-
Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!
Democrats Win Washington State
- Thread starter Brino
- Start date
- Status
member2686
Banned
Sometimes "agreeing to disagree" is the best thing to do. Shake hands and don't argue, etc. 
:hatsoff:
:hatsoff:
member5726
Banned
So Reagan was good why exactly, for giving weapons to terrorists in exchange of some hostages ?georges said:
Just teasing you Georges... 
XanderJack
Banned
Did I see that it is better to live in a country run by conservatives, then by liberals...Are you kidding me? You mention Canada not having an army, big deal, they dont have to worry about any kind of aggresive movement against them, because they don't have some war happy monkey boy pissing everybody off. And, don't try to justify Iraq, we had no right to go over there. Lets make a hypothetical situation: Lets say you have a son, and your sons friend is getting beaten by his parents. Is it your resposibility to go over there and take the son from his parents? No, you go and tell the authorities and they take care of it. Well America should have let the UN handle the investigation. Now if Iraq would have attacked the US, then yes, we would have had all right to go over there and start a war, but Saddam and Iraq had never launched any kind of attack on us. Anyways, I don't like to rant about politics...riiight. Also, if you want the right and freedom to believe what you want and to act as you want, then you better vote for the liberal. Because unless you are a W.A.S.P. conservatives are against you.
XanderJack said:
First I am not a WASP, I am orthodox of religion. Saddam finaced Al Quaeda and threatened America. Not everybody think like you and dictatorships need to be removed by force not by talks. The U.N is not so reliable and it was proven several times.
I have my point of view and you have yours.
georges said:
Saddam financed Al Qaeda? What proof do you have of that? Bin Laden called Saddam an infidel. Other then a long time ago, some members of what were or ended up being Al Qaeda briefly used a training facility outside of Baghdad. And I believe that is conjecture. What evidence of direct financing are you referring to?
Oh and BTW, although I am not religious per se - I suppose I am a WASP and I still think the Bush administration is the worst since the Nixon administration. And the worst internationally since the Johnson administration. In my opinion anyway.
Last edited:
mcrocket said:
I discussed about this in the older elections thread.Now read my response carefully.
read this weblog first
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_messopotamian_archive.html#1
it will help you to undertsand how Irak is safer.
About Bush's comments on not winning the war on terror, you TOTALLY took it out of contexts, as is typical. He said that you can't win a war on terror like you "win" a conventional war. You don't sit down at a table and someone signs surrender papers. You create a situation where the terrorists can't wage their war and then you will have "won."
Consider the facts presented in Stephen F. Hayes's book, The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of the last chapter (pp. 177-78) sums up some of the evidence:
Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...
Hayes is a writer for The Weekly Standard and much of his writing on the Saddam/Osama connection is available there for free; simply use the search engine and look for articles by Hayes.
According to Laurie Mylroie, a former Harvard professor who served as Bill Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign (during which Vice-Presidential candidate Gore repeatedly castigated incumbent President George H.W. Bush for inaction against Saddam), the ringleader of the World Trade Center bombings, Ramzi Yousef, was working for the Iraqi intelligence service. Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2d rev. ed. 2001).
Although Saddam never threatened the territorial integrity of America, he repeatedly threatened Americans. For example, on November 15, 1997, the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein's son Uday) ordered: "American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces." (Stephen Hayes, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004), p. 94.) On November 25, 2000, Saddam declared in a televised speech, "The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests everywhere and target those who protect these interests."
On the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a weekly newspaper owned by Uday Hussein said that Arabs should "use all means-and they are numerous-against the aggressors...and considering everything American as a military target, including embassies, installations, and American companies, and to create suicide/martyr [fidaiyoon] squads to attack American military and naval bases inside and outside the region, and mine the waterways to prevent the movement of war ships..."
Moreover, the Saddam regime did not need to make verbal threats in order to "threaten" the United States. The regime threatened the United States by giving refuge to terrorists who had murdered Americans, and by funding terrorists who were killing Americans in Israel. Saddam gave refuge to terrorists who had attacked the United States by bombing the World Trade Center. In addition:
In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more…
.Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam….On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition’s presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)
Hitchens, Slate. The cited article is David E. Sanger & Thom Shanker, "A Region Inflamed: Weapons. For the Iraqis, a Missile Deal That Went Sour; Files Tell of Talks With North Korea, New York Times, Dec. 1, 2003.
