TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
So what are you saying?
Do many people believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11 or not? If not, why is the claim constantly made in here. If so, why is support for the war dropping as you claim?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
If you don't want to recognize the difference between collaboration and ties that's not my problem. Pooh pooh the difference and whine about semantics if you think it'll actually mean anything, but the fact is that they are different, unless you speak a different English than the one I'm familiar with.
You claimed they had no "ties." I proved otherwise. You were wrong. Accept it and move on.
You haven't proven anything. What are these "ties"? Saddam and al-Qaeda talk the same language? They breath the same air? They hate the US? If they are not "collaborating" what good do these "ties" do any of them?
These "ties" change nothing regarding the rationale for the illegal invasion. On the contrary this only weakens Bush's case. You do not illegally invade another country and kill tens of thousands of innocents because somebody may "reportedly" have had a few "shadowy" meetings.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Go ahead and remain intellectually dishonest. Instead of addressing anything I've said you merely move on to a new subject, pretending you weren't wrong, and see if you can throw enough sh!t against the wall until something sticks.
When you can discuss things with any sort of honesty whatsoever, do let me know. until then you hold no interest for me.
Intellectually dishonest? You who support this phony illegal murderous war because of "ties" talk of intellectually dishonest? What of consequence have you said that I haven't addressed? Pray tell I truly don't know.
You seem to indicate that Saddam and Al Qaeda merely living in the same region of the world and meeting for talks constitutes a "tie". You never show proof for any of your allegations. "Reports" of "shadowy" meetings prove sh*t and you know it. Keep grasping at straws you may yet find one to save you.
SunSamurai
Diamond Member
- Jan 16, 2005
- 3,914
- 0
- 0
I could give two shits if Bush lied or not. All that matters is that Hussain and all his murdering fscks are gone. No more rape rooms no more torture chambers.
If any of you think that bush is worse that that guy, youre a bunch of fools.
If any of you think that bush is worse that that guy, youre a bunch of fools.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Like most Americans I could have given a sh!t about what Hussien was doing to his own people. It was only when the Dub and his band of nefarious Neocons misled us using the fear and horror of 9/11 into believing that Hussien was an actual threat to us did he worry me.
Is the Dub going to invade Rumsfeld next?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
You're the one claiming Bush put the suggestion that Saddam and al Qaeda were involved in 9/11 into the minds of the collective, just by those words merely being in the same paragraph together. You can't actually prove it though other than by using some rather specious reasoning. Then when I post the relevant portions of the 9/11 Report where those investigating wrotes of meetings between al Qaeda and Iraq and the facts are in plain view, all of the sudden it makes no sense to you and you can't seem to see what's right in front of your face.
Yes. Intellectually dishonest. Without a doubt.
The big question would be who did the job of intersecting the report?
Was that the CIA, The State Department or what?
Did the article exactly address this issue?
Was that the CIA, The State Department or what?
Did the article exactly address this issue?
Then what was Abu Ghraib? There was rape and torture going on there, too. Are you now going to call for Bush's head on a platter?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Finger? Shall I now assume you've turned tail and run? It would seem fair, by your standards, to make such an accusation.
Do you have any response for your lack of logic?
Just War ? or a Just War?
by Jimmy Carter
NY Times
ATLANTA ? Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.
As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.
For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.
The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options ? previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations ? were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.
The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.
Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.
The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.
The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.
What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions ? with war as a final option ? will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.
by Jimmy Carter
NY Times
ATLANTA ? Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.
As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.
For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.
The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options ? previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations ? were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.
The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.
Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.
The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.
The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.
What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions ? with war as a final option ? will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.
TLC: You're the one claiming Bush put the suggestion that Saddam and al Qaeda were involved in 9/11 into the minds of the collective, just by those words merely being in the same paragraph together. You can't actually prove it though other than by using some rather specious reasoning.
GrGr: So where did the American public get the idea that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Who brainwashed the American people into thinking Saddam was an immediate threat, TLC? Did the American public spontaneously wake up one day and say Gee we must take out Saddam as part of the post 9/11 War on Terror because he had "ties" to/collaborated with Al Qaeda and he'll give them WMD's unless we invade?
I can't prove to a flatearther that the earth is round either. Well I can prove it but it makes no difference does it. The flatearther refuses to acknowledge the truth anyway.
TLC: Then when I post the relevant portions of the 9/11 Report where those investigating wrotes of meetings between al Qaeda and Iraq and the facts are in plain view, all of the sudden it makes no sense to you and you can't seem to see what's right in front of your face.
GrGr: Meetings between Saddam and al Qaeda. So the rationale for the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the necessity of the slaughter of tens of thousands, is down to "meetings" between Saddam and Al Qaeda even though your own 9/11 report says that nothing real came out of those meetings. :roll: Now who is being intellectually dishonest?
The facts are in plain view alright. The facts are Saddam did not have WMD's, Saddam was not a threat to the US and Saddam was not allied with Al Qaeda, Saddam was not part of the 9/11 attacks either directly or indirectly.
What has the Iraqi people done the US to deserve being slaughtered by the tens of thousands? President Carter makes it abundantly clear that the invasion of Iraq must be viewed as an illegal and unjust war. (See the post above).
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
It seems you have something in common with the flatearthers. I've already pointed out th truth and you refuse to acknowledge it. Instead you have either tried redirects or have attempted to argue this into oblivion.
Now you try to create a strawman by assuming I'm saying something I'm nt. More poor tactics and dishonesty from you.
When Carter is President again, he can make the decisions. Until then, that is nothing more than his opinion. Being his opinion does not convert it to fact.
TLC: It seems you have something in common with the flatearthers. I've already pointed out th truth and you refuse to acknowledge it. Instead you have either tried redirects or have attempted to argue this into oblivion.
GrGr: Fine Mr Flatearther, hold on to your version of the truth. The fact remains that Saddam and Al Qaeda were not allied, they did not collaborate or cooperate in any significant way. And that is the factual truth acknowledged by your own sources. When will you acknowledge that fact?
TLC: Now you try to create a strawman by assuming I'm saying something I'm nt. More poor tactics and dishonesty from you.
GrGr: So what are you saying?
Why don't you ever answer questions TLC. Who gave the American people the idea that Saddam was an immediate threat, an ally of Al Qaeda and a possessor of known WMD's when in fact all of those statements are untrue and were known to be untrue at the time they were made?
GrGr: Fine Mr Flatearther, hold on to your version of the truth. The fact remains that Saddam and Al Qaeda were not allied, they did not collaborate or cooperate in any significant way. And that is the factual truth acknowledged by your own sources. When will you acknowledge that fact?
TLC: Now you try to create a strawman by assuming I'm saying something I'm nt. More poor tactics and dishonesty from you.
GrGr: So what are you saying?
Why don't you ever answer questions TLC. Who gave the American people the idea that Saddam was an immediate threat, an ally of Al Qaeda and a possessor of known WMD's when in fact all of those statements are untrue and were known to be untrue at the time they were made?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I already did acknowledge that, or haven't you actually been reading this thread?
The truth is that you're revising your wording now in order to backpedal. You attempted to argue that this was semantics when really it boils down to being imprecise with words on your part.
Words have to be pretty precise to hold any real meaning. Without adhering to precise meanings as they stand, everything becomes meaningless. Law would have no effect. Nothing would matter.
Have you been told everything you believe by some outside source, or do yo ever try to put two and two together? Why do you wrongly insist that the people who believe the way they do must have been brainwashed to have come to a conclusion? People come to faulty conclusions all the time without knowing the facts.
Besides that, if these people get their information from Bush, as you claim, then why don't they know that Saddam was not invlved in 9/11? Bush specficially stated that Saddam was not involved and the 9/11 Commission Report states the same thing, yet these people believe otherwise anyway. Can you explain that? It doesn't seem to jibe whatsoever with your contention.
And you can prove all that conclusively, I presume? I mean you MUST have recordings of the conversations where they specifically planned to dupe US citizens, right? You surely must have detailed copies of all the documents that were forged/doctored/edited/filtered, etc., right?
Like it or not, ANY president who did ANYTHING regarding Iraq since the 1991 gulf war IS relevant.
Jason
Yeah, I read that, and yet the only source I can find for it is the Guardian, and then there are all those PHOTOGRAPHS we've all seen on the news....
Jason
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
The same folks who would give Clinton a pass for failing to adequately deal with bin Laden after 8 years pound their fists and froth at the mouth at Bush for not adressing the problem after 9 whole months in office. Once again it demonstrates their bias quite clearly
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 396
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter