Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on March 30, 2004, 08:49:42 AM
-
LONDON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes.
Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators.
Source (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-120655-9785r.htm)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Source (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-120655-9785r.htm)
Hmmm - a prisoner telling his interrogators what they want to hear? Maybe
I sincerely hope it is true, since we decimated their organization in Afghanistan. BUt they are still alive and kicking re Bali, Madrid. This aint over yet.
-
The transcripts are prefaced with a warning that Mohammed, the most senior al Qaeda member yet to be caught, "has been known to withhold information or deliberately mislead."
Jokes apart, you will learn how big can be a terrorist's mouth after capture .... "same old" europe knows it veeeery well.
-
We already know that the campaign in Afghanistan was successful (or somewhat successful, the HMFIC is still on the lose).
-
CIA LIES!
we all know bush did 9/11 so he could invade Iraq and have his buddies jack up gas to record levels so they could buy thier 10th and 11th vacation homes - LOL
-
The Afghan operation was great!
Not news at all.
-
Originally posted by strk
Hmmm - a prisoner telling his interrogators what they want to hear? Maybe
I sincerely hope it is true, since we decimated their organization in Afghanistan. BUt they are still alive and kicking re Bali, Madrid. This aint over yet.
And if the prisoner said the response caused more terrorism you'd be all over bush as a warmonger
-
Noone has ever argued against the afghan campaign. In fact alot of crazy liberals like myself would like us to focus more on it.
What we do question is the whole iraq thing. Do not confuse the 2.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
And if the prisoner said the response caused more terrorism you'd be all over bush as a warmonger
How do you know the prisoner didnt say that? If he did, do you actually believe you would hear or read that? nonsense...
Besides, everyone knows bush is a warmonger.. He said it himself! Hence why he feels he has no need to justify his actions to the american people...
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Noone has ever argued against the afghan campaign. In fact alot of crazy liberals like myself would like us to focus more on it.
What we do question is the whole iraq thing. Do not confuse the 2.
I'm not even talking about Iraq....you seem to think that I think bush is the next best thing since sliced bread...I DONT. I think he is the lessor of two evils (compared to John flip flop kerry)
I dont think the librals are giving the president room to breath...if he does somthing its usually (i your guys opinion) over the top or too little too late
Just like when clinton was president...the repubs were so over him because he purgered himself about the whole monica lewinsky thing that he didnt have the political power to do anything but lobb a few million dollar curise missles in response to the embasy bombings
I feel criticism is healthy but you libs are over the top with this man. Its just nothing but PURE hate
-
The "cleanup" in afghanistan was and is effective but i dont think anyone has doubted that.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
The "cleanup" in afghanistan was and is effective but i dont think anyone has doubted that.
Yes it's a success ... never was heroin so cheap.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Yes it's a success ... never was heroin so cheap.
that's what we should have done - gathered up the Taliban and dropped them into Columbia
-
What we do question is the whole iraq thing. Do not confuse the 2.
Frog, Were there hundreds of thousands of people murdered, tortured, and raped by Saddam's Regime?
A simple "Yes" or "No" will help me understnad what you feel.
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Noone has ever argued against the afghan campaign. In fact alot of crazy liberals like myself would like us to focus more on it.
What we do question is the whole iraq thing. Do not confuse the 2.
But..but...your hero Clarke testified and defended that "...the idea of acting even when the intelligence is uncertain, especially when WMDs are potentially involved."
-
Originally posted by straffo
Yes it's a success ... never was heroin so cheap.
Well stop buying it then! :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
But..but...your hero Clarke testified and defended that "...the idea of acting even when the intelligence is uncertain, especially when WMDs are potentially involved."
This story is relevant to Iraq, WMD, and Clarke?
-
Cannot Rip :) buziness is buziness ;)
One of the point I wanted to show in my previous post (but again I'm too subtil even for myself :D) is the lack of control of the Afghanistan by our troops.
Certainly Kaboul and other major town of Afghanistan are more or less controled ... but on the countryside it's the same old piece of *****y country it allways was ....
-
"Bushes total lack of decisivness let us successfully attack the WTC."
The quote the CIA didnt pass along.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This story is relevant to Iraq, WMD, and Clarke?
Clarke defends the idea of acting even when the intelligence is uncertain, especially when WMDs are potentially involved. He defended the Clinton administration's controversial 1998 attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, which many observers think was based on flimsy intelligence at best. Clarke said, "To this day, there are a lot of people who believe that it was not related to a terrorist group, not related to chemical weapons. They're wrong, by the way. But the president [Clinton] had decided in PDD-39 that there should be a low threshold of evidence when it comes to the possibility of terrorists getting their access — getting their hands on chemical weapons
When the potential threat exists, act upon it, thats his message. Bush did that in Iraq.
-
If we want to discuss "Prevention" of 9/11, and failures of presidents...lets discuss this:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
When the potential threat exists, act upon it, thats his message. Bush did that in Iraq.
So... success in Afghanistan somehow extrapolates to just cause in Iraq.
I get it. :aok
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Source (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-120655-9785r.htm)
A right-wing newspaper's second hand account of a British newspaper's alleged obtaining of a secret interrogation transcript - sorry if I have my doubts.
The action in Afghanistan and increased airline security certainly make a 9/11 style attack less likely, but those were obvious responses.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
A right-wing newspaper's second hand account of a British newspaper's alleged obtaining of a secret interrogation transcript - sorry if I have my doubts.
Well what do you want, the Left wing newspaper account? Tell me, I'll get you a different source.
Waiting....
-
Originally posted by Steve
Frog, Were there hundreds of thousands of people murdered, tortured, and raped by Saddam's Regime?
A simple "Yes" or "No" will help me understnad what you feel.
Thank you.
Yes. Same could be said with alot of other regimes in the world right now. But we werent sold into going to war with them based on terrorism. Millions are dieing in the DPRK and we wont lift a finger to help them.
If bush would have came out and gave that for a reason and got all of our allies to back us up and help reconstruct the country then i doubt us crazy liberals would have much to complain about.
btw are you sure it was in the hundreds of thousands?
-
btw are you sure it was in the hundreds of thousands?
No, I'm not sure in the literal sense. Accounts coming out of there from various sources report it as such. How many is enough?
Same could be said with alot of other regimes in the world right now. Millions are dieing in the DPRK and we wont lift a finger to help them.
...Yet. The DPRK is a huge problem I agree, a human rights disaster. But can you not agree that it is a different problem due to it's nuclear capabilities? And why isn't the left screaming about the atrocities goin on in DPRK?
Honestly, do you doubt that Saddam's gang and Bin Laden's gang weren't working together at least financially?
Do you approve that Saddam would send cash to families of people who murdered Israeli's?
-
Did Bush invade Iraq to help the Iraqi people?
yes or no ?
-
Steve: Why isn't the right-wing screaming about people dying in DPRK? They certainly did it (and continue to do so) about Saddam. Don't give me that nuclear stuff either, it was "proved" Iraq had WMD's....:rolleyes:
-
Did Bush invade Iraq to help the Iraqi people?
Yes, he very specifically mentioned the Iraqi people.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Steve: Why isn't the right-wing screaming about people dying in DPRK? They certainly did it (and continue to do so) about Saddam. Don't give me that nuclear stuff either, it was "proved" Iraq had WMD's....:rolleyes:
Allow me to copy and paste my post from earlier today:
Nevermind that Iraq,unlike North Korea, which has had 50 years of relative peace with its neighbors,has gone to war twice with neighboring countries and has used chemical warfare on its own citizens. Nevermind that North Korea’s military is three times larger than Iraq’s. A war with North Korea will require 700,000 troops, almost three times the number being sent into Iraq. Nevermind that Seoul, South Korea, is within striking range of North Korea's missiles. The city would be a likely target should the U.S. strike North Korea. Up until quite recently, South Korea has been a supportive ally of the U.S. Considering the risk of nuclear war from taking on a nuclear power, the Bush administration has chosen to engage in diplomacy first, using China as a conduit to pressure Pyongyang into halting its program to enrich uranium for weapons.
The U.N. Security Council had given Saddam Hussein ultimatum after ultimatum, and if the Left had its way, would give him countless more before ever authorizing war. Funny how the Left is so quick to criticize Bush for not going after North Korea without so much as a peep demanding a single ultimatum against them first.
-
Steve: Why isn't the right-wing screaming about people dying in DPRK? They certainly did it (and continue to do so) about Saddam. Don't give me that nuclear stuff either, it was "proved" Iraq had WMD's
Hawker, let me get this straight, you don't see the logistics of Iraq being any different than the DPRK due to the latter's military/ nuclear capability?
Umm the leader of the right wing has screamed about North Korea. Maybe you weren't tuned in on those days.
Are you going to continue to "answer" my questions with questions instead of having the fortitude to debate? If so Hawker, let me know now so I'll know to just skip over your wasted post space.
Now, if you don't mind Hawker, let the big boys play and allow Frogmn to speak for himself. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Honestly, do you doubt that Saddam's gang and Bin Laden's gang weren't working together at least financially?
Do you approve that Saddam would send cash to families of people who murdered Israeli's?
Yes i think saddam was not funding bin ladden. Bin ladden gets plenty of cash from the saudis, who commit just as many atrocitys as saddam did. (minus the gassing of their own people.)
Btw i wonder how many dead iraqis liked the fact that the gas used to kill them said made in the USA on it.
I just dont understand the logic behind invading iraq to remove one of the small fish when we have bigger fish to fry. ( saudi arbia and the dprk).
It certainly isnt worth the lives of our people and the trillions it will end up costing us.
-
Thank you Steve for a straight answer.
Next question.
Why has Bush not gone to the same lenghts to help people in even worse situations in other parts of the world?
-
Dare we mention the "O" word?
-
I just dont understand the logic behind invading iraq to remove one of the small fish when we have bigger fish to fry. ( saudi arbia and the dprk).
Well, one thing at a time. It seems we have struck common ground! Honestly, I don't know what we can do about Saudi Arabia. I've given this thought..... a puzzle to be sure. The Saudis are very adept at talking out of both sides of their mouths.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Did Bush invade Iraq to help the Iraqi people?
yes or no ?
DUH!
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.
Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
-
Why has Bush not gone to the same lenghts to help people in even worse situations in other parts of the world?
Nils, good question. I believe we will take action in other parts of the world. Our Govt has to also consider American interests in addition to the interests of the rest of the world when factoring in priorities. Iraq was in league w/ terrorists, was attempting to develop WMD above and beyond what it already had, in addition to it's abuse of neighbors(kuwait) and it's own people. With this in mind, why wouldn't Iraq be a good place to start?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
DUH!
Rip, the U.S. did not have U.N. sanction to invade Iraq.
It makes little sense to go around them and then try to use them as justification.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Btw i wonder how many dead iraqis liked the fact that the gas used to kill them said made in the USA on it.
Yeah, each cannister had instructions on it:
"Saddam, use this on your own people in case of an emergency"
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Rip, the U.S. did not have U.N. sanction to invade Iraq.
It makes little sense to go around them and then try to use them as justification.
This was a speech given to the UN by Bush, and the question was "Did Bush invade Iraq to help the Iraqi people?" in case you missed it.
-
Btw i wonder how many dead iraqis liked the fact that the gas used to kill them said made in the USA on it
This opens up another whole discussion on why the U.S aided Iraq in the first place. If you want we can discuss this.
Addendum: I don't like the idea of any country using non-conventional weapons on it's enemies, unless said enemy has done so as well.
-
It makes little sense to go around them and then try to use them as justification.
Sandman, just so I understand clearly. You are stating we cannot use any of Iraq's crimes against it's people or it's neighbors as justification to invade because these actions were mentioned by the U.N.?
-
Why would the interrogators ask for what happened, instead of what will happen?
I'd rather learn about possible terrorist attacks in the future instead of failed ones in the past.
-
Ok Steve.
Im not gonna drag the Oil, WMDs and my belives on waiting for UN on the Iraq issue into this cause then this will just turn into another one of "those" threads that leads nowhere and im getting pretty tired of those here :)
I just want to see where things will go from here (after Iraq/Afghanistan).
So you belive/hope that when Iraq and Afghanistan is stable and safe, Bush (if he gets to continue in office) will start to deal with the genocides that have been going on in sertain parts of africa or what will the next step be?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Sandman, just so I understand clearly. You are stating we cannot use any of Iraq's crimes against it's people or it's neighbors as justification to invade because these actions were mentioned by the U.N.?
It's not as if the crimes were recent. Iraq was invaded because it posed an immediate threat to the safety and security of the United States (or so we were lead to believe).
-
I just want to see where things will go from here (after Iraq/Afghanistan).
Me too! For Bush to be sincere in his policies he must continue to press these issues.
So you belive/hope that when Iraq and Afghanistan is stable and safe, Bush (if he gets to continue in office) will start to deal with the genocides that have been going on in sertain parts of africa or what will the next step be?
Yes!
I don't know what the next step should be. I do agree that the stuff you mentioned going on in Africa is horrific. But I do think that Bush will continue his doctrine elsewhere. Part of the problem is that the Muslim states in the Middle East just don't like themselves(internally) or each other. Hard to stabilize a nation when the citizens will happily kill each other, given the chance.
-
Iraq was invaded because it posed an immediate threat to the safety and security of the United States(or so we were lead to believe).
No you weren't.
-
You're right... it wasn't really Bush that said all this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) .
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You're right... it wasn't really Bush that said all this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) .
Did you READ that or ya just shooting in the dark?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You're right... it wasn't really Bush that said all this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) .
Im honestly suprised that the WH didnt scrub that from their site
-
Thank you for more straight answers Steve.
If this proves to be the case, and the Bush regime actually has a plan to make the world a better place and they _follow through_ on it then i will pop open a bottle of good French wine or perhaps some Champagne and celebrate it. :)
For now its been to much shady stuff going on and hidden agendas (from where i stand) for my liking but im really hoping that in the future this will be resolved and the world can move on from here. All this hate, mistrust and dung throwing (from all sides) is getting really old and is leading us nowhere positive.
-
Originally posted by WilldCrd
Did you READ that or ya just shooting in the dark?
Apparently, you didn't read it...
The threat comes from Iraq. ... we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
...
We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.
...has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Frog, Were there hundreds of thousands of people murdered, tortured, and raped by Saddam's Regime?
A simple "Yes" or "No" will help me understnad what you feel.
Thank you.
Nothing like supporting and protecting a dictator while he commits atrocities like the Infal Campaign only to later use those said atrocities to furthur your own agenda.
But hey, it was good for the economy, right. :aok
-
well, I read the whole thing... couldn't find anything about "immediate threat".
tell me Sandman, I'm curious. What exactly has to happen to us for you to agree we should defend our lives? A nuke in NYC? Would that do it for you? The embassy bombings, the U.S.S Cole, both WTC bombings... how many Americans have to die until you're satisfied that appeasement does not work?
Or maybe you're one of those people who didn't believe Saddam was evil and cohorting w/ terrorists Are you? The training facilities in Iraq.. they didn't exist? The money to the families of Palestinians whose relatives murdered Israeli civilians... bogus?
At what point, if any, is it enough to satisfy you that a person is a danger to the world? I'd really like to know.
-
Nothing like supporting and protecting a dictator while he commits atrocities like the Infal Campaign only to later use those said atrocities to furthur your own agenda.
Tell me, how did we support him and protect him as this unfolded
-
Originally posted by Steve
well, I read the whole thing... couldn't find anything about "immediate threat".
tell me Sandman, I'm curious. What exactly has to happen to us for you to agree we should defend our lives? A nuke in NYC? Would that do it for you? The embassy bombings, the U.S.S Cole, both WTC bombings... how many Americans have to die until you're satisfied that appeasement does not work?
Or maybe you're one of those people who didn't believe Saddam was evil and cohorting w/ terrorists Are you? The training facilities in Iraq.. they didn't exist? The money to the families of Palestinians whose relatives murdered Israeli civilians... bogus?
At what point, if any, is it enough to satisfy you that a person is a danger to the world? I'd really like to know.
Well by your logic we should invade China, North Korea, most of Africa and South America. Lets do it! lets police the world in the name of civil rights and equality!
Oh wait, we seem to be only interested in 3rd world countried that have a **** load of oil.. Wonder why that is - do you have an explanation for that?
If you have the link between Iraq and Al Queda I would love to see it, as would the rest of the world. Im talking BEFORE 911 - there are plenty of Al Queda in Iraq today. What did boy king say? Bring it on? indeed
Why you are at it tell us were the WMDs are too
-
Strk, as I said in another thread, you're too witless for me to address. This will be my last response to you so save your typing finger some wasted wear.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Strk, as I said in another thread, you're too witless for me to address. This will be my last response to you so save your typing finger some wasted wear.
Good! I am sick of you lame ad hominem attacks. You have no game, no argument other than RW talking points. I would be suprised if you have actually sat down and thought about any of it.
Like the other wingnuts you dont let facts get in the way of your predjudice. and the fact is that Bush* is the worst president in our lifetime, probably in the history of the US
That you support him tells me you are either a very rich man or a fool. Bush* only cares about the rich. Otherwise you are like the chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. Be careful you might get what you ask for. White meat or dark??
Now go ahead and stick your head back in the sand and wait for your ****ing prom
-
Thank you for more straight answers Steve If this proves to be the case, and the Bush regime actually has a plan to make the world a better place and they _follow through_ on it then i will pop open a bottle of good French wine or perhaps some Champagne and celebrate it.
For now its been to much shady stuff going on and hidden agendas (from where i stand) for my liking but im really hoping that in the future this will be resolved and the world can move on from here. All this hate, mistrust and dung throwing (from all sides) is getting really old and is leading us nowhere positive..
This is good stuff Nils. Bush has the support of conservatives here in the U.S. but it is not unconditional. If he does not push his agenda forward w/ other problem areas in the world and stands pat after Iraq, he is going to have a credibility issue w/ the right in additon his existing problems with the left.
-
Originally posted by Steve
well, I read the whole thing... couldn't find anything about "immediate threat".
tell me Sandman, I'm curious. What exactly has to happen to us for you to agree we should defend our lives? A nuke in NYC? Would that do it for you? The embassy bombings, the U.S.S Cole, both WTC bombings... how many Americans have to die until you're satisfied that appeasement does not work?
Or maybe you're one of those people who didn't believe Saddam was evil and cohorting w/ terrorists Are you? The training facilities in Iraq.. they didn't exist? The money to the families of Palestinians whose relatives murdered Israeli civilians... bogus?
At what point, if any, is it enough to satisfy you that a person is a danger to the world? I'd really like to know.
The "imminent threat" line came from Rumsfeld on multiple occasions. That topic has been covered already.
I don't believe for a single moment that Americans are safer because we invaded Iraq. Israel might be better off, but I could not care less about them. They made their bed. They better find a way to live in it.
Money? Whew! If I recall the estimates, most of the money used to finance Al Qaeda operations came from Saudi Arabia or another likely source, opium. Fifteen of the terrorists on the planes on 911 were SAUDI. None were Iraqi. There is no known link between Hussein and Bin Laden. They were opposed to each other.
The United States will NEVER be free of a terrorist threat. Invading Iraq won't make a difference. Hussein was a pissant dictator in a pissant country besieged on all sides by a superior force for more than a decade. Threat? Yeah... there's a monster under my bed too.
As for Afghanistan and the Taliban. They deserved every single piece of ordnance we dropped on them and I'm quite happy see more bombs fly at the next country or group that is moronic enough to attack our people.
Sorry... but Hussein doesn't fit the bill. We were righteous. It's a damn shame that the boy king (to steal a line from strk) pissed it all away to chase his own personal chimera.
-
The "imminent threat" line came from Rumsfeld on multiple occasions
Show me where he said Iraq was an imminent threat.
-
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?
Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...
SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.
Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.
SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...
Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.
Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'
Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...
Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.
Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...
Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'
Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.
Transcript (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_031404.pdf)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Transcript (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_031404.pdf)
to quote Gomer Pyle:
Well Golly!
-
no one cares - LOL
landslide Bush!
(http://www.aikengop.com/graphics/bush_cheney_2004_227x340.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
no one cares - LOL
landslide Bush!
Yep, it's a highly debated issue because no one cares.
-
sooo you went from "immediate threat" to"imminent threat"
to almost "imminent threat"
I see.
-
No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world
Was there a bigger threat?
-
Originally posted by Steve
Was there a bigger threat?
Saudi's seemed like a pretty big threat, with there harboring terrorists and all.
-
Originally posted by Steve
sooo you went from "immediate threat" to"imminent threat"
to almost "imminent threat"
I see.
Imminent threat, immediate threat...
There's little difference in the meaning and the Bush administration has used both.
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
-
Originally posted by Steve
Was there a bigger threat?
Canada.
-
Saudi's seemed like a pretty big threat, with there harboring terrorists and all.
I agree that the two-faced POS Saudis need to be dealt with.
-
Sandman again, Neither Bush Not Rummy uses "imminent threat"
I remember Bush saying something Like "we need to deal w/ Iraq before it becomes an imminent threat"
It seems like we are quibbling over the details though. You debate quite glibly. Yet you still haven't answered my questioons about how much is enough.
It's not as if the crimes were recent
They were recent and ongoing!
There is no known link between Hussein and Bin Laden.
This is incorrect, it is now known Al queda had training facilities in Iraq. You know the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy....."
Basically you don't believe our Government when they announce these ties.(I'm concluding)
You'd rather believe people like Aziz? Hussein?
I don't believe for a single moment that Americans are safer because we invaded Iraq.
Here again we disagree. I don't see how we can debate this to agreement, however. It comes down to two basic ideas. I believe that Iraq was aiding and abetting terrorists and you do not.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Frog, Were there hundreds of thousands of people murdered, tortured, and raped by Saddam's Regime?
A simple "Yes" or "No" will help me understnad what you feel.
Thank you.
I really would have liked to see the US invading and chasing those bloody south america's dictatorships. Or those in Saudi Arabia or Syria or Lybia or Yemen or south east asia .... They have all murdered thousands of innocent and some of them are still murdering or financing or training terrorists. I guess they have/had more WMD than Iraq as well .... you know, ppl is not so stoopid.
-
There's bad people all over.. in all the places you named Gatt.. and no doubt some horrible stuff going on. I hope we can somehow affect changes in all those places. I know... wishful thinking.
-
Howard backs down on North Korea - “Weapons Threat Real This Time” (http://www.chaser.com.au/show_story.asp?ID=760&ED=76&NAME=koreanuclear)
Prime Minister John Howard has expressed extreme caution on the possibility of joining any aggressive action against rogue state North Korea, pointing to their likely possession of ‘actual’ weapons.
“Normally when we say war is the last resort it’s just an expression,” said an unusually animated Mr Howard. “But when a country has an arsenal the size of North Korea’s, political bluster like that actually becomes a reality.”
Recent intelligence reports have suggested that North Korea’s nuclear program has produced enough plutonium for up to twelve atomic bombs. According to Howard, this makes a war against Korea infinitely more dangerous than the one waged against Iraq, which possessed enough plutonium to produce three or four glowsticks.
When hearing Howard’s name mentioned, a North Korean spokesperson stated that he would be “bathed in nuclear fire”. Today Mr Howard responded to the statement “Look, I don’t think anyone wants to be bathed in nuclear fire, and speaking for myself, I know I don’t. If that fire can be stalled by a series of fruitless weapons inspections, then I’m all for it.” North Korea refused to be moved however, and suggested that as far as war was concerned, Australia and her allies were “running out of time.”
Howard has refused to rule out negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il “Rule out negotiations?” said Howard. ”When can we start them? I’ll meet him, I’ll shake his hand, - I’ll even laugh at his jokes if he’s got half the weapons we think he does.”
Critics suggest a cowardly stance could weaken our ties with the US, a view Mr Howard rejects, asserting that whatever damage a weakened ANZUS alliance does to the nation, “it couldn’t do as much damage as North Korea’s barrage of nuclear annihlation.”
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Steve
It seems like we are quibbling over the details though.
True.
This is incorrect, it is now known Al queda had training facilities in Iraq. You know the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy....."
Those training facilities were in Kurdish territory. The same people Hussein used chemical weapons on.
Basically you don't believe our Government when they announce these ties.(I'm concluding)
You'd rather believe people like Aziz? Hussein?
I'd rather believe George Tenet.
Here again we disagree. I don't see how we can debate this to agreement, however. It comes down to two basic ideas. I believe that Iraq was aiding and abetting terrorists and you do not.
That's about it.
However, I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that Al Qaeda is working with people in Iraq right now.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Tell me, how did we support him and protect him as this unfolded
Evar hear of the "Prevention of Genocide Act" the title says it all, those damn Liberals. :rolleyes:
Powell at Halajba commiserating with the Kurds. LaRf!:D
-
The funny part about the rediculous arguement from the liberals about "taking on more serious threats like NK" would be if we actually DID!? No diplomatic communications, sanctions, etc. like we had with Iraq for 12 years via the UN, just go in and take them. Can you imagine the girly screams from the left if we had? OMG...that would have been a syndicated replay for decades to come!
-
Rip,
watch out when you use the term liberal. You can offend someone.
Liberal: Someone who has liberal views is tolerant of different behaviours or opinions, and believes people should be free to do or think as they like
Source: Collins Cobuild English Dictionary.
-
Originally posted by gatt
Rip,
watch out when you use the term liberal. You can offend someone.
Liberal: Someone who has liberal views is tolerant of different behaviours or opinions, and believes people should be free to do or think as they like
Source: Collins Cobuild English Dictionary.
Which is just the opposite meaning of what they actually do in America. In America, its "What can we do to push their intolerance". ;)
-
Al-Qa‘ida’s finances are also being squeezed. This is due in part to takedowns of key moneymen in the past year, particularly the Gulf, Southwest Asia, and even Iraq.
George Tenet said this. Do you think these money men weren't in place prior to our invasion?