Source?Kmarion wrote:
Umm 9/11 commision ?Bertster7 wrote:
It all smells suspiciously like bullshit to me. There has been nothing about any of this in any mainstream media, because it's not true.
Composed of both liberals and conservatives.
"Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action."
It was from a letter to Senate from ex-CIA director George Tenet. The CIA is a US political tool - if it wanted to finger someone it would just go and do so. The passage is pretty ropey as it is "our knowledge is evolving", etc. What's it evolving into? The required text to justify our political agenda?
Let's not forget George Tenet resigned in shame based on the misinformation that sent USA to Iraq.
Let's not forget George Tenet resigned in shame based on the misinformation that sent USA to Iraq.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-18 13:37:38)
Ah, yet another source I wouldn't be trusting then.CameronPoe wrote:
It was from a letter to Senate from ex-CIA director George Tenet. The CIA is a US political tool - if it wanted to finger someone it would just go and do so. The passage is pretty ropey as it is "our knowledge is evolving", etc. What's it evolving into? The required text to justify our political agenda?
Cheers for that.
When in doubt attack the source.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
When in doubt - find corrobaration from reliable mainstream sources. Find me a quote from a paper I've heard of or a reputable news broadcaster, not a biased one like Fox, or on the flip side, Al Jazeera.Kmarion wrote:
When in doubt attack the source.
By evolving don't you think it's understandable not to release all information we have of on going links and terror camps. (How we obtain information, protect our resources?) It's like calling an escaped prisoner and telling them to stay where they are the police are on the way.Bertster7 wrote:
When in doubt - find corrobaration from reliable mainstream sources. Find me a quote from a paper I've heard of or a reputable news broadcaster, not a biased one like Fox, or on the flip side, Al Jazeera.Kmarion wrote:
When in doubt attack the source.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That's awfully convenient when all available evidence totally contradicts this postion.Kmarion wrote:
By evolving don't you think it's understandable not to release all information we have of on going links and terror camps. (How we obtain information, protect our resources?) It's like calling an escaped prisoner and telling them to stay where they are the police are on the way.Bertster7 wrote:
When in doubt - find corrobaration from reliable mainstream sources. Find me a quote from a paper I've heard of or a reputable news broadcaster, not a biased one like Fox, or on the flip side, Al Jazeera.Kmarion wrote:
When in doubt attack the source.
What you mean is give the government some time and they'll manage to fabricate some evidence that will be very hard to discredit. A bit like what happened with the WMD claims.
It's a balance. There are checks in place.
We already know how Blair feels.
"I have searched my conscience, not in a spirit of obstinacy; but in genuine reconsideration in the light of what we now know, in answer to that question. And my answer would be: that the evidence of Saddam's WMD was indeed less certain, less well-founded than was stated at the time. But I cannot go from there to the opposite extreme. On any basis he retained complete strategic intent on WMD and significant capability; the only reason he ever let the inspectors back into Iraq was that he had 180,000 US and British troops on his doorstep; he had no intention of ever co-operating fully with the inspectors; and he was going to start up again the moment the troops and the inspectors departed; or the sanctions eroded. And I say further: that had we backed down in respect of Saddam, we would never have taken the stand we needed to take on WMD, never have got the progress for example on Libya, that we achieved; and we would have left Saddam in charge of Iraq, with every malign intent and capability still in place and every dictator with the same intent everywhere immeasurably emboldened.
As I shall say later: for any mistakes, made, as the Report finds, in good faith I of course take full responsibility, but I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all. Iraq, the region, the wider world is a better and safer place without Saddam."
Those are his words.
We already know how Blair feels.
"I have searched my conscience, not in a spirit of obstinacy; but in genuine reconsideration in the light of what we now know, in answer to that question. And my answer would be: that the evidence of Saddam's WMD was indeed less certain, less well-founded than was stated at the time. But I cannot go from there to the opposite extreme. On any basis he retained complete strategic intent on WMD and significant capability; the only reason he ever let the inspectors back into Iraq was that he had 180,000 US and British troops on his doorstep; he had no intention of ever co-operating fully with the inspectors; and he was going to start up again the moment the troops and the inspectors departed; or the sanctions eroded. And I say further: that had we backed down in respect of Saddam, we would never have taken the stand we needed to take on WMD, never have got the progress for example on Libya, that we achieved; and we would have left Saddam in charge of Iraq, with every malign intent and capability still in place and every dictator with the same intent everywhere immeasurably emboldened.
As I shall say later: for any mistakes, made, as the Report finds, in good faith I of course take full responsibility, but I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all. Iraq, the region, the wider world is a better and safer place without Saddam."
Those are his words.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well he's got to say that hasn't he. He can't exactly say "Sorry. We got it all wrong and it was a horrible mistake", that would be political suicide.Kmarion wrote:
It's a balance. There are checks in place.
We already know how Blair feels.
"I have searched my conscience, not in a spirit of obstinacy; but in genuine reconsideration in the light of what we now know, in answer to that question. And my answer would be: that the evidence of Saddam's WMD was indeed less certain, less well-founded than was stated at the time. But I cannot go from there to the opposite extreme. On any basis he retained complete strategic intent on WMD and significant capability; the only reason he ever let the inspectors back into Iraq was that he had 180,000 US and British troops on his doorstep; he had no intention of ever co-operating fully with the inspectors; and he was going to start up again the moment the troops and the inspectors departed; or the sanctions eroded. And I say further: that had we backed down in respect of Saddam, we would never have taken the stand we needed to take on WMD, never have got the progress for example on Libya, that we achieved; and we would have left Saddam in charge of Iraq, with every malign intent and capability still in place and every dictator with the same intent everywhere immeasurably emboldened.
As I shall say later: for any mistakes, made, as the Report finds, in good faith I of course take full responsibility, but I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all. Iraq, the region, the wider world is a better and safer place without Saddam."
Those are his words.
I'm not one of Blair's biggest fans anyway.
My point was this misunderstanding isn't entirely "transatlantic" like the topic suggest.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ah, I see.Kmarion wrote:
My point was this misunderstanding isn't entirely "transatlantic" like the topic suggest.
Fair enough. We have really been getting a bit off topic haven't we.
Still, good debate.
My point:Bertster7 wrote:
Much more likely they had no involvement at all. The link between all the major terrorist attacks is Islam. Islamic extremists are the main threat from terrorism. Saddam was hated by all leaders of Islamic groups due to his secular rule. Bin Laden has stated his distaste for Saddam on several occasions. The rulers of Iran, another Islamic state that back terrorism, hate Saddam - and he hates them all right back.Pug wrote:
Bert:
Do you think it is MORE likely that Iraq supported terrorism or is it MORE likely they had no involvement at all?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the terrorism threat increase because of the Kuwait war? Isn't that when we were asked to help? So should we have not been involved at all?
I don't know where you got your information about terrorism and Kuwait. First Gulf war 1991, Lockerbie bombing - largest terrorist attack on US civilians till 9/11 1988. There was a lot of terrorism associated with the Ayatollah Khomeini throughout the 80's.
Let's set aside the absolute proof item for a second...you're going to discount anything put to your attention, so I'm not going to argue with you there.
Do you HONESTLY feel that Iraq was not, has not, and did not ever support terrorism? Don't you at least feel there is a good probability they were involved with terrorists in some fashion? Is it really that hard to believe it is likely?
The point on Kuwait was from the America's risk standpoint - the States weren't too vulnerable to Islamic terrorism until after Kuwait, in my opinion.
"Islamic extremists are the main threat from terrorism. Saddam was hated by all leaders of Islamic groups due to his secular rule. The rulers of Iran, another Islamic state that backs terrorism, hate Saddam."
I thought they hated Saddam? But now we created more terrorists by getting rid of him? WTF?
There were plenty of reasons for getting rid of Saddam. He was not a nice guy. You agreed with that, so who cares about proof at this point. 2nd - Yes, it's going to cause future violence. 3rd - Was it worth it? YES.
Seriously, you agreed with getting rid of Saddam...but I first asked you how to get rid of Saddam without invasion. You answered - why get rid of him? Iraq needs a brutal dictator. Why did we get rid of Saddam then?
Paint me a road map here...it seems your all over the place...
Um no, 20 % of Americans have passports, and as most europeans choose the United States as their number 1 travel destination, my guess is the other 80% choose not to leave the USA.TheFlipTop wrote:
Maybe its because most of Europe knows that only 5-10% of Americans have a passport, so the ones that get out and about a bit around the world are a little more enlightened, and most Ive ever met seem almost apologetic!kilgoretrout wrote:
I'm an American and I've been to Thailand and Australia in the past two years and my experience has been like what someone said above. The people I met didn't hate Americans, they just weren't really happy about the Bush administration. I met really friendly people both places that went out of their way to make me comfortable in their countries. However, I did my best to be friendly and respectful to the people I met. I figure Americans that go overseas and act like everyone should treat them like royalty since they're American wouldn't be well recieved, but I wouldn't like people coming over here and acting like that. What do you guys that live outside of America who have met American tourists think about that?
http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003 … merica.php
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris … sp?PID=591
Last edited by |AIA| DAS (2006-08-18 16:07:20)
I'm not all over the place at all. I've been very consistent in everything I've said.Pug wrote:
My point:Bertster7 wrote:
Much more likely they had no involvement at all. The link between all the major terrorist attacks is Islam. Islamic extremists are the main threat from terrorism. Saddam was hated by all leaders of Islamic groups due to his secular rule. Bin Laden has stated his distaste for Saddam on several occasions. The rulers of Iran, another Islamic state that back terrorism, hate Saddam - and he hates them all right back.Pug wrote:
Bert:
Do you think it is MORE likely that Iraq supported terrorism or is it MORE likely they had no involvement at all?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the terrorism threat increase because of the Kuwait war? Isn't that when we were asked to help? So should we have not been involved at all?
I don't know where you got your information about terrorism and Kuwait. First Gulf war 1991, Lockerbie bombing - largest terrorist attack on US civilians till 9/11 1988. There was a lot of terrorism associated with the Ayatollah Khomeini throughout the 80's.
Let's set aside the absolute proof item for a second...you're going to discount anything put to your attention, so I'm not going to argue with you there.
Do you HONESTLY feel that Iraq was not, has not, and did not ever support terrorism? Don't you at least feel there is a good probability they were involved with terrorists in some fashion? Is it really that hard to believe it is likely?
The point on Kuwait was from the America's risk standpoint - the States weren't too vulnerable to Islamic terrorism until after Kuwait, in my opinion.
"Islamic extremists are the main threat from terrorism. Saddam was hated by all leaders of Islamic groups due to his secular rule. The rulers of Iran, another Islamic state that backs terrorism, hate Saddam."
I thought they hated Saddam? But now we created more terrorists by getting rid of him? WTF?
There were plenty of reasons for getting rid of Saddam. He was not a nice guy. You agreed with that, so who cares about proof at this point. 2nd - Yes, it's going to cause future violence. 3rd - Was it worth it? YES.
Seriously, you agreed with getting rid of Saddam...but I first asked you how to get rid of Saddam without invasion. You answered - why get rid of him? Iraq needs a brutal dictator. Why did we get rid of Saddam then?
Paint me a road map here...it seems your all over the place...
I never said I agreed getting rid of Saddam was a good idea. He was not a nice guy, but I've also pointed out that his brutal regime kept Iraq in line and terrorist free. Why did you get rid of him? That's a very good question, I wish I knew the answer - it doesn't make any sense to me, the whole Iraq war seems very badly thought through.
There is no link between Saddam and Islamic terrorist groups, which is pretty much all of them. I would have nothing against any suggestions that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks with his own troops, but there has never been any evidence to suggest that was the case. Therefore there is nothing linking Saddam to terrorism - other than dubious reports from the Bush administration, eager to validate their war on Saddam.
Saddam had no links with any Islamic groups, terrorist or otherwise. All the terrorist groups in the region are extremist Islamic radicals. Therefore Saddam had no links to terrorism. It is possible that Saddam had aspirations to launch a terrorist attack against the US, but there has been no evidence to suggest that.
The Islamic state leaders do/did hate Saddam. By removing him from power the US has created more terrorists by:
1) Allowing extremist Islamic movements, banned under Saddam to be formed in Iraq. Under Saddam these sorts of extremist movements were deemed dangerous and the members arrested and tortured - not very nice, but it put people off terrorism. Now that Iraq is no longer under Saddams iron grip, Iranian terrorist groups have moved in. It's all about religion.
2) Bombing cities and occupying Iraq. Always creates terrorists - look at Israel/Palestine. Many of the Iraqis may have been happy about it - but lots aren't, look at the number who are blowing themselves up to get rid of US troops.
If you really believe there was more terrorism after Kuwait, then just consider that 651 Americans were killed by terrorists over the 80's - more than 3 times the number killed in the 90's.
*yawns*TheFlipTop wrote:
American foreign policy helps the resentment here i.e.R3v0LuT!oN wrote:
I think Europeans (and the rest of the world for that matter) resent the US mostly for our self-righteous arrogance and the "we don't care what the rest of the world thinks" attitude.
'Do what we say or we'll kick yer head in' about sums its up
The rest of the world is just waiting for the bully to get its inevitable comeuppance
Ok so, every country that doesn't do what the US wants gets invaded huh??? France would not support the US or allow them to fly over their airspace, and nothing happened.... Surprise. I think I can actually picture a monkey, throwing poo at his computer when you made those comments.
That's not true. Most Europeans do not choose America as their No. 1 travel destination.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Um no, 20 % of Americans have passports, and as most europeans choose the United States as their number 1 travel destination, my guess is the other 80% choose not to leave the USA.TheFlipTop wrote:
Maybe its because most of Europe knows that only 5-10% of Americans have a passport, so the ones that get out and about a bit around the world are a little more enlightened, and most Ive ever met seem almost apologetic!kilgoretrout wrote:
I'm an American and I've been to Thailand and Australia in the past two years and my experience has been like what someone said above. The people I met didn't hate Americans, they just weren't really happy about the Bush administration. I met really friendly people both places that went out of their way to make me comfortable in their countries. However, I did my best to be friendly and respectful to the people I met. I figure Americans that go overseas and act like everyone should treat them like royalty since they're American wouldn't be well recieved, but I wouldn't like people coming over here and acting like that. What do you guys that live outside of America who have met American tourists think about that?
http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003 … merica.php
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris … sp?PID=591
The majority of Europeans have never been to the US.
More than 90% have passports in the UK, 20% is not an impressive figure and is comparable to many 3rd world countries.
The US could never get away with invading France. What would the pretext be? They're all terrorists with WMDs - more true than it was in Iraq (French are one of the largest nuclear powers in the world and the French government have been involved in acts of terrorism, like the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior).|AIA| DAS wrote:
*yawns*TheFlipTop wrote:
American foreign policy helps the resentment here i.e.R3v0LuT!oN wrote:
I think Europeans (and the rest of the world for that matter) resent the US mostly for our self-righteous arrogance and the "we don't care what the rest of the world thinks" attitude.
'Do what we say or we'll kick yer head in' about sums its up
The rest of the world is just waiting for the bully to get its inevitable comeuppance
Ok so, every country that doesn't do what the US wants gets invaded huh??? France would not support the US or allow them to fly over their airspace, and nothing happened.... Surprise. I think I can actually picture a monkey, throwing poo at his computer when you made those comments.
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n191 … nanim2.gifhttp://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n191 … mputer.gif
READ THE 2nd LINKBertster7 wrote:
That's not true. Most Europeans do not choose America as their No. 1 travel destination.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Um no, 20 % of Americans have passports, and as most europeans choose the United States as their number 1 travel destination, my guess is the other 80% choose not to leave the USA.TheFlipTop wrote:
Maybe its because most of Europe knows that only 5-10% of Americans have a passport, so the ones that get out and about a bit around the world are a little more enlightened, and most Ive ever met seem almost apologetic!
http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003 … merica.php
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris … sp?PID=591
The majority of Europeans have never been to the US.
More than 90% have passports in the UK, 20% is not an impressive figure and is comparable to many 3rd world countries.
Yes, and I did not say anything about 20% being acceptable. However your 90% is not all that impressive either considering the UK is smaller than most US states.
BTW name a third world country with 300,000,000 citizens.
Last edited by |AIA| DAS (2006-08-18 16:43:08)
The point was that nothing happened... Other than renaming the french fries served in government buildings.Bertster7 wrote:
The US could never get away with invading France. What would the pretext be? They're all terrorists with WMDs - more true than it was in Iraq (French are one of the largest nuclear powers in the world and the French government have been involved in acts of terrorism, like the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior).|AIA| DAS wrote:
*yawns*TheFlipTop wrote:
American foreign policy helps the resentment here i.e.
'Do what we say or we'll kick yer head in' about sums its up
The rest of the world is just waiting for the bully to get its inevitable comeuppance
Ok so, every country that doesn't do what the US wants gets invaded huh??? France would not support the US or allow them to fly over their airspace, and nothing happened.... Surprise. I think I can actually picture a monkey, throwing poo at his computer when you made those comments.
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n191 … nanim2.gifhttp://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n191 … mputer.gif
Ah, when cost is not an issue - you didn't mention that. Because it is well known that top holiday destination for UK holidaymakers is Spain. Most Europeans spend their holidays in Europe.|AIA| DAS wrote:
READ THE 2nd LINKBertster7 wrote:
That's not true. Most Europeans do not choose America as their No. 1 travel destination.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Um no, 20 % of Americans have passports, and as most europeans choose the United States as their number 1 travel destination, my guess is the other 80% choose not to leave the USA.
http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003 … merica.php
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris … sp?PID=591
The majority of Europeans have never been to the US.
More than 90% have passports in the UK, 20% is not an impressive figure and is comparable to many 3rd world countries.
Yes, and I did not say anything about 20% being acceptable. However your 90% is not all that impressive either considering the UK is smaller than most US states.
BTW name a third world country with 300,000,000 citizens.
A third world country with more than 300 million population - India and China are the only countries with a larger population than the US. Both of those are considered to be 3rd world countries.
The UK has a population of 60 million, double that of Canada for example. Size of a nation means nothing when determining population.
Oh, and with reference to France - of course nothing happened. France are a member of the UN security council and a top nuclear power with probably the 4th largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Of course the US won't mess with them - they can fight back.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-18 17:08:05)
There are ways to "mess" with a country without fighting them...The US vs. France, yes that would take long, Pfft.Bertster7 wrote:
Ah, when cost is not an issue - you didn't mention that. Because it is well known that top holiday destination for UK holidaymakers is Spain. Most Europeans spend their holidays in Europe.|AIA| DAS wrote:
READ THE 2nd LINKBertster7 wrote:
That's not true. Most Europeans do not choose America as their No. 1 travel destination.
The majority of Europeans have never been to the US.
More than 90% have passports in the UK, 20% is not an impressive figure and is comparable to many 3rd world countries.
Yes, and I did not say anything about 20% being acceptable. However your 90% is not all that impressive either considering the UK is smaller than most US states.
BTW name a third world country with 300,000,000 citizens.
A third world country with more than 300 million population - India and China are the only countries with a larger population than the US. Both of those are considered to be 3rd world countries.
The UK has a population of 60 million, double that of Canada for example. Size of a nation means nothing when determining population.
Oh, and with reference to France - of course nothing happened. France are a member of the UN security council and a top nuclear power with probably the 4th largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Of course the US won't mess with them - they can fight back.
Third world countries are considered to be weak economically and technologiclly, and Neither China nor India are considered to be either.
Who said anything about the size of a nation determining population, the size of the UK was brought about to mean that there is not much land mass to explore IN the UK thus the reasoning for needing a passport.
Trying to invade France would be stupid. They're fed up with being invaded and they wouldn't put up with being invaded by the US and knowing they would lose in a straight fight they would start using nukes, they've got lots of them - every major US city would be hit and levelled, the US would retailliate - it would be catastrophic.|AIA| DAS wrote:
There are ways to "mess" with a country without fighting them...The US vs. France, yes that would take long, Pfft.Bertster7 wrote:
Ah, when cost is not an issue - you didn't mention that. Because it is well known that top holiday destination for UK holidaymakers is Spain. Most Europeans spend their holidays in Europe.|AIA| DAS wrote:
READ THE 2nd LINK
Yes, and I did not say anything about 20% being acceptable. However your 90% is not all that impressive either considering the UK is smaller than most US states.
BTW name a third world country with 300,000,000 citizens.
A third world country with more than 300 million population - India and China are the only countries with a larger population than the US. Both of those are considered to be 3rd world countries.
The UK has a population of 60 million, double that of Canada for example. Size of a nation means nothing when determining population.
Oh, and with reference to France - of course nothing happened. France are a member of the UN security council and a top nuclear power with probably the 4th largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Of course the US won't mess with them - they can fight back.
Third world countries are considered to be weak economically and technologiclly, and Neither China nor India are considered to be either.
Who said anything about the size of a nation determining population, the size of the UK was brought about to mean that there is not much land mass to explore IN the UK thus the reasoning for needing a passport.
China and India are both considered 3rd World Countries. In both the human development index and the human poverty index as commisioned by the UN - both come in the low end of the middle development scale. The term 4th world has been brought into use for a number of African states that are the worst off because of the appalling conditions there. Brazil is termed 3rd world and is higher in both development listings than either China or India. It is beyond any question that China and India are 3rd world states. India is ranked 2 places behind Namibia for fucks sake.
I take your point about land mass - fair enough.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-18 17:31:27)
A US invasion of any country in the EU would be devastating for the US.
Surely you mean the entire world.jonsimon wrote:
A US invasion of any country in the EU would be devastating for the US.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-19 00:37:52)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ok. Let's clear something up. SADDAM WAS A SECULARIST. That means he DIDN'T like religions that much. Hence why he massacred thousands to keep the islamic factions from destabilizing HIS system.
And I think he takes devestation for the world as assumed. Once the US goes and the EU goes we're in deep.
And I think he takes devestation for the world as assumed. Once the US goes and the EU goes we're in deep.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman