Bush Promises to Show Iraq-Al Queda Ties on Wendesday - I Kn [Archive]

Capitalist Imperial

29th January 2003, 17:23

The proof is coming today, commie pukes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76843,00.html

What will be your new excuse not to attack Iraq, now that evidence will support that they have definate ties to September 11th?

Now that the evidence will support that they may have even funded the operation?

Perhaps you granola and twig leftists will still want to extend an olive branch to an enemy of the state who will soon be a proven accomplice of the killing of 3000+ innocent Americans and Worlds citizens.

Eradication of Saddam Hussein's regime is imminent.

Rewgime change is the only option.

Perhaps you gadflys will be content to join Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Cheryl Crow, and other "Celiberals" in their oh-so thoughtful and qualified analysis of the situation.

Again, I ask, liberals, will you concede that military action in Iraq is justified if proof of their involvement in 9/11 is submitted?

Please,for once, lets come together, and concede that in light of evidence action is in fact justified!

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 5:29 pm on Jan. 29, 2003)

sabre

29th January 2003, 18:11

i think we all know better than to hold bush to his promises.

how abotu his campaign promise to lower factory emissions? oh waiiiitt he broke it then didnt join the kyoto emissions thing

and how abotu that promise to "leave no child behind!" he passed the bill, then refused to give out the money!

and all of his shit about environmental protection? sure he passed the bills then refused to pay again.

this will be fabricated evidence - i will eat my hat if it isnt. they said its going to be nothing like the proof from the cuban missle crises that Adlai had , with the pictures, you know why? because bush will have no proof like adlai did to thwart the USSR

Anonymous

29th January 2003, 18:32

Some people just aren't in touch with reality these days.

Tkinter1

29th January 2003, 20:28

Sabre,

Would you back an invasion/regime change if Iraq had ties to 9/11?

Capitalist Imperial

29th January 2003, 20:34

Quote: from sabre on 6:11 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
i think we all know better than to hold bush to his promises.

how abotu his campaign promise to lower factory emissions? oh waiiiitt he broke it then didnt join the kyoto emissions thing

and how abotu that promise to "leave no child behind!" he passed the bill, then refused to give out the money!

and all of his shit about environmental protection? sure he passed the bills then refused to pay again.

this will be fabricated evidence - i will eat my hat if it isnt. they said its going to be nothing like the proof from the cuban missle crises that Adlai had , with the pictures, you know why? because bush will have no proof like adlai did to thwart the USSR

Sabre, you are dodging the point, and the part of your post that did address the issue was pure specualtion and ad hominem conjecture.

sabre

29th January 2003, 20:48

CI - uhhhhhhhhhh okay?

Tk - i doubt it - im not a hawk of any sorts and the only circumstance that i would support an invasion of iraq is if he seriously were a threat to us or his neighbors and i dont believe he is right now. i would probably support an invasion if saddam was a big time figure in the orchestration of 9/11 but even then i dont know becuase 9/11 is still shrouded in shady business

Capitalist Imperial

29th January 2003, 20:52

Quote: from sabre on 8:48 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
CI - uhhhhhhhhhh okay?

Tk - i doubt it - im not a hawk of any sorts and the only circumstance that i would support an invasion of iraq is if he seriously were a threat to us or his neighbors and i dont believe he is right now. i would probably support an invasion if saddam was a big time figure in the orchestration of 9/11 but even then i dont know becuase 9/11 is still shrouded in shady business

Thats the whole point of my thread. Did you read the article? The bush administration says they will show the iraq-sept 11th connection today.

sabre

29th January 2003, 20:57

I love how you put your faith in "evidence" for this war before it is even exposed, if it even EXISTS. follow your leader, lemming

Moskitto

29th January 2003, 20:58

saddam should go, i don't see why anyone left or right could support his current regime, he was a US puppet afterall (This was on the Christian Conservative Party's website), he kills his own people.

But bombing the place back to the stone age? that's not the way to go about it, hitman him maybe, send an SAS/Delta Force team to abduct him in the middle of the night, but why do you need to bomb them back to the stone age?

sabre

29th January 2003, 21:02

BACK to the stone age?? theyre in the stone age man!

Tkinter1

29th January 2003, 21:05

"But bombing the place back to the stone age? that's not the way to go about it" Thats not the way the US is going about it. thats not how we went about it the first time either. It's all strategic.

"send an SAS/Delta Force team to abduct him..."

Thats basically it. The problem is he's not sitting on a thrown waiting to be abducted. He has an army that the US has to get through first. The war isn't with the people of Iraq. It wouldn't make any sense to bomb them back to the stonage. It would be politically, economically and morally stupid to do so.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 9:08 pm on Jan. 29, 2003)

El Brujo

29th January 2003, 21:07

Um. Riiiight. Even though Sadaam and Osama are mortal enemies (Sadaam runs a secular party while Osama is a fundamentalist), they MUST have ties to each other. My god, the propaghanda and manipulation that right-wing politicians will spew to get their way.

Tkinter1

29th January 2003, 21:09

Whats one big thing they do have in common though Brujo?

El Brujo

29th January 2003, 21:18

They both are anti-Amerikan. So what?

Its for completely different purposes.

Osama is anti-Amerikan because of religious purposes. He believes he is fighting a "holy war" between muslims and christians/jews.

Sadaam is anti-Amerikan because of the US invasion and the gulf war. The US would probably still be cozy with him if he had not invaded Kuwait.

abstractmentality

29th January 2003, 21:22

Quote: from El Brujo on 1:07 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
Um. Riiiight. Even though Sadaam and Osama are mortal enemies (Sadaam runs a secular party while Osama is a fundamentalist), they MUST have ties to each other. My god, the propaghanda and manipulation that right-wing politicians will spew to get their way.

while on the first page of this thread, i was thinking about writing something almost exactly like this, El Brujo. thank you for bringing that up. i may be mistaken, but didnt the CIA come out with a report not to long ago dismissing all allegations of links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

MEXCAN

29th January 2003, 21:26

i think the BUSH administration knows that it will be able to sell war on IRAQ if it shows ties to 9/11.But they have no real proof!!And it wouldn't be something new if they invented the proof!!!

Capitalist Imperial

29th January 2003, 21:28

We won't see indiscriminate airstrikes directly on the city on the scale that many leftists fear, I think. There will be some initial airstrikes to soften any defense perimeter estblished around the city, but B-52's and B-2's will not carpet-bomb bagdad. This will be a highly urbanized ground war, street-fighting in a hot, hostile area with LAV's and maybe a few Abrams tanks and British Challenger tanks, where opposition in military or civilian form could be around every corner.

US forces have been training fo this type of combat pretty much since just after the end of the cold war, as military and political analysts predicted that close-in urban fighting against rogue states would be a probable scenario in the 21st century.

However, no matter what your training level, sending 100's or even 1000's of soldiers into a hostile city the size of Bagdad on a scavenger hunt will be very dangerous. I fear that American/British casualty rates may be a bit higher than on 1991.

However, I am confident that we will succeed in our mission of toppling Saddam's regime and securing our petroleum interests.

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 9:30 pm on Jan. 29, 2003)

Tkinter1

29th January 2003, 21:29

Exactly el brujo, they're both anti-American and can unite under that. Their reasons for hating America don't matter.

During WWII Europe and the US each had their own reasons for being in the war, but they all had one ultimate goal.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 9:33 pm on Jan. 29, 2003)

MEXCAN

29th January 2003, 21:37

US forces have been training fo this type of combat pretty much since just after the end of the cold war, as military and political analysts predicted that close-in urban fighting against rogue states would be a probable scenario in the 21st century.

hahahah i wonder if they're gonna have as much luck as in Somalia ???

Tkinter1

29th January 2003, 21:46

American special forces in Somalia had a kill ratio of 50:1. The planning and execution was nearly perfect. The only problem was extraction, becuase the skinnys flood in and overwhelm the troops.

Blibblob

29th January 2003, 22:18

Ok, get the damn point, if Bush says theres a connection. THERE IS!! Do you have any fucking clue how many spies we have in there. If Bush says that Iraq has bombs, THEY DO!! Screw the "inspectors" they were a front for the UN, while the "inspectors" were "inspecting" we had undercover agents, why dont you get it yet, we have one of the best espionage abilities out of all of the countries, the only country i can think of that could spy better than us was the USSR.

Bush doesnt lie, but he doesnt tell the whole truth. Hes not that stupid, he knows who of his advisors to ask about what. The US government is not stupid, why the hell do you think they are still in power, they can "socialize" very well.

MEXCAN

29th January 2003, 22:30

Quote: from Blibblob on 10:18 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
Ok, get the damn point, if Bush says theres a connection. THERE IS!! Do you have any fucking clue how many spies we have in there. If Bush says that Iraq has bombs, THEY DO!! Screw the "inspectors" they were a front for the UN, while the "inspectors" were "inspecting" we had undercover agents, why dont you get it yet, we have one of the best espionage abilities out of all of the countries, the only country i can think of that could spy better than us was the USSR.

Bush doesnt lie, but he doesnt tell the whole truth. Hes not that stupid, he knows who of his advisors to ask about what. The US government is not stupid, why the hell do you think they are still in power, they can "socialize" very well.

If the US had such great spies,9/11 probably wouldn't have happened and they would probably have caught BIN!!!And you shouldn't give Bush any credit,he's a fucking puppet!!!

Blibblob

29th January 2003, 22:37

Of course he is a puppet. All presidents have been. We knew about the plan for 9/11, just chose not to act on it, it was quite a stupid thing to do (not too bright for the terrorists and us). And Bin was educated here, went to a very renowned collage, and is VERY intelligent. Catching him will most likely as hard as it was to catch Ted Bundy. Even if in the next minute we found out where he was, he would find out that we found out before we could get a team out there, and he would be long gone.

Bush didnt write his speech, he cant (not smart enough). But the person who did knows a lot about what he put in there, he got his information directly from the sourse. Bush is an idiot, but the puppeteers know what they are doing.

(Edited by Blibblob at 5:38 pm on Jan. 29, 2003)

Capitalist Imperial

29th January 2003, 22:55

Quote: from MEXCAN on 9:37 pm on Jan. 29, 2003

US forces have been training fo this type of combat pretty much since just after the end of the cold war, as military and political analysts predicted that close-in urban fighting against rogue states would be a probable scenario in the 21st century.

hahahah i wonder if they're gonna have as much luck as in Somalia ???

In Somalia we wern't even going in for actual combat against an entire city.

American forces got penned in unprepared, with about 50 soldiers in the middle of mogadishu. They fought their way out against 1000's of armed rebels, and most soldiers survived.

If you think that is necessarily failure, I would disagree. I would say it was a relative triumph.

Capitalist Imperial

29th January 2003, 23:03

Quote: from Blibblob on 10:18 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
Ok, get the damn point, if Bush says theres a connection. THERE IS!! Do you have any fucking clue how many spies we have in there. If Bush says that Iraq has bombs, THEY DO!! Screw the "inspectors" they were a front for the UN, while the "inspectors" were "inspecting" we had undercover agents, why dont you get it yet, we have one of the best espionage abilities out of all of the countries, the only country i can think of that could spy better than us was the USSR.

Bush doesnt lie, but he doesnt tell the whole truth. Hes not that stupid, he knows who of his advisors to ask about what. The US government is not stupid, why the hell do you think they are still in power, they can "socialize" very well.

The soviets could not even spyu better than US, if you take into account both covert and strategic systems. We always had much better information about soviet capabilities and programs than vice-versa.

Soviets were limited to covert operations. We had both covert and strategic systems (U-2, SR-71, A satellite network decades beyond the USSR's capability). The soviets had very limited strategic reconaissance systems.

Capitalist Imperial

29th January 2003, 23:10

Quote: from Blibblob on 10:37 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
Of course he is a puppet. All presidents have been. We knew about the plan for 9/11, just chose not to act on it, it was quite a stupid thing to do (not too bright for the terrorists and us).
(Edited by Blibblob at 5:38 pm on Jan. 29, 2003)

To say we "knew about 9/11" is a total misrepresentation. There was "increased noise" from an intelligence standpoint, and nothing more. It was much too random and convoluted to put together and deduce the specifics. We did not in any way know specifically that on sept 11, 2002 terrorists would hijack 4 jumbo jets and crash them into the world trade center and pentagon (and attempt to crash one into the white house).

To claim that we simply "let the terrorists proceed" as some sort of conspiracy theory is pathetic, paranoid, and just plain idiotic.

However, this is the kind of stupidity I've come to expect from you, Blibbob. Not only are you ignorant and desperate enough to buy into conspiracy theories like this, but you disrespect every one of the 3000+ dead on sept 11th by buying into this frivolous drivel.

what an idiot.

Blibblob

29th January 2003, 23:10

WTF. The USSR had the best spys around. Ever heard of John Walker? To get small stuff all they had to do was sit in a bar and drink a damn beer. But to get stuff that was useful, they had to infiltrate the most secure government in the world. US spies had to try to get the simple stuff, but getting the useful stuff was just as hard, not harder.

Ive read quite a bit on espionage, names and small details elude me, but facts dont.

Blibblob

29th January 2003, 23:16

"'increased noise' from an intelligence stand point"? The exact date, we didnt know, but that some huge scheme from the terrorists we did know, we were on the way to getting the small details like when and how. But that they were going to do it, we fucking knew. In a case of knowing that something is going to happen, they should have increased security, but they didnt.

9/11 was the worst thing to happen in US history, the thousands dead was not great. But to the survival of the US, it was essential, the US government was going lax, the sleeping heads of the states were awakened, in an overdone way. How we are handling what happened is quite stupid also. To send in an entire army to die to do the same thing that 3 can do is retarded. If you want to take down Iraq, go for the one who makes all the decisions, Saddam is not a figure head, he is quite adept at what he does. It may not be such a good thing he is good at, but he is good at what he does.

Capitalist Imperial

29th January 2003, 23:19

Quote: from Blibblob on 11:10 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
WTF. The USSR had the best spys around. Ever heard of John Walker? To get small stuff all they had to do was sit in a bar and drink a damn beer. But to get stuff that was useful, they had to infiltrate the most secure government in the world. US spies had to try to get the simple stuff, but getting the useful stuff was just as hard, not harder.

Ive read quite a bit on espionage, names and small details elude me, but facts dont.

I agree that the Soviets had excellent covert ops, my point is that we had strategic reconnaisance capability gave us another dimension that the Soviets could not match.

Capitalist Imperial

29th January 2003, 23:38

Quote: from Blibblob on 11:16 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
"'increased noise' from an intelligence stand point"? The exact date, we didnt know, but that some huge scheme from the terrorists we did know, we were on the way to getting the small details like when and how. But that they were going to do it, we fucking knew. In a case of knowing that something is going to happen, they should have increased security, but they didnt.

9/11 was the worst thing to happen in US history, the thousands dead was not great. But to the survival of the US, it was essential, the US government was going lax, the sleeping heads of the states were awakened, in an overdone way. How we are handling what happened is quite stupid also. To send in an entire army to die to do the same thing that 3 can do is retarded. If you want to take down Iraq, go for the one who makes all the decisions, Saddam is not a figure head, he is quite adept at what he does. It may not be such a good thing he is good at, but he is good at what he does.

I agree, but the war in Iraq will not be against the iraqi people, it will be against saddams regime.

And yes, Saddam is adept, but so was Hitler. That doesn't mean they are good people.

BTW sorry for the insults and cursing. I just hate the whole conspiracy theory thing and I thought that is what you were saying. That makes me madder than most ideas about Sept 11th because I think it completely disrepects those who died.

El Brujo

30th January 2003, 06:56

Quote: from abstractmentality on 5:22 am on Jan. 30, 2003

Quote: from El Brujo on 1:07 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
Um. Riiiight. Even though Sadaam and Osama are mortal enemies (Sadaam runs a secular party while Osama is a fundamentalist), they MUST have ties to each other. My god, the propaghanda and manipulation that right-wing politicians will spew to get their way.

while on the first page of this thread, i was thinking about writing something almost exactly like this, El Brujo. thank you for bringing that up. i may be mistaken, but didnt the CIA come out with a report not to long ago dismissing all allegations of links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

I believe so. Around the time Bush started going on about the "axis of evil".

Tkinter1:
Just because Sadaam is anti-Amerikan dosen't mean he sides or has anything to do with al-Quaeda. Thats taking on the extremely flawed "with us or against us" logic. If Sadaam really was so much of a threat, how come something wasn't done a long time ago? It would not be in his interest to side with al-Quaeda a) because they are enemies and B) because the U$ government is at the climax of its barbarianism (if Dubya wants to bomb him for no reason, imagine if he actually became hostile towards the U$).

This attempted war is Dubyas way of taking advantage of 9/11 and the upsurge of ultra-nationalism and war-friendliness in this country to go for the "soldier boy" image in the next election (not to mention STEAL Iraqui oil).

Stormin Norman

30th January 2003, 08:15

This sabre guy is the biggest moron I have seen on these forums in awhile. Perhaps I have gotten used to everybody else's idiocy. Maybe he just offers a new, but equally ignorant perspective to those lame-brained socialist fanatics. I think his contributions to the board will be celebrated by the other trogoladytes of the left. I will be sure to commemorate him in the hall of fame soon enough.

P.S. It is time to boycott the Hollywood vermin who align themselves with people like Castro, Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussien. By paying there salaries we are guaranteed to hear the filth their diarrea of the mouth produces.

Michael De Panama

30th January 2003, 15:17

At least Sabre isn't subscribing himself to every word President Junior says before providing any sort of sufficient proof.

Just look at CI's amazing wit. He "knew all along" Iraq and Al Queda were in it together. He just didn't want to ruin the ending of the movie. I wish I was as cunning as to figure that one out ahead of time.

I have a hunch that Iraq and Al Queda also have ties to the Mafia, the Communists, the Jew-swamped media, the Jews in general, the BNP, Rock & Roll music, the Free Masons, and everyone else who is out to steal our metaphorical picnic baskets from our figurative Jellystone National Park of liberty. Whatcha think, CI?

Oh, and, sorry to get off topic, but where's this evidence Bush promised us? I'm just curious. Don't think I'm doubting your word or the word of our beloved president. I mean, we don't need to see evidence to know Bush is telling the truth. We all know Saddam has an underground laser bunker full of nukes. It's not our job to back up our accusations, it's Saddam's job to provide the tangible proof disproving our accusations that there is some tangible proof to be provided that prove our accusations to be true. Quite simple.

I don't know why he doesn't get it. Maybe he's lost a few brain cells from some drug binges he's had with his ties to Motley Crue.

suffianr

30th January 2003, 15:30

By paying there salaries we are guaranteed to hear the filth their diarrea of the mouth produces.

Curiously funky grammar, SN, considering that English is your first language...Nah, I'm just being a nit-picking bastard...But then again, so are you... :)

Anyway, a working relationship between the Baathist party and Al-Qaeda? Between a secular dictatorship and Islamic revisionists? Seriously, that's stretching it quite a bit...

Michael De Panama

30th January 2003, 15:53

I noticed that that too, Suffianr, and also had an impulse to nitpick, just to bring Stormin Norman off his high platform of elitism to any leftist who write more sloppy than he. Or rather, his facade of elitism to conveniently provide a reason to ignore being challenged by many members on this board. I figured I'd just be helping him get away with that excuse in the future, though.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

30th January 2003, 17:02

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:23 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
The proof is coming today, commie pukes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76843,00.html

What will be your new excuse not to attack Iraq, now that evidence will support that they have definate ties to September 11th?

Now that the evidence will support that they may have even funded the operation?

Perhaps you granola and twig leftists will still want to extend an olive branch to an enemy of the state who will soon be a proven accomplice of the killing of 3000+ innocent Americans and Worlds citizens.

Eradication of Saddam Hussein's regime is imminent.

Rewgime change is the only option.

Perhaps you gadflys will be content to join Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Cheryl Crow, and other "Celiberals" in their oh-so thoughtful and qualified analysis of the situation.

Again, I ask, liberals, will you concede that military action in Iraq is justified if proof of their involvement in 9/11 is submitted?

Please,for once, lets come together, and concede that in light of evidence action is in fact justified!

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 5:29 pm on Jan. 29, 2003)

The USA has trained Osama Bin Laden and even funded him in his early years fighting for a Islamic-fundamentalist state in Afganistan.

Without the USA's support to Islamic fundamentalists in Afganistan, the current "terrorist" problem wouldn't have half the size of today.

Big chance that 11/9 wouldn't have happend without the funding of Osama by the US government.

And btw: wouldn't Saddam Hussain fire of nuclear weapons when the US troops would invade Iraq?

Isn't the US provacating the situation?

Why is the US supporting Pakistan and Israel(both have nuclear programmes) and not N Korea and Iraq?

What would happen if the USA would run out of oil?

Why does the USA support Saudi Arabia when they know that SA is supporting Al'Qaida and Bin Laden?

Blibblob

30th January 2003, 17:05

It has nothing to do with morals, doing whats right and justice. It is all economics. Quite stupid and confusing economics, but making money is all they are trying to do.

Capitalist Imperial

30th January 2003, 18:46

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 8:15 am on Jan. 30, 2003
This sabre guy is the biggest moron I have seen on these forums in awhile. Perhaps I have gotten used to everybody else's idiocy. Maybe he just offers a new, but equally ignorant perspective to those lame-brained socialist fanatics. I think his contributions to the board will be celebrated by the other trogoladytes of the left. I will be sure to commemorate him in the hall of fame soon enough.

P.S. It is time to boycott the Hollywood vermin who align themselves with people like Castro, Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussien. By paying there salaries we are guaranteed to hear the filth their diarrea of the mouth produces.

I agree, SN, these "Celiberals" are ill-informed spoiled punks who arefulfilling their own frivolous notions of self righteousness, with little understanding of the overall sitution.

I submit it is nothing more than a glorified, self serving publicity stunt shrouded in a pasad of benevolence.

They should be tried with treason.

sin miedo

30th January 2003, 18:51

Clearly Saddam has to go, I'm with Moskitter on this one, and I'll probably piss a lot of my fellow leftists off, but what the fuck do I care? The Kurds in the North under the protection of the no-fly-zone are under the same sanctions and food-for-oil program as Hussein controlled Iraq, and they (the north Kurds) are enjoying a flourishing (albeit on the edge) democracy. They govern themselves, education and healthcare is improving greatly. Now here is where I question my initial belief that Saddam and Al Queda are not linked. Recently Al Queda militants have infiltrated the zone and began attacking Kurdish villages. They could possibly have sought shelter in Anti-west Iraq, then have been supplied by Saddam and sent into the Kurdish area. But on the other hand, they could have just as easily gone through Iran, maybe even being supplied by Iran, trying to destabilize the Kurdish democracy before the Iranian Kurds start getting ideas.

Now, how to get rid of Saddam? I don't know. I question the Bush administration's intent, and I don't really wanna see a street-fighting war, 'cause that means time, and the longer the West (if West Europe goes along) stays bogged down in Iraq, the hotter and more restless the situation in the Middle-East will become. Clearly, if war breaks out (and even if it doesn't) something should be done to help the Kurds in the north. Saddam has massive amounts of troops on the northern no-fly-zone border ready to invade the Kurds at the first chance he gets. These people have been fucked with by Saddam ever since he took power, and especially immediatly after the Gulf War when Bush #1 pussed out and left them and the Shi'ites in the south out to dry (after asking them to rise up), leading them to be massacred by Saddam's military.

Capitalist Imperial

30th January 2003, 18:56

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 3:17 pm on Jan. 30, 2003
At least Sabre isn't subscribing himself to every word President Junior says before providing any sort of sufficient proof.

Just look at CI's amazing wit. He "knew all along" Iraq and Al Queda were in it together. He just didn't want to ruin the ending of the movie. I wish I was as cunning as to figure that one out ahead of time.

I have a hunch that Iraq and Al Queda also have ties to the Mafia, the Communists, the Jew-swamped media, the Jews in general, the BNP, Rock & Roll music, the Free Masons, and everyone else who is out to steal our metaphorical picnic baskets from our figurative Jellystone National Park of liberty. Whatcha think, CI?

Oh, and, sorry to get off topic, but where's this evidence Bush promised us? I'm just curious. Don't think I'm doubting your word or the word of our beloved president. I mean, we don't need to see evidence to know Bush is telling the truth. We all know Saddam has an underground laser bunker full of nukes. It's not our job to back up our accusations, it's Saddam's job to provide the tangible proof disproving our accusations that there is some tangible proof to be provided that prove our accusations to be true. Quite simple.

I don't know why he doesn't get it. Maybe he's lost a few brain cells from some drug binges he's had with his ties to Motley Crue.

MDP, I will dismiss most of this dogmatic poppycock as your typical panti-waist diplomacy.

As for proof of the eradication of his WMD weapons and programs, I think you, like many world citizens (especially to the left) are confused.

We are not asking Saddam Hussein to provide tangible evidence that he does not have weapons that we merely suspect he has. That of course is illogical, you can't really prove non-existence per se.

What the Bush Administration is saying is that in the last 10 years we have documented records and survelliance data that validate that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

We know it, and Iraq knows we know it.

So, we are asking Iraq for physical and observable evidence that he has destroyed the WMD stockpiles and has discontinued the WMD programs that we all know and have conceded that Iraq posseses.

Iraq has yet to furnishg proof. Allt hat we do know is that the UN inspectors have deemed that there are many, many components and a lot of equipment missing and unnaccounted for.

Where is it?

Why isn't it accounted for?

I know where to look: Try about 10 feet underneath an arbitrary point somewhere in the 1000's of miles of Iraqi desert.

Regime change is imminent.

Capitalist Imperial

30th January 2003, 19:01

Quote: from CCCP on 5:02 pm on Jan. 30, 2003

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:23 pm on Jan. 29, 2003
The proof is coming today, commie pukes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76843,00.html

What will be your new excuse not to attack Iraq, now that evidence will support that they have definate ties to September 11th?

Now that the evidence will support that they may have even funded the operation?

Perhaps you granola and twig leftists will still want to extend an olive branch to an enemy of the state who will soon be a proven accomplice of the killing of 3000+ innocent Americans and Worlds citizens.

Eradication of Saddam Hussein's regime is imminent.

Rewgime change is the only option.

Perhaps you gadflys will be content to join Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Cheryl Crow, and other "Celiberals" in their oh-so thoughtful and qualified analysis of the situation.

Again, I ask, liberals, will you concede that military action in Iraq is justified if proof of their involvement in 9/11 is submitted?

Please,for once, lets come together, and concede that in light of evidence action is in fact justified!

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 5:29 pm on Jan. 29, 2003)

The USA has trained Osama Bin Laden and even funded him in his early years fighting for a Islamic-fundamentalist state in Afganistan.

Without the USA's support to Islamic fundamentalists in Afganistan, the current "terrorist" problem wouldn't have half the size of today.

Big chance that 11/9 wouldn't have happend without the funding of Osama by the US government.

And btw: wouldn't Saddam Hussain fire of nuclear weapons when the US troops would invade Iraq?

Isn't the US provacating the situation?

Why is the US supporting Pakistan and Israel(both have nuclear programmes) and not N Korea and Iraq?

What would happen if the USA would run out of oil?

Why does the USA support Saudi Arabia when they know that SA is supporting Al'Qaida and Bin Laden?

Why would I address these questions, when you have not addressed mine?

Tkinter1

30th January 2003, 20:38

"Just because Sadaam is anti-Amerikan dosen't mean he sides or has anything to do with al-Quaeda."

He's a very likley suspect though. We're awaiting bushes proof connetion as well. He's still a threat to his people and the people around him(some of which are our allies).

Thats taking on the extremely flawed "with us or against us logic"

I don't think thats flawed. It's harsh, but its neccesary to protect this nation(US).

"If Sadaam really was so much of a threat, how come something wasn't done a long time ago?"

We've tried numerous things..suporting coups..Operation DS(ousting saddam was not the main goal but it was touched on)..assasination plans....

"It would not be in his interest to side with al-Quaeda a) because they are enemies"

Technically so was Russia and the US(during WWII) but they still united to fight the big problem. What's stoping Saddam from this same approach?

and B) because the U$ government is at the climax of its barbarianism

Please....

(if Dubya wants to bomb him for no reason, imagine if he actually became hostile towards the U$).

Please....

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 8:43 pm on Jan. 30, 2003)

abstractmentality

30th January 2003, 20:56

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 10:56 am on Jan. 30, 2003

What the Bush Administration is saying is that in the last 10 years we have documented records and survelliance data that validate that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

We know it, and Iraq knows we know it.

So, we are asking Iraq for physical and observable evidence that he has destroyed the WMD stockpiles and has discontinued the WMD programs that we all know and have conceded that Iraq posseses.

Iraq has yet to furnishg proof. Allt hat we do know is that the UN inspectors have deemed that there are many, many components and a lot of equipment missing and unnaccounted for.

Where is it?

Why isn't it accounted for?

CI: have you read the documents proving that Iraq has WMD? i am just curious, as most of the entire world is still waiting for this evidence, and i thought you may be an insider with information the rest of us are all waiting for. yes, there are bits and piece of stuff missing, but that is exactly it, bits and pieces. 5-10% we have not confirmed where it is. these horrid chemical and biological weapons have shelf lives, they are not everlasting. as scott ritter is quick to point out, all of this stuff would have become useless by now.

As far as WMD, the U.N. Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights has deemed the depleted uranium the US has used in battle against Iraq as a weapon of mass destruction. Source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/01/13/MN233872.DTL) just thought that i would point that out.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 12:57 pm on Jan. 30, 2003)

Capitalist Imperial

30th January 2003, 21:04

Any effects of residual DU in Iraq are ultimately the responsibility of Saddam Hussein, who refused to leave Kuwait in 1991 after given plenty of time to do so by coalition forces.

abstractmentality

30th January 2003, 21:11

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 1:04 pm on Jan. 30, 2003
Any effects of residual DU in Iraq are ultimately the responsibility of Saddam Hussein, who refused to leave Kuwait in 1991 after given plenty of time to do so by coalition forces.
LOL. you are kidding, right? we did not have to use DU, we chose to. how is the US's decision to use DU instead of something else his fault?

and i really like the way you dont write anything about my first paragraph. is that because you have NO evidence of the programs of WMD?

Tkinter1

30th January 2003, 21:22

AM,

He's used chemical weapons before. Chances are he'll do it again.

El Brujo

30th January 2003, 21:22

"He's a very likley suspect though. We're awaiting bushes proof connetion as well. He's still a threat to his people and the people around him(some of which are our allies)."

As much of a threat that he is to his people, I think brutally killing them (or "collateral damage", as false bourgeoisie politicians so softly put it) is much more, wouldn't we agree? The U$ government apparently didn't think of him as a threat to his people when they supported him in the 80's Iran-Iraq war.

"I don't think thats flawed. It's harsh, but its neccesary to protect this nation(US)."

It IS flawed. If you ever study dialectics, you will learn that absolutely nothing is "good and evil", "black and white", etc. Besides, this is obviously not to protect the nation, its for the reasons I already mentioned.

"We've tried numerous things..suporting coups..Operation DS(ousting saddam was not the main goal but it was touched on)..assasination plans...."

If Sadaam was planning on an attack he could have done it any time, why would he do it now (like I said, during the climax in the U$ governments barbarianism) of all times. Wouldn't he be MORE likely to use weapons of mass destruction (if he has them, that is) if he was provoked. What should be done is to lift the embargo and allow the PEOPLE to overthrow him and establish a ruler that works for the Iraqui people, not some despotic pro-U$ puppet-dictator that cares more about pleasing the U$ then providing for the people.

"Technically so was Russia and the US(during WWII) but they still united to fight the big problem. What's stoping Saddam from this same approach?"

Gorbachev was extremely friendly with Reagan, Thatcher and all other corporate lackeys. He was a bourgeoisie politician. That is why a hard-line communist coup was attempted on him in mid-1991.

"Please....Please...."

Please explain to me how the U$ government is NOT at the climax of its barbarianism and how this war is at all justified (apart from gaining political ends and leeching off another countries natural resources). Dubya has lost a lot of popularity since his drive at Iraq, not only among the people in thie country but around the people and governments of countries around the world (not that they admired the moron in the first place).

(Edited by El Brujo at 5:25 am on Jan. 31, 2003)

Tkinter1

30th January 2003, 21:45

"As much of a threat that he is to his people, I think brutally killing them (or "collateral damage", as false bourgeoisie politicians so softly put it) is much more"

Thats not the plan. That wouldn't even make sense...on any level.

"The U$ government apparently didn't think of him as a threat to his people when they supported him in the 80's Iran-Iraq war"

I guess not...

"It IS flawed. If you ever study dialectics, you will learn that absolutely nothing is "good and evil", "black and white", etc."

The world doesn't work this way.

"this is obviously not to protect the nation"

Why not?

"Gorbachev was extremely friendly with Reagan, Thatcher and all other corporate lackeys. He was a bourgeoisie politician. That is why a hard-line communist coup was attempted on him in mid-1991."

We're not really talking about the Gorbachev/Reagan realtionship though.

"Please explain to me how the U$ government is NOT at the climax of its barbarianism"

Please explain to me how the US could possibly be at the apex of barbarianism. I want to hear your definition of barbarianism and how it relates to the US. And don't exaggerate anything or blurt rumors.(Im not saying you will, but just to be safe)

"how this war is at all justified"

Becuase Saddam is a terrible dictator, may have links with al qaeda, and will use chemical weapons on civilians.

"Dubya has lost a lot of popularity since his drive at Iraq"

I attribute that to lack of faith.

"not that they admired the moron in the first place"

Haha yeah he's not too popular is he?

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 9:47 pm on Jan. 30, 2003)

sabre

30th January 2003, 23:29

....by the way guys - im still waiting for this Al-Qaeda to Iraq information that C.I. promised us almost 2 days ago....

El Brujo

31st January 2003, 00:17

"Thats not the plan. That wouldn't even make sense...on any level."

Of course its not, but it is impossible to avoid civillian casualties in any war. False targets are always hit and radiation always affects near-by population. It is especially dangerous to the people in this case knowing that Sadaam will send children to millitary bases to get killed so he can then use it for propaghanda and that the U$ millitary dosen't have the balls to send more infantry and less aircraft, believeing the lives of their soldiers are more important than the lives of foreign civillians (Hiroshima, the perfect example).

"Why not?"

Because, like I said, if the U$ government wanted to take out Sadaam to "protect the people", they would have done it a long time ago, in DS or any time afterwards. Dosent it strike you as strange that the Sadaam issue is, all of a sudden, brought up after such a long time, just after 9/11, when there is an upsurge of ultra-nationalism and war-friendliness in this country? Dubya is obviously going for the "war heroe" banner for the next election and, knowing how the country's economy is going for a fall, Dubya is trying to distract the population from it while he starts a war, and by the time it is over, he has already stolen Iraqui oil. Remember, Bush an Chaney are in the oil industry, so it would be especially beneficial for them.

"We're not really talking about the Gorbachev/Reagan realtionship though."

Well, Bush sr. Same shit. He was Reagan's vice president. Bush was less of an extreme right-winger than Reagan so if Gorbachev was freindly with Reagan, then it would obviously be easier for him to be freindly with Bush.

"Please explain to me how the US could possibly be at the apex of barbarianism. I want to hear your definition of barbarianism and how it relates to the US. And don't exaggerate anything or blurt rumors.(Im not saying you will, but just to be safe)"

Well, Dubya wants to attack Iraq without any proof that they have weapons of mass destruction or that they would use them if they had it. Sadaam is cooperating with weapons inspectors and they are doing the best that they can so speed up the inspection process, yet Dubya is "losing his patience". Dubya is using the fact that they could be hidden underground or in remote places as "proof" that they have them, even though there is no evidence or anything that implies that there is.

All this very much resembles barbarianism. Arbitrary judgement without trial or probable cause.

"Becuase Saddam is a terrible dictator, may have links with al qaeda, and will use chemical weapons on civilians."

And that is why I support the PEOPLE overthrowing him, not an outside power, and setting up a system that works for the people and not for an outside power's interests. Only millitary and government personell would be damaged for the cause (no "collateral damage"), and a regime that the people want would be set up. If we were 100% sure that the war wouldn't bring about "collateral damage" and if it were for the purpose of protecting the Iraqui people's interest and not for political ends and economic advantage, I would support it.

"I attribute that to lack of faith."

Hm. Not quite sure what you mean by that. If your referring to the economic problems occuring right now and how he is dealing with them, yes. That is another reason the people have to not flock behind him.

"Haha yeah he's not too popular is he?"

Nope, not at all.

BTW: Thank you very much for providing decent, respectfull and intelligent debate. The same can't be said about the 4 mindless drones (CI, DC, SN & FV).

Capitalist Imperial

31st January 2003, 00:44

Quote: from abstractmentality on 9:11 pm on Jan. 30, 2003

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 1:04 pm on Jan. 30, 2003
Any effects of residual DU in Iraq are ultimately the responsibility of Saddam Hussein, who refused to leave Kuwait in 1991 after given plenty of time to do so by coalition forces.
LOL. you are kidding, right? we did not have to use DU, we chose to. how is the US's decision to use DU instead of something else his fault?

and i really like the way you dont write anything about my first paragraph. is that because you have NO evidence of the programs of WMD?

Further proof of the WMD is forthcoming.

As for the DU, I don't accept ther notion that our military should use anything less than the most effective munitions in combat, as it lends itself to bringing a swift end to a confrontation. Americans are casualty adverse, and do not want to see their soldiers unnecessarily endangered.

DU munitions maximize destruction and disabling of enemy forces, thus minimizing risk to US soldiers.

Capitalist Imperial

31st January 2003, 00:52

Quote: from sabre on 11:29 pm on Jan. 30, 2003
....by the way guys - im still waiting for this Al-Qaeda to Iraq information that C.I. promised us almost 2 days ago....

I misread the article, the proof will come next Wed, not yesterday. But you can read the article yourself for a preview of what will be shown. The link is in the 1st post in the thread.

abstractmentality

31st January 2003, 01:04

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 4:44 pm on Jan. 30, 2003

Further proof of the WMD is forthcoming.

As for the DU, I don't accept ther notion that our military should use anything less than the most effective munitions in combat, as it lends itself to bringing a swift end to a confrontation. Americans are casualty adverse, and do not want to see their soldiers unnecessarily endangered.

DU munitions maximize destruction and disabling of enemy forces, thus minimizing risk to US soldiers.
Minimizing US soldiers risk? you obviously didnt read the article i had as a source. the "mysterous" desert storm sickness that has been a burden on US soldiers from Desert Storm is thought to have been cause by this DU, which you claim protects our soldiers. yes, the armor factor of it is better, considering the dense-ness of it compared to lead, but you have to recognize that it is NOT Husseins fault that we use DU, and that it is the US's choice to use it. so then, WMD is justified when we use them, and not justified when they use them, right? the idea of people killing other people that disappoints me, to say the least, so i dont support anybody using them, but you have to see the rational of the opposing view.

Tkinter1: yes, he has used them. and the US has used nuclear bombs as well, and is willing to use them again. please explain the difference.

Tkinter1

31st January 2003, 02:45

"Tkinter1: yes, he has used them. and the US has used nuclear bombs as well, and is willing to use them again. please explain the difference."

I knew this was coming! The circumstances are COMPLETLEY different. One was to end a war(Which Japan and Germany started, and it actually saved lives, and it was droped on remote cities with low populations, we've been over this a million times) and another was Saddams aggression. And the US is not willing or ready to drop a nuclear bomb on Iraq. It wouldn't make any sense

IHP

31st January 2003, 03:48

"And the US is not willing or ready to drop a nuclear bomb on Iraq. "

Tkinter, I beg to differ. They have stated that under certain circumstances, a pre-emptive nuclear strike would be considered.

--IHP

abstractmentality

31st January 2003, 03:58

thank you IHP. i was also going to say that. if things get a little complicated in Iraq, the US will use nuclear weapons on Iraq. right now, the nuclear arsenal is used as a deterrence method. if the US is not willing to use the nuclear weapons, then the deterrence effect they have right now is no longer valid, and they become huge stock piles of nothing, essentially. therefore, to keep them as a weapon of deterrence, the US MUST be willing to use them, and they are willing to use them.

But, as far as the different "circumstances" is concerned, i was just wondering if because there are different circumstances, if the people that died are any less dead? to my knowledge, no, they are all equally dead. we, as a public, have seen NO evidence that hussein has WMD, and if the US does not invade, then their will be no dead american soldiers, their will be no dead iraqi soldiers and less iraqi civilian deaths. so, if the us does not attack, with the current lack of evidence in mind, then it will save lives. according to your rational of preventing the death of as many people (you said using the nuclear bombs on Japan was "okay" since they saved lives in the future) as you can, then not attacking would be the best option.

ID2002

31st January 2003, 07:27

Bush can't prove shit...hes full of hot air as usual.

Stormin Norman

31st January 2003, 09:34

Somebody could smack you upside the head with proof and you would still refuse to listen.

CI,

Why would we except reason and rationality from those people who defend cop killer Mumia, sex offender Scott Ritter, and Stalinist Karl Marx? These people have demonstrated their lack of human decency time and time again. Why should we expect them to join the side of the just when they are so obviously allied with everything evil and despicable in the world? The people we come here to debate lack conscience, and would make excellent criminals, if they weren't to cowardly to act on their criminal proclivities. One must truly gawk over the lack of a moral clarity these fools possess. Perhaps they lived to close to high intensity power lines when they were children and their compasses were wiped out by the EMFs. Whatever the cause, we can be certain of their brain damage.

abstractmentality

31st January 2003, 21:58

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 1:34 am on Jan. 31, 2003
Why would we except reason and rationality from those people who defend cop killer Mumia, sex offender Scott Ritter, and Stalinist Karl Marx? These people have demonstrated their lack of human decency time and time again. Why should we expect them to join the side of the just when they are so obviously allied with everything evil and despicable in the world? The people we come here to debate lack conscience, and would make excellent criminals, if they weren't to cowardly to act on their criminal proclivities. One must truly gawk over the lack of a moral clarity these fools possess. Perhaps they lived to close to high intensity power lines when they were children and their compasses were wiped out by the EMFs. Whatever the cause, we can be certain of their brain damage.
LOL, good stuff SN.

I just think its funny that people are so quick to back 100% something that we have absolutley no evidence to support. even CI recognizes that their is no evidence when he says "the proof will come next Wed[nesday]."

Capitalist Imperial

31st January 2003, 22:43

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 9:34 am on Jan. 31, 2003
Somebody could smack you upside the head with proof and you would still refuse to listen.

CI,

Why would we except reason and rationality from those people who defend cop killer Mumia, sex offender Scott Ritter, and Stalinist Karl Marx? These people have demonstrated their lack of human decency time and time again. Why should we expect them to join the side of the just when they are so obviously allied with everything evil and despicable in the world? The people we come here to debate lack conscience, and would make excellent criminals, if they weren't to cowardly to act on their criminal proclivities. One must truly gawk over the lack of a moral clarity these fools possess. Perhaps they lived to close to high intensity power lines when they were children and their compasses were wiped out by the EMFs. Whatever the cause, we can be certain of their brain damage.

Perhaps we are the stupid ones to entertain the notion that even one iota of common sense and understanding of fundamental human nature graces the frontal cortex of these pinko gadflys. I support your hypothesis that these individuals were most likely pdeudo-lobotomized at some point in their toddlerhood by some arbitrary accident, so I surmise that we can only pity them.