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.
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."Apparently you cannot ask a question in this forum to certain people and expect a civil answer."
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.
Yes, yes...we'll have those on your desk by morning.
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.
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.
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?
no i'm not. just as I am sure you are not overly sensitive. just exasperated.
We didn't invade Iraq as punishment.Show me the proof that Saddam Hussein had a direct link to the attacks of 9/11 and I will satisfied.
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.
Now that makes sense. Thanks AHF.
So when are we invading Saudi Arabia?
Probably as soon as we have established bases in an allied Iraq.
or Iran, which has been do ented 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?So when are we invading Saudi Arabia?
Funny you should bring Iran up."or Iran, which has been do ented 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?"
Hmmmm...I wonder what Kerry would do with Iran?
::::insert that Wayne's world drifting into dream music here:::::
Yeah, this guy's gonna be tough on our enemies.
The US just provided an up close and personal example to the Iranian government of what happens when you fail to cooperate.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
He gave money to the families of suicide bombers. Geez.Saddam helped to support palestinian families that would have their homes bull dozed by Israel.
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."Yes, the real debate should about the Iraq war. Kerry should be attacking Bush on this issue,..."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote