Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vote For the next President

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by indian airlines
    Agree, except for one thing. Saddam had never commited an "act of terror" towards the US. Was he a bad guy? Yes. Had he done anything to the US? No.

    And I'm all for rooting out terrorists (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic), but then why did George Bush leave the war in Afghanistan unfinished. the real terrorists - Al-Qaeda, are still very much present, and imo too much attention has been given to Iraq, and that has diverted America's focus from the core issue. It was Osama Bin Laden who was responsible for the worst terror attack on American soil, and he is still at large. Get him.
    The reason for getting Saddam was because we had intelligence on him that Iraq has been, and was willing, to cooperate with Al Qaeda. His desire to develop and/or acquire wmd's made that a bigger threat. The President felt that we could no longer sit by and allow Saddam to continue to play games, and bide time to acquire wmd's. That is why we went in at the time. I happen to agree with that conclusion And sKerry also did as well, as you can read in my prev. posts, until Howard Dean showed up

    Regarding Osama, I don't doubt that we are still tracking down Bin Laden, but the geography of Afghanistan has made it quite a bit harder to pinpoint him. It takes much more time to traverse the rocky terrain and mountain ranges to checkout "tips" regarding that bastards location. Hopefully, they will catch or kill him soon, and it'll be a happy day when Al Jazeera has to show a picture of Bin Laden, his body riddled with bullet holes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by billiam
      and it'll be a happy day when Al Jazeera has to show a picture of Bin Laden, his body riddled with bullet holes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by billiam
        Originally posted by indian airlines
        Agree, except for one thing. Saddam had never commited an "act of terror" towards the US. Was he a bad guy? Yes. Had he done anything to the US? No.

        And I'm all for rooting out terrorists (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic), but then why did George Bush leave the war in Afghanistan unfinished. the real terrorists - Al-Qaeda, are still very much present, and imo too much attention has been given to Iraq, and that has diverted America's focus from the core issue. It was Osama Bin Laden who was responsible for the worst terror attack on American soil, and he is still at large. Get him.
        The reason for getting Saddam was because we had intelligence on him that Iraq has been, and was willing, to cooperate with Al Qaeda. His desire to develop and/or acquire wmd's made that a bigger threat. The President felt that we could no longer sit by and allow Saddam to continue to play games, and bide time to acquire wmd's. That is why we went in at the time. I happen to agree with that conclusion And sKerry also did as well, as you can read in my prev. posts, until Howard Dean showed up

        Regarding Osama, I don't doubt that we are still tracking down Bin Laden, but the geography of Afghanistan has made it quite a bit harder to pinpoint him. It takes much more time to traverse the rocky terrain and mountain ranges to checkout "tips" regarding that bastards location. Hopefully, they will catch or kill him soon, and it'll be a happy day when Al Jazeera has to show a picture of Bin Laden, his body riddled with bullet holes
        you thought you had intelligent intelligance is a better way of putting it, really you had nothing! and thanks to your so called intelligence alot moer people have ended up with nothing and losing loved one.

        it's a faliure of huge dimensions, if you think it's not then you should go to Iraq and maybe start fighting if oyu believe in the intelligence so much. as for Bin Laden, GWB said a while back that he's not to concerned about him, since 2001 Bin Landen or AQ associated groups have succesfully bombed Bali, Madrid and countless other targets, and Mr Bush says he's not to concerned about him.

        he's the number one concern, not Saddam, Bin Laden dispises Hussein because they come from different sides of the Muslim spectrum, Bin Laden see's Hussein as a playboy who was not a real muslim. Bin Laden also called fellow Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam.

        hardly a match made in heaven, it's been long known that Bin Laden cannot stand Saddam.

        now go get educated then come back.


        next trips
        USA/DXB August.

        Comment


        • The reason for getting Saddam was because we had intelligence on him that Iraq has been, and was willing, to cooperate with Al Qaeda. His desire to develop and/or acquire wmd's made that a bigger threat. The President felt that we could no longer sit by and allow Saddam to continue to play games, and bide time to acquire wmd's. That is why we went in at the time. I happen to agree with that conclusion And sKerry also did as well, as you can read in my prev. posts, until Howard Dean showed up
          Yeah, well, we now know that there is no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but like they say, hindsight is 20/20. Either way, the very fact that this conclusion was arrived at creates a bit of a doubt as to whether Bush really did not know this or chose to ignore it.

          Regarding Osama, I don't doubt that we are still tracking down Bin Laden, but the geography of Afghanistan has made it quite a bit harder to pinpoint him. It takes much more time to traverse the rocky terrain and mountain ranges to checkout "tips" regarding that bastards location. Hopefully, they will catch or kill him soon, and it'll be a happy day when Al Jazeera has to show a picture of Bin Laden, his body riddled with bullet holes
          There I agree. I have absolutely nothing against anybody getting Osama. And I'm sure Al-Jazeera will shut down operations the day that happens.
          "The Director also sets the record straight on what would happen if oxygen masks were to drop from the ceiling: The passengers freak out with abandon, instead of continuing to chat amiably, as though lunch were being served, like they do on those in-flight safety videos."

          -- The LA Times, in a review of 'Flightplan'

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Longreach747
            it's a faliure of huge dimensions, if you think it's not then you should go to Iraq and maybe start fighting if oyu believe in the intelligence so much. as for Bin Laden, GWB said a while back that he's not to concerned about him, since 2001 Bin Landen or AQ associated groups have succesfully bombed Bali, Madrid and countless other targets, and Mr Bush says he's not to concerned about him.

            he's the number one concern, not Saddam, Bin Laden dispises Hussein because they come from different sides of the Muslim spectrum, Bin Laden see's Hussein as a playboy who was not a real muslim. Bin Laden also called fellow Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam.

            hardly a match made in heaven, it's been long known that Bin Laden cannot stand Saddam.

            now go get educated then come back.
            While AQ associated groups have claimed responsibility or blamed for attacks outside the US, the thing to remember is that they happened OUTSIDE the US. And their ties to AQ are somewhat loose anyway.

            I agree that Bin Laden is now the top target, but is it Bush's fault that the media has focused on reporting bad news from Iraq, versus news, good or bad, in Afghanistan?

            Take a look at this washtimes op ed on the AQ-Saddam connection:
            http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040...1402-8522r.htm
            NPR's Mike Shuster asserted in an interview, "Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994." Mr. Hayes also cites a Feb. 13, 1999, AP article, posted on CNN that day and published in The Washington Post on the following morning, on bin Laden's departure from Afghanistan, which stated, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."
            The article goes on about the media flip-flop from Iraq is a threat, during Clintoon's presidency, to "the threat is a myth".

            And, more evidence, from the right wing conspirators at PBS:
            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/mylroie.html
            [Convicted terrorist] Ramzi Yousef came into the United States on an Iraqi passport in the name of Ramzi Yousef, which is why he's known by that name. He left on a Pakistani passport in the name of Abdul Basit Karim, who is a real individual. He was a Pakistani born and raised in Kuwait, where his father worked.

            And oddly enough, most of that can be deduced from the evidence in the Trade Center trial, particularly the copies of the passport of Abdul Basit Karim that Ramzi Yousef presented to the Pakistani consulate in New York in December 1992 to obtain the passport on which he fled. The Kuwaitis maintained a file on Abdul Basit Karim because he was a resident alien, and that file was tampered with.

            There is considerable evidence that Iraqi intelligence tampered with documents in Kuwait when it occupied that country. Above all, the file of Abdul Basit Karim, on whose passport Ramzi Yousef fled the United States the night of the Trade Center bombing, was tampered with. Information was taken out, information was put in.
            ...
            The Clinton administration's unwillingness to identify Iraq as the suspected sponsor of the Trade Center bombing was a terrible blunder. Not only did the 1993 attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters not deter Saddam forever; indeed, Saddam was back already in January of 1995 with that plot in the Philippines.
            ...
            Well, there is significant evidence tying Hussein to bin Laden. There's evidence tying the plotters in the September 11 attack to Iraq directly. Above all, Mohammed Atta, who piloted the plane that first hit the Trade Center tower -- and that was a key figure in the conspiracy in the U.S. -- met repeatedly with Iraqi officials in Prague.

            Very notably, in June 2000, Atta traveled from Germany, where he was based, to Prague and met an Iraqi official there. Atta stayed there only 24 hours. That's the only purpose he had in going to Prague. He then flew to New Jersey on his first trip to the United States. He stayed here for six months, in that period of time taking pilot's training in Florida.
            It is key to note that the while the Bush administration backed off on a connection between the terrorist attack on 9/11 and Saddam, BUT NOT on the connection between AQ and Saddam. The key here is that Saddam, based on the intelligence AT THE TIME, where both dems and Republicans agreed that Iraq is a threat, because Saddam can give AQ and other terrorists wmd's, that sKerry signed a letter urging Clintoon to do more about Iraq, and later, voting to authorize the use of force against Saddam by the President Bush.

            Now we find that Saddam has been gaming the oil-for-food program, partly to stall, partly to use the money to reaquire/reconstitute wmd programs. This is consistent with what we know about Saddam and wmd's, he had them, used them on the Kurds, stockpiled them, and when forced to get rid of them, went on to try very hard to re-acquire them.

            Comment


            • Can any Democrats explain Kosovo yet?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by billiam
                Originally posted by Longreach747
                it's a faliure of huge dimensions, if you think it's not then you should go to Iraq and maybe start fighting if oyu believe in the intelligence so much. as for Bin Laden, GWB said a while back that he's not to concerned about him, since 2001 Bin Landen or AQ associated groups have succesfully bombed Bali, Madrid and countless other targets, and Mr Bush says he's not to concerned about him.

                he's the number one concern, not Saddam, Bin Laden dispises Hussein because they come from different sides of the Muslim spectrum, Bin Laden see's Hussein as a playboy who was not a real muslim. Bin Laden also called fellow Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam.

                hardly a match made in heaven, it's been long known that Bin Laden cannot stand Saddam.

                now go get educated then come back.
                While AQ associated groups have claimed responsibility or blamed for attacks outside the US, the thing to remember is that they happened OUTSIDE the US. And their ties to AQ are somewhat loose anyway.

                I agree that Bin Laden is now the top target, but is it Bush's fault that the media has focused on reporting bad news from Iraq, versus news, good or bad, in Afghanistan?

                Take a look at this washtimes op ed on the AQ-Saddam connection:
                http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040...1402-8522r.htm
                NPR's Mike Shuster asserted in an interview, "Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994." Mr. Hayes also cites a Feb. 13, 1999, AP article, posted on CNN that day and published in The Washington Post on the following morning, on bin Laden's departure from Afghanistan, which stated, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."
                The article goes on about the media flip-flop from Iraq is a threat, during Clintoon's presidency, to "the threat is a myth".

                And, more evidence, from the right wing conspirators at PBS:
                http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/mylroie.html
                [Convicted terrorist] Ramzi Yousef came into the United States on an Iraqi passport in the name of Ramzi Yousef, which is why he's known by that name. He left on a Pakistani passport in the name of Abdul Basit Karim, who is a real individual. He was a Pakistani born and raised in Kuwait, where his father worked.

                And oddly enough, most of that can be deduced from the evidence in the Trade Center trial, particularly the copies of the passport of Abdul Basit Karim that Ramzi Yousef presented to the Pakistani consulate in New York in December 1992 to obtain the passport on which he fled. The Kuwaitis maintained a file on Abdul Basit Karim because he was a resident alien, and that file was tampered with.

                There is considerable evidence that Iraqi intelligence tampered with documents in Kuwait when it occupied that country. Above all, the file of Abdul Basit Karim, on whose passport Ramzi Yousef fled the United States the night of the Trade Center bombing, was tampered with. Information was taken out, information was put in.
                ...
                The Clinton administration's unwillingness to identify Iraq as the suspected sponsor of the Trade Center bombing was a terrible blunder. Not only did the 1993 attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters not deter Saddam forever; indeed, Saddam was back already in January of 1995 with that plot in the Philippines.
                ...
                Well, there is significant evidence tying Hussein to bin Laden. There's evidence tying the plotters in the September 11 attack to Iraq directly. Above all, Mohammed Atta, who piloted the plane that first hit the Trade Center tower -- and that was a key figure in the conspiracy in the U.S. -- met repeatedly with Iraqi officials in Prague.

                Very notably, in June 2000, Atta traveled from Germany, where he was based, to Prague and met an Iraqi official there. Atta stayed there only 24 hours. That's the only purpose he had in going to Prague. He then flew to New Jersey on his first trip to the United States. He stayed here for six months, in that period of time taking pilot's training in Florida.
                It is key to note that the while the Bush administration backed off on a connection between the terrorist attack on 9/11 and Saddam, BUT NOT on the connection between AQ and Saddam. The key here is that Saddam, based on the intelligence AT THE TIME, where both dems and Republicans agreed that Iraq is a threat, because Saddam can give AQ and other terrorists wmd's, that sKerry signed a letter urging Clintoon to do more about Iraq, and later, voting to authorize the use of force against Saddam by the President Bush.

                Now we find that Saddam has been gaming the oil-for-food program, partly to stall, partly to use the money to reaquire/reconstitute wmd programs. This is consistent with what we know about Saddam and wmd's, he had them, used them on the Kurds, stockpiled them, and when forced to get rid of them, went on to try very hard to re-acquire them.
                so it's not as important if it doesn't happen in the US?? the fact that these attacks are still happening is enough to make us all worry, terrorism knows no boundaries or colours, religions etc, but the fact that it's still happening and being linked to Bin Laden and AQ is disturbiong.

                now i'm gonna watch a live webcast of the Qantas AGM.


                next trips
                USA/DXB August.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Longreach747
                  so it's not as important if it doesn't happen in the US?? the fact that these attacks are still happening is enough to make us all worry, terrorism knows no boundaries or colours, religions etc, but the fact that it's still happening and being linked to Bin Laden and AQ is disturbiong.

                  now i'm gonna watch a live webcast of the Qantas AGM.
                  Man, this is my last post for tonight...
                  I post facts, people nit-pick. Fair enough, no-one pointed a gun at my head to post

                  The fact is, one of POTUS's most important duty is the security of the US. In no way am I saying the attacks not in the US are "not as important", I was just pointing out the fact that they were NOT in the US, and thus, what Bush has done has helped secure the US. This thread is about the US Presidential elections, however, its scope has expanded Nations are responsible for their own security, via their own armed forces, and/or signing treaties with other countries that provide for a common defense and mutual assistance. Because the US is very much responsible for its own security, Bush has done whats needed to minimize the threat to the US and its citizens.

                  Is it Bush's fault that AQ has committed terrorist acts outside the US? Perhaps, if you take the view that the Madrid bombing was because Spain went alongside the US to topple Saddam, and AQ was angry about that. Or take the otherside, that Spain's own intelligence services failed to uncover the plot. Spain's internal security has experience with terrorists, mainly from ETA, so maybe they did not take the AQ threat as seriously. Terrorist attacks, is something you CAN prevent, but NOT ALWAYS prevent.

                  How about the kidnapping of french citizens by terrorists, because france enacted a new law barring the wearing of veils/hoods that Muslim women wear, in schools? This just shows that terrorists need barely a reason to do something violent against you.

                  If the countries that have had AQ attacks on their soil, and they are not contributing troops in Afghanistan, perhaps they should reconsider. They can join the 40 countries who already joined the US in Afghanistan.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X