If the election was held today...

[Carl.]

Nice counter. But this war isn't exactly cold is it? I think septermber 11th proved that a lack of action can't succeed.

That's if you believe 9/11 was related to Saddam. I don't, since there's absolutely no proof of that. And yes, 9/11 is a good example how of a lack of some actions, and a lack of foresight in other actions can't succeed.

 

[Danoff]

That's if you believe 9/11 was related to Saddam. I don't, since there's absolutely no proof of that.

I disagree. I don't think that Saddam was related to 9/11 either but I still think that the war in Iraq is a counter terrorism move. See my previous post for how.

 

[Carl.]

I disagree. I don't think that Saddam was related to 9/11 either but I still think that the war in Iraq is a counter terrorism move. See my previous post for how.

By using another country as a decoy. Nice.

 

[Danoff]

By using another country as a decoy. Nice.

Well, our military is the real target. Which I prefer to civilians as targets.

 

[87chevy]

ledhed I agree with you about NATO and you make a very good point about Kerry vs. Bush. However, as much as i believe in the war on terror, we cannot let our country go to hell in the process. Bush is good for killing terrorists and all that jazz, BUT i do not believe Bush is good for our country(his domestic policies suck in my opinion, or lack there of)

rjensen11 what in the world do Puritans have to do with anything? Most americans probably don't even know who they are or what their beliefs are. I think it's quite obvious that there is an extreme lack of influence from puritan herritage.

 

[Danoff]

we cannot let our country go to hell in the process. Bush is good for killing terrorists and all that jazz, BUT i do not believe Bush is good for our country(his domestic policies suck in my opinion, or lack there of)

Domestic policies like reducing taxes to help spur the economy out of the recession he inherited?

 

[Kent]

If you look at it that way, what's happening in Israel is going on for decades, and it doesn't look like it'll end up any time soon. The strenght ratio between Israelis and the pakestinian looks pretty much the same as the US vs Al Quaeda, And they've not been able to make it stop or to slow it down yet on such a small territory, with pretty strong tactics. Now the playground is growing to the entire Middle East, or to some extent, worldwide. Good idea to be very careful about the possible outcome of our current actions, isn't it?

I think this might mold a new discussion all together.

I don't know where to begin.


I guess you meant Palestinians.
If that's the case I have a better idea of what you're saying.

On that note, the palestinians have 1 distinct advantage in a war against Israel compared to alkayda's ( ) war against American.

Base location.
Palestine has high population density and is located on the borders of Israel.
This makes it easier for them to supply "combatants" and attack soft civilian targets.

On the other hand, to attack home land America an operation is needed. That is probably why our (America's) biggest current danger is still right here on our own land.

Sadly, I don't see an end to foreign based terrorism without an active effort by the US to stop state sponsored terrorism.

I disagree. I don't think that Saddam was related to 9/11 either but I still think that the war in Iraq is a counter terrorism move. See my previous post for how.

Exactly, 👍
The war in Iraqi got rid of Saddam (which I support with out regard to the war on terror), and it allowed that terrorist pimple we call the middle east to pop.

By using another country as a decoy. Nice.

And to think I respect your post from earlier. ... jk.
Man, talk about going from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Dude, Iraq is not a decoy.
Saddam's was just the first name at the top of a list of dictators who are making the world a bad place.

More violence will come in the future no matter what the US does.

I want to go after them.
Not let them come after us.

Iran, Syria, Sudan, blah blah blah... on and on.

There are too many countries actively sponsoring terrorism in the world.
Something needs to be done or 9/11 will occur again.

Plus, if you believe Palestine and Israel are the final source and solution to the war on terror, then you should support the action against Saddam since it is commonly known that he did instigate violence by personally rewarding palestinian suicide bombers.
If you will accept FOX.

An excerpt:

Arafat stood by Hussein through that time, and Palestinians cheered when Iraqi Scuds landed on Tel Aviv.

Now Hussein is returning the favor, sending $25,000 checks to the families of suicide bombers and $10,000 to those killed attacking Israel.

I'm sure more can be found on the subject.

Now...
Moving along...

**** that **** bush sent us to war because he thought there were chemical weapons in
iraq, but obviously he hasn't found none.

Without addressing your personal views,
You can't speak like that in this forum or on the GTPlanet in general.
Please feel free to reffer to the Acceptable Use Policy in my signature.

Other than that, nice talkin with ya'll.
Later.

 

[Famine]

Base location.
Palestine has high population density and is located on the borders of Israel.

I'm reliably informed that these is not, and never has been, a country called "Palestine". Israel was not hewn from it, since it never existed.

Which has more right to exist - a soverign nation, created out of nothing 56 years ago, or an ancient "region" with no internationally recognised status?

This particular conflict has me scratching my head - how can you stop a cycle of violence like this?

 

[rjensen11]

Why do I need to specify who I am talking to when the post I am talking about is right above mine??? 💡

Ok, say the US and UK do have the highest teen pregnancy rates, you still did not give me any numbers. I do not seen the point in searching for this information, as I don't really care too much about it. And what about the rest of your points? You make WWII sound like it was a joke in your post. The Germans only killed like eight billion Jews--this is only Jews; this does not mention all the other people they killed during the war also--and I'm guessing that is not too bad of a thing to have on your record? Seems having all those murders on their record does not mean a whole lot. And let's not talk about the number of murders a country has committed because Russia has every beat by a long shot. Stalin only killed like eight billion of his own people while he held power.

And I also do not really see how teen pregnancies have anything to do with government control of things; the government has no control over what teens do with their lives. It is not the government responsibility to educate people about what can happen from having sex and that they should not do it; on that same note, it is not the school's responsibility to do so either; though as long as it does not cost a fortune, it cannot hurt for them to do so. But most of all, it is the parents responsibility to teach their children about this. They hold more influence over their children. They also are the ones that help to develop the child the most too.

All of this raises another point and that is every country is going to have it's fair share of problem. It does not matter if they are a large country or a small country, they are still going to have problems to deal with it. No matter what kind of legislation is put into effect, there will still be problems to deal with. These problems will never cease to exist--it just so happens that one problem will be replaced with another problem--whether that new problem is worse than the first one, it can be hard to tell, but there will always be something new to deal with.

I know WW2 was a major thing, and I'm not trying to downplay it, but if you look at a timeline, WW2 era is a small piece of time. Look at the US's history, and you'll find all sorts of times when America tried to "better" society. Its genocide of American Indians, all of the prohebitions (ones in hte 1800's that didn't follow through completely and the one in early 20th century that people realized cause more trouble than good.) The whole language filter thing, America is much more "Oh my gosh, did you hear that word that person said!" compared to pretty much the rest of the world. Public image is much more controlled and hidden, etc. Then the US public over-reacts to what Janet Jackson did at the superbowl, and is perfectly fine with everything else that's on TV (Violence, drugs, etc). As you can tell, it's a very hypocritical society.

 

[Carl.]

I guess you meant Palestinians.
If that's the case I have a better idea of what you're saying.

Palestinians Palestinians Palestinians Palestinians Palestinians Palestinians Palestinians Palestinians Palestinians Palestinians Palestinians Palestinians

Dude, Iraq is not a decoy.
Saddam's was just the first name at the top of a list of dictators who are making the world a bad place.

I was simply speaking of Danoff's point stating Iraq's invasion is a good move to counter terrorism, because it's better if they attack us there instead of doing it on American soil. Perhaps I should have said "to place a decoy (our military) in another country (still very damaging for its population). It may be good for us, if you but look at it from their perspective, I'm sure you wouldn't be very fond of that.

And is it preventing attacks in American soil? A 17 years old brainwashed suicide bomber attack in Iraq is very different scale from something as large in terms of planning, and resources, and impact as 9/11. Those kind of terrorists won't just blow themselves to kill a few military and civilians in Iraq. Same goes for little groups who take hostages and behead them.

Arafat stood by Hussein through that time, and Palestinians cheered when Iraqi Scuds landed on Tel Aviv.

Now Hussein is returning the favor, sending $25,000 checks to the families of suicide bombers and $10,000 to those killed attacking Israel.

As I stated this in the Photo from Iraq thread, that's the only valid terrorist link I can see with Saddam (if this is true), something that looks more plausible than so-called WMDs and Al-Quaeda links. But since we removed Saddam, I didn't notice any change in suicide bombings in Israel. Did you?

 

[Danoff]

It may be good for us, if you but look at it from their perspective, I'm sure you wouldn't be very fond of that.

Which would be.... not our fault since none of the suicide bombers are American.

 

[Solid Fro]

I found a very interesting article about Al Qaeda and Iraq links from the Weekly Standard.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:

Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.​

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:

Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.​

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets
​

​

 

[Kent]

As I stated this in the Photo from Iraq thread, that's the only valid terrorist link I can see with Saddam (if this is true), something that looks more plausible than so-called WMDs and Al-Quaeda links. But since we removed Saddam, I didn't notice any change in suicide bombings in Israel. Did you?

Well first off, just getting rid of 1 source of suicide bomber instagation is not gonna stop the whole thing, but does that mean we should ignore the fact that we did indeed get rid of a horrible instagator to the situation?

Now, regarding the links to terrorism.
>...<
Viper Zero,
you can work on that one.


I've got a bunch of other thread watching to do.

Btw, spend some time in the gt4 forum and all the sudden this place seems calm and tempered.

 

[87chevy]

Btw, spend some time in the gt4 forum and all the sudden this place seems calm and tempered.

no way! i'm gonna have to check that out *scampers off to GT4 forum*

 

[Carl.]

I found a very interesting article about Al Qaeda and Iraq links from the Weekly Standard.

Great. I've also read these news:

News from today

News from June

Sorry if there's still doubts in my mind.

Btw, spend some time in the gt4 forum and all the sudden this place seems calm and tempered.

I bet...

 

[Carl.]

Well first off, just getting rid of 1 source of suicide bomber instagation is not gonna stop the whole thing, but does that mean we should ignore the fact that we did indeed get rid of a horrible instagator to the situation?

I'm not sure I follow you, but what's an instagator?

Instigator - 12 times for tomorrow morning. (I'm so funny today)

What concerns me the most beyond punishing the horrible instigators are the event that stirred up that kind of hatred. It's not genetic, and I don't think some people just woke up some day to decide to blow themselves up because they hate us without having second thoughts about it.

 

[Danoff]

What concerns me the most beyond punishing the horrible instigators are the event that stirred up that kind of hatred. It's not genetic, and I don't think some people just woke up some day to decide to blow themselves up because they hate us without having second thoughts about it.

...takes years of religious brain washing.

 

[Solid Fro]

Great. I've also read these news:

News from today

News from June

The first article on CNN.com is about intelligence problems with WMD. Nothing to do with terrorism.

The second article is on the Seattle Times' website discussing the 9/11 hearings not finding any credible evidence linking the 9/11 attacks with Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11! My item in question is Al-Qaeda and Iraq supporting each other. Even the 9/11 commission said Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda.

Liberals and Anti-Americans love to blur 9/11, Al-Qaeda, and Iraq all in one and confuse the normal American. They hide their little secret deep in their article or report.

 

[Carl.]

...takes years of religious brain washing.

Strange that they also think the same about us. (replace religious with either imperialism, capitalism or others...) But, that's ok, because we're right and they're wrong, and if they don't get it, we'll make them see it the hard way if necessary. (ehm, I think they also have similar thoughts, but that's another story)

Nice ingredients for a hot and spicy recipe!

It's been a while since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, eh?

Ok. that was perhaps a bit too much cynical. That's still what I fear.

 

[Danoff]

But, that's ok, because we're right and they're wrong, and if they don't get it, we'll make them see it the hard way if necessary.

Make them see it the hard way? Are we forcing capitalism or religion on them? The only thing I can even begin to see us forcing on them is democracy. I don't know how anyone could really complain about having control over thier government, but Iraq's previous government pretended to be a democracy anyway. The only real difference is that now their vote will actually be counted and they won't be killed if they don't vote for Saddam.

Anyway I don't see how we're making them see it the hard way. I see us as having left them alone for the most part and some of them having come over here to blow up our buildings.

 

[Carl.]

The first article on CNN.com is about intelligence problems with WMD. Nothing to do with terrorism.

The second article is on the Seattle Times' website discussing the 9/11 hearings not finding any credible evidence linking the 9/11 attacks with Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11! My item in question is Al-Qaeda and Iraq supporting each other. Even the 9/11 commission said Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda.

Liberals and Anti-Americans love to blur 9/11, Al-Qaeda, and Iraq all in one and confuse the normal American. They hide their little secret deep in their article or report.

So Saddam, supposedly had serious ties with Al Quada, but had nothing to do with Al Quaeda's biggest hit (now that it's clear).

And this is an excerpt of a speech Osama gave after 9/11:

"The socialists and these rulers have lost their credibility of their rule a long time ago and the socialists are infidels wherever they are - whether in Baghdad or Aden [Yemen]"

Is Saddam really looking like Osama's best buddy?

 

[Danoff]

Uh oh!!! I happen to think that the socialists lost their credibility a long time ago. They're infidels in my book too!!!




Luckily I'm still not getting the urge to blow myself up.

 

[87chevy]

GoKents was right, the GT4 forum is a horrible place. People fighting all over the place and n00bs starting stupid threads, that have been done a thousand times over, all over the place! it's a jungle in there.

oh, uh i guess ineed something on topic....

Kill'em all and let God sort'em out!



















na, j/k

 

[Carl.]

Uh oh!!! I happen to think that the socialists lost their credibility a long time ago. They're infidels in my book too!!!




Luckily I'm still not getting the urge to blow myself up.

I'm not the only one who's funny today... we're friday right?

Well, have to leave, that's it for today.

Farewell. * put back sword in to sleeve *

 

[Solid Fro]

Uh oh!!! I happen to think that the socialists lost their credibility a long time ago. They're infidels in my book too!!!




Luckily I'm still not getting the urge to blow myself up.

Haha, nice. 👍



I think jpmontoya gave us the wrong link. First, it wasn't right after 9/11. The date says Feb. 12, 2003. This speech only strengthens the links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

"A message to our Muslim brothers in Iraq ... we are following with great interest..."

"the war of infidels led by America with its allies..."

"Our Iraqi mojahedin brothers in Iraq, don't be scared of what America is propagating, such as the lies about its forces and its smart bombs and laser-guided bombs..."

"Muslims as a whole, and in Iraq in particular, should pull up their sleeves and carry Jihad against this oppressive offensive..."

"The socialists and these rulers have lost their credibility of their rule a long time ago and the socialists are infidels wherever they are - whether in Baghdad or Aden."

 

[Kent]

Just wanted to mention that I've just caught some footage from the most recent high profile Kerry fund raiser.



Very sad in my opinion.
Sorry, but the whole, I'm gonna play guitar on stage with dave mathews and bon jovi just doesn't cut it for me in a post 9/11 world.
(That also reminds me of Kerry stealing Neil Cavuto's line about better hair... how chessy does it get? Maybe I shouldn't ask that about a man who grew up spending summers in France. )

Even worse was the interview with chevy chase.
For real, now I know why chevy is an out of work actor and not a successful buisness man.

The whole thing just felt dirty.
Like a high school party the night before prom.
Everything was about the in-crowd and nothing seemed to be about the important stuff.

It just makes me ask myself, what the hell does Dave Mathews know about the world?
What kind of educations do these singers and actors have?

Sure they make great money (not as much as what Kerry's worth) but what in the world makes their opinions important?

Did they get Poli. Sci. degrees on the side while at acting school?
Maybe a MBA after their first big ablum hit #1 on the top 40?

I mean, Bon Jovi !?

Any way, this is just me venting so try not to let me get you guys too upset.

 

[Solid Fro]

Fox News has an article with all the slander the Liberals had to say about Bush:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125141,00.html

I think the worse one was where Whoopi Goldberg referenced her 'bush' with President Bush:

"I Xeroxed my behind and I folded it up in an envelope and I sent it back with a big kiss mark on because we're Democrats — we're not afraid to laugh,"

I thought she had more respect for herself than that. She was a respected actress in my book for so long, including many guest apperances on Star Trek: The Next Generation. Now she is a washed up actress without a job or contract, how pitiful for her.

You would think that Kerry or Edwards would put a stop to this slander, but no, they sat back and laughed.

Kerry could be seen laughing uproariously during part of Goldberg's tirade — and neither he nor Edwards voiced a single objection to its tone when they spoke to the crowd.

Even Howard Dean had the morals to object to slander at his fund raiser.

Last fall, Howard Dean ran into a similar problem when a New York fund-raiser turned into a stream of ugly racist jokes and X-rated Bush-bashing — but Dean instantly came out and said he didn't like the tone of some of the jokes.

The image of Whoopi's ass would make anyone hurl a load.

 

[Famine]

The phrase "Open up a can of Whoop ass" takes a whole new horrible twist...

 

[Carl.]

I think jpmontoya gave us the wrong link. First, it wasn't right after 9/11. The date says Feb. 12, 2003.

I never said, right after, but after 9/11.

A message to our Muslim brothers in Iraq ... we are following with great interest..."

"the war of infidels led by America with its allies..."

"Our Iraqi mojahedin brothers in Iraq, don't be scared of what America is propagating, such as the lies about its forces and its smart bombs and laser-guided bombs..."

"Muslims as a whole, and in Iraq in particular, should pull up their sleeves and carry Jihad against this oppressive offensive..."

Looks to me he's trying to rally Muslims from everywhere, including the Muslims of Iraq, AND

"The socialists and these rulers have lost their credibility of their rule a long time ago and the socialists are infidels wherever they are - whether in Baghdad or Aden"

That doesn't seem to be addressed at members of Saddam's regime.

 

[Duke]

That doesn't seem to be addressed at members of Saddam's regime.

That was our point, I think. It looked like you were saying that Bin Laden's comment about socialists losing their credibility was aimed at Hussein, meaning that you didn't think there was much connection between the two.