As French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin stated on November 12, 2002, "The security of the United States is under threat from people like Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and biological weapons." (Hayes, p. 21.) De Villepin's point is indisputable: Saddam was the kind of person who was capable of using chemical weapons, since he had actually used them against Iraqis who resisted his tyrannical regime. As de Villepin spoke, Saddam was sheltering terrorists who had murdered Americans, and was subsidizing the murder of Americans (and many other nationalities) in Israel.
Oh, BTW, we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan first, before turning to Iraq. We destroyed the primary Al Qaeda network, liberated a nation, and reduced the ability of the terrorists to do major damage, before turning to iraq to both reduce international terrorisme more AND deal with a nation that had already invaded a neigboring country and violated 14 UN resolutions.
ND had repeatedly shot at (and therfore attempted to kill) American and british pilots enforcing the "no fly zone" over portions of Iraq, which were set in place after Saddam invaded Kuwait.
To Georges. My my. You certainly have done ALOT of research on this particular subject.
Well, you have certainly made a substantial point that there were connections between Al Quada and Saddam's regime. I guess I should have been more specific.
From my understanding, Al Queda is made up of many different cells as opposed to one centrally run organization. I should have said, what evidence is there that Saddam directly financed the cell that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? thatis the only attack that REALLY got America's interest (imo). But, from your sources then you are right in that Saddam (in some fashion at least) gave some assistance to Al Queda.
I was referrring more to the 9/11 attacks and Bin Laden personally. The latter did call Saddam an infidel.I mean his attack on Kuwait (and apparent threatened attack on Bin Laden's true home - Saudi Arabia) are what brought the Americans to Arab soil back in 1991 in the first place. And I believe that Bin Laden's big beef with the U.S. eminates from Americans stationed in Iraq fighting a Muslim country back in '91. Why on earth would Bin LAden like Saddam? He didn't need his money (from what I have heard). So why? Bin LAden does not seem like the kind of fellow that would go around calling someone an infidel that he liked or whose support he courted.
In so far as what you said that Bush said about Iraq. Does the fact that he said it make it right? No offense. But I believe that you automatically give his words more credence because he is a Republican President. And less credence to, say, Clinton's because he was a Democrat President. I give weight to whatever I hear until the evidence proves it wrong or a lack of evidence does not prove it right. Whether the source is on the right or the left. I have read your entries on this site for a few months now. And you seem to hate all that is left and love all that is right. That is dangerous (imo). Blind faith in someone has caused an incredible amount of destruction over the centuries. You seem to be at least somewhat of a student of history - surely you are aware of this.
And finally. Other then quotes from writers and so on. Do you have any factual, imperical data that proves catigorically that the world is a safer place now then it was before the second invasion of Iraq?
I am not saying that one less dictator is a bad thing. It is not. But to say that it is right for America to go around invading whomever they don't like sets a very bad precidence. By U.N. standards, it was an illegal invasion.
And what happens now if Russia decides to invade some country that it doesn't like? And they say that this country was harbouring terrorists and was turning into a dictatorship? How can America object? They invaded Iraq illegally. If Russia does the same then how can anyone object? What if Turkey decides to grab some of northern Iraq, claiming that they were attacked by the local government there and that Al Queda was taking over the local government? You really do not see the slippery slope that America is potentially taking the world?
Basically, if you are strong enough and you feel a country is not the way you think it should be - even if they haven't even threatened to attack you (which you wrote above that Iraq had not done. They had not threatened American sovereignty) - then go and take them out if you feel like it. Whether the UN likes it or not.
The United States signed the UN charter to stop wars. If they are going to break the laws they signed up for - then why cannot everybody else do the same?
Germany felt that way about France three times in the last 134 years or so (1871, 1918 and 1939). And look what happened there. Twice France was defeated. Once, completely occupied.
No. I think the UN is flawed. But it is the best system I think the world has ever had. And the U.S.'s actions are NOT (in my opinion) making the world a safer place.
There intentions are probably not bad. But there techniques are not that different from the local bullies. Do whatever they want to. After all. You can stop them?
Well, you have certainly made a substantial point that there were connections between Al Quada and Saddam's regime. I guess I should have been more specific.
From my understanding, Al Queda is made up of many different cells as opposed to one centrally run organization. I should have said, what evidence is there that Saddam directly financed the cell that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? thatis the only attack that REALLY got America's interest (imo). But, from your sources then you are right in that Saddam (in some fashion at least) gave some assistance to Al Queda.
I was referrring more to the 9/11 attacks and Bin Laden personally. The latter did call Saddam an infidel.I mean his attack on Kuwait (and apparent threatened attack on Bin Laden's true home - Saudi Arabia) are what brought the Americans to Arab soil back in 1991 in the first place. And I believe that Bin Laden's big beef with the U.S. eminates from Americans stationed in Iraq fighting a Muslim country back in '91. Why on earth would Bin LAden like Saddam? He didn't need his money (from what I have heard). So why? Bin LAden does not seem like the kind of fellow that would go around calling someone an infidel that he liked or whose support he courted.
In so far as what you said that Bush said about Iraq. Does the fact that he said it make it right? No offense. But I believe that you automatically give his words more credence because he is a Republican President. And less credence to, say, Clinton's because he was a Democrat President. I give weight to whatever I hear until the evidence proves it wrong or a lack of evidence does not prove it right. Whether the source is on the right or the left. I have read your entries on this site for a few months now. And you seem to hate all that is left and love all that is right. That is dangerous (imo). Blind faith in someone has caused an incredible amount of destruction over the centuries. You seem to be at least somewhat of a student of history - surely you are aware of this.
And finally. Other then quotes from writers and so on. Do you have any factual, imperical data that proves catigorically that the world is a safer place now then it was before the second invasion of Iraq?
I am not saying that one less dictator is a bad thing. It is not. But to say that it is right for America to go around invading whomever they don't like sets a very bad precidence. By U.N. standards, it was an illegal invasion.
And what happens now if Russia decides to invade some country that it doesn't like? And they say that this country was harbouring terrorists and was turning into a dictatorship? How can America object? They invaded Iraq illegally. If Russia does the same then how can anyone object? What if Turkey decides to grab some of northern Iraq, claiming that they were attacked by the local government there and that Al Queda was taking over the local government? You really do not see the slippery slope that America is potentially taking the world?
Basically, if you are strong enough and you feel a country is not the way you think it should be - even if they haven't even threatened to attack you (which you wrote above that Iraq had not done. They had not threatened American sovereignty) - then go and take them out if you feel like it. Whether the UN likes it or not.
The United States signed the UN charter to stop wars. If they are going to break the laws they signed up for - then why cannot everybody else do the same?
Germany felt that way about France three times in the last 134 years or so (1871, 1918 and 1939). And look what happened there. Twice France was defeated. Once, completely occupied.
No. I think the UN is flawed. But it is the best system I think the world has ever had. And the U.S.'s actions are NOT (in my opinion) making the world a safer place.
There intentions are probably not bad. But there techniques are not that different from the local bullies. Do whatever they want to. After all. You can stop them?
Last edited:
1) Did you ever heard of Al Zarquawi? He was in Saddam's army before then when Saddam was defeated he decided to create a group of extremists terrorists. He was sharing Ben Laden's ideas and beliefs even serving at the time Saddam had an army. The group of Al Zarquawi beheaded Americans maybe you never heard of that but Al Zarquawi is sharing the same beliefs than Ben Laden.mcrocket said:
2) Have you seen the film "Black Hawk Down"? Did you realize that the war in somalia was a failure and happned under Clinton? Did you also realize that Clinton made nothing when th 1st bombing of the wtc happened in 1995 and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole happened a year later?
Now let's take your ignorant golden sentences" I have read your entries on this site for a few months now. And you seem to hate all that is left and love all that is right. That is dangerous (imo). Blind faith in someone has caused an incredible amount of destruction over the centuries. You seem to be at least somewhat of a student of history - surely you are aware of this. "
This is false and absolutely false. Too many mistakes were done under Clinton.
However some good things were done under the Democrats under FDR, Truman and Carter with the peace talks between Israel and Egypt.
