I was under the impression that Dems and Repubs felt that Iraq had WMD's. I thought that was the reason. And I'll bet you like those crappy orange and black candies too:p :hammer: GAME OVER!!! I WIN! Yeah me!!:)
Yes
No
Ha Ha, he's not our president
I was under the impression that Dems and Repubs felt that Iraq had WMD's. I thought that was the reason. And I'll bet you like those crappy orange and black candies too:p :hammer: GAME OVER!!! I WIN! Yeah me!!:)
Originally Posted by lilchiken
Interesting thought. But I think saying that Saddy Dam ( I am not even going to give him the respect of spelling his name correctly) had nothing directly or indirectly with 9-11 or the events that led up to 9-11 is the actual myth.
This guy ordered his troops into the desert during Operation Desert Shield and then left them there with little or no supplies to survive while his beloved republican guard were treated like kings.
When US troops would happen along the non-republican guard troops, they thankfully surrendered and ask if we had any food. What a leader. He could and would not even outfit them with the basic needs.
I cannot believe that anyone would believe that ole saddy dam was not bankrolling bin ladumb and the boys.
Almost no doubt that GW will be replaced in the next election. I cannot wait to see how he/she will be critized about the war which will still be going on if Isreal or Lebanon haven't nuked the whole place by then.
Interesting though, all parties involved have the solution to the problem, but none seem to be working. Hmmmmm...
I liked this post better when it was about candy!!:p :D
You know what candy I haven't seen in a long time: Tiny Tarts. I know they make them today, but the new ones have a hard candy shell and the old ones kinda "melted in your mouth.
So we went to war with Iraq because Saddam had candy corn???
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear brighter before you hear them speak.
No.....because he would share it. HA!
He was building foodstuffs of mass destruction. Rumour is that he was secretly working on jell-o with fruit chunks in it. Oh the humanity!
Well,us here on planet reality didn't believe that for a second.-Oh, well maybe you did:hammer:
Where is the proof? Just because he met with Bin Laden a time or two does not a 9-11 terrorist make.
But that was the whole premise of this war. That and "WMD". Plus the fact that Dubya's daddy couldn't kick his *** the first time.
Game,set MATCH:bbg:
Your right there was a grand conspiracy! Involving the Masons, Illuminati and certain rival candy factions to band together to push their secret agenda and dupe the US citizens and the Democratic party!
VIVA LA CANDY CORN!!!!
PS- So no answer on that gross black and orange candy...you like it! EEWWW!!!
You are a dork
:bbg::bbg:
you mean the peanut butter cups??
YUM;)
But I really do hate those marshmellow candies the kids eat on Easter.
Now thats a WMD:shiner:
Don't forget the DaVinci clues, you die hard Republican. And yes-I say that like its a nasty word.
Yes I am a die hard Republican and oooh yeah I mean it like a nasty word, but one of the cool kind. Your a smelly democrat!!!! Oh yeah I went there!!! With candy and foul words being thrown here around I see why politics can be so messy! And I may be a dork but in the words of the imortal Ron Burgandy (Anchorman) "You'r a pirate hooker":D :hammer:
And heeelllooo Sadam had those marshmellow candies that you admit are WMDs so you just painted your self in a corner my friend! I'm sure our troops will find some soon enough! By the way a source has just confided in me that North Korea is the country distributing those crappy generic orange and black candies that no one seems to like.
Are we friends yet??
I do declare a truce...
And Sadaam takes those black and orange candies and rubs them all over his body so he can live forever, just like on Spongebob Squarepants!
C'mon you lazy Mary, start rubbin'!:D
Yeah I'm already bored. New topic:D :cheers:
If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck(maybe a lilchicken) then.........
Last time I checked, in this country people can still be convicted for crimes as long as the jury believes/agrees that the individual is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if there is only circumstancial evidence present. So....
Check this out.....if you had 5 bullies messin with ya and you went ahead and took care of business one day with just one of the bullies. And I mean you gave it to him good....do you think your message would be read by the remaining 4?
Anyway, as we all know this subject will go on forever, so I respectfully duck out with all opinions noted.
How about this, we send all the terrorists all the candy corn, peeps marshmallow candies, black jelly beans and the peanut butter atrosities we can get our hands on, lace them with pork and alcohol and tell them its "holy" candy". I wonder how that would go over. Now that has got to be as over top as it gets, Later
I once had to go out of town over the Halloween weekend. Left the candy thing to my husband. He bought a bunch of (single serving) microwave popcorn packs. Little kids were especially perplexed. Good grief!
Does anyone even understand this guy?? Because I sure don't.Who are the bullies?If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck(maybe a lilchicken
Last time I checked, in this country people can still be convicted for crimes as long as the jury believes/agrees that the individual is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if there is only circumstancial evidence present. So....
Check this out.....if you had 5 bullies messin with ya and you went ahead and took care of business one day with just one of the bullies. And I mean you gave it to him good....do you think your message would be read by the remaining 4?
Anyway, as we all know this subject will go on forever, so I respectfully duck out with all opinions noted.
How about this, we send all the terrorists all the candy corn, peeps marshmallow candies, black jelly beans and the peanut butter atrosities we can get our hands on, lace them with pork and alcohol and tell them its "holy" candy". I wonder how that would go over. Now that has got to be as over top as it gets, Later
You're delusional if you think Sadaam had anything to do with 9-11.He knew that if we focused on him- he would be gone. Plus he was too busy killing his people and spending lavish amounts of money. On himself.
Bush is an idiot. There was intelligence about pilots being trained for terrorist plots against our country. What was done about it?? NOTHING.
This war with Iraq must have Bin Laden laughing his *** off. We should have been concentrating our efforts on finding and destroying him and Al-Queda.
And all those hightened threat alerts- nothing but a smoke screen to make us feel that if Bush wasn't around, the terrorists would "get us".
But talking sense into a Bush lover is like a fart in church, it doesn't go over so well. Whatever. Stay nice and comfy in your cocoon of ignorance.
And what right does a man, or our government for that matter, have over the reproductive rights of a woman???
I don't care if you say to me" Bush is GOD". Nothing will make me ever think he is a smart man, or a good president.
Take those candies and rotate :angry:
Last edited by lilchiken; 07-21-2006 at 12:42 PM.
Alright chicken....you are obviously passionate about your beliefs and I can respect that, BUT... I have not attacked your mental stability and expect the same from you in the future.
Just for your understanding...the bullies were a scenario relating to multiple terrorists either currently conducting terrorists activities or planning to and the message they may or may not receive by our occupation of Iraq.
I am going to let this rest, I do not want you to blow a vessel or anything.
yeah but its OK for you to make fun of me?
Alls fair in love and war.
It seems to me that you attacked EncoreJim personally and he responded in a level-headed way. Stop with the personal attacks.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
Not personally attacking anyone...thier views yes.
Sorry if i got carried away but Bush ,in my opinion, is an idiot!
That is an all too common misrepresentation of one of the linchpins of the Bush administration's rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom - the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime - which began on March 20, 2003.You are delusional if you think that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks ...
The issue before the Bush administration and Congress was not an ex post facto "whodunnit" about the 9/11 attacks: It was whether Saddam Hussein and other high-ranking members of the Iraqi regime were (or were not) committed to cooperating with international terrorists, including terrorists operating under the banner of al Qaeda.
There is an abundance of evidence to implicate the Saddam regime as a legitimate target of the Global War On Terror - including evidence that has only come into public view more recently, after the 9/11 Commission released its public report on July 22, 2004.
From 1992 until the eve of the Multi-National invasion of Iraq, the Saddam regime actively cooperated with international terrorists operating under al Qaeda and other banners of Islamic extremism and "jihad" by violence.
Under the new banner of the Iraq insurgency, remnants of the Saddam regime cooperated with more of the same kind of terrorists, all bent on thwarting the emergence of a new and more representative government of Iraq - cooperation that continues to the present day - and cooperation that could hardly be possible, if the links with terrorists had not already been established by Saddam well before the overthrow of his regime in 2003.
I can't vouch for any of this, personally.
But can anyone convincingly debunk all, most or even any of the content of these generally conservative-leaning Internet blogs and online newspaper and journal articles?
The Saddam-Osama Connection: One of the documents released by the [FMSO] project contains the records of the Iraqi regime's early connections to Osama bin Laden, starting in 1994 and continuing at least through 1997. It comes in the middle of document ISGZ-2004-009247, a review of Iraqi Intelligence Service contacts in the region and summaries of the combined efforts that they produced ... Captain'sQuarters; July 15, 2006.Ray Robison’s piece for FOX News may shed light on possible training [before the 9/11 attacks] of Afghan terrorists by Iraqi military officers ... The possibility of Iraqi military/intelligence training in Afghanistan (mentioned most recently in this new translated document), coupled with what else has been reported about Iraqi activity in Afghanistan in 1998-99, adds credibility to the comments of Ali Ibrahim al- Tikriti, a former General for Saddam Hussein, and to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, [which] noted that hatred of [both] the US and Israel brought al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime together ... Posted by Mark Eichenlaub; July 6, 2005.Newly declassified documents captured by U.S. forces indicate that Saddam Hussein's inner circle not only actively reached out to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan and terror-based jihadists in the region, but also hosted discussions with a known al Qaeda operative about creating jihad training "centers," possibly in Baghdad ... Fox News; July 5, 2006.Spinning Zarqawi: What three al Qaeda terrorists had to say about Zarqawi's and al Qaeda's cooperation with Saddam ... Weekly Standard; June 15, 2006.Piles and piles of [Saddam's] intelligence documents have been captured by U.S. forces, but have until recently been classified in bulk. Two million documents were released in February [2006] by the U.S. government, and of them, only some 5 percent, or 100,000, have been translated. Even so, the evidence that's already emerging of Saddam's dealings with Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda operatives is highly incriminating ... Washington Times; OpEd page; April 26, 2006.Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Thomas Joscelyn, an expert on the international terrorist network. Much of his research has focused on the role that nations such as Saddam's Iraq and [Islamic fundamentalist] Iran have played in providing support, training and funding for terrorist entities such as al Qaeda, al Qaeda's affiliates, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups ... Frontpage Magazine; April 18, 2006.The Naysayer: Why is Daniel Benjamin so certain that Saddam Hussein had "no interest" in working with al Qaeda? ... Weekly Standard; November 21, 2005.The Algerian Connection: Why did Saddam [help finance] an al Qaeda affiliate in Algeria? ... In a USA Today article from December 2001, Stanley Bedlington, a senior analyst in the CIA's counterterrorism center until he retired in 1994, explained ... "We traced considerable sums of money going from [Osama bin Laden to al Qaeda's Algerian affiliates, the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria.] We believed some of the money came from [Saddam]." ... Weekly Standard; August 8, 2005.The Four-Day War: Four days of bombing that began on December 16, 1998. Who did Saddam Hussein turn to after President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox? Osama bin Laden ... Weekly Standard; July 19, 2005.The Mother of All Connections: A special report on the new evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda ... Weekly Standard; July 18, 2005.Saddam and al Qaeda: There's abundant evidence of connections. President Bush has given some good speeches lately ... but there's another speech Mr. Bush still needs to give. That would be the one in which he says: I told you so - there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda ... Wall Street Journal; OpEd page; July 13, 2005.Now You Don't Tell Us: What the CIA's bin Laden expert used to say about Iraq's al Qaeda ties ... Perhaps in the months leading up to the Iraq war, the Bush administration should have cited "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" as a source for its claim that there was a relationship between Saddam's Iraq and bin Laden's al Qaeda. They might have quoted the passage in which Scheuer ... wrote, "We know for certain that bin Laden was seeking [WMD] ... and that Iraq and Sudan have been cooperating with bin Laden on [WMD] acquisition and development." ... Weekly Standard; November 29, 2004.Iraq's ties with terrorist groups in the '90s are clear ... in the fall of 2002, [DCI] Tenet wrote to Congress outlining a decade of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, including training in poisons, gases and explosives ... [Saddam] and al Qaeda were like two Mafia families - they hated, insulted and killed one another, but readily cooperated from time to time against [the US]. Why not say so? ... Wall Street Journal; OpEd page; February 7, 2004.Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in [conventional] explosives and WMD, as well as financial and logistical support, and may have included the bombing of the USS Cole and the Sept. 11 attacks ... WorldNetDaily; November 15, 2003.OptiBoard member rinselberg has posted extensively on the Bush administration, and particularly, its rationale for invading Iraq: See Guess what?, "Kay" Sera, Sera and Remember the Maine(s).When President Bush stated that "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks", his critics quickly spun this into "Saddam Hussein had no links to terrorism." This was despite the fact that in the same breath the president had said, "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." ... While it is still debatable to what degree Saddam Hussein supported the global terrorist network, it is becoming increasingly clear that Iraq provided terror groups with some forms of logistical, intelligence, transportation, training, weapons, and other support. The emerging evidence points to the conclusion that al Qaeda had a cooperative relationship - that is, a strategic alliance - with Iraq ... NationalReviewOnline; September 19, 2003.
Last edited by rinselberg; 07-22-2006 at 10:10 PM.
Well, thats like saying the USA are terrorists because the USA handed over Afghanistan to Osama and men like him after the occupation of Russia.
In my opinion, Sadaam had nothing to do with 9-11. I don't agree with any of the so called reasons for our occupation of Iraq.But, we can only go forward. Hopefully that situation is resolved and our soldiers can come home and the USA can concentrate on other things.
Did anyone see the picture of an American soldier who was taken, tortured and his body hung from a bridge?
And what is better, a devil you know or a devil you don't?
Apparently, rinselberg, the assertions you cite from the right-wing blogosphere have been sufficiently debunked that even the Bush administration is unwilling to support them:
Under pressure from Congressional Republicans, the director of national intelligence has begun a yearlong process of posting on the Web 48,000 boxes of Arabic-language Iraqi documents captured by American troops.
Less than two weeks into the project, and with only 600 out of possibly a million documents and video and audio files posted, some conservative bloggers are already asserting that the material undermines the official view.
On his blog last week, Ray Robison, a former Army officer from Alabama, quoted a document reporting a supposed scheme to put anthrax into American leaflets dropped in Iraq and declared: ''Saddam's W.M.D. and terrorist connections all proven in one document!!!''
Not so, American intelligence officials say. ''Our view is there's nothing in here that changes what we know today,'' said a senior intelligence official, who would discuss the program only on condition of anonymity because the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, directed his staff to avoid public debates over the documents. ''There is no smoking gun on W.M.D., Al Qaeda, those kinds of issues.''
All the documents, which are available on fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm, have received at least a quick review by Arabic linguists and do not alter the government's official stance, officials say. On some tapes already released, in fact, Mr. Hussein expressed frustration that he did not have unconventional weapons.
Intelligence officials had serious concerns about turning loose an army of amateurs on a warehouse full of raw documents that include hearsay, disinformation and forgery. Mr. Negroponte's office attached a disclaimer to the documents, only a few of which have been translated into English, saying the government did not vouch for their authenticity.
Another administration official described the political logic: ''If anyone in the intelligence community thought there was valid information in those documents that supported either of those questions -- W.M.D. or Al Qaeda -- they would have shouted them from the rooftops.''
Scott Shane, Iraqi Documents Are Put on Web, And Search Is On, N.Y. Times, March 28, 2006 (emphasis added).
Rather than putting the burden on your readers to debunk the unsupported and discredited assertions you cite, why not come up with some authoritative, current sources that support the statement you made:
From 1992 until the eve of the Multi-National invasion of Iraq, the Saddam regime actively cooperated with international terrorists operating under al Qaeda and other banners of Islamic extremism and "jihad" by violence.
A point that you persist in refusing to recognize is this: even if Saddam were sleeping with bin-Laden, the justification for the invasion of Iraq cannot be diced up into individual components, each element analyzed individually, and then summed back up to some meaningful measure. The reasoning you refer to was this: Saddam has WMD, Saddam is cooperating with terrorists, Saddam may give WMD to terrorists. The problem with that possibility is that stateless enemies of the U.S are not likely to be deterred from using such weapons by the threat of annihilation in response, and we’re not sure that Saddam isn’t so insane as to not be so deterred. Therefore, Saddam must be removed.
If you take out the bit about WMD, you’re left with “Saddam is cooperating with terrorists”. Leaving aside the fact that the Bush administration no longer even makes that argument (putting you in the position of arguing, “no, Bush is wrong, Bush was right”), it is an insufficient argument for invasion and occupation, even in the (questionable) context of a “global war on terror”. That is, the American people would (I hope) have had better sense, even if you would have not, and you would be railing against the Kerry Administration, instead of becoming Bush’s last cheerleader.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks