has it ever been, in Iraq. What we’re doing in Iraq is saving what’s left of our national reputation.
But. I’d say that my local gas pump definitely mainlines Euros straight to al Qaeda by way of oil-rich nations, certain citizens of which sympathetically contribute voluntarily under a mistaken impression they’re giving “philanthropically.” I’m sure there are also certain oil-rich nations, like Iran, that transfer a portion of national income directly to terrorists (in this case, Hezbollah).
If I reduce my spending at the gas pump, then I directly reduce funding for terrorism — if that’s your meaning, I agree.
We have serious issues here in the US with our energy policy. Especially since we’ve decided to use a portion of our natural agricultural resources (corn production) as a substitute for oil imports. Unfortunately this decision is leading to an emerging stagflation domestically, a point that’s unfortunately being conflated with fighting terrorism. We Americans are just beginning to see the effects on due to rising food prices, which are due to subsidized corn production and corn’s effect on grain commodity prices .
What this means is that we may very well see the US economy tank for an election cycle or two until we can remove this misapplication of energy policy here.
It’s Congress’s fault, the ethanol subsidy, but You Know Who signed the bill. Also, it’s disastrous to us as Americans to have the sitting VP willfully obscure energy policy decisions in the name of national security.
So yeah, we’ve got a civilian “front” opened up at our gas pumps, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, that is a very tricky proposition, one that’s willfully and wrongly obscured by the Bush administration’s energy policy, as well as its collusion with Congress.
Unfortunately, the US has elected really, really, really bad leadership, beginning in 2000.
“Also, if you deny a terrorist threat, why are we supposed to listen to you,”
Well, PaulTheCon, since we do NOT deny the terrorist threat I suppose you SHOULD listen to us.
At least we aren’t still clinging to Curveball’s lies like YOU are. (the Atta LIE)
I don’t think there is any such thing as a “war on terror”. It is more a “war for oil using the terror issue as cover”. Iraq never ever had a terror problem until we went in there. Not to say Saddam was a really nice kinda guy but sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. The correct way to handle terror attacks is to do like the Jews did after their Olympic athletes were killed in Germany. Have your intelligence services make a list of everybody that was involved- either in the finance, planning or execution of the act. Then you call in the head of Delta Force and simply say “here is a list of people that were involved in the 9-11 attacks. Find them and kill them.”
Terrorism is a threat but a small threat. You are many many many more times likely to meet an early grave at the hands of a fellow American than a radical Muslim.
Before you ask yourself where the central front on terrorism is, ask yourself what is Terrorism?
Terrorism is a tactic, no different than a Tank formation, a Naval based bombing strategy, or the use of propaganda.
How silly do we look, seeing as we always declare war on the abstract. The war on drugs, the war on illiteracy, the war on terror, the war on hunger… Can we declare war on the brainwashed and ignorant next? I guess not, or nobody will vote for Huckabee,McCain or Hillary.
Kev
Posted January 20, 2008 at 5:12 pm | Permalink
Terrorism is a threat but a small threat. You are many many many more times likely to meet an early grave at the hands of a fellow American than a radical Muslim.
–
I disagree. Terrorism is a war tactic the effect of which is delivered internally. Terrorism destroys us from the inside out. It makes us fearful enough to water down our constitution, to violate the principles on which we’ve stood as an international force since 1898.
Terrorism can be very,/i> effective, if the target is amenable or otherwise ripe for the desired change.
But I guess that leads me to agree with you, at least in part. Yes, we’re far more likely to die at the hands of an American than by al Qaeda. If we continue down the Constitutional path we’ve begun under GW Bush, though, the chance of more Americans dying at the hands of other Americans increases.
Unfortunately, that’s a reflection on the impact terrorism can have.
I sure hope the WE coders come up with a Preview option pretty damn soon. :D
Do we continure to focus on all terror groups worldwide or do we wait until they come here. It is well known that groups linked to al-Qaida are already in the US. We need to secure our borders so that we know who is here. At this point we have no idea who is or is not in our country legally or illegally, nor do we know where they all came from.
Securing our national borders and establishing reasonable means to identify those who are here illegally would be a lot less expensive than just a few of the smart bombs being dropped eacha and every day by our military in Afganistan and Iraq, but our congress is too caught up in politics to make some simple security commitments. Shame on them.
Pedant,
You can get a rough “preview” of the tags, if you type the post in a plain text editor, save it with a file name ending with “.html” and then open it with web browser.
(It loses white space formating, but you can check the bold and italics tags)
If you find a mistake, just correct the text file, “save” it, and “refresh” the browser.
Also, blank lines end the “italics” tag — a workaround is put new “i” tags on lines after blank lines.
[i]Patriots Make a good show[i/]
Thanks for the tip, cosmos. I have a Mac and I hate to fire up Word just write in. Enough errors, though, and my misplaced vanity will put an end to such laziness. :D
Yours is a good idea.
Ben and WS
The Juvenile frequently posts that the “war on terror” is nothing but a political ploy by Bush.
Ed frequently posts that the “war on terror” is a complete lie.
PaulTheCon – and YOU keep parroting Curveball’s thoroughly debunked BS. So, does that make you representative of Cons? Especially when you tell us that Cheney has to ‘correct’ Bush to bring him in line with Curveball?
Pleefer, in a real sense I do not blame those that believed or still believe. WE were attacked and as with any group that is attack they come together and take up arms and come together. That has always been one of our greatest strengths. But in that we also tend to get the “us against them” mentally. That makes coming to a realization that the enemy is not the monster we think or that we have made a real mistake in the actions we took sometimes so hard we just can not get our heads around it.
“The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith
The problem is Econ that Feith has been shown to be a part of the concerted effort to spread the disinformation campaign. Often using the tactic of using a single source and spreading this information to several other sources. To make it appear there are multiple sources. “Curve ball” being the single source for several other sources. WS is correct, if you care to watch the new briefing where President Bush admitted that there was not connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam. It is readily available on yourtube.
“Debate the frequency or quality of those links, but they were united against a common enemy
ON this subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDz6e7CdmbA
This to my way of thinking is the most telling sentence of Randy’s opinion piece. We can’t fight an unconventional war with our hands tied with conventional war tools. The Geneva convention shouldn’t be in play here. If the enemy will not identify themselves they shouldn’t be treated fairly when captured.
KsGrm: though to a certain extent that has reason, but among other things this is an assault on Ideals.
We must defend our ideals as much as our physical beings. To given in on such things as treating our enemies better then they treat us. Only serves to farther our enemy agenda, they wish to erode our ideals to the point we destroy ourselves and do they work for them. Their claim is that we are soulless, unmoral and lacking a higher believes, by abandoning our ideals we show them to be correct.
Monkeyhawk, how to assault reason and clarity of thought? Short of suffer a TBI I just am not capable of doing that! I enjoy your writing and thoughts, more then my own. But then I do not have the thought process of Econ101.
WS
You make the point that the Palestinian and the Hamas terrorists were not connected, directly, to Al Queda.
You concede the point that the Palestinian terrorists WERE subsidized and rewarded by Saddam Hussein.
However, you CLAIM that Saddam was a “secularist” and that he would not help a religious radical.
The terrorists, in Palestine, ARE Islamic radicals.
You lost that one.
Saddam had no trouble supporting Islamic terrorists.
cosmos
Posted January 20, 2008 at 5:50 pm |
Pedant,
You can get a rough “preview” of the tags, if you type the post in a plain text editor, save it with a file name ending with “.html” and then open it with web browser.
BTW PaulThecon – how is that search for WMDs coming along? And, do you still believe that Saddam had decontamination experts better than my fellow HazMat professionals in this country?
“The terrorists, in Palestine, ARE Islamic radicals.”
Some are. Some are virulent nationalists. In fact, the IDF has even noted that some are another variety of extremist Abrahaimic.
Ben (and other libs)
Bush only made a mistake in Not saying that 9-11 was only ONE terrorist attack.
Saddam WAS a state sponsor of terrorism. The State Department had listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism under SEVERAL different administrations.
To say that Saddam was not behind 9-11, directly, is one thing.
The mistake W. made was that he was not aggressive enough, in showing how Saddam gave assistance to terrorists, including Al Queda.
Please quit telling me how, somehow, what I have posted has been debunked or disproven.
You are wrong.
You can not disprove it.
Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism.
Saddam did have contacts with OBL operatives.
This is fact.
This has been proven.
Again, Japan did not have anything to do with the Holocaust.
Hitler did not plan or execute Pearl Harbor.
However, Japan and Germany were allies!
When did Japan and Germany ever do anything jointly that helped either of them?? Hmmmm??
Econ101’s syllogism doesn’t work for Iraq. Germany and Japan were allies only because Germany recognized Japan’s sovereignty, and vice versa. al Qaeda would never have supported Saddam’s secular rule in Iraq, and while we’re at it let’s be honest and say that if al Qaeda would have been found in Baghdad at the same time as the Husseins then there’s a better than excellent chance those al Qaeda operatives spent some time, perhaps the rest of their lives even, in Abu Graib prison.
In fact, that’s a large part of the problem with neoconservatives: they insist that Japan and Germany can be compared to Iraq. They cannot, though, for a variety of reasons. And believe me, if they could be compared then you’d never see the Republics arguing we need to provide logistical battle support, against a domestic insurgency, for at least a decade past the war’s end. That is just one of the truths inconvenient to Econ101’s invalid comparison.
A related question, one that gets us back to the OP’s point, is this. If Saddam and OBL’s alliance is analogous to that of Hitler and Hirohito, then why do we even ask the question “Is Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism?” If the analogy held up at all, this would be a silly question. After all, OBL would have suffered greatly by Saddam’s deposal.
Unfortunately he did not — in fact al Qaeda’s influence is growing in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, S America, and NE Africa — and the OP’s questions remains at the very heart of affairs.
Iraq was and remains a nightmare detour for the US.
Now this is an interesting turn of events! my post around 7: 30 appeared on this thread after I posted it.
I went elsewhere and now it is not there? This is the second time in three days it has happened, I have noticed the same complaint from others. Has anyone found an explanation other than censorship!
Pedant,
The text should be saved in plain text mode. Does Mac have a really simple text editor, like the Windows notepad?
Chas,
Correct at 5:59 PM, except not [ ]. Use less-than and greater-than , which are usually shift “,” and “.”
I found two things that caused my posts not to get posted.
If for some reason you hit tab
or
You start to write in a text box and then leave it for awhile where another poster posts before you do.
The second being a time out thing.
OK I think I got it now!! Thanks again, Cosmos!
PaulTheCon (and other Cons) Your Curveball/Atta claim has been thoroughly debunked. And, as I noted, it was not “new” in 2004; it surely isn’t “new” today. Your Curveball source has even been disavowed by CHENY.
Now, about those WMDs … ?
“Saddam did have contacts with OBL operatives.
This is fact.
This has been proven”
Show the proof!
On the other hand; we DO know that (a) Saddam had contacts with Rumsfield and (b) OBL/alQuada had contacts with Ronald Reagan.
Oh, I get it! The contacts between Saddam and OBL were via Reagan/Bush 1!
WS
You think that there should have been no contact or cooperation.
Therefore, there was no contact or cooperation, in your mind.
You are the one who does not want to be confused by the facts. Saddam had no trouble supporting radical Islamic terrorists. Radical terrorists had no trouble accepting the help of Saddam.
Looks like Econ is trying to hang on to the last bastions of the old Saddam Myth!! Things must be looking desperate!!
Econ, Saddam in the days leading up to the invasion tried to gender aid and alliance from the other countries in the middle east along with from Russia. in his attempts he increase his religious tone more in the month before the invasion than in his entire reign over Iraq. He was promised that aid and encouraged by many of his enemies including a pledge from Iran of mutual aid. In as much that they too wanted the fall of Saddam.
As for the money he sent to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, that has been show as merely an attempt at good will. Saudi Arabia also has done that, along with Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Iran and Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan. At one time or another, it is liken to giving to the Red Cross or the American way here in the U.S.
Dog, I posted in Saturday’s Open thread and got similar results. I posted a long article from the WSJ (copied the entire thing since WSJ online is gated) about the return of “church discipline” to certain Protestant churches here in the US. I thought the WSJ’s choice to publish might represent an example of how the Wall Street Republics were using the MSM to strangle the Social Conservative Republics in Huckleberry’s crib before Super Tuesday rolls around.
Odd thing was that I didn’t get any feedback at all. And believe me, this article was Filet of Flame Bait for many of the posters here. Then I noticed that in very tiny print, at the very top of my post, there was a sentence reading something like “your comments are awaiting moderation.” I could read it, but obviously others could not.
It’s missing today, along with a bazillion other posts from 1/19 Open. I wonder if your post was also “waiting on moderation?”
Econ appears to be trying to divert the attention away from “poster’s” earlier FBI post…
Someone refresh my memory. What country did most of the 9/11 hijackers come from? How many came from Iraq? Was Saddam an ally or an enemy to the country most of the 9/11 hijackers came from? Did we help or hurt that 9/11 source country by taking out their biggest enemy for them?
How to post bold and italics – click here.
Chas
Interesting Time article, from that period, Is Hitler running Japan?:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,773077,00.html
regular you might be right, I at times will hit the text box and then go to my Word processing software to write the entry and paste to the text box. Hit enter and it appears on the thread, or sometimes I will go a head and write it all out in the text box then cut and paste to the WP to check for spelling and the like then cut and paste back to the text box.
Ahhhh like this
How to post Ordered lists on the Wichita Eagle Blog – Click Here
Examples
or
Germany-Japan: I have to think that Hitler would have wanted Japan to NOT bomb Pearl Harbor. The reason is definitely NOT benevolent toward the US. Simply the fact that Germany had its hands full with Operation Barbarosa and could have used Japan’s help in THAT theater. Japan could have sealed off Vladavostok and the rest of the Soviet Far East. That would have effective cut off the Soviets from help.
Also, Germany did not need the US to get into the war. With the German-American Bund active in this country we might not have unilaterally entered the war against either Germany or Japan.
Having studied that war it seems to me that had it not been for some incredibly stupid decisions (Barbarosa being one) that Hitler “should” have won. (Thank goodness for those stupid decisions from that maniac!)
Econ101
Posted January 20, 2008 at 8:49 pm | Permalink
WS [probably meant me instead]
You think that there should have been no contact or cooperation.
Therefore, there was no contact or cooperation, in your mind.
You are the one who does not want to be confused by the facts. Saddam had no trouble supporting radical Islamic terrorists. Radical terrorists had no trouble accepting the help of Saddam.
—
:lol:
It’s called common sense, Econ. You could use a dollop or two.
To paraphrase an old Realist:
“The trouble with our [neoconservative] friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”
:D
“It was probably not a coincidence that Japan’s commanders in the southern drive —Yamashita, Doihara, Honma, Terauchi —are from the next-to-top military drawer. Still neatly folded away in the very top drawer are Japan’s very best-Itagaki, Sugiyama, Nishio. They may be in reserve for the crucial attack on Russia.
If they lead an attack on Russia, they will not be doing so because Adolf Hitler orders them to. They will be doing so because they are able and ready to do it. They will be able to do it because they- especially their Tomoyuki Yamashita-were able to learn lessons well.”
Econ — Such an attack never happened. Japan never attacked Russia. The writer of that article was blowing smoke! Another fear mongerer!
AMAZING!! Giants beat Packers 23-20 OT on a Field Goal!! WOW!! What a finish!!
The problem with the argument you are pointing to and its logic could be followed and was by WS.
Finical support is an alliance between and supportive of the receiver’s goal. Then our Governments aid to many who are dictators and ill intended means we are their friends and not simply the politics of international foreign policy. As such we declared war on the Soviets by giving aid to the fighters in Occupied including OBL. Who BTW wrote a letter of thanks to the U,S. for their support of their fight, which is on file in Washington.
giving aid to the fighters in Occupied including OBL
should have read “giving aid to the fighters in occupied Afghanistan including OBL”
Econ — In other words, what I said earlier holds… The Japanese and Germans never jointly attacked anybody! Yes, they shared technologies, or rather Japan took what they wanted, and made improvements… Yes, they had joint meetings… But Hitler never visited Japan. He always sent his lackies. Likewise, the Emperor never visited Berlin…
Allies in technology – perhaps… But not in the sense of Allies like fought against both Hitler in Europe, and Japan in the Pacific.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDz6e7CdmbA
Here is on the subject of links to Al-Qaeda and Saddam
Chas
Japan DID claim an Alaskan Island, during WW2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attu_Island
Also, the USSR claimed part of Japan, after the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute
http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2211
Ben
If Japan had attacked the USSR, rather than attacking Hawaii and Alaska, things would have worked out much differently.
The USSR, faced with a 2 front war, would have negotiated with the AXIS powers.
Barbarosa was stupid. Hitler already had the Molotove-Ribbentrop treaty, which divided Poland (without Polands consent, of course)
If Japan had attacked the USSR, the Soviets could not have mounted as strong a defense, against Hitler, in Europe.
By attacking the US, Japan “woke a sleeping giant.”
The shill is mistating my position.
Like he always does.
I have never said the war on terror is a bush ploy.
I HAVE said that our foreign policy is one of the principle causes of terrorism and that the forces that made george bush chose to WORSEN that and exploit the results.
His take on history is also…get this…WRONG.
Hitler little respected the United States. He didn’t see it as a major industrial nation or player in world affairs in his time. It is likely his alliance with Japan was based simply on geography. He was on the west of Soviet Russia. The Japanese Empire on the east. The west in Russia was to be the new “lebensram” (room for living) It had agriculture and a readily available work force (slave labor underclass). TOO, it had and was close to other oil reserves. The east of the Soviet Union was a frigid wasteland. And Japan was a naval based power that could balance any threat the US might present to his plans.
Oh and I TOLD you he would go here. The thirties I mean.
FDR tried to encourage the Soviets to attack Japan, by the way.
The Soviets declined.
Until AFTER America had already defeated Japan.
Then, the Communists “captured” Kamchatka.
“However, you CLAIM that Saddam was a “secularist” and that he would not help a religious radical.”
Paul, are you really so stupid that you cannot tell the difference between a religiously driven Muslim terrorist and territorial driven secular terrorist?
The Palestinians and al Qaeda are about as different as night and day.
Stop blowing smoke and deal with the real world!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHy66kPQfy8&feature=related
Well this is interesting and from Fox News no less.
The leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq is an actor hired to make the Iraqis think that it is a more national movement.
The Juvenile means:
Israel should be handed over to the Moslems!
He has stated that he believes the state of Israel should be moved.
The Juvenile sounds like Ed Friedeman, on this Blog, and any other anti-semite, when he talks about Israel and American foreign policy.
America does not “cause” terrorism. No candidate for President would ever say anything that stupid.
Because it is stupid.
Because saying such a thing will get you branded as a “kook” and make a candidate unelectable.
Ben
This should interest you, per the Native American angle:
http://www.anchoragemuseum.org/galleries/alaska_gallery/ww2.aspx
Ben: It was mutually beneficial for the Soviets and Japan to sign their non-agression pact which prevented them both from having a two front war. Prior to 1939 the Soviets under the general who also defended Moscow, delivered a few hard slaps to the Japanese military expansion in Manchuria which made the Japanese come to terms, besides Japanese military were going to be otherwise occupied in southeast Asia and eventually the Pacific. The Soviets only broke that treaty after Hitler was defeated, then swooped down into Asia under a pre-arranged Malta based agreement that gave them much infulence in the area for decades. Hitler did not need Pearl Harbour at all, in fact both Churchill and Hitler knew that Pearl Harbour meant ultimate defeat for the Axis powers. About the only guy who might have been glad about Pearl Harbour was Churchill, for his bacon was now out of the fire. No disprespect intended.
Who was behind the 911 attack?
Osama bin Laden.
What did bin Laden say was his motivation for the attack?
US presence in Saudi Arabia.
What did george bush do?
Got US troops OUT of Saudi Arabia and invaded Iraq.
Why?
bush SAID Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. His Defense Seretary Donald Rumsfeld had told him there were no “hard targets” in Afghanistan.
Where was Osama bin Laden?
Afgahanistan.
Where did Osama bin Laden flee to when the US force was insufficient to get him.
Pakistan.
What did bush do re: Pakistan?
Removed sanctions against that country emplaced because they had nuclear weapons. Reason being to get Pakistans help getting bin Laden.
Where is bin Laden now?
Probably Pakistan. Which is on the verge of civil war.
Status Iraq? Occupation in perpetuity, just as the “project for a new American century” that helped bush steal the office planned.
Enough?
Oh and yeah paulie I HAVE said the location of Israel is unfortunate. There are NO foreign policy experts who would disagree.
So the question is, what is your interest in war?
Great.
The subject was alliances?
Now we have the perfect one. And they’ve worked together before too.
Now we will have the soulless shill and the lunatic turning the blog into a cartoon to support him.
PLEASE dump the new blog provider!
Sorry to disappoint J R, but the JM poster is not me.
Good grief — Now we have to see pictures of DEAD BABIES???
Gee, JM/Regular/Kansas/James/Republican and now a dead baby picture, but Regular didnt post it… Right –
Sorry Chas, the JM poster is not me. I wouldn’t post such images anywhere. I have my suspicions who it is. I’m bearing down on them and will out the poser soon. :)
:roll:
Perhaps its pay back for all of the nic switching :roll:
Well Chas, you can have your opinion on who the various posters are nic switch. But unless you are willing to stare me face to face and tell me that I’m doing it or have proof, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
I’ll give you a hint, the poster who is posting as JM and Kansas likes the Democratic Union a lot.
Democratic Union — not something with which I am familiar…
That entire list of nics are nics YOU have used, or are using… What are people to think???
Of course, nics can be stolen, and used by others… one of the problems the Blog has not yet overcome… perhaps soon
So what Chas…one is my real first name, the other is my initials and the remain are registered with typepad.com.
The person is very sloppy and leaving me a nice trail to follow.
I meant DU, where certain people like boast about posting there. :)
DU is also not on my list of blogs… I pretty much stay with WE and Huffington Post… :-)
“The person is very sloppy and leaving me a nice trail to follow.”
======================
I seriously doubt that you have the equipment necessary to follow a trail from a public Blog.
You’ve made these threats before James.
You’re a hack. I know folks with way better mojo than you.
And I myself am learning.
I want this forum to remain credible. I’ve a stake in it posting here in one nic as long as I have.
Now the blog provider has afforded you a new bag of tricks. But? Do you imagine that you just by being the first to understand them are uniquely gifted in exploiting them? Don’t count on that.
You are still outnumbered and well known here. IF this is to be the new forum you will not long prosper in it.
J R
Posted January 20, 2008 at 11:41 pm
You are still outnumbered and well known here. IF this is to be the new forum you will not long prosper in it.
Making the rules again JR?
Your comments sound more like a threat than anyone else’s JR. You are being watched.
LOL
I’m being watched.
Watch this.
I make no rules here. I only live by those mutually agreed on by all but you. I post under only one nic.
Threats? You threatened to shoot me.
I got a bigger threat for you. It’s called ignore and exposition. I’ll ignore you when I know you and find you out when you hide.
And now? The night is yours. Have fun!
NN
A very good history of Alaska in WW2, and the USSR’s reluctance to allow the USA to use Soviet ports or Soviet airfields:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/Guard-US/ch10.htm
Which of course, begs the question: why did the Soviets deserve to take any of Japan’s territory, after the war?
JR accuses everyone trying to shoot him.
What a joke of a human being.
Econ101: When you have umteen million infantry under arms plus the largest armoured forces ever seen one gets what they want, remember the Soviet forces at the end and for many years after WW2 were much, much larger than all the western conventional forces combined. They were just plain asked to take over administration of certain parts of Asia resulting in problems later on ie., as a far south as the 38th parallell in Korea, then one country. For that matter the Japanese administered formerly conquered lands in SE Asia until local Allied administration could be establised. Soviet war losses (23-25 million) earned them pretty much what they wanted in theirs and many western eyes.
