|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creationistal Inactive Member |
Or he could do what Kerry said he would do in the debate, which is what he's doing right now already, anyway.
Train the Iraqis to fight and police, get elections going to get legitimacy in the eyes of many Iraqis, and get out. Have you seen any polling data from Iraq on how the citizens feel about our plan for their future? (I haven't in a long while, just curious as to current numbers) -Justin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creationistal Inactive Member |
He did, though. He let inspectors back into the country and provided documentation that he had disarmed. We played chicken, and he blinked. That was supposed to be it - that's how chicken works. Incorrect. The U.N. called on him to *disarm his nation*, and let inspectors back in. He did not. -Justin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Train the Iraqis to fight and police, get elections going to get legitimacy in the eyes of many Iraqis, and get out. The administration can't even decide if we're going to have elections everywhere, or just somewhere. As for training police:
quote: What do I have to show you to convince you that Bush is doing a poor job? Tell me, and I'll try to find it.
Have you seen any polling data from Iraq on how the citizens feel about our plan for their future? Apparently polls show that only 2 percent of Iraqis think of us as liberators, and a vast, vast majority favor immediate withdrawl of all our forces. Draw your own conclusions, I guess. How do you think they feel about our plan for their future?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The U.N. called on him to *disarm his nation*, and let inspectors back in. He did not. How quickly they forget... think back to Sept. 17th, 2002. Still fuzzy? Maybe this article will refresh your memory:
quote: Of course, the inspectors were pulled out in March 2003. Why? Because we were about to invade:
quote: This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-04-2004 05:20 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Iraq failed to provide documentation that was required by the resolutions. However, Iraq had submitted to UN weapon inspections where inspectors could go to any place at any time. This was ongoing till two days before the bombs were dropped. The UN resolutions were working.
quote: Regime change in the USSR was stated policy for 40 years and yet we never had to go to war. There are different paths beside an unpopular war both at home and abroad. Imagine the arguments of UN inspections had been allowed to continue? This is the part that makes me sick. Even after a year of inspections and no weapons found Bush would have still called for an invasion. Guess what, over a year of control and zero evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I heard many arguments that the inspections weren't working because they weren't finding anything. The shoe is on the other foot now. The attitude towards a link between terrorism and Iraq is heading down the same path. People have already decided that there is a link, so when one isn't found it is because we aren't looking close enough. This is where Bush moved from "decisive" to "stubborn". Making a decision is one thing, making the right one is much harder. Saying you are wrong is the hardest thing of all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Saddam did let them back in and there were no WMD's to disarm. Bush attacked anyway, flip flopping on his previous statements about disarming Iraq. If he wanted to disarm Iraq all he had to do was let the inspections continue. Rearming was not possible with inspectors in the country, nor was it possible to launch WMD's with inspectors around. The "urgent threat" had been eliminated, Saddam was being disarmed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
creationistal writes:
Besides the fact that Saddam did allow inspectors back in, he couldn't have disarmed himself anyway. Iraq had nothing to disarm. Incorrect. The U.N. called on him to *disarm his nation*, and let inspectors back in. He did not. It's like pointing a gun to an unarmed person and say, "drop the machine gun now or I'll shoot." The question is how the hell is the unarmed person supposed to respond?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's like pointing a gun to an unarmed person and say, "drop the machine gun now or I'll shoot." The question is how the hell is the unarmed person supposed to respond? Why am I reminded of that scene in Robocop?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Yeah, the Iraqi people were in a no-win situation. If the UN inspectors had found WMDs then the Bush administration would have used this as proof that Saddam was a threat and would have attacked. As it was, the inspectors did not find WMDs, and that was just used as proof that Saddam was not cooperating, and so the US attacked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Saddam did, in fact, fund suicide bombing campaigns and many bombers' families in the past. It *is* part of the global war on terror, and regardless of spin, Iraq has pretty much nothing to do with 9/11, except to say that terrorism is terrorism anywhere, and terrorists perpetrated 9/11. Cool - does that mean that you think Nicaragua should invade the US for funding the Contras? PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The Contras were not suicide bombers. They killed their victims in the manly way -- by tying them up first and shooting them in the head. And blowing up medical clinics from a distance. But no sissy suicide bombings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But the Contras had the advantage of US technology.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Gotcha. Not suicide, so good guys. Lucky for all concerned that the 9/11 bombers didn't bail from the planes, else Creationistal would have to support them.
The contras' brutality earned them a wide notoriety. They regularly destroyed health centers, schools, agricultural cooperatives, and community centers-symbols of the Sandinistas' social programs in rural areas. People caught in these assaults were often tortured and killed in the most gruesome ways. One example, reported by The Guardian of London, suffices. In the words of a survivor of a raid in Jinotega province, which borders on Honduras: "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit." PE eta:attribution This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-04-2004 06:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Gee, sounds alot like the stories this administration has been touting as grounds and justification for invading Iraq (humanitarian in the absence of WMD) and removing Saddam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, in just the last couple weeks Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Condie Rice have all backpedaled saying there were no known connections between Iraq and AQ or Iraq and WMDs.
If even the very people who were selling the story are now saying there was no firm evidence, why would anyone without the information they have access to think there was a connection. Bush lied. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024