I'm sorry timing, I have to take you to task here. You were the one who said that the administration officials have been conspiring for the last DECADE for the Iraq war. And now you say you are not "guessing intention"? What is a conspiracy without vile intentions (you assumed the Wolfowitz group had)? You can continue to believe in your conspiracy theory, since I do not have conclusive evidence to proove the men did not act for self interest, just don't backpadle without acknowledging it. Your credibility is on the line.
Can YOU be any more inconsistent? This war isnt about 9/11. OK quick history lesson. Iraq and its evil dictator invaded a foreign country and we had to force them out. They were givin a clear set of penalties for their crimes wich according to every single member of the UN they clearly did not comply with. 9/11 just shows what men like So Dam Insane are capable of if you dont put them in line while you have the choice.
I'm not sure what your trying to get at. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be going after Insane just because we haven't cought OBL yet? If you have a point make it.
The video feed is really good. SO clear. Pefect Quality...i guess it helps to be using TCU's campus connection.
Figthing wars to ensure American supremacy over the world is a pretty vile intention IMHO. I'll try to find excerpts of the Wolfowitz document and post them here when I have enough time. There is a segment of the document that talks about securing US and Western access to the oil in the Middle East as a part of US National Strategy so the Freak's myth article amusing. I guess when it's down in black and white and adopted by our government it's still a myth to some people.
I am saying that the US should be fighting the war on terror versus fighting a war against crazy *ss tyrants from rogue states, because they might do something really bad in the future; we're sure of it.
the administration has said time and time again this is a war that has to be fought on many fronts...including against states that harbor terrorism. they were saying that as early as september 12, 2001. clinton said it back in 1998.
No Worries: Remember that whole thing about "terrorists and the states that support them"? You know, Bush didn't say that the War on Terror was "against Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda alons", it was against "terrorists and the states that support them". Does Saddam's Iraq support terrorists? Methinkso, although I am prepared to hear you argue otherwise... This is merely the second battle in the War on Terrorism. There will be more, too.
We must get different news, since the ultimatum that I heard Bush give was "disarm or we will disarm you" versus "disarm and stop supporting terrorists or ...". Bad day to be you, huh?
ummm..the argument for action is that there is concern he might arm terrorists, since there is evidence that there are terrorist training camps in iraq...so iraq's disarmament is absolutely in sync with a war on terrorism. arming terrorists is just one way states "harbor terrorism." that's what we're out to stop.
I saw this a couple of days ago on PBS... This was a very good piece on SH and his ties to the US... Yes, he is a evil b*stard... I didn't know a lot of the background, but it was worth it...
I should stop making arguments (and switch to decaf), for someone had made every reasonable argument I can make. Blair the Lion-hearted and Level-headed: Let me tell the house what I know. I know that there are some countries or groups within countries that are proliferating and trading in WMD, especially nuclear weapons technology. I know there are companies, individuals, some former scientists on nuclear weapons programmes, selling their equipment or expertise. I know there are several countries - mostly dictatorships with highly repressive regimes - desperately trying to acquire chemical weapons, biological weapons or, in particular, nuclear weapons capability. Some of these countries are now a short time away from having a serviceable nuclear weapon. This activity is not diminishing. It is increasing. We all know that there are terrorist cells now operating in most major countries. Just as in the last two years, around 20 different nations have suffered serious terrorist outrages. Thousands have died in them. The purpose of terrorism lies not just in the violent act itself. It is in producing terror. It sets out to inflame, to divide, to produce consequences which they then use to justify further terror. Round the world it now poisons the chances of political progress: in the Middle East; in Kashmir; in Chechnya; in Africa. The removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan dealt it a blow. But it has not gone away. And these two threats have different motives and different origins but they share one basic common view: they detest the freedom, democracy and tolerance that are the hallmarks of our way of life. At the moment, I accept that association between them is loose. But it is hardening. And the possibility of the two coming together - of terrorist groups in possession of WMD, even of a so-called dirty radiological bomb is now, in my judgement, a real and present danger. And let us recall: what was shocking about September 11 was not just the slaughter of the innocent; but the knowledge that had the terrorists been able to, there would have been not 3,000 innocent dead, but 30,000 or 300,000 and the more the suffering, the greater the terrorists' rejoicing.
My bet is that Iran is next, since they actually have links to radical muslim terrorists. The UN is not disarming Iran, so I wonder what guise Bush will use to justify this war.
I don't know if all of you've seen the program or read all the information on the website about this program. But when Timing says that people in the administration have been pushing war for more than a decade, it's based on evidence, not some looney conspiracy theorey. Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others were in Bush I's administration and urged him at that time to invade Iraq. Wolfowitz wrote a document outlining the need for preemptive strikes, and arguing that containment was an outdated tactic. Well all of these people are in the current administration, and lo and behold the Bush doctorine comes out, with much the same philosophy as Wolfowitz document years ago. If those FACTS make you think it's some crazy tree huggin- pot smoking, conspiracy theorey, then maybe you need to cut back on whatever drugs you are taking, Possum, and get a grip on reality. Nobody is saying Saddam hasn't violated those resolutions, and that he's not an authoritarian dictator with a horrible record on human rights. I guess it's possible to read without having a deent grasp on reading comprehension,.
All you tree hugging morons are the same. “We just want their oil” What do you think So Dam Insane was invading Kuwait for? When we do rid the world of that piece of **** we will not be in charge of Iraq’s oil. The freed people of Iraq will be. “Were blaming them for 9/11 and they didn’t have anything to do with it.” So what if they had nothing to do with 9/11. What about all the innocent people they killed in Kuwait? What about all the innocent people they kill in their own country? Once and for all, if 9/11 had never happened we would still be doing this. WTF don't you all understand? So Dam Insane and his regime are war criminals. They invaded and tried to take over an innocent country. They were expelled and prosecuted. For 12 YEARS they have not accepted their punishment so it’s time we enforce it. If that is to hard you to get you’re an idiot.
I think treeman has already responded to this weak a$$ argument. Treeman What is the big deal here? So what if several of the people now in government have been actively seeking regime change in Iraq since 1991? So What??? Might I remind everyone here that in 1995 (or was it 1996?) the US Congress passed a bill directing the government to work towards regime change there? This is not exactly news. Or a Bush conspiracy. OK, so a bunch of people inside and outside of government have been working for the overthrow of Saddam for a decade. So what? It's the right thing to do by any account. Ooooo... People have been trying to do the right thing out of the public eye for a decade. How friggen scary.
Uhhh... Exactly how does this equate to "Iraq is not a part of the war on terror"? That's basically what you're trying to say, and it doesn't wash. Like so many of your theories lately, utter nonsense... Are you denying that Bush said "and the states that support them"? Because I remember that pretty clearly. I think it's a matter of public record, if you want me to pull it up... Or are you just denying that Saddam supports terrorism? Which is it? I don't know what sequence that the administration has chosen, but Syria is certainly on our sh*tlist. My guess is that Iran would be dealt with before Syria, though, since they are more deeply involved in the global Islamic terrorist movement, and since they are Syria's direct benefactors. Possibly Hizbollah before we deal with Damascus, too... For the record, though, I don't think that Iran and Syria will necessarily require invasions. There are other ways to deal with them. Iran, for example, is close to revolution. It might not be too hard to give the revolutionary movement there a little kick in the ass... But yeah, Syria's on the list. One battle at a time. Oh, and it is highly possible that Saddam has transported much of his WMD stocks to Syria (in order to avoid the inspectors accidentally tripping over them in the dark). There has been quite a bit of intelligence indicating that this is the case. If so, that does not reflect well on the Assad Jr regime.
Dude every post of yours I read makes me laugh even more than the one before. I'm sure Bush's intention is to asure American supremacy over the world. He's not Dr Evil you know. What have you got against ruling the world anyway?