Econ101: One more thing, the Soviets invaded Asia in April/45, 4 months before the war was over and by then the US really didn’t need them to invade, knowing the A bomb was going to end the Pacific conflict very soon. But if you all of a sudden tell someone not to do what you have been begging them to do, the other guy is gonna figure something is up. Everybody knew about the theory of the nuclear bomb, even Japan conducted experiments as well as the Soviets, so if a “no help” sign was posted the US could have tipped their hand about possesing the A bomb.
From getting your ass kicked talking about the fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan to talking about WWII. Sleight of hand Econ? Seems to have worked.
Better be careful Sol – you just might get labeled a ‘lib’!
:)
With the current state, I’d rather be a Libertarian mislabeled a liberal than a Neo-Con.
Sol Dev
I never got my “ass kicked” — I do not expect to change liberal minds, I simply try to present the other point of view.
—-
NN
Do not forget, please, that the USSR helped CAUSE WW2.
I do get irritated at the reflexive need, by some, to tell us about the Soviet’s “sacrifice” during WW2.
There is no denying that the Soviet people suffered terribly.
However, the Soviet Government CAUSED that misery, in large part, through the evil “Molotov-Ribbentrop” treaty, devised to divide Poland. (Without the consent of the Poles.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
Yeah sol
paulthecon is the ESSENCE of today’s Republican party.
So far he has called you un American and a lib.
Now I might call you wrong on any number of things. But I’d not call you a mindless,soulless, unapologetic shill as I do paulie.
I’m a die -hard Libertarian. Just wanted to get that out there so people know I think that the left and right of today are all wrong.
The dead baby pic was offensive to Chas? Would she not approve of the little freak truck, emblazoned with baby parts? You know? The anti-abortion thing.
Why does it matter who’s name is what here? Are some of you that spineless that an insult here and there will get a lawsuit (or a meaningless threat of one) out of you?
And yeah, Econ101 guy, you generally get your “butt kicked” on here.
Just sayin’.
Remember, being a “tough-guy” online is like competing in the Special Olympics, unfortunately even if you win, you’re still retarded.
Econ –
Iraq = no WMD
Iraq = pre-invasion = free of Al Qaeda
Iraq = no link to 9/11
Post invasion
Iraq = Al-qaeda’s best recruitment poster
Iraq = Al-qaeda presence
Iraq = MORE terrorists.
So, back to the thread topic, WHAT was your point?
Pleefer
It is not funny to call people retarded, even if they are..
The “Special Olympics” joke is especially crass.
I am a big “free speech” guy. However, the remedy for bad speech is more speech.
I exercise my right to call you tasteless and an ass.
We have not had an attack, on United States Soil, since 9-11.
(After Pearl Harbor, Japan did capture U.S. Territory, in Alaska. The history there is interesting. If we had not purchased Alaska, from Russia, Japan would have had a huge advantage!)
Anyway, I do think that many of the terrorists killed, in Iraq, would have come to America or would have gone to one of our allies, to cause trouble, had we not killed them, in Iraq.
“He who picks the field of battle, wins the battle”
“We have not had an attack, on United States Soil, since 9-11.”
but exactly how many Americans are dead POST 9/11 Econ?
“Anyway, I do think that many of the terrorists killed, in Iraq, would have come to America or would have gone to one of our allies, to cause trouble, had we not killed them, in Iraq.
“He who picks the field of battle, wins the battle”
______________________________________________
The terrorists originated in Saudi. Why pick Iraq? Why not get the terrorists at home?
By the way, libs:
History is important here. How many $ Billions were spent, to defend our country from the Communists, after WW2?
The Soviets were Nazi allies, at the start of the war. Then, Hitler screwed up and forced the Soviets to change THEIR alliances.
FDR was happy to help the Soviets, as a way to weaken the Nazis and force the Nazis into a “two front” war.
Does anyone, today, criticize FDR or Truman for strenghtening the Soviets?
NO!
History will also forgive Republicans for supporting Saddam, when we had to, against Iran and the Soviets.
History will also forgive Republicans for supportign the rebels in Afganistan, when we had to, against the Soviets.
We have no permanent allies or permanent enemies.
We only have permanent interests.
FDR and Truman taught us that.
Sol Dev
The Saudi COUNTRY did not commit an act of war against the United States.
Should America declare war, against itself, since Tim McVeigh was an American?
“The Saudi COUNTRY did not commit an act of war against the United States.”
Neither did Iraq.
Sol Dev
How many died at Pearl Harbor?
We lost more than that, in a single day, in dozens of different battles during WW2!
Damn paulie!
You are all over HISTORY trying to justify American interventionalism to justify modern day American corporate Imperialism.
Can you NOT stay on topic? Do you see where others get the impression that you get your ass kicked? You keep diverting from the topic. People of Saudi Arabia hijacked planes and flew them into buildings in America. How does Iraq tie into that?
We lost around 3,000 on 9/11 and 4,000 since then. You call this a SUCCESS????
There wasn’t an al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the War, except as I previously noted, so why not focus our efforts on the battlefield where the enemy actual was/is?
Afghanistan and Pakistan is where the fight is……
shilly paul says;
“Anyway, I do think that many of the terrorists killed, in Iraq, would have come to America”
Maybe. And bush has done exactly what to stop them?
Tried to sell our port security to DUBAI!
Done NOTHING to secure our borders.
I got a good idea along YOUR way of thinking paulie. Let’s encourage abortion in Iraq! Then the scary terrorists will never even be born let alone encouraged by our presence there to “want to kill us”.
Sol Dev
You are flat wrong.
Iraq invaded Kuwait. We have been in a legal, Congressionally authorized, Veterans Administration recognized, state of WAR in Iraq, ever since!
Iraq then agreed to a cease-fire. Iraq violated that cease-fire agreement, repeatedly.
Iraq was listed as a “state sponsor of terrorism” even under Bill Clinton’s administration.
Saddam attempted to kill George H.W. Bush. That is an act of war.
Saddam fired on our aircraft, that is an act of war.
Saddam supported terrorism against our allies, that is an act of war.
Saddam violated several U.N. Resolutions. Many of those U.N. Resolutions gave the “member states” full authority to enforce those resolutions, on their own.
Anyway, I do think that many of the terrorists killed, in Iraq, would have come to America or would have gone to one of our allies, to cause trouble, had we not killed them, in Iraq.
Do you NOT get it that there were no terrorists in Iraq pre-invasion?
You are wrong on several counts.
First, who cares what the terrorist affiliation might be? Saddam financed and supported terrorists.
If not, why did Bill Clinton list Iraq as a “state sponsor of terrorims”? (Bill Clinton did not say that Iraq was a “state sponsor of secular terrorism? did he? Of course not, because Saddam gave lots of cash to religious fanatics.)
Second, Saddam DID have contacts with Al Queda. Nobody in the Administration denies that point. Saying that Saddam did not plan or execute 9-11 is entirely different from saying that Saddam
did not have alliances with terrorists.
Also, “Al Queda in Iraq” was lead by a person who was in Iraq, prior to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq, as I proved, upthread.
Every life is important and should be valued.
Actually, our casualty figures are very, very low, in Iraq,compared to past conflicts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war
Keep tilting at those windmills, Paul.
YOUR government has discredited all of your points, yet you keep insisting that YOU are right and they are wrong.
There is NO hope debating this topic with you.
Even when you are PROVEN wrong, you continue to insist that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
Look out, Paul, here comes another windmill…….
By the way, Paul, Israel has violated over 50 UN resolutions – do you propose an invasion?
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein’s government and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was “overwhelming.”
But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday’s hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
WS
None of the Moslem world initiated, UN Resolutions, against Israel, have given member states the right to act, alone, to enforce those Resolutions.
The final Resolutions, against Iraq, certainly did give all member states that right.
“None of the Moslem world initiated, UN Resolutions, against Israel”
The US is a permanent member of the Security Council, with VETO power. We could have vetoed ANY resolution.
Your argument is just more Paul Rossell bullshit.
The 9-11 Commission was a JOKE!
They did not even look at much of the evidence. That “Commission” was a political hack job against the Bush Administration.
When they are silent on an issue, or do not even address an issue, how can they disprove or prove anything?
By the way, Sol Dev YOU quote the Commission as saying that their WERE “Contacts” between Al Queda and Saddam.
“But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday’s hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.”
What in the world were those “contacts” about, if not for future cooperative efforts?
WS denies that ANY contacts took place.
The 9-11 Commission actually contradicts WS.
I simply say that the 9-11 Commission makes no logical sense.
Why “contact” another organization, terrorist group, or country, if not to plan or cooperate?
WS
The UN Resolutions, against Israel, did NOT give any member state the right to invade or attack Israel.
Of course, the US would veto such a Resolution.
However, YOU are the one that brought up the possibility of invading Israel based on a UN Resolution.
No such Resolution has ever passed, concerning Israel.
Several such Resolutions had passed, concerning Iraq.
Windmills, Paul, the windmills are out to get you.
It’ YOU the shill for this administration and the powers that be paulie.
They won’t tell us. They keep spacing it off hoping a short attention span public will forget our troops.
So YOU tell us.
What are “acceptable losses” acceptable expenditures for our garrison in Iraq?
You lost countless times, on this thread, WS.
How does it feel to have a “windmill tilter” defeat you?
We’ve contacted People around the world Econ, guess that means we cooperate with them as well.
You could move a battalion through the hole in that one Econ.
Peace in Israel would not be possible, with Saddam in power.
Though peace in Israel is always a long shot, Saddam would never have allowed it.
It is possible, now, yet doubtful. If Bush pulls off a peace accord, between Israel and the Palestinians, would that make it worth it to you?
Come on, many of you think that Mid East conflict is BECAUSE of Israel. If getting rid of Saddam helps us there, it will be well worth the sacrifice.
Also, Libya has sworn off terrorism. That would not have happened had we not taken out Saddam.
We are in a fight for our very survival. Every life is important, but I can not see how leaving Saddam in power would ever help us convince a dangerous world not to mess with the USA.
WAAAAY upthread I called it.
I said paul would go to the fear thing. Keeping people scared keeps people not thinking rationally.
“We are in a fight for our very survival.”
Told ya.
“That “Commission” was a political hack job against the Bush Administration”
HAW HAW HAW HAW
Against Bush? Noone was even reprimanded for anything that happened or didn’t happen on that day. As far as I can tell, that commission was GWB’s best friend.
“You lost countless times, on this thread, WS.”
Paul, I have refuted EVERY SINGLE POINT that you have made………………….
And I wasn’t the only one.
You are just so delusional that you can’t even see that you have lost – no one believes you – you live in your own little world where only you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
Like I said, Paul, YOUR government has discredited every one of your points……….
Christ.
PaulTheCon – the only alQuada presence in Iraq pre-invasion was in the US-patrolled north – Kurdistan.
Again – how is that pesky WMD search coming along? Still claim that Saddam’s HazMat cleanup teams are better than ours?
There have been many ‘contacts’ between me and high-ranking officials in the KS Republican Party. Does that mean we work together?
More to the point – there were DEFINITELY contacts between Reagan administration officials and BOTH Saddam and alQuada/OBL. Perhaps that explains it all – there were therefore INDIRECT Saddam-alQuada/OBL contacts via the Reagan administration.
Ok here we go – Econ’s logic –
Saddam met with al-qaeda ergo they were cooperating. Rain down war on Iarq.
Now, the real 9/11 attackers originated in Saudi ergo cooperation with al-qaeda. Rain down war on Saudi
Bush met with the Saudi leaders ergo cooperation with al-qaeda. Rain down war on Saudi.
Econ would LOVE to meet with Bush – ergo cooperation with Bush, ergo cooperation with Bush, ego cooperation with al-qaeda. Rain down war on Econ !!!!
Whoops—The Bush line above should read Rain Down War On Bush
Something you’ll never see on American television thanks to Bush:
Econ101: the cause of WW2 was the Treaty of Versailles, everything else thereafter is epilogue.
CapnAmerica: I think America is the only country that does not publicy honour those KIA upon return, why? I’ve heard about this before and just assumed there must be a valid reason or it’s part of military protocol.
Iraq
NN–
The official explanation is “privacy.”
The unofficial explanation is that Bush doesn’t want the effects of his policy to be seen and comprehended by the citizens who pay his salary.
Iraq
My little gizmo doesn’t seem to be working.
Sorry about the blank posts.
“2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history of Iraq … and the history of freedom.”
GW Bush
The new conservative PM herabouts tried the same thing, but the military and the press just ingored him. Originally the media was banned from the airstrip receiving the bodies from Afganistan, so the miltary made sure there were no obstacles in the line of sight for the cameras outside the airbase who were using long distance lenses. The overpasses on the exit road from the airbase has folks holding flags along with cops, firefighters and vets saluting. The PM backed down of course, long ago. Why doesn’t the US media ignore the gag order?
How COOL!
You are gonna have to teach me that stuff Capn.
NN,
That is freakin AWESOME. Wish we had that kind of patriotism here. Our media sucks donkey balls if you haven’t noticed. They are told what to and what not to report. They behave like the good little lap doggies they are.
When was the last time you heard of a really interesting in-depth and highly researched story here? It is all more of the same. Blah blah blah.
Cheers and good luck with your PM.
Nice…
Interesting…
Nice…
17 Trackbacks
Wedding Traditions…
Reading the blog and the otherposts I see things that are close to home. I have added you to my digg account for bookmarking….
amal hijazi lyrics…
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..
moscow toilets…
oh, good times….
Maria…
…Services will answer your phones amazingly during the trial, get you to sign a long contract, and then drop the ball……
Introduction to Heavy Equipment Operating…
Construction equipment operators operate machinery to move earth, building materials, or other heavy objects. You’ll find equipment operators working at industrial, residential or business construction sites. You can also find heavy equipment operator…
hot lebanese girls…
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..
Jessie…
I love the idea of buying HVAC units on the internet…
oilwell service…
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !…
Jack…
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..
Jessie…
I found the best bargainsonline atgr8bargain.com…
tamer hosni…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
hot picture of wwe divas…
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..
part-time french jobs, nyc…
The current Triomphant class is currently under deployment to replace the former Redoutable class. Following from a strong domestic tournament…
Ring Tones…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
painting egyptian…
…
Jack from How to Get Your Girlfriend Back…
The word love has many different meanings in English, from something that gives a little pleasure ("I loved that meal") to something…
Eric…
Great post. I have added you to my digg bookmark…