Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on October 03, 2004, 02:00:45 AM
-
THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT IS DUMB!!!!
Of course they didn't. That does not mean Sadam was not or would not be a future threat.
So if in 2002 there was a threat but they weren't linked to AQ we should just let them be?????
This clintonesque type of thinking is what causes an even like 9/11 and all the other attacks.
-
can you guarantee US will not turn against whole world and conquer other countries for imagined reason?
-
I believe the point is we shifted focus from an actual target, while creating a greater hatred for the US amongst the average middle east muslim. Thus, creating a larger threat for the actual target to manipulate against us and the world in general.
Oh yeah, the administration actually saying Iraq was involved, you know lying, may have something to do with it as well.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
"This clintonesque type of thinking is..."
You mean sane?
-
Face the facts..... every Prez we've had that was Democratic....screwed watermelon up to the point a Republican Prez had to clean up the mess,,,,
Look you Liberal asssholes when was the last time a Democratic Prez served more than 4 years in the White House... and now tell me the last times a Republican Prez served more than 4 years.....?
Get over it you Kerry Mongers... there is no free ride anymore!
*insert middle finger here*
BTW look at all the DemoCraps records in the Senate and the Congress.... Then talk to me.
2 cents worth.
Do you want a Dollars worth?
-
Originally posted by AWMac
when was the last time a Democratic Prez served more than 4 years in the White House... and now tell me the last times a Republican Prez served more than 4 years.....?
Clinton and Reagan. What point are you making with that question?
-
Originally posted by AWMac
2 cents worth.
Do you want a Dollars worth?
Ehm.... Yeah, sure. I want a dollar's worth.
-
Here's a Nickel's worth.... Kerry has a plan.... yet only Kerry knows the plan. Not even his Muppet Edwards knows the plan....
Flip.......
Flop
:rofl
-
So instead of a flip floper you prefer someone wrong during 4 more years ?
rotlf :rofl
What your really need is a King or an Emperor.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Face the facts..... every Prez we've had that was Democratic....screwed watermelon up to the point a Republican Prez had to clean up the mess,,,,
Look you Liberal asssholes when was the last time a Democratic Prez served more than 4 years in the White House... and now tell me the last times a Republican Prez served more than 4 years.....?
Get over it you Kerry Mongers... there is no free ride anymore!
*insert middle finger here*
BTW look at all the DemoCraps records in the Senate and the Congress.... Then talk to me.
2 cents worth.
Do you want a Dollars worth?
LOL with the increasing foreign debt you better ditch the Dollars and change to Euros; Your $ has lost 40% of it's value compared to Euro in few years...
LOL a frigging Ruble has soon better value :rofl
-
What your really need is a King or an Emperor.
So true! :rofl
-
AWMac, I don't know where you get your information but it's just plain wrong. Odds are, you were better off economically under Clinton than you have been under President Bush. (Unless of course, you are a millionaire - if that's the case please accept my apologies and congratulations).
Look at the chart of National Debt vs GDP posted in another thread and you'll see the people who think there is a free ride.
If you really want to face an ugly fact, realize that Republicans are NOT fiscally conservative (to my embarrassment and anguish I might add). I'm not sure why, but it seems like the people smearing the "tax and spend!" liberals are really "cut taxes and spend! conservatives. The only theory I can come up with is that the conservatives in power are already so wealthy, it won't matter a whit to them if the country is bankrupted.
-
We only allow two 4 year terms. So in 8 years we change our goverment no matter what happens. The french still have Chirac for a longer period of time.
Hows that French economy doing anyhow?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Of course they didn't. That does not mean Sadam was not or would not be a future threat.
So if in 2002 there was a threat but they weren't linked to AQ we should just let them be?????
You have to consider the risk posed by the Saddam. How much of a future risk was he compared to other potential threats. Was he an immediate threat posing a clear and present danger? No. He was contained. 2/3 of his country was a no fly zone. The northern quarter of his country had an independent Kurdnish government. He had very little opportunity to spread outside of Iraq. He was a problem for the Iraqi people...and they should have been the ones to take care of him, rather than using my tax dollars and our blood to provide freedom to a bunch of people who didn't care enough about it to fight for it themselves.
What countries were more dangerous threats to the US at the time? Was North Korea a greater threat? We all know that NK has ballistic missiles that have been tested that could reach our northwestern shores. NK made no secret that it had the capability to produce nukes...not just one, but many.
Which country was the greater risk? Iraq or NK? And yet we still chose to invade Iraq in a move that even George the First believed was foolhardy. Was GHWB being Clintonesque in his thinking?
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Face the facts..... every Prez we've had that was Democratic....screwed watermelon up to the point a Republican Prez had to clean up the mess,,,,
Er...wasn't it Reagan who took Saddam off the known terrorist list and supplied him with WMD, uhm....what was the prime reason given for invading Iraq again?
-
Originally posted by Krusher
We only allow two 4 year terms. So in 8 years we change our goverment no matter what happens.
That's the point I don't understand.
The french still have Chirac for a longer period of time. [/B]
Yes and so ?
Hows that French economy doing anyhow? [/B]
Good ,we are rich enought to support about 10% jobless.
-
Lets not forget the Clinton was launching missles at Iraq and Afganastan on a regular basis. Under the Clinton admin. the CIA actually ordered an assasination on Bin Laden, although they didnt mean too they did, the attempt failed obvisously. Under Clinton we had a very large force of special operations soilders in the middle east running all sorts of missions. But this is exactly what made Clinton the man, he knew how too take care of watermelon and do what needed to be done without pissing everyone off. Infact Clinton could have wasted OBL with a missle strike but there were reports of UAE princes were meeting with him at the same time so he called off the strike. So why doesnt everyone take a deep breath and realize that Bush didnt start this mess and the Dems have done just as much damage.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Look you Liberal asssholes when was the last time a Democratic Prez served more than 4 years in the White House... and now tell me the last times a Republican Prez served more than 4 years.....?
This is a joke right?
I hope so cause it has me laughing to the point of tears
Just on the outside chance your not.
As for the Democrats. How about the last one we had?
-
Originally posted by Ouaibe
So true! :rofl
Dont laugh,
We're planning oon liberating France next.
should take all of about an hour and a half:)
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
You have to consider the risk posed by the Saddam. How much of a future risk was he compared to other potential threats. Was he an immediate threat posing a clear and present danger? No. He was contained. 2/3 of his country was a no fly zone. The northern quarter of his country had an independent Kurdnish government. He had very little opportunity to spread outside of Iraq. He was a problem for the Iraqi people...and they should have been the ones to take care of him, rather than using my tax dollars and our blood to provide freedom to a bunch of people who didn't care enough about it to fight for it themselves.
What countries were more dangerous threats to the US at the time? Was North Korea a greater threat? We all know that NK has ballistic missiles that have been tested that could reach our northwestern shores. NK made no secret that it had the capability to produce nukes...not just one, but many.
Which country was the greater risk? Iraq or NK? And yet we still chose to invade Iraq in a move that even George the First believed was foolhardy. Was GHWB being Clintonesque in his thinking?
Yes and we see now just how well the policy of containment worked on NK now dont we.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Yes and we see now just how well the policy of containment worked on NK now dont we.
Why I had no idea that we had in place the same kind of restrictions against NK as we did against Iraq. WOW...that should be some news that most of NK is a No-Fly Zone. No wonder that the North Koreans are starving...we have a blockade and food-for-oil program going there (sucks for them that they have no oil to trade for food).
Try again...
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Why I had no idea that we had in place the same kind of restrictions against NK as we did against Iraq. WOW...that should be some news that most of NK is a No-Fly Zone. No wonder that the North Koreans are starving...we have a blockade and food-for-oil program going there (sucks for them that they have no oil to trade for food).
Try again...
The no fly program and restrictions didnt seem to stop France, and germany from shipping war material to Iraq now did it?
And the oil for food program turned into little more then a clandistein operation to benifit Saddam.
Just as restrictions on NK have NK's peopel starving yet they still managed to afford to build both Nuc Weapons and a delivery system that can reach the US
Yes your right. containment works rather well:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The no fly program and restrictions didnt seem to stop France, and germany from shipping war material to Iraq now did it?
[BEEP][BEEP][BEEP] BS.
-
the majority of AMERICANS do not think Bush "LIED" or did anything "WRONG" by invading Iraq .. it is a vocal minority and bbs wimps making all the noise...
11/02 will bear this out - big time
LANDSLIDE BUSH!
-
north korea had nothing to do with 9/11, why is john heinz-kerry picking on them?
-
Dumbest argument ever posed, because it is useless. We all know and knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Now, the reason Iraq is important to the war on terror is because Saddam has MANY ties with Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists.
1. Saddam gave $500,000 US to a man by the name of Al-Zawahiri, at a time when he was a founding member of Al Qaeda, and bin laden's right hand man.
2. It is a known fact that before the removal of Saddam, he paid $30,000 to many families of Palestinian terrorists who killed more than 10 israelis.
3. Saddam supplied small arms and plastic explosives to Taliban fighters who fled from Afghanistan during the American liberation.
The 9-11 commission said "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11", and every dem in the place goes nuts! But as I remember, bush always said that Iraq had connections with Al-Qaeda, but I dont recall ever hearing him say connections with 9/11.
Its a major misquoting by the dems, and if I am wrong, please correct and I'll shut up forever.
-
The problem with the narrow viewed conservatism in this forum, is its hate list is so long - its starts to stink of whacko.
Its become common to attack any non-US citizen. I think some are going over the deep end.
-
Bush did the correct thing clearing out old joe hussein. The greater problem lay with the limp sisters and those that are so eager for power they will influence their own country losing ANOTHER war just to be in the oval office.
Iraq HAD to be liberated, Iraq HAS to be free, it can and should be done and you KNOW IT CAN BE DONE, but kerry -and every other idiotic american who supports him, will do their best to see it does not get done.
-
Originally posted by straffo
[BEEP][BEEP][BEEP] BS.
BEEP BEEP BEEP FACT
-
Originally posted by Jasta
Dumbest argument ever posed, because it is useless. We all know and knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Now, the reason Iraq is important to the war on terror is because Saddam has MANY ties with Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists.
1. Saddam gave $500,000 US to a man by the name of Al-Zawahiri, at a time when he was a founding member of Al Qaeda, and bin laden's right hand man.
2. It is a known fact that before the removal of Saddam, he paid $30,000 to many families of Palestinian terrorists who killed more than 10 israelis.
3. Saddam supplied small arms and plastic explosives to Taliban fighters who fled from Afghanistan during the American liberation.
The 9-11 commission said "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11", and every dem in the place goes nuts! But as I remember, bush always said that Iraq had connections with Al-Qaeda, but I dont recall ever hearing him say connections with 9/11.
Its a major misquoting by the dems, and if I am wrong, please correct and I'll shut up forever.
Lets not forget that Bush all along has said "We will go after terrorists and the countries that support them"
NOBODY can deny that Iraq supported Terrorists organasations.
-
Originally posted by oboe
AWMac, I don't know where you get your information but it's just plain wrong. Odds are, you were better off economically under Clinton than you have been under President Bush. (Unless of course, you are a millionaire - if that's the case please accept my apologies and congratulations).
I have been always of the opinion that the prez has very little to with the economy.
But I keep hearing how Bush is responcable for the recession and how clinton is responcible for the Boom of the 90's
Im am just wondering.
If bush is responcible for the recession. then clinton is equally responcible for promoting an illusionary boom inasmuch as the boom was largely based on illusion
-
>>The greater problem lay with the limp sisters and those that are so eager for power they will influence their own country losing ANOTHER war just to be in the oval office.
<<
It ain't limp sisters who are demostrating a complete ignorance in fighting a guerilla war. Its the shrinking violets in the White House. "I'm right I tell ya, its just hard hard work! How was I supposed to know they would change clothes?"
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The no fly program and restrictions didnt seem to stop France, and germany from shipping war material to Iraq now did it?
What war material did France and Germany provide Iraq after the Embargo?
-
Originally posted by Jasta
Now, the reason Iraq is important to the war on terror is because Saddam has MANY ties with Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists.
What ties? Where are you getting this $500k to Al-Zawahiri from Saddam info? I hope you have something other than a NewsMax or Weekly Standard article.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
BEEP BEEP BEEP FACT
Zero source == Zero fact.
And please don't dig up the "Polish troop have found French weapon" but unfortunatly destroyed it ...
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK Lets not forget that Bush all along has said "We will go after terrorists and the countries that support them"
NOBODY can deny that Iraq supported Terrorists organasations.
So how long before we invade Saudi, Jordan, and Libya? To name a few, they also are known to give generously to families of dead Palestinian terrorists.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
What war material did France and Germany provide Iraq after the Embargo?
WARSAW (Reuters) - Polish troops in Iraq have found four French-built advanced anti-aircraft missiles which were built this year, a Polish Defense Ministry spokesman told Reuters Friday.
France strongly denied having sold any such missiles to Iraq for nearly two decades, and said it was impossible that its newest missiles should turn up in Iraq.
"Polish troops discovered an ammunition depot on Sept. 29 near the region of Hilla and there were four French-made Roland-type missiles," Defense Ministry spokesman Eugeniusz Mleczak said.
"It is not the first time Polish troops found ammunition in Iraq but to our surprise these missiles were produced in 2003."
The Roland anti-aircraft system is a short-range air defense missile in service with at least 10 countries, including France and Germany
-
Originally posted by Eagler
WARSAW (Reuters) - Polish troops in Iraq have found four French-built advanced anti-aircraft missiles which were built this year, a Polish Defense Ministry spokesman told Reuters Friday.
France strongly denied having sold any such missiles to Iraq for nearly two decades, and said it was impossible that its newest missiles should turn up in Iraq.
"Polish troops discovered an ammunition depot on Sept. 29 near the region of Hilla and there were four French-made Roland-type missiles," Defense Ministry spokesman Eugeniusz Mleczak said.
"It is not the first time Polish troops found ammunition in Iraq but to our surprise these missiles were produced in 2003."
The Roland anti-aircraft system is a short-range air defense missile in service with at least 10 countries, including France and Germany
and speaking of which I seem to remember Iraq kept rebuilding these air defence systems after we kept knocking them out.
Now if the above isnt true
Where did Iraq get the material and parts needed to rebuild these systems which oddly enough were far more modern then what was used during gulf war I.
I guess maybe someone found a bottle with a magic Geni in it who granted them some wishes and with a wave of his hand they just magically appeared.
-
Washington Times
Saddam
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The United States stood by for years as supposed allies helped its enemies obtain the world's most dangerous weapons, reveals Bill Gertz, defense and national security reporter for The Washington Times, in the new book "Treachery" (Crown Forum). In this excerpt, he details France's persistence in arming Saddam Hussein.
First of three excerpts
New intelligence revealing how long France continued to supply and arm Saddam Hussein's regime infuriated U.S. officials as the nation prepared for military action against Iraq.
The intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002 helped explain why France refused to deal harshly with Iraq and blocked U.S. moves at the United Nations.
"No wonder the French are opposing us," one U.S. intelligence official remarked after illegal sales to Iraq of military and dual-use parts, originating in France, were discovered early last year before the war began.
That official was careful to stipulate that intelligence reports did not indicate whether the French government had sanctioned or knew about the parts transfers. The French company at the beginning of the pipeline remained unidentified in the reports.
France's government tightly controls its aerospace and defense firms, however, so it would be difficult to believe that the illegal transfers of equipment parts took place without the knowledge of at least some government officials.
Iraq's Mirage F-1 fighter jets were made by France's Dassault Aviation. Its Gazelle attack helicopters were made by Aerospatiale, which became part of a consortium of European defense companies.
"It is well-known that the Iraqis use front companies to try to obtain a number of prohibited items," a senior Bush administration official said before the war, refusing to discuss Iraq's purchase of French warplane and helicopter parts.
The State Department confirmed intelligence indicating the French had given support to Iraq's military.
"U.N. sanctions prohibit the transfer to Iraq of arms and materiel of all types, including military aircraft and spare parts," State Department spokeswoman Jo-Anne Prokopowicz said. "We take illicit transfers to Iraq very seriously and work closely with our allies to prevent Iraq from acquiring sensitive equipment."
Sen. Ted Stevens, Alaska Republican and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, declared that France's selling of military equipment to Iraq was "international treason" as well as a violation of a U.N. resolution.
"As a pilot and a former war pilot, this disturbs me greatly that the French would allow in any way parts for the Mirage to be exported so the Iraqis could continue to use those planes," Stevens said.
"The French, unfortunately, are becoming less trustworthy than the Russians," said Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "It's outrageous they would allow technology to support the jets of Saddam Hussein to be transferred."
The U.S. military was about to go to war with Iraq, and thanks to the French, the Iraqi air force had become more dangerous.
The pipeline
French aid to Iraq goes back decades and includes transfers of advanced conventional arms and components for weapons of mass destruction.
The central figure in these weapons ties is French President Jacques Chirac. His relationship with Saddam dates to 1975, when, as prime minister, the French politician rolled out the red carpet when the Iraqi strongman visited Paris.
"I welcome you as my personal friend," Chirac told Saddam, then vice president of Iraq.
The French put Saddam up at the Hotel Marigny, an annex to the presidential palace, and gave him the trappings of a head of state. The French wanted Iraqi oil, and by establishing this friendship, Chirac would help France replace the Soviet Union as Iraq's leading supplier of weapons and military goods.
In fact, Chirac helped sell Saddam the two nuclear reactors that started Baghdad on the path to nuclear weapons capability.
France's corrupt dealings with Saddam flourished throughout the 1990s, despite the strict arms embargo against Iraq imposed by the United Nations after the Persian Gulf war.
By 2000, France had become Iraq's largest supplier of military and dual-use equipment, according to a senior member of Congress who declined to be identified.
Saddam developed networks for illegal supplies to get around the U.N. arms embargo and achieve a military buildup in the years before U.S. forces launched a second assault on Iraq.
One spare-parts pipeline flowed from a French company to Al Tamoor Trading Co. in the United Arab Emirates. Tamoor then sent the parts by truck through Turkey, and into Iraq. The Iraqis obtained spare parts for their French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters through this pipeline.
A huge debt
U.S. intelligence would not discover the pipeline until the eve of war last year; sensitive intelligence indicated that parts had been smuggled to Iraq as recently as that January.
"A thriving gray-arms market and porous borders have allowed Baghdad to acquire smaller arms and components for larger arms, such as spare parts for aircraft, air-defense systems and armored vehicles," the CIA said in a report to Congress made public that month.
U.S. intelligence agencies later came under fire over questions about prewar estimates of Iraq's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. But intelligence on Iraq's hidden procurement networks was confirmed.
An initial accounting by the Pentagon in the months after the fall of Baghdad revealed that Saddam covertly acquired between 650,000 and 1 million tons of conventional weapons from foreign sources. The main suppliers were Russia, China and France.
By contrast, the U.S. arsenal is between 1.6 million and 1.8 million tons.
As of last year, Iraq owed France an estimated $4 billion for arms and infrastructure projects, according to French government estimates. U.S. officials thought this massive debt was one reason France opposed a military operation to oust Saddam.
The fact that illegal deals continued even as war loomed indicated France viewed Saddam's regime as a future source of income.
Amnesty international
Who armed Iraq?
Syria
According to reports in early 2003, military equipment – from truck tyres to aircraft parts – was being brought into Iraq across the border from Syria and Jordan in trucks.
Most of the supplies allegedly came from East European countries and included Russian-made jet engines, refurbished Russian tank engines and Czech anti-aircraft cannons. Syrian weapons purchases for transfer to Iraq reportedly included refurbished T-55 tank engines and other replace-ment parts for T-72 tanks (from Bulgaria and Belarus); military trucks from Russia; and MiG29 airplanes and radar systems from Ukraine.
Bulgaria
November 2002: it is reported that the Bulgarian government had admitted that the Terem plant, in Turgovishte, had been sending armoured vehicles and spare parts to Iraq via Syria.
Belarus
January 2003: the Lebanese authorities seize a shipment of helmets and communications equipment that was shipped from Belarus and was destined for Iraq. Also reports that missile technology and possibly dual-use technology were supplied.
Bosnia
Bosnian Muslim companies were reportedly involved in the supply of munitions, explosives and heavy artillery.
Ukraine
July 2002: the Ukrainian parliament sets up a commission to investigate news reports suggesting that government officials participated in arms sales to Iraq in violation of UN sanctions, including radar stations worth US$100 million.
Serbia
October 2002: several reports highlight the central role Serbia played in arms exports to Iraq and the activities of Jugoimport, the state-owned arms export agency, in the supply of armour-piercing missiles, rockets, anti-tank ammunition, tank engines, various explosives, chemical stabilizers, and grenade launchers. Missile fuel, engine parts and technicians from a Bosnian Serb factory (eastern Bosnia) serviced Iraqi MiG 21 fighter planes.
Russia
The UN investigators found evidence that parts for long-range missiles were supplied to Iraq via a Palestinian middleman. Rosoboronexport, the Russian state-controlled arms export agency, maintained Baghdad sales offices despite the UN arms embargo.
-
April 11, 2003, 11:27PM
Iraq prepared to use children in battle
By SIG CHRISTENSON
Copyright 2003 San Antonio Express-News
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The Army said Friday that it found evidence that Iraqi military officials were prepared to train children as young as 10 years old to fight in battle.
The 3rd Infantry Division's Task Force 3-69 discovered AK-47 rifles modified for a smaller-caliber bullet that produces a less powerful recoil when fired, green Iraqi army uniforms made for children, as well as propaganda inciting boys and old women to fight.
While there was no evidence that any children had been trained as soldiers, the Army has encountered teenage soldiers as it has taken prisoners. One civil affairs specialist, Spc. Robert Hall, 21, of Silverdale, Wash., said Iraqis chose conscripts on the basis of their size and health, rather than age.
"If they're 15 years old, they're tall and look good, they'll take them," Hall said.
The force also found caches of weapons and uniforms made by Russia, France, Germany and Jordan after the United Nations imposed an embargo on such items after the 1991 Gulf War.
All of the weapons, uniforms and propaganda books were seized within a mile of Saddam Hussein's Fao Palace, a huge building surrounded by a lake and more than 50 other buildings on the western edge of Baghdad.
Ten AK-47 rifles, all modified to fire .22-caliber bullets rather than the larger, 7.62mm ammunition they typically use, were found in a large arms room less than a quarter-mile from a two-story school. Each rifle included a smaller, circular device inserted into the barrel along with .22-caliber magazines manufactured specifically for use in the modified assault weapon.
Lt. Col. Rock Marcone of the 3rd Infantry did know how many students -- if any -- had been trained to fight and said none of them had been found. However, he said an Army team found identification documents containing the names of 10 children and their ages. The youngest was 10, the oldest 13.
It couldn't be immediately determined where the magazines were made, but thousands of .22-caliber rounds produced last year in Bosnia-Herzegovina were found in the room, as were hundreds of standard AK-47s and cases of rocket-propelled grenades, known in military parlance as RPGs.
Five radios, a number of antennas and two demolition kits made in Germany were found as the searches ensued, along with French-made uniform accessories that included ammunition pouches and fighting load vests used to carry ammunition, bayonets, canteens and first aid kits.
There was no evidence that Russia, France, Germany and Jordan sold the weapons directly to Iraq in violation of the U.N. embargo, but Marcone said there was no question that they were manufactured after the 1991 war.
Such equipment, as well as automatic weapons and small arms, are readily available on the world weapons markets. Despite sanctions imposed against the Balkan nations during the Bosnian war, smuggling of arms and equipment was commonplace.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
What ties? Where are you getting this $500k to Al-Zawahiri from Saddam info? I hope you have something other than a NewsMax or Weekly Standard article.
The specific information regarding Zawahiri comes from a Guantanamo Bay detainee who was captured in Afghanistan in early 2002. Names are withheld, but that comes from the CIA. British intelligence supports this.
The 30k to palestinian terrorists bit comes directly from the Israeli Defense Forces based in Tel Aviv.
-
Originally posted by Jasta
The specific information regarding Zawahiri comes from a Guantanamo Bay detainee who was captured in Afghanistan in early 2002. Names are withheld, but that comes from the CIA. British intelligence supports this.
Where was it reported?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
WARSAW (Reuters) - Polish troops in Iraq have found four French-built advanced anti-aircraft missiles which were built this year, a Polish Defense Ministry spokesman told Reuters Friday.
You mean the ones that Poland recanted saying that they were mistaken as to the age, rather they were left-over from before the 1st Gulf War and were useless without the launch vehicle?
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2137676
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
The problem with the narrow viewed conservatism in this forum, is its hate list is so long - its starts to stink of whacko.
Its become common to attack any non-US citizen. I think some are going over the deep end.
Well the left has a much easier target, as the right actually
went ahead and DID something. Easy to sit on the sidelines
and whine while doing jack squat.
-
DREDIOCK & Eagler I did warn you :
Originally posted by straffo
And please don't dig up the "Polish troop have found French weapon" but unfortunatly destroyed it ...
Why did you dig again this story prooved wrong by the Pole themselves ?
You're masochist ?
-
Clinton was responsible for the boom. His economic policy was so irresponsible and new that people went crazy and the economy took off.
However, it was doomed to fail sometime. It started slipping in his last year in office.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Clinton was responsible for the boom. His economic policy was so irresponsible and new that people went crazy and the economy took off.
However, it was doomed to fail sometime. It started slipping in his last year in office.
wrong = it was in place prior to his victory in 92 .. mickey mouse could have rode the wave
but you are correct that his hands off approach didn't help anything but the POP in the end
-
Err, what I meant was that the way he handled it was so new that the economy kept up the boom because of it.
-
Well guess I ll let you all in on a secret I have hinted at before but no one took the bait.
But first may I comment on the binladden Iraq connection ?
bin laddin was active in most western countries,some way or another right? Okay ,he was active in all arab terror from cheering on to actual particapation...Right ?
And yet most of you claim he had nothing to do with Iraq,or saddam, or terriost in Iraq or was bribing someone or anything.Never wrote a letter to saddam nothing. Does this mean Putin was lying to Bush when he called Bush and told him of activity between laddin and saddam? If so ,is Russia now our enemy again?..After 9/11 do we just wait and see if something else happens to us with saddams finger prints on it? Still what about the phone call from putin?
-
"The world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein " - Bush
good article here:
http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/butlerreport/
-
Say what ya want re Republican vs Democrat.....
What does it say about a person when he refers to George Bush as a "great man?"
-
nm
LOL
-
LANDSLIDE!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT IS DUMB!!!!
Of course they didn't. That does not mean Sadam was not or would not be a future threat.
So if in 2002 there was a threat but they weren't linked to AQ we should just let them be?????
This clintonesque type of thinking is what causes an even like 9/11 and all the other attacks.
The argument that Sadam was a future threat is far weaker and dumber.
For one Bush administration themselves (Powell and Rice) came out earlier in 01 saying that Sadam wasn't a global threat that he wasnt even a regional threat due to no fly zones and sanctions. So why the immediate change in policy?
Secondly the Iraq war was sold on the fact that he was an Immediate danger to the world not a future threat.
If Iraq was invaded because it's was a future threat then what about the current threats Iran and N Korea? Surely they were a bigger priority. Plus Afghanistan things are hardly in order there.
And Saudi Arabia, why has nothing ever been said about that country, let alone any action taken. Seems they have far more ties to OBL then Iraq ever had.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
So how long before we invade Saudi, Jordan, and Libya? To name a few, they also are known to give generously to families of dead Palestinian terrorists.
I'll assume that instead of invading Pakistan, an actual developer and holder of WMD, and a supporter of terrorists/Indian insurgents (plus a supporter of the Taliban) it was easier to shift the fight past the Saudi's (who also have actual "ties to Al-Qaeda") to Iraq because Saddam gave money to palestinians and had some roland missiles....oh sorry I forgot...Saddam was also a very very very bad man...
Tronsky
-
Er... yeah like Bush is gonna bite the hand that fed him.
-
Yes, let's all fear the "Terrorists organasations".
By god, I must have seen more braincells in my breakfast this morning...
-
This clintonesque type of thinking is what causes an even like 9/11 and all the other attacks.
Blame Reagan... Blame Carter, Ford, Nixon.. the whole damn bunch then..
Why? How long has the threat of hijacking been around.. at least the 50's and 60's..
9/11 happened for one reason, greed... You would think that after all those planes were being jacked to cuba, columbia etc.. the FAA and the airlines would make reinforced pilot doors a priority.. well did it happen in some 30-40 years span.. hell no.. and look what happens.. note the clause in the 9/11 victums fund that waives the right to sue the govt for incompetence.. Thats in there for a reason.. anyone who thinks its not freaking negligence on the FAA (govt) and the Airline special intrest voting down reinforced cockpits you are living in a dream world..
How many Israel Airlines have been jacked since they put in doors a long time ago.. how bout 0...
Some people in these boards need some catalyst thought training...
Allow nutjobs into the nerve center of a aircraft and what do you get.. 9/11
At best when not in the cockpit they can down the aircraft with some device.. Not hijack it.. not crash it into a building..
How bout this how many 9/11 jackers were Saudi.. just about all of them... Why isn't house of saud glassed by now... If the United states sent 10 americans to another country killed 3000 of them; what response do you think that foriegn country would take.. Most likely declaration of war.. instead we hit Saddam who was contained by 2 no fly zones sanctioned and sabre rattled on a daily basis..
Iraq before Gulf War 1 was the most educated and prosperous nations in the region.. (granted saddam was a tyrant, but do your history on the region a tyrant or tyranny is the only thing that keeps this part of the world together due to infighting for the last 1500 years..) After Gulf war 1 iraq was decimated by sanctions..
Saying he wasn't contained is freaking stupid..
Put a open declaration before UN council.. We will nuke you if you allow any fission material into the hands of terrorists.. We consider it a act of war and will act accordingly.. Considering that we are the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in conflict I think that would get the worlds attention to how serious the situation.. case closed..
We got more nuclear/bio weapons.. they dont..
we got more conventional forces with logistics to put them anywhere in the world.. They dont.. not even china has our logistical prowlness..
How someone could say that ******* (saddam) was a direct threat you need to go back for some retraining.. Saddam had his own problems.. Freaking nutjob son.. And a majority population that hated him.. (Shia/persians)
Persia did a number on us with Chalibi.. They got us to destroy their main enemy, while undermining us as liberators and more as occupiers in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. We accelerated this with Abu Guarib.. And now we got 1917 all over again.. Heads on a stick and all..
Now back in the states we've been turning the guns in.. (patriot act, patriot 2 etc..) Pissing off our allies.. (gitmo brits, aussies etc.. cat stevens wtf..) The only good thing about this war on terror is we re established a solid ally in pakistan. but that partnership is going to last only as long as musharaf does.. (he a coup leader, kind of like saddam when we supported him and built him up vs persia....)
enough rant, its unfortunate that people don't read their history nor show any inkling of catalyst thought..
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by Jasta
Now, the reason Iraq is important to the war on terror is because Saddam has MANY ties with Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists.
Rumsfeld: No 'Hard Evidence' of Iraq-Al Qaeda Link
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Monday he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda..."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041004/pl_nm/iraq_usa_rumsfeld_dc
-
Cheney flip flopped on that issue as well.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Yes, let's all fear the "Terrorists organasations".
By god, I must have seen more braincells in my breakfast this morning...
Eating monkee brains again I see.
always looked pretty gross to me but I always wondered
How is that stuff anyway?:D
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
"And now we got 1917 all over again..."
One difference.....
The US has now been involved in the latest war in Iraq longer than it was involved in WWI.
And I don't see that involvement ending any time soon.
-
Originally posted by Nash
One difference.....
The US has now been involved in the latest war in Iraq longer than it was involved in WWI.
And I don't see that involvement ending any time soon.
And in WWI we also suffered 116,516 casualties.
I think its gonna take a while to catch up
-
You're completely right.... It will take a while.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You're completely right.... It will take a while.
ummmm... not cool?