#2000

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But you know what Chris? They probably had their reason. So perhaps Bush said there was no connection for political reasons. Sometime politicians do that, you know.

Ohhh man, you have me rolling on the floor...

Okay...Bush didn't lie about the whole WMD and the reason fow war thingy....but then he lied about there NOT being a connection between Iraq and AQ??

you crack me up....

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

But you know what Chris? They probably had their reason. So perhaps Bush said there was no connection for political reasons. Sometime politicians do that, you know.

Ohhh man, you have me rolling on the floor...

Okay...Bush didn't lie about the whole WMD and the reason fow war thingy....but then he lied about there NOT being a connection between Iraq and AQ??

you crack me up....

Jeez people...just ask the Iranians if they thought Iraq had chemical weapons. Ask the Kurds. Ask US. Ask the world who witnessed their use in the 1980s.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

just ask the Iranians if they thought Iraq had chemical weapons. Ask the Kurds. Ask US. Ask the world who witnessed their use in the 1980s.

The question would be when they stopped having them.....

[markd_nscr986 0]

***
The question would be when they stopped having them.....


I guess those 155mm rounds discovered with sarin in them don't count then?

Good........I was hoping they wouldnt count

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

But you know what Chris? They probably had their reason. So perhaps Bush said there was no connection for political reasons. Sometime politicians do that, you know.

Ohhh man, you have me rolling on the floor...

Okay...Bush didn't lie about the whole WMD and the reason fow war thingy....but then he lied about there NOT being a connection between Iraq and AQ??

you crack me up....

You crack me up that you won't address the post. Oh, thats right, you'd actually have to read it to respond.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Now please respond the the facts I presented or admit there might be a connection.

Even your "facts" (notice no link to the actual memorandums) point out there is no hard link between Iraq and 9/11.

Quote

Was Shakir an Iraqi agent? Does he provide a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11? We don't know.

Your "facts" come up way short if you are trying to prove a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.

[wmw999 2,446]

Sometimes it sounds like we're playing "six degrees of Kevin Bacon." I wonder how we can link up Kevin Bacon and Saddam Hussein?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[purnell 0]

Quote

Jeez people...just ask the Iranians if they thought Iraq had chemical weapons. Ask the Kurds. Ask US. Ask the world who witnessed their use in the 1980s.

That's a great point that is so often overlooked today. We talk about it today as though Bush was the only person on the planet insisting they had WMD. The truth is, every intelligence agency in the world believed Hussein had and would use WMD. Hell, even the NYT thought they had WMD.

[mr2mk1g 10]

The "he had them cos he gassed the Kurd's argument" is retarded.

We know he had WMD back then - we sold them to him. What we didn't know for sure was whether or not he had them prior to Gulf War II.

Turns our the intelligence claims he had stocks of them which could be deployed against British and US interests within 45 minutes (ie the reason we were told we had to go to war) were wrong and based primarily on some Uni student's essay from the early 90's.

When we look back at who thought he had WMD prior to the second invasion we have to consider where they were getting their info. A lot of the time their conclusions can all be traced back to the same few places - such as British and US intelligence agencies who we know from hindsight were wrong.

The fact that everyone thought he had WMD is merely self corroboration and there's a good reason why that kind of evidence is not admissible in court.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Turns our the intelligence claims he had stocks of them which could be deployed against British and US interests within 45 minutes

you mean he didn't have a cannon large enough for those 155mm shells with some outdated sarin in it, to hit the US or the UK?

one of the previous posters brought those up as the found WMD. Sounds like one hell of an argument indicating that Bush was right all along....Or as a poster before him indicated, Bush may have legitimately lied, because sometimes that is just better....

Quote

The fact that everyone thought he had WMD is merely self corroboration

Yeah, but it feels great to stand up, point your finger and shout: But they thought it too......

[purnell 0]

Quote

Sometimes it sounds like we're playing "six degrees of Kevin Bacon." I wonder how we can link up Kevin Bacon and Saddam Hussein?

Wendy W.

It's only 2 degrees:

Kevin Bacon starred with Sean Penn in "Mystic River".

Sean Penn met with Tariq Aziz in Iraq in December 2002.

Tariq Aziz reported directly to Saddam Hussein


Kevin Bacon => Sean Penn => Tariq Aziz => Saddam Hussein

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

you mean he didn't have a cannon large enough for those 155mm shells with some outdated sarin in it, to hit the US or the UK?

I don't think it would matter much if he had. IIRC the report on those shells concluded they had been looted at some point between the wars - as such Saddam wouldn't have actually had access to them anyway - he'd already lost them to theft long before we invaded.

[okalb 104]

Quote

Sometimes it sounds like we're playing "six degrees of Kevin Bacon." I wonder how we can link up Kevin Bacon and Saddam Hussein?

Wendy W.

Saddam Hussein met with Rumsfeld
Rumsfeld worked for Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan was in "The Killers" (1964) with
John Cassavetes who was in "Tempest" (1982) with
Susan Sarandon who was in "The Whitches of Eastwick" (1987) with
Jack Nicholson who was in "A Few Good Men" (1992) with
Kevin Bacon

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Quote

Jeez people...just ask the Iranians if they thought Iraq had chemical weapons. Ask the Kurds. Ask US. Ask the world who witnessed their use in the 1980s.

That's a great point that is so often overlooked today. We talk about it today as though Bush was the only person on the planet insisting they had WMD. The truth is, every intelligence agency in the world believed Hussein had and would use WMD. Hell, even the NYT thought they had WMD.

Too much fox news. Your entire post is false. There were plenty of reports and agencies disputing the claims of WMD prior to the war. Bush just chose to ignore them.

[livendive 8]

Quote

http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/rebuilding.html

Key letters being "re".

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

soak in the philosophies that argue for your attention. One exists around the notion that all are free to set their own path.

Unless they die first.

How many innocent civilians have died in your (and my) name? Whether intentional or "collateral", how many women and children do you mind being killed so that the agenda you support can move forward?

Personally, I'm kind of sick of good people on both sides dieing for me and mine.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[purnell 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Jeez people...just ask the Iranians if they thought Iraq had chemical weapons. Ask the Kurds. Ask US. Ask the world who witnessed their use in the 1980s.

That's a great point that is so often overlooked today. We talk about it today as though Bush was the only person on the planet insisting they had WMD. The truth is, every intelligence agency in the world believed Hussein had and would use WMD. Hell, even the NYT thought they had WMD.

Too much fox news. Your entire post is false. There were plenty of reports and agencies disputing the claims of WMD prior to the war. Bush just chose to ignore them.

I actually don't have much use for fox, or cnn for that matter. I'm a bigger fan of the economist, wsj, nyt, financial times etc. Please go ahead and make sweeping assumptions about me though if it helps your argument.

For the record, I'm a democrat who supports the war, but not Bush (though you're not going to convince me he doesn't care). I have about as much respect for Kerry as I do Bush and am extremely frustrated at the state of the political landscape today.

So fire away, but please don't assume I'm a brainless Bill O'Reilly fan. I respect your opinions and will happily debate all day, but I don't presume to know you or your political philosophy.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Militant Islamic terrorism and the governments who subsidize and sponsor it.

Like the US government when we subsidized and sponsored OBL's gang in Afghanistan?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[purnell 0]

Quote

Quote

soak in the philosophies that argue for your attention. One exists around the notion that all are free to set their own path.

Unless they die first.

How many innocent civilians have died in your (and my) name? Whether intentional or "collateral", how many women and children do you mind being killed so that the agenda you support can move forward?

Personally, I'm kind of sick of good people on both sides dieing for me and mine.

Blues,
Dave

Many have died in my (and your) name. And I'm sick of it as well. I support the agenda. I'm not very happy about it.

I know many here do not support the notion that 9/11, terrorism, and the Iraq war are linked. I see them as part of the same conflict against a philosophy that knows no borders and has no single state sponsor. I believe that the only way to truly defeat that philosophy is to bring democracy and self rule to an area of the world still ruled by autocracy and brutality. Not because I'm alturistic, but because I believe it's the only way to attack the problem at its source.

Perhaps I'm naive. But I also wonder how many more will die if we do nothing.

[purnell 0]

Quote

Quote

Militant Islamic terrorism and the governments who subsidize and sponsor it.

Like the US government when we subsidized and sponsored OBL's gang in Afghanistan?

Blues,
Dave

I believe we actually supported the mujahadeen rather than OBL directly. If memory serves OBL moved to Afghanistan in '96 and only participated in the tail end of the conflict but I could be wrong. We do however support the Saudis, who continue to support wahabbi terrorism. I do not know why.

[Channman 2]

>...communism is a form of economy,...

Yea, what ever, as long as you feel good about it.

>Comparing it to fascism is like comparing a car and a tree.

Was'nt making any comparisions. Both have killed millions, both took murder and starvation to new levels.

Communism as a form of an economy as you put it increase its revenue by killing it's citizens by the millions. One of many reasons that form of (economy) fails every time its tried.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Too much fox news. Your entire post is false. There were plenty of reports and agencies disputing the claims of WMD prior to the war. Bush just chose to ignore them.

And most of them were driven by their desire to not have a war, either for philosophical (pacifist) or monetary reasons. Those people choose to read the reports that suggested Saddam really had meant his promises this time, and ignored all the past times where he didn't, or where he used the weapons. Bush's rosy glasses were the inverse.

If your top priority is peace, you take the first. If it's the national interests of your own nation, you might slant to the second.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

a form of economy that can't exist without the government owning it and driving it. So call it a car and a Yugo. Pretending it isn't a government is ducking the issue.

You're aware Marx believed in no government, right?

You can have freedom in a socialist economy. You can have tyranny in a socialist economy. You can have freedom in a capitalist economy. You can have tyranny in a capitalist economy.

Marx had the luxury of working in the fantasy world.

I've got a picture of a poster from one of the Berkeley Marxist books stores after the fall of the USSR that proclaimed the death of fake communism, long live real communism!

While we've seen capitalistic nations in all forms, we haven't seem a nice communist one yet and we're approaching 100 years soon (87 if we start with the fall of the Czar). Until we see a counterexample, seems quite fair to equate tyranny and communism.

[GTAVercetti 0]

I met this girl once and went to hang out with her at a coffeeshop. She and her friends were big fans of socialism and communism and were going to protest by not voting.

Anyway, she was like, "In socialism you can be anything you want"

I said, "what if we all what to be actors?"

She said, "well, you could."

I said, "But who will work the really shitty jobs and who WANTS to work in them anyway?"

No answer.
Same thing about going to med school for years only to have the exact same amount of money as the guy slinging burgers. Incentive?

Pure capitalism and pure coummunism are very nice on paper. The PURE forms just don't actually work in the real world. Greed will destroy both models quite quickly. Both rely far to much on the goodness of all humans.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[purnell 0]

Quote

I met this girl once and went to hang out with her at a coffeeshop. She and her friends were big fans of socialism and communism and were going to protest by not voting.

Bwahaahaa. Sort of the political equivalent of Darwinism...taking yourself out of the political gene pool so to speak.

• Quote