This is also worth a read, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html
That's okay, your posts are interesting, again I don't agree with most of what you say, but at least it's a strutured arguement and not cut-and-pastes from Pentagon press releases or pure fantasy as certain others seem to tend to do around here.
Not at all. This is an area of debate I enjoy and have considerable sources for. That I do not always source every sentence I post in a forum does not mean that what I say is simply made up fact. Facts, I can work with. What I choose not to work with, is when people are asked for a source, and instead choose to come up with their own *theory* as happened in this post: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=910322&postcount=88 That simply tells me the author cannot back up their claim and can only resort to their own rationalization. Not unlike someone that uses an unsourced image from photobucket.com. So, let's start with what I said: We'll break this down into two parts: Part 1: Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war started. This isn't old news at all. In fact, has been known for quite some time now. What part of Iraq he was in, is not important, he WAS in Iraq. But it goes MUCH deeper than this. There were operational ties between Iraq and al qaida for many years. First, let's explore this source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/780plthl.asp You'll note, that within this source, contains a long list of sources that tie the two together. This is well before any recent revelations, which I'll get to shortly. Even more ties have been reported here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=2 You mentioned: What I get from your quote is, that you believe al qaida was working with the Kurds. Or at least eluding to such. From the same article above: What does this tell us? That in fact, it was saddam that *wanted* al qaida in the kurdish territory. Why? I would surely hope that question doesn't need answering. Saddam absolutely hated the Kurds. It is no wonder he supported al qaida in the kurdish territories. You might also be interested in a legal case, here in the USA, regarding the connections between Iraq and al qaida: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml Yes. In regards to recently released documents by the Pentagon concerning ties between Iraq and al qaida: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49297 Now for Part II: In fact, recent release of documents from Iraq shows that saddam was working towards terrorist hits in the US. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006710.php Regarding WMD in Syria. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html
Why would you tell everyone our secrete Rob? Dang, now I have to become a Liberal and carry condoms that glow in the dark. Ow, I better buy some more Drakkar for men... D
I can't even beleive you guys are still clinging to the idea of Iraq being a good idea, Will crazy rob pretty much refuted all your original points, all the ideas of what would come out of iraq are pretty much shot. You have been so wrong on just about every point, except maybe geography They want an islamic state, the whole idea of creating a becon of peace and prosperity is gone. There will be woman in burkas and hand choppings soon, in a little bit maybe they will elect someone like hamas to run the country, maybe in few years sader, syder, that fat guy with the brown teeth will be in charge. Hurray, hopefully in the next election most of the people who voted for the war will be gone, Gtech quoting the weekly standard, is like me quoting common dreams or some other crackpot website. What next you will be quoting stories from newsmax?
Right, I did not refute them. They're all basically true statements. I just don't think they're important...
We really can't argue priorities, as those are largely the product of emotions. I take it as givens that our first priority is the survival of our species and our second priority is the survival of Western civilization. All of my arguments are based upon those two postulates. Osama and the boys feel that #1 isn't terribly important and #2 is an affront unto God. There is not likely to be much agreement between myself and Osama. Most liberals operate as if their #1 priority was to fight the Republicans and their #2 priority was to achieve the approval of the Europeans. There's not likely to be much agreement their either. In in-group situations, we use politics (representative democracy, in this case) to determine group priorities. In out-group situations, we use war for the same purpose.
HA! "liberals...lib's....democrats....blah...blah...blah..." It seems to be that you guys are more concerned about the 'other party' than the liberals are. At least on this forum. I could do a few forum searches and post some stats in a photobucket image if you want.
History will determine Iraq's outcome. Good men and women that choose to stay the course of action as opposed to sticking their tails between their legs and running will make the difference. You have to remember ferret, even though there are a number of defeatists here, not everyone grew up in a household where "spank me daddy, I've been naughty" was the nighly theme. It's all in the eye of the beholder. Is this why you despise the Iraqi people so much? I've often wondered why you have no problem with others fighting for your freedom, but want to exclude others from having freedom. If that isn't selfish, I don't know what is. The Weekly Standard is a highly respected news source and print magazine with a wide distribution. There is absolutely no comparison to "common dreams." Granted, the Weekly Standard is not terrorist friendly, but then not everyone is into that sort of thing. To attempt such comparison shows true laziness. Instead of arguing the points made (which apparently have upset you), the easy path was taken to bring into question the legitimacy of the source. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not a valid source. Take the hard path ferret, discredit the points for once. Do something that requires more than one or two sentences of opinion
"eye of the beholder" are you actually trying to compare the iraq war with WWII, are you kidding? Zarqawi was NOBODY until we invaded and needed a new bogeyman to take bin laden's place. The other article you posted about the lawsuit is pretty much BS, it even says they had nothing but hersay proof that probably wouldn't have even been presented in a real case. You know who Al Queda is really connected to, Saudia Arabia, there is all kinds of proof that link them to the Saudi royal families, but for some reason that doesn't seem to bother you guys.
Of course not, because he's indoctrinated by the lines that he's fed by Bush. It's interesting to draw parallels between the die hard Bush supporters that are willing to swallow any obvious propaganda they are given and the brainwashed terrorists themselves and their promises of virgins in heaven.
"Imagine if we’d reported and opined on WWII the way we do now." Perhaps you didn't really read it? Your reaction is not consistent with the content or what it portrays. I suspect if you really knew, you might be embarrassed a bit. On second thought, probably not. I'm sure he appreciates your admiration. However, that doesn't dismiss the numerous ties Iraq had to al qaida, as noted above. No amount of wishing will change history. I'm pretty sure those dumb soldiers (as you like to refer to them) in Afghanistan would probably disagree with you. I'm sure al qaida appreciates your support on this one too. However, it was a real case. Again, I note your "opinion" cannot change history, no matter how much denial you are in. What an excellent opportunity to cite some sources! If I were going to be clever enough to try to change the topic from Iraq to Saudi because I were being owned, I know I would take the time to source some material while attempting to change the subject. How about you ferret? Excellent sources, btw! So let's recap: In this topic, you've made it painfully clear how you truly feel about soldiers, so clearly your objections on not on their behalf. You made it clear that Iraqi's do not deserve freedom, so your objections are not on their behalf. You've had a few pats on the back for al qaida. Remind me again, just which side are you on?
I've never known anyone to post so much but actually say so little -Edz, I agree, welcome to Vietnam V2, though I'm sure GTEch will point out that the US won that too as Bush said so
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13266-2004Aug18?language=printer http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200309/ai_kepm309938 http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031215/15terror.htm more about Saudis funding terror