The Vietnam war was an unuseful war which lasted nearly 10 years. As far as I know it was started by a Democrat.
First you don't know me personnally so how can you make a quick judgement on me? Answer me please? You are not Mr Knowitall and you can't read through my mind, so quit saying misleading things when you don't know people. Second, I amn't a student in history, wrong again.Third, what you said is dangerous for the reasons I quoted above:
-you are making quick misleading judgements on a person you don't know personnally.
-you are giving misinformation about people's information ex: You said that I am student but I amn't a student.
It is not a question of blind faith. It is more a question of being realistic and having the sense of duty and discipline which are completely different things. You must always anticipate before the situation becomes worse.
3) Read the older threads related to War in Iraq and presidential elections you will find all the answers you need.
The U.N. did nothing against the Darfur genocide, the conclusion U.N. is a flawed organization.It has failed in Lebanon and in Serbia.
As far as I know Russia invaded Chechenya without UN's authorization.
You must eradicate extremism and terrorism before it invades your country.
The U.S. soldiers represent the majority of the U.N. soldiers and the U.S. has also the veto vote something you didn't mention.
France wasn't defeated in 1918, revise your history.It has some of the most brilliant pilots like Nungesser, Fonck, Gynemer and Costes which lead the air war from 1917 to 1918. It has also won the battle of the Marne.
You forgot to talk about the resistance and the volunteers who joined allied armies to fight the nazis. De Gaulle before ww2 said to the president that tanks and planes were needed but none wanted to listen to him and instead of that France built the Maginot line.
That is all what i had to say to you.
XanderJack
Banned
Lets just stop talking about it. The American government is fucked up, and will always be fucked up with a two party system. Republicans and Democrats are so closely related, it is pathetic. We need a third party system to help change America, and that won't happen for awhile. I think it is funny how most Americans think our gov. is so clean. We train terrorists to kill people we dont like, perform assasinations on leaders we disagree with, and kill 10,000+ Iraqi civilians and say we are "helping bring peace to their land" sorry, but we are the evil government. Also, if you dont think that Bush is the closest thing to a dictator this country has seen, you are just living in a dream world
member5726
Banned
XanderJack said:
Amen to that... we have 4 parties in Canada and i think the country is better for it... the party in power have less leverage so they have to try to please everybody... not just do whatever they want like the Republicans are doing right now... :2 cents:
Do you think that the other governments aren't fucked up?XanderJack said:
Do you think that European governments are that good? Then you are wrong.
Training terrorists? Probably you were meaning what happned in Afghanistan in year 1989. Was Saddam a better thing for Iraquis? No. Bush is not a dictator so why do you portray him as a dictator ?
Hitler was a dictator and Stalin was a dictator same was for Franco and Mussolini.
I really wish our government would not follow all of George Bush's decisions all the time it would probably be better if we took a european approach and acted more independently, all governments are fucked up at this time infact you could argue that democracey really is not all it's cracked up to be including the E.U but it really is the only method to adopt and there are cracks and flaws with every government, it still suprises me that Bush is such a popular man in more than half of the Americans populations eyes though as you could say he is a cowboy or perhaps an indirect murderer (that may be a little harsh) and i always thought presidents where supposed to have a certain degree of intelligence. You also just have to look at the situation in the Ukraine to see how flawed voting systems are and how the wrong men with the huge amount of cash always seems to get in these positions which to me describes how corrupt and ellitest the world of politics is. The three party system here in the UK is just as fucked up xanderjack if you got an extra party involved it would not improve the situation, you would still get the lieing and the cheating which people in todays world are sick of, you would still get governments portraying that they are helping the children and the elderly when really they will be living it up like the greedy fatcats that the majority of them are, pensions are the lowest in the world here in the UK and the government act as though they are doing something to help these people struggling to pay bills and constantly living on a knife edge, it pisses me off the way they cannot deal with things realisticly, this probably applies to the majority of other countrys in the world with democracey aswell although communist countrys will be in a worse situation. I know what people are trying to say in that if you have more parties you have more option the sad truth is they are all looking out for themselves and put on a front, as it's human nature to do this.
- Status
Similar threads
