The W
Views: 97769058
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
29.7.14 0155
The W - Current Events & Politics - Saddam link to terror group
This thread has 8 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2095 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (11 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1183 days
Last activity: 980 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I'm so surprised....from the London Telegraph




Promote this thread!
Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2780 days
Last activity: 2780 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
From the article:

    Throughout its campaign the ADF has been provided with weapons and funding by the Islamist government in Sudan, one of more than half a dozen states Washington accuses of sponsoring terrorism.


So why aren't we invading Sudan? Or is that on the Wolfowitz/Pearle list of "countries to invade in the next little while"?

But wait a sec ... if we are going to target leaders who have sold arms to Islamic terrorists, why aren't we bombing Ronald Reagan's compound in California? Or has the statute of limitations ran out on whining about Iran/Contra?

Honestly, let's try and bring some perspective to all this. Bush and Co., when first trying to sell the war against Iraq to the American people, tried to tie Saddam with Ossama and September 11. It didn't stick, and they had to move on to the WMD argument. Tying Saddam to various groups like Hamas and Hezbolla and now the ADF will not be hard, but we shouldn't forget the initial move -- bunching Saddam, Ossama, and September 11 together in people's minds.

Unless you think discovering that Saddam gave what sounds like minor funding to an obscure terror group in a corner of Africa justifies the near destruction of a country and the deaths of thousands?






Any man who hates small dogs and children can't be all bad.
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 459 days
Last activity: 326 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on
It's call revisionest history. Since what was thrown against the wall prior to the war didn't stick, now just try to find somethingm anything that will make the war acceptable.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2743 days
Last activity: 2586 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally Posted by Gavintzu
    Unless you think discovering that Saddam gave what sounds like minor funding to an obscure terror group in a corner of Africa justifies the near destruction of a country and the deaths of thousands?


I don't have an issue with your argument, really, but let's not exaggerate. Iraq has not been nearly destroyed, and those parts that were are being rebuilt at the expense of the country that destroyed them. Furthermore, there is always a cost in blood to remove a tyrant. It isn't nice, but it also isn't avoidable. Again, what happened when the Shia rose up? We left them out to dry - no, let me rephrase that - we chose peace, and thousands died.



"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 11 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on

    Originally posted by messenoir
    It's call revisionest history. Since what was thrown against the wall prior to the war didn't stick, now just try to find somethingm anything that will make the war acceptable.
I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans found the war acceptable.
    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    Or has the statute of limitations ran out on whining about Iran/Contra?
Oh, man, that'd be sweet! Also, whining about the Clinton presidency, also whining about the "stolen" 2000 election, also whining about the "in the crease" goal.



CRZ™
Only *15* wins to go!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1183 days
Last activity: 980 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    So why aren't we invading Sudan? Or is that on the Wolfowitz/Pearle list of "countries to invade in the next little while"?

Because it was not politially expedient to do so. Besides, the Sudanese government was starting to at least pay lip service to help us.

Remember; they did offer OBL on a platter to Clinton.....


    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    Bush and Co., when first trying to sell the war against Iraq to the American people, tried to tie Saddam with Ossama and September 11. It didn't stick, and they had to move on to the WMD argument. Tying Saddam to various groups like Hamas and Hezbolla and now the ADF will not be hard, but we shouldn't forget the initial move -- bunching Saddam, Ossama, and September 11 together in people's minds.

And it looks like they were right....


    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    Unless you think discovering that Saddam gave what sounds like minor funding to an obscure terror group in a corner of Africa justifies the near destruction of a country and the deaths of thousands?

Thousands of whom?....and incidentally, when you consider that this terror group was affiliated with other terror groups, it's not real hard to connect the dots.




messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 459 days
Last activity: 326 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on

    Originally posted by CRZ

      Originally posted by messenoir
      It's call revisionest history. Since what was thrown against the wall prior to the war didn't stick, now just try to find somethingm anything that will make the war acceptable.
    I'm pretty sure the majority of Americans found the war acceptable.



Not so much

March 31, 2003

PIPA is a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes
(<http://www.policyattitudes.org/>COPA) and the Center for
International
and Security Studies at Maryland
(<http://www.puaf.umd.edu/CISSM/default.htm>CISSM), School of Public
Affairs, <http://www.umd.edu/>University of Maryland.


Public Rallies Behind President on Iraq But Still Wants Major Role for
United Nations

Supports UN Governing Post-War Iraq
Taking Lead With North Korea and Iran

Says US Should Not Feel More Free to Use Military Force Without UN
Approval

College Park, MD: A new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll finds that a
strong
majority of Americans has rallied in support of the President's
decision to
go to war with Iraq, despite the lack of UN approval. Nonetheless, the
public feels that in the future the UN should play a major role in
international affairs, including governing post-war Iraq.

Seventy-five percent say they support the President's decision to go to
war
with Iraq, with 54% saying they agree with the decision and 21% saying
they
support the president even though they do disagree with the decision.

But Americans do not appear to believe that the US should regard the
choice
to go to war without UN approval as a precedent. Asked, "Do you think
that
in the future the US should or should not feel more free to use
military
force without UN authorization?" only 29% said that it should, while
66%
said that it should not.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA comments, "While the public is ready to
give
the president a pass this time, it appears that in the future,
two-thirds
will still insist on getting UN approval for the use of military
force."

Americans also do not believe that UN's failure to authorize going to
war
with Iraq has undermined its future importance. Only 26% anticipate
that in
the future the UN will have a less important role in the world while
71%
said that it will be at least as important as before the war.

Asked who should govern Iraq in the aftermath of the war, only 30% said
it
should be the US, while 52% said it should the UN, and 14% gave other
answers.

Strong majorities want the UN, not the US, to take the lead in dealing
with
North Korea (72%) and Iran (63%). Steven Kull comments, "There is no
evidence that the majority of Americans believe that the UN has become
irrelevant."

Americans show a moderate level of confidence that the decision to go
to
war was the right one. Asked to answer on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0
being
certain that it was the wrong decision, 10 being certain that it was
the
right decision, and 5 being unsure, 59% gave a score above 5 and 27%
gave a
response of 10. The mean score was 6.32.

Many more Americans believe that the US going to war with Iraq will
have
negative consequences for US foreign policy than believe it will have
positive consequences. More believe that it will increase the
likelihood
that that North Korea will make nuclear weapons, that feelings in the
Muslim world toward the US will worsen, that the risk of terrorist
attacks
will increase, and that it will be harder for the US to get cooperation
from other countries.

A strong majority (63%) favors trying to limit the number of Iraqi
civilian
casualties even if this means the war would last longer.

Though only a minority would prefer to see the US govern post-war Iraq,
an
overwhelming majority (85%) says the US has the responsibility to
remain in
Iraq until there is a stable government, which the median respondent
estimates will take 2 years. An overwhelming majority (86%) thinks it
is
important to bring democracy to Iraq and a strong majority (63%)
believes
this will eventually occur.

It does not appear that the support for war with Iraq has generalized
to
become broader support for a confrontational approach with North Korea
and
Iran. Almost four out of five respondents--79%--said "the US should
deal
with the government of North Korea primarily by trying to build better
relations," while only 15% said the US should emphasize an approach of
"pressuring it with implied threats that the US may use military force
against it." Asked the same question about Iran, an overwhelming 80%
thought the US should deal with the Iranian government by trying to
build
better relations, and just 16% preferred to pressure it with implied
military threats.

The poll was conducted with a nationwide poll of 795 American adults
over
March 22-25, 2003. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5%. The poll
was
fielded using by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which
is
randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently
provided internet access. For more information about this methodology
go to
<http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp>www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund.

<http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraqmar31/report_mar31.pdf>Report of
Findings
<http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraqmar31/quest_mar31.pdf>Questionnaire
Media
Release


Also, since this an international "war" the international response matters. You'd be hardpressed to find a majority of the international community supports this "war".

The simple fact is: Bush and co tried as hard as possible to link Iraq to Al Qaeda and have found no credible evidence to support this. The fact there is some evidence now to link Hussein to other terrorