Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

No, lets kill terrorist and people who help terrorist. Saddam and Saddam loyalist are or were terrorist, they brought terror to millions and millions of Iraqis.

You are making it metaphysical. Your left ear is itching but since you are wearing a hat that you don't want to take off, you scratch your right ear instead and feel very satisfied. Saddam didn't do 9/11, so who cares, he's been bad, let's whoop his ass... There. Bad, bad Saddam.

I don't see you invading Sudan where the real genocide has been happening for years. I did see you fighting side by side with islamic terrorists in Kosovo (gee Osama must have been glad). And I don't observe any real logic in your reasoning (not that the President showed any).

"Two wrongs don't make a right, sunshine." So, do we just wait for another lose of 3000 before do any thing? Come on, what are you smoking in that smokers room, da fern?

Saddam could not have inflicted 3000 casualties on the US in any case. I don't know what YOU have been smoking.

I can see AntiPolitrix's point, in that a lot of people died for no reason on 9/11, and its right to prevent it occuring again. No sane person wants to see people suffer.

BUT, waging a broad, wide ranging war on terror doesnt make any friends, and it certainly costs lives, be they American and British or Iraqi and Afghan.

At the end of the day, we are all human. We all feel pain and loss, and the Iraqis are currently going through something quite horrific.

I'm no prophet, but if GWBush is given a vote of confidence from his people he is going to feel a sense of vindication, and things will probably get worse. The American populous has a responsibility to vote him out of office and send a message that we, the human race, would rather just get along as civilized people, and that war is something to be avoided. We do live in the 21st century after all.

I know people think that there are many people who think that the attacks on 9/11 required an equally strong reaction, but how can people progress when mistakes aren't recognized and learnt from?

Its a cliche, I know, but if your child hits someone, and you hit him back as punishment you are not exactly sending the right message, agreed?

The term 'foreign policy' has taken on a new meaning since the end of the cold war, and I wish that America and indeed Britain would take the fatherly step of actually giving rather than taking. Third world debt anyone?

Somebody needs to give an inch here, and the only people in a position to do that are the British and the US. If it doesnt happen, we are in for the long haul.

Originally posted by Smokersroom
I can see AntiPolitrix's point, in that a lot of people died for no reason on 9/11, and its right to prevent it occuring again. No sane person wants to see people suffer.

BUT, waging a broad, wide ranging war on terror doesnt make any friends, and it certainly costs lives, be they American and British or Iraqi and Afghan.

At the end of the day, we are all human. We all feel pain and loss, and the Iraqis are currently going through something quite horrific.

I'm no prophet, but if GWBush is given a vote of confidence from his people he is going to feel a sense of vindication, and things will probably get worse. The American populous has a responsibility to vote him out of office and send a message that we, the human race, would rather just get along as civilized people, and that war is something to be avoided. We do live in the 21st century after all.

I know people think that there are many people who think that the attacks on 9/11 required an equally strong reaction, but how can people progress when mistakes aren't recognized and learnt from?

Its a cliche, I know, but if your child hits someone, and you hit him back as punishment you are not exactly sending the right message, agreed?

I see your point with that example BUT the US was attacked on Sept 11th and something had to be done. The intel we gathered from around the world said Saddam had conections with Al Qaeda and that Saddam was still trying to create WMD. Now, after the US lost 3000 lives we had to do something. The attacks were not in Britian, France or Germany, the US lost 3000 people from acroos the world on its own soil. I would vote Bush out of office if he didn't do any thing but it is just the opposite. Al Qaeda is on the run, the US HAS NOT been attacked again, we are constantly gathering Al Qaeda members up. I just wish Bush would concentrate on protecting the Mexico/US Border. The President of the US has a job to do, which is to protect and serve the American people.

The term 'foreign policy' has taken on a new meaning since the end of the cold war, and I wish that America and indeed Britain would take the fatherly step of actually giving rather than taking. Third world debt anyone?

Somebody needs to give an inch here, and the only people in a position to do that are the British and the US. If it doesnt happen, we are in for the long haul.

HUh...heres an example for you; if your kid was in school and another kid punched him in the face are you going to tell your son to give him money tomorrow? As for third world dept, the US has its own problems, we need to figure those out first. We need to concentrate on making the US safer for the American people and then, help out the third world countries. It does sound good for everyone to get along but then again thats not reality. Half of the American people don't even get along with the other half so how are we going to unit the world? Never....

Originally posted by Aelita

You are making it metaphysical. Your left ear is itching but since you are wearing a hat that you don't want to take off, you scratch your right ear instead and feel very satisfied. Saddam didn't do 9/11, so who cares, he's been bad, let's whoop his ass... There. Bad, bad Saddam.

O--K

I don't see you invading Sudan where the real genocide has been happening for years. I did see you fighting side by side with islamic terrorists in Kosovo (gee Osama must have been glad). And I don't observe any real logic in your reasoning (not that the President showed any).

Does Sudan pose a threat to the US? Is Sudan connected with Al Qaeda?

Saddam could not have inflicted 3000 casualties on the US in any case. I don't know what YOU have been smoking.

I never said Saddam killed 3000+ Americans, i said the terrorist Saddam was helping killed 3000+ Americans. Al Qaeda killed 3000 Americans and after we went after them in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda Members ran to Iraq to hide. We are way off topic here. What does this have to do with Voting for Kerry because he is not Bush.

This is from the previous link. Note that Iraqi defectors
also manufactured some WMD disinformation (I suppose
to get paid, and possibly get a green card, hehe).

Antipolitrix, you have few sources and they appear to contradict
much of what's available. Time to admit the whole Iraq project
was manufactured.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued.

The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.
The allegation that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met in Prague, Czech Republic, with an Iraqi intelligence officer now is contradicted by FBI evidence that Atta was taking flight training in Florida at the time. The Iraqi, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, is now in U.S. custody and has told interrogators he never met Atta.

CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee last month that there's no evidence to support the allegation.


Bush, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell made much of occasional contacts between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida, dating to the early 1990s when bin Laden was based in the Sudan. But intelligence indicates that nothing ever came of the contacts.

" Were there meetings? Yes, of course there were meetings. But what resulted? Nothing," said one senior U.S. official.

Originally posted by Aelita
It's SPECULATION and not much else...

Goes both ways Aelita, your argument and SpittinCobra's post is speculation. And what isn't speculation was caused by the worst terror attack on the US ever.

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

Originally posted by Aelita
It's SPECULATION and not much else...

Goes both ways Aelita, your argument and SpittinCobra's post is speculation.

No it doesn't go both ways. Read my previous post. There are direct references to what Tenet and others said.

Spitting Cobra presented naked facts as well. That the US's standing in the world is at all times low is a fact. That demonstrations against the Bush's policies were simply unprecedented is a fact. That the number of bankruptcies in the US is at all times high is documented. Spitting Cobra presented data collected from overwhelming number of sources.

That the budget deficit is staggering and the national debt defied any description is also truth which you conveninetly ignore. My life will be screwed up because of this policies, and that of my children.

And what isn't speculation was caused by the worst terror attack on the US ever.

Of course, you have to drag 9/11 into this. It may sound like a magic mantra to you, but it doesn't make true what you you are saying.

Bush has got to go.

Originally posted by Aelita
" Were there meetings? Yes, of course there were meetings. But what resulted? Nothing," said one senior U.S. official.

You say "no Connection" but obviously there was.

Administration officials reported that Farouk Hijazi, a top Iraqi intelligence officer, had met with bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998 and offered him safe haven in Iraq.

They left out the rest of the story, however. Bin Laden said he'd consider the offer, U.S. intelligence officials said. But according to a report later made available to the CIA, the al-Qaida leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because "if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"the al-Qaida leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because "if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours."

Yea...lets take the word of a Al Qaeda aide.

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

the al-Qaida leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because "if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours."

Yea...lets take the word of a Al Qaeda aide.

Thanks for proving my point and disproving you previous statement. They didn't have any intention to go to Iraq, therefore they didn't go and there was no cooperation. That's exactly what reasonable people have been saying for a long time and you just buttressed this argument.

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

the al-Qaida leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because "if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours."

Yea...lets take the word of a Al Qaeda aide.

Thanks for proving my point and disproving you previous statement. They didn't have any intention to go to Iraq, therefore they didn't go and there was no cooperation. That's exactly what reasonable people have been saying for a long time and you just buttressed this argument.

No you misunderstand, you are taking the word of an Al Qaeda aide. That is a reliable source (sarcastic remark!!!!)

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

No you misunderstand, you are taking the word of an Al Qaeda aide. That is a reliable source (sarcastic remark!!!!)

Well let's restrict ourselves to American official sources then:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued.

The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.
The allegation that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met in Prague, Czech Republic, with an Iraqi intelligence officer now is contradicted by FBI evidence that Atta was taking flight training in Florida at the time. The Iraqi, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, is now in U.S. custody and has told interrogators he never met Atta.

CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee last month that there's no evidence to support the allegation.


Bush, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell made much of occasional contacts between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida, dating to the early 1990s when bin Laden was based in the Sudan. But intelligence indicates that nothing ever came of the contacts.

" Were there meetings? Yes, of course there were meetings. But what resulted? Nothing," said one senior U.S. official.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What part of "NO" is not clear?