Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 41 of 41
  1. #26
    Joe Chalupa
    Guest
    The war in Iraq is NOT OVER.

  2. #27
    Tommy Duncan
    Guest
    bin Ladin had shown himself willing to accept the less than acceptable when both were united by a desire to defeat a common enemy.

    If anything, Saddam supported terrorists causes in Lebanon as a way of stifling Islamics criticism of his own regime. Much like many of the governments in most Middle East countries used to use oil money to support terror against other countries, as long as it wasn't domestically.
    Sure, Hussein likely would not have had a problem supporting terrorist strikes on American/Western targets.

  3. #28
    Nbadan
    Guest
    ure, Hussein likely would not have had a problem supporting terrorist strikes on American/Western targets.
    For it's limited usefulness, the 911 Commission found no evidence of this. This is purely unsubstantiated.

  4. #29
    Tommy Duncan
    Guest
    He had no problem supporting attacks on Israeli targets.

    The 9/11 report said there was no evidence that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Again, as I have made clear, the Iraq invasion was not punitive, but rather based on preemption.

  5. #30
    Nbadan
    Guest
    but rather based on preemption.
    So we attacked a country that wasn't actively supporting terrorism, nor was it developing nuclear weapons, nor was it currently in possession of chemical or biological weapons all in the name of preemption, right?

    Preemption for what? Oil?

  6. #31
    Tommy Duncan
    Guest
    So we attacked a country that wasn't actively supporting terrorism,
    False. It clearly was.

    nor was it developing nuclear weapons,
    The regime had definitely attempted to do so in the past.

    nor was it currently in possession of chemical or biological weapons all in the name of preemption, right?
    Hussein used those weapons on his own people and on the Iranians in the 1980s. The Clinton administration certainly thought he had them and of course so did every major intel agency on the planet. Again, Hussein used them before. What is not clear about this?

    Preemption for what? Oil?
    Again, the US would have been better served to just leave him be and allow the sanctions framework set up against him to fail if it was just about getting Iraqi oil on the market.

  7. #32
    Yonivore
    Guest
    I'm constantly amazed at how many people think the United States of America is the only global en y that has changed it objectives, alliances, and goals over the past 50 years.

  8. #33
    Nbadan
    Guest
    False. It clearly was
    Under this line of reasoning, the U.S. is partly responsible for the killing of all those Russian kids because we actively support Chechyan rebels, even harboring some of their leadership in the U.S..

  9. #34
    Nbadan
    Guest
    The regime had definitely attempted to do so in the past.
    Pakistan, Iraq and N. Korea have active nuclear weapons programs, but I guess since they didn't have much oil, their nuclear programs weren't as important to the administration as Iraq's non-existant nuclear program.

  10. #35
    Yonivore
    Guest
    You know, Nbadan, we may be in some agreement there. If, and only if, the U.S. continues to see the Chechen Separatist movement as just that, intead of realizing the whole movement has been coopted by Islamic Terrorists for their own purposes.

    I'll make my judgement on our future conduct with respect to that conflict. Up until now, however, I am still in support of a free Chechnya...it's just a shame they entered into an unholy alliance with Islamic Extremists.

  11. #36
    Tommy Duncan
    Guest
    Well sure, you deal with whom the easiest is to deal with. You make an example out of them.

    Those nations weren't exactly going to stop their programs if the US played nice with Hussein.

  12. #37
    Nbadan
    Guest
    Those nations weren't exactly going to stop their programs if the US played nice with Hussein
    If anything the U.S. action against a unarmed Hussein has only motivated these other countries to step up the development of non-conventional weapons.

  13. #38
    Tommy Duncan
    Guest
    Again, they were already doing that and the US had already tried the 'be nice to them' strategy.

  14. #39
    Yonivore
    Guest
    I'm with my Secretary of State on the Chechnya issue:


    "On another issue, Powell sought to ease Russia's irritation with his suggestions that ultimately there must be political dialogue to resolve the war for independence in the rebellious province of Chechnya."

    "'How this problem of Chechnya will ultimately be solved is something for the Russians to work out,' Powell said. 'With respect to terrorist attacks against innocent Russians, we stand united with the Russians that they have to deal with this in the most powerful, direct, forceful way that they can in order to protect their citizens - the same as we are doing to protect our citizens.'"
    Amen to that. And, that's why he's Secretary of State and not me.

  15. #40
    JohnnyMarzetti
    Guest
    Too bad he's not president and Bush is.

  16. #41
    Yonivore
    Guest
    Well, Secretary Powell seems very comfortable with the fact that President Bush is his boss.

    From the same article:
    "Asked, meanwhile, if he would serve a second term as secretary of state if Bush won re-election, Powell did not rule it out. 'Time will tell. We will see.'"

    "'The president and I have a very strong relationship,' he said."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •