1  2  3  4  Next

http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html

Hmmmmm.

   

Well, from reading "Dude, Where's my country?" (I know it's biased but MM has alot of sources in there, so as far as I am concerned, it is legit) Osama and Saddam did talk, but Saddam was not interested. Saddam and Osama *supposedly* didn't get along because of two things.

One, Osama wanted Iraq as a theocratic Islamic state, as that is what religion his organization follows, but also that Osama was pissed at Saddam because of the first Gulf War, believing that it was Saddam's fault that infidels (American troops in this case) were allowed near the Muslim holy city of Mecca. Anyway, thats my thought. The CIA and Osama have better contacts, and Saddam and Rumsfeild were "buddies" before the first Gulf War.

   

Colin Powell says there's no connection, the CIA says there's little or no connection, the 9-11 Commission said there was no direct link. I just watched Dickless Cheney spend half a debate trying to dance around similar lies.

Give it up Third Eye...Osama and Saddam are about as close as you and I.

   

I assume you read the whole thing and all of the sources then? Didn't think so. I never said any of it was fact, but discounting all of it without even looking at it will never get you any closer to the truth.

   

Alright Eyeball, let's just imagine for a minute that some miracle happens and it is proven that Saddam personally paid for the flight training and shipped the terrorists to America on his own personall yacht. Do you really think it wise to throw your country into war based on an assumption? And do you realise the precident that 'pre-emptive' war sets? After the fact is not the time to justify a war.

Neo-cons are sick in the mind.

   

I don't believe any of the points made in the link attempt to link Saddam that closely with 9/11 itself. But then you'd know that if you read any of it.

It must be nice to be so sure that what you believe is right that you can so easily dismiss anything that might challenge your pre-conceptions and spoon-fed beliefs.

Preemption sets the precedent of - preemption. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing sets the precedent of appeasement (see WWII). I would rather have the "good guys" acting preemptively than the "bad guys".

After the fact is not the time to justify defense.

Lefties are sick in the mind. Wait a minute, they don't have a mind.

And the name is thirdEye. Grow up.

   

War is an extension of diplomacy. It should only happen after diplomacy fails.

Preemption skips over the whole diplomacy thing. Fighting wars based on fears and suspiscion sounds like the actions of madmen to me.

Maybe you could define good guys and bad guys for me?

And defense? Listen, I'm all for going after the folks responsible for attacking America. Afghanies and Saudis need to be held acountable for their part. How the hell do you define Iraq as defense?

   

Most informed folks know there is no connection. Unfortunately, a majority of americans believe there is and have just re-elected a psychopath because of it.

   

Most informed folks know there is no connection. Unfortunately, a majority of americans believe there is and have just re-elected a psychopath because of it.

   

polaco,

Why don't you have the courage to accept that liberalism was defeated, AGAIN. Get over it. Move forward.

   

Are you proud of living in a country that you yourself have just defined as narrow-minded and thoughtless, Ugly Yank?

   

You know it's amazing, though, that such a large percentage of Americans connect Saddam and Iraq with September 11th and Usama bin Laden. The Administration, I'm sure, will continue to instill this into the minds of unsuspecting Americans even after they've won the election.

   

They don't have time...they have to rev up the war machine for an illegal invasion of Iran next. They have oil too and PNAC has been looking for a new war.

They'll be going into this one with no allies except Israel though, and Iran has real weapons and a real army.

   

Rev,

Am I proud of my country?

Yup. Happy too. Even if a lib was president.

   

You don't seem happy, Ugly Child. You seem spoiled and violent and greedy and stupid. You seem belligerent and arrogant and ignorant and ill-educated. You do not seem happy or bright or reasonable or intelligent though. Your founding fathers are spinning in their graves at what you fools have done to a once-great country, and you aren't even bright enough to realise there's a problem.

   

1  2  3  4  Next