PDA

View Full Version : A summary of the 2 conventions



IcemanCometh
09-02-2004, 12:49 AM
Democratic:

blah blah blah Vietnam blah blah blah blah Vietnam blah blah blah blah blah Vietnam blah blah blah Vietnam blah blah blah blah


Republican:

blah blah blah September 11 blah blah blah blah September 11 blah blah blah blah blah September 11 blah blah blah September 11 blah blah blah blah

NeoConIV
09-02-2004, 12:53 AM
http://www.v-max.com/frost/assets/images/goofy.jpeg
Gaaaaaah!!!

exstatic
09-02-2004, 12:54 AM
Good synopsis, Ice.

T Park Num 9
09-02-2004, 12:56 AM
Dont bring up Sept 11.

It never happened.


Thats the problem with people like Ice and Ex.

They think like Zel Miller said, "The UN and Paris France should run the thing"

exstatic
09-02-2004, 12:58 AM
TPark, you're truly a dumbfuck. The war on terrorism is in Afghanistan. ObL is hiding there and in the border regions of Pakistan. You're not going to find him in Baghdad, in spite of GOP spin.

Yonivore
09-02-2004, 12:59 AM
The war on terrorism is global. OBL is dead.

NeoConIV
09-02-2004, 01:02 AM
Was it UBL or OBL...

Hmmm.

Ahh, who gives a shit.

Spurminator
09-02-2004, 01:06 AM
ObL is hiding there and in the border regions of Pakistan. You're not going to find him in Baghdad, in spite of GOP spin.

No GOP has ever said OBL was in Baghdad. Quit making up lies to pin on people. It's weak.

Tommy Duncan
09-02-2004, 01:08 AM
Well Michael Moore said it was and of course I like everyone else looks to him when I want to learn about international affairs.

NeoConIV
09-02-2004, 01:08 AM
Good point nator, didn't realize how dopey that comment sounded till you quoted it. Just sound confident and hope they bite, right X?

:wacko

T Park Num 9
09-02-2004, 01:17 AM
TPark, you're truly a dumbfuck. The war on terrorism is in Afghanistan. ObL is hiding there and in the border regions of Pakistan. You're not going to find him in Baghdad, in spite of GOP spin

Why thank you Ex your pretty cute yourself.


Really, JUST afghanistan??? Iraq, Iran, Israel, Russia would sure be news to that there is no terrorists there either.

You sound just like Jeanene Garafolo. "There is no such thing as a group of terrorists, just a bunch of single acts of singular people"

exstatic
09-02-2004, 01:32 AM
Really, JUST afghanistan??? Iraq, Iran, Israel, Russia would sure be news to that there is no terrorists there either.


Can we fight all of those? Seems like we're having trouble with two pushover little countries in the Middle East right now. Cast where the big fish are.

Ruby Ridge
09-02-2004, 09:39 AM
Russia?

Do we really want to get involved in the Chechyna (sp) thing?

SpursWoman
09-02-2004, 10:18 AM
If it meant getting those little kids out safely I sure as hell would.

:(

Tommy Duncan
09-02-2004, 10:33 AM
Iraq was invaded because leaving him in power in Iraq was not an option. You had a number of countries (France, Russia, etc) that were trading with him and of course he had the funds (and was getting hundreds of millions, if not a few billion dollars annually from the UN Oil for Food program) to procure and develop WMDs. And of course virtually all, if not all major intelligence services thought Hussein had WMDs. No one knew for sure because, again, Hussein had been rather uncooperative since the end of Gulf War I. Hussein had previous contact with al-Qaeda operatives and in general had become much more rhetorically aligned with fundamentalist Islam over the past few years. I mean, Hussein's hatred of the US and Israel was no secret. It's not that much of a stretch to see him apply the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' concept.

The option was not between removing him or just having him "boxed in." The sanctions apparatus which was arrayed against Hussein's Iraq was becoming less and less effective.

This was not a punitive military action for 9/11, it was an act of prevention.

This is not a sexy military-industrial complex style conspiracy theory but it's the way it was. I mean, if we were really interested in getting the petroleum out of Iraq we'd just gradually let things cool down with Hussein and then raise no objection as Hussein worked out deals with foreign E&P companies to develop Iraq's oil fields.

After all, Hussein had a proven method of keeping Iraq "stable."

SAmikeyp
09-02-2004, 12:07 PM
Iraq was invaded because leaving him in power in Iraq was not an option

But who are we to decide that?

Yonivore
09-02-2004, 12:20 PM
"But who are we to decide that?"
The people at the receiving end of the result of his alliances with terrorists. That's who.

SAmikeyp
09-02-2004, 12:24 PM
I am all for that....and if we can prove that Saddam Hussein is linked to those bastards...I say shoot him in Times Square, sell tickets, and put that shit on CNN.

Yonivore
09-02-2004, 12:27 PM
That's already been proven. Let's move on.

Tommy Duncan
09-02-2004, 12:37 PM
But who are we to decide that?

The country that was attacked 3 years ago because of pussyfooting around.

Sincerely,
The US of A

SAmikeyp
09-02-2004, 12:37 PM
Show me the proof.

Show me the proof that Saddam Hussein had a direct link to the attacks of 9/11 and I will satisfied.

I am not trying to be a dick(hopefully neither are you, because you cannot always tell by typed words)...seriously, I would like to see some proof.

xrayzebra
09-02-2004, 12:43 PM
Do the training camps count as proof? Does his intel people
having links with them show proof? Like the WMD that
got lost, hidden, we know he had them, he used them damn
things on his own people and others, we just don't know
what he did with them. Like his nuke program, he had one,
again no one can show you the bomb. If it walks like a duck,
quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.

SAmikeyp
09-02-2004, 12:48 PM
More than I have seen so far, albeit not direct.

Apparently you cannot ask a question in this forum to certain people and expect a civil answer.

Tommy Duncan
09-02-2004, 12:48 PM
As I wrote:


Iraq was invaded because leaving him in power in Iraq was not an option. You had a number of countries (France, Russia, etc) that were trading with him and of course he had the funds (and was getting hundreds of millions, if not a few billion dollars annually from the UN Oil for Food program) to procure and develop WMDs. And of course virtually all, if not all major intelligence services thought Hussein had WMDs. No one knew for sure because, again, Hussein had been rather uncooperative since the end of Gulf War I. Hussein had previous contact with al-Qaeda operatives and in general had become much more rhetorically aligned with fundamentalist Islam over the past few years. I mean, Hussein's hatred of the US and Israel was no secret. It's not that much of a stretch to see him apply the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' concept.

The option was not between removing him or just having him "boxed in." The sanctions apparatus which was arrayed against Hussein's Iraq was becoming less and less effective.

This was not a punitive military action for 9/11, it was an act of prevention.

Yonivore
09-02-2004, 12:53 PM
"Show me the proof that Saddam Hussein had a direct link to the attacks of 9/11 and I will satisfied."
No one has alleged that (even if I and others believe it to be true.). What has been alleged and proven is that Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime played footsies with terrorist groups with a global reach.

This is a war against terrorism of a global reach.

President Bush said we'd go after the terrorists [of global reach] and those that harbor them.

Who said Hussein had to be involved in 9/11?

SAmikeyp
09-02-2004, 12:53 PM
I'm cool with that,TD. I just had other questions. I have not been following the Iraq situation as closely as I did when it all began. I have personally had more things in my life that have been more important to me. I just want to know all I can about this and what we are doing and why. I don't see what the problem with being as informed as possible. That is why I was asking questions.

Yonivore
09-02-2004, 12:57 PM
"Apparently you cannot ask a question in this forum to certain people and expect a civil answer."
You know, I went back to where you entered this thread and can find no evidence of uncivil responses. You haven't been attacked personally and no one has called you any names. While the responses to the questions you asked may have been passionate, direct, and unequivocal...they weren't uncivil, in my opinion.

SAmikeyp
09-02-2004, 12:58 PM
You raise fair points, Yonivore. I would like to see the proof that Hussein harbored such people. Do you have links to articles that show this? Preferably from reliable sources.

Yonivore
09-02-2004, 01:05 PM
Yes, yes...we'll have those on your desk by morning. :rolleyes

It's been proven that Abu Nidal was living on the Iraqi dole in Baghdad. Remember him? Pushed American Leon Klinghoffer of the Aquili Lauro cruise ship way back when; as well as having been implicated in many other international acts of terrorism before he retired to his resort on the Euphrates.

Then there's this butcher, Zarqawi, bin Laden's deputy who, apparently, had been organizing (with the knowledge and assistance of Iraqi Ba'athists) this current "insurgency" you see going on in Iraq since the end of the actual war with Iraqi troops.

And there are others.

Paying stipends to families of "Palestinian" terrorists...which Saddam Hussein is on videotape confessing to with pride.

Those things have been proven...way back when. You say you haven't been paying attention because of personal priorities, that's fine. But, why come in here and ask the forum to do your research for you?

Google "Hussein and terrorism" or "Saddam Hussein's ties to global terrorism" or something like that. You'll find articles on the matter.

SAmikeyp
09-02-2004, 01:15 PM
I am doing research...I just thought that there might be some other avenues to explore and asked for suggestions. Apparently that is an insult of some kind.

Yonivore
09-02-2004, 01:16 PM
No, just exasperation. This issue has been debated in this forum in probably more than 50 threads over the past 17 months.

Really. Google it. You'll find plenty.

You're pretty sensitive, aren't you?

SAmikeyp
09-02-2004, 01:28 PM
no i'm not. just as I am sure you are not overly sensitive. just exasperated.

Aggie Hoopsfan
09-02-2004, 02:07 PM
Show me the proof that Saddam Hussein had a direct link to the attacks of 9/11 and I will satisfied.

We didn't invade Iraq as punishment.

The Bush Doctrine is to be preemptive rather than reactive. Hence, Iraq was taken out BEFORE it could become a major threat to our interests and nation.

His link to AQ-affiliated groups and the org. itself has been proven.

The rest is just semantics IMO. This isn't the Cold War. Bush's doctrine is to kill them before they can kill us. Bush isn't going to wait around for another 3K Americans (probably more) to die to go take care of threats.

SAmikeyp
09-02-2004, 02:09 PM
Now that makes sense. Thanks AHF.

IcemanCometh
09-02-2004, 02:19 PM
So when are we invading Saudi Arabia?

Yonivore
09-02-2004, 02:21 PM
Probably as soon as we have established bases in an allied Iraq.

From Way Downtown
09-02-2004, 05:45 PM
So when are we invading Saudi Arabia?

or Iran, which has been documented to have supported the 9/11 hijackers, which has acknowledged its short-term efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and which has hardly been the paragon of civil rights under any of its dictatorial regimes?

Yonivore
09-02-2004, 06:11 PM
"or Iran, which has been documented to have supported the 9/11 hijackers, which has acknowledged its short-term efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and which has hardly been the paragon of civil rights under any of its dictatorial regimes?"
Funny you should bring Iran up.

Hmmmm...I wonder what Kerry would do with Iran?

::::insert that Wayne's world drifting into dream music here:::::


Kerry and EU would offer Iran a nuclear deal (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_5.html)

Yeah, this guy's gonna be tough on our enemies. :rolleyes

Tommy Duncan
09-02-2004, 06:25 PM
The US just provided an up close and personal example to the Iranian government of what happens when you fail to cooperate.

spurster
09-02-2004, 06:26 PM
Yes, the real debate should about the Iraq war. Kerry should be attacking Bush on this issue, but instead Kerry seems to be trying to out-Dukakis Dukakis. The only thing that keeps Kerry in this race is BushCo repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot.

Nbadan
09-02-2004, 06:27 PM
It's been proven that Abu Nidal was living on the Iraqi dole in Baghdad. Remember him? Pushed American Leon Klinghoffer of the Aquili Lauro cruise ship way back when; as well as having been implicated in many other international acts of terrorism before he retired to his resort on the Euphrates.

Then there's this butcher, Zarqawi, bin Laden's deputy who, apparently, had been organizing (with the knowledge and assistance of Iraqi Ba'athists) this current "insurgency" you see going on in Iraq since the end of the actual war with Iraqi troops.

And there are others.

Paying stipends to families of "Palestinian" terrorists...which Saddam Hussein is on videotape confessing to with pride.

Those things have been proven...way back when. You say you haven't been paying attention because of personal priorities, that's fine. But, why come in here and ask the forum to do your research for you?

Google "Hussein and terrorism" or "Saddam Hussein's ties to global terrorism" or something like that. You'll find articles on the matter.

Abu Nidal was a very sick old man when he died in Iraq. You can criticize Saddam for harboring the retired Nidal, but the U.S. has murderous former dictators living in the U.S. now.

Zarqawi is in a Iranian prison, not in Iraq leading any insurgency.

Saddam helped to support palestinian families that would have their homes bull dozed by Israel. The U.S. supported terrorists organizations that commited kidnappings, and murder in South and Central America.

Tommy Duncan
09-02-2004, 06:27 PM
The trouble for Kerry is that he is trying to please an anti-war majority of his base as well as a significant pro-war minority.

Tommy Duncan
09-02-2004, 06:28 PM
Saddam helped to support palestinian families that would have their homes bull dozed by Israel.

He gave money to the families of suicide bombers. Geez.

Yonivore
09-02-2004, 06:35 PM
"Yes, the real debate should about the Iraq war. Kerry should be attacking Bush on this issue,..."
Except that the more he talks about Iraq, the more he reveals to the public that the anti-Iraq-war-Demoncratic-rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. Demoncrats truly agree with Bush on Iraq, they just can't do so publicly because, well...they have nothing else in their quiver. Nada. Zip.