Again, Rumsfeld has stated unequivocally on 4/29/04 that the Iraq war has nothing to do with the war on terror. Link
So, we stand for morality and democracy to such an extent that we'll (latest claim) invade another nation to implement it, but some claim it's ok to abandon both if we feel others do the same? The last vestige of any kind of rationale for this war is premised on the moral highground, and the idea that it's an absolute. Those who advocate abandoning that highground to come down to the level of terrorists as a response are, in the same breath, eliminating our last pretense for justifying the war.
Do you pay attention? It's specifically in the region of Iraq over which Saddam had no control, or even access, because of the UN stipulations. He was on record as saying he wished he could go into that region to clear our camps like that mentioned, not out of altruism, but consistent with his prime motivator: absolute power.
RUMSFELD: Well, It’s not a matter for me to see it, but the—the Central Intelligence Agency and the director of central intelligence has testified to the relationships between Iraq and terrorists. This is what Rumsfeld stated. He later stated that there is no connection betwen 9-11 and Iraq. This in no way means that Iraq is not part of the War on Terror. 9-11 was one of many terrorist acts, committed by one of many terrorist groups. The War on Terror is broader than what you imply, thereby making your statement false and inaccurate. Sorry 'bout that, rookie.
Al-Z was in the Northern part where the no-fly zone was in place. There's no connection between him and Saddam. He was ultimately our responsibility and we chose to place invading Iraq over dealing with terrorists. See a pattern?
This is the second time you have made this assertion in this thread alone! And frankly I'm growing weary of it! No one, NO ONE has berated troops. In this thread or any other. you need to stop it
just shut the f*ck up. instead of sympathizing and/or rationalizing with what and why this happened, the first thing you do is mention "liberals." do you not think for yourself, or are you just some sort of brain dead "republican" mouthpiece? as Refman said, you are nothing but a shill.
It took tj exactly 13 minutes from the start of the thread to post this little gem- And now he gleefully continues to exploit this tragedy in service of whatever twisted purpose he thinks he's accomplishing.
The United States enacted 9-11, then. Logic: Where were they when they attacked the WTC? Answer: the United States of America. Therefore, using NYJ reasoning, the US is shown to be behind 9-11. Look, I know that no one here even pretends that you, T_J or similar are even trying to argue based on reason any more, but for the sake of entertainment alone, could you guys put a little more effort into the empty rhetoric?
It doesn't deem like a big deal because it was expected. It won't even be the last. None is worse than the other. One American's life is not worth what happened to all those Iraqis, and vice versa. God knows how many people were killed in Iraq, and God knows how many Americans were tortured but not on tape. The only important thing is that there's no control right now.
An American is beheaded on videotape, and the only thing the liberals can do is launch into their typical attacks on American intelligence and American leaders. Why not be consistent and show some outrage at this heinous act? We surely know that you are capable of showing outrage. You've been outraged for months now. Why stop now? (oh, I almost forgot why... because this news doesn't advance your lunatic fringe agenda... )
Thanks for admitting that. Next. Broader, huh? Just because we call it a "War on Terror" doesn't mean we have to start a war!!! We didn't invade Columbia but we have a "War on Drugs." Dude, a "broader" terrorist effort is one thing but invading a sovergn country is a whole other proposition. BTW, I thought you don't resort to name calling..."rookie?"
OK, let me see if I can do this using words that are one or two syllables: To go to war, Bush needs to pretend Al-Q and Saddam are buddies... so, Powell goes to the UN and mentions Al-Z in his speech. Bush gambles (and wins, as your posts prove) that most people won't figure out that Al-Z is in a region controlled by the US. It would have been easy to take him out and we had a number of chances to do just that. But if you do that, then you have no link, not even a pretend one, between Al-Q and Saddam.
This is EXACTLY right. I don't want our behavior to even be on the same plane as these jackasses. Not even in the same ballpark. The very idea that we would have something to compare against them bothers me. Awful events. Awful news.
