|
Page 1 of 5 pages 1 2 3 > Last › |
Matt
|
Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 | 05:17 PM
I'm not sure how many people ever were certain on that. I supported the war, even though I wasn't at all convinced there was any connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Here's the way I saw it.
The "connection" in my opinion was that both Saddam and the Taliban were America-hating bastards who sponsored terrorists who conducted operations against American interests. For example, Saddam Hussein sponsored an attempt to have Bush Sr. murdered, and sheltered Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, two of the most notorious terrorists of the '80s. Ok, so they weren't on the current A-list of global bad guys. There is no way of proving whether Saddam would have sponsored something to try and top September 11th. But the facts that he did harbor terrorists, and did send them to kill Americans in the past, were no hoax at all. |
Nick
|
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 | 02:22 PM
i reckon there's no such thing as Iraq |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 | 02:46 AM
Matt, the point isn't whether Saddam hated us, and would have acted against us given the chance. The reality is, he did not, in the case of 911. As Mr. Harbison suggested, the Hoax is that the US government repeatedly and clearly claimed that Saddam had the great threat of WMDs, biological, chemical or otherwise, and was a clear and present danger, which he was not. Point- if Saddam had no WMDs as the US claimed, then they perpetrated a hoax, or (Gasp) they lied. Here's the dilly: Big Claims, no results- must be a Hoax/lie. |
Maegan
|
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 | 10:56 AM
But Saddam was still terrorizong a nation of his own people...doesn't that count for something?
Although, if we're going to start liberating dictatorships...is Cuba next?
I say we yank our support of all countries, except for those who have given us their support in the Iraq conflict. We can park some tanks at the borders to Canada & Mexico (hey, they didn't jump up to help either!) and back out of NATO. |
whatam
|
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 | 11:07 AM
Who said there was a connection between 7/11 & Iraq. No one I know but there were non-operational franchises before & after. And in every one of them there was a mantra performed by an owl & a chicken incessently. The owl said, "We got ice, drinks, bread, cheese". Then the chicken said, "We got meat, fish & canned peas". Then together they chanted, "From 7 to 11, from 7 to 11".
Disgusting, & I'm grateful that their regime was removed. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 | 09:37 PM
yeah, removed by a hoax. The question was not whether Saddam was a jerk, but whether the reasons given for his immediate overthrow were based on falacious info. King George Himself has admitted that his intelligence was flawed. The true base question, really, is whether Bush knew the info was false, and pushed it as correct. That would constitute a hoax, no? What didn't he know and when didn't he know it? |
Velvet Greaseball
in Reality (try it)
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 | 04:15 PM
Waaaa! Waaaa! Waaaa! [/AlGore off] |
Evildream
in You mamas house
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 | 07:11 PM
umm... there was no connection. the gov. never said there was....
they said he had weapons and was killing people by the thousands...
So 1 and 1/2 aint bad
He had the means but not the weapons, but he was killing people for profit. |
Evildream
in You mamas house
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 | 07:12 PM
oh and they have protected terrorists |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 | 07:24 PM
ED, my dear...
He didn't have the weapons.
Killing people for profit is not the same as killing people in their thousands (not that I'm saying he didn't).
So you get a maximum of 50%. |
Jamie Forsberg
in Australia
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 | 10:50 PM
isn't a hoax similar to a cover up were people say one thing when they know that in fact something else is the case. remember watergate? everyone was so surprised because their president was not just dishonest but an active participant. AND people were digging for that connection. Where are the Journos trying to prove that Georgie not only knew but probably (with his dads help) concocted half of the 'bad intelegence'. Where are the tapes the memos the proof? My belief is that the hoaxe is so enourmous this time that no one is game to look? Too embarased that they were fooled to admit it!!! Bush is the greatest hoaxer of all time. AND WE ARE HIS DUPES |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 | 11:12 PM
Politics may involve a lot of lies, but not hoaxes. It's simple terminology. |
sconny botland
in Scotland
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 | 05:30 AM
I have to agree that it is a hoax but quite a sick one. The deaths in that country have not ended, the peoples lifes are not improved, the coalition's global position is not improved. It just breaks my heart that death of any human seems to justifiable.
As for repulsive goverments, there is a long long line before you reached Iraq. |
sconny botland
in Scotland
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 | 05:31 AM
Forgot the word "be" before justifiable. |
n3
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 | 03:32 AM
You would never get a real picture here,because american people are intimidated by the recently changed laws in relation to invasion of privacy(British are going through the same thing with the ID issue).I do believe that most of people in the USA prefer not to comment on this subject. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 | 06:25 AM
I'm not afraid to comment, and I don't feel intimidated by any laws, thank you very much! (And it's THIS attitude my British friend tells me is why so many people hate Americans - but in the same American fashion, d'ya think I care?) 
I'm not really sure what you'd like for me to prefer not to comment on. The Pres? Iraq? Our laws? Well, I didn't vote in the last election, so I really can't complain about the president. Frankly though, he's in a position that means that no matter WHAT he says or does, someone is going to disagree with him. Maybe when all this started he thought it was a good idea. Someone else must have agreed with him, b/c the president can only go to war for 90 days without the help of congress. So put THAT in your pipe and smoke it! It wasn't like he stood up in front of everyone and said, "C'mon! Just for fun...whadd'ya say?? Let's invade!" A lot of people had to agree with him before he could do it. Maybe now, it's gotten to the point where those same people are continuing the invasion in the hopes of finding something, or proving something.
I dunno...I'm not very politics-driven, and I don't really follow a lot of political news. So maybe it doesn't matter what I think...but n3, Americans are almost always happy to speak up. |
Jamie Forsberg
in Australia
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 | 05:40 PM
Now what may have happened is that Georgie Jnr says to Georgie Snr. Dady can I be JFK? Bush Snr says 'No son your too damned ugly and a republican to boot. But I will make you presedent if you do me one favour in return.....
Invade Iraq. Deal? good now if you'd just put that cocain away we can get started'.
AND YOU DIDN"T VOTE!!!!!!!! see in my country (Australia) that's against the law. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 | 07:27 PM
Does anybody have any evidence showing that somebody in the government said that the invasion of Iraq and the terrorist attacks were actually directly linked? So far all I've seen are editorial types of comments about that, although I admit to not spending a whole lot of time looking. Most of the press releases that I've seen said that the invasion was more related to WMDs and harbouring terrorists in general. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 | 06:21 AM
I couldn't tell ya, Acci. Like I mentioned, I didn't even pay attention. I'm just not that concerned with it. Soldiers are already in Iraq, the reasons now, are irrelevent. Although, my brother (in the USAF) will be heading over there this fall...my youngest brother (USMC) will be leaving for bootcampt about the same time - so I'm sure I'll start paying more attention...but only for their sakes.
Jamie, it's called rights. I have a right NOT to vote. And incidentally...it's not like I did it on purpose, I meant to register when I turned 18...but I worked a night shift, and slept through the day - like when I would have been up getting my forms (at that time, they were not available online). THEN, the next time around, I didn't even realize the deadline had passed. I was busy being a new mom, and hadn't even realized what was going on outside of my home. |
Jamie Forsberg
in Australia
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 | 06:17 PM
Hi Maegan,
didn't mean to be offensive, I was being a bit aggresive with my comments. I guess from a distance and particularly as a suposed key US aly. We don't get much of a feel for what is happening in peoples homes in america. are they concerned, are they actively demonstrating against the war. Or is life a larger battle. it's just such a contrast what happened 40 years ago in your country re vietnam, where the public closed down the war. (i live in the past)
Although as you say they are there now and I don't belive even John Kerry would have brought them home anyway. Good luck to your brothers. |
|
Page 1 of 5 pages 1 2 3 > Last › |
