It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
"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?
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?
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 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.
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).
Saddam could not have inflicted 3000 casualties on the US in any case. I don't know what YOU have been smoking.
Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
Does Sudan pose a threat to the US? Is Sudan connected with Al Qaeda?
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.
Originally posted by wraith30
A brief insight into Bush's care for people.
www.msnbc.msn.com...
Yes this happend back in College. What he did is not as disturbing as the responce Bush gave to the Yale college reporters after Branding somone during a frat hazing. I know people will say that he was young and grown up now. Unfortunalty by the time you are in College you rnature is pretty much set.. you can change your demenor.. but your nature is pretty solidly set.
No, I do not think that Bush cares at all for anyone but himself, that includes those suffering in other nations or anyone here in the USA. Ohh he cares about how they view him, and how it will affect his standing and his bank account. But as for actualy caring about the masses, the people, or the dead that come back from the war.. .sorry but no.
Yes I do think that going into Afganistan was the right thing to do and I gave full support to hunting them down. However, we have been attacked to that scale before, WWII and we retaliated against Japan and that was also neccessary. Yes, I did write in aobut giving Bush a bit of flack about his non reaction in the school but I also gave a fll explination of the problems I had and that I agreed with some of the other actiaons as well.
However, the way he went about the invasion of Iraq was so unbelivabley irrisopncible it, in itself, is close to criminal. Breaking the Geniva convention laws, pissing off the UN (and reguardless of wht you think about them they are neccessary and the best way to go.) And then.. this is the kicker for me that really just blows my mind... We have all this going on.. and Bush takes an unpresidented ammount of vacation. I know people need a day off now and then but when you are the leader of a county in a war against an undefined foe, finances are going to hell, terrorists attacking, the answer is not to go golfing every weekend. He has taken more vacation in 4 years than presidents who have served 2 terms. I'm sorry but WTF!!!
Wraith
Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
This link below brings up the dirt on Kerry.
www.wintersoldier.com...
Originally posted by Aelita
First, I didn't see Saddam "helping" anybody. Second, Al Qaeda went to North Africa (it would be strange to hide in a place soon to be raided by the US).
Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
Was Iraq/Saddam linked to Al Qaeda? This is a good link, it contains good info about Saddam and Al Qeada in 1998.
Originally posted by Aelita
It's SPECULATION and not much else...
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.
And what isn't speculation was caused by the worst terror attack on the US ever.
Originally posted by Aelita
" Were there meetings? Yes, of course there were meetings. But what resulted? Nothing," said one senior U.S. official.
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.
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.
Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
No you misunderstand, you are taking the word of an Al Qaeda aide. That is a reliable source (sarcastic remark!!!!)
Originally posted by Aelita
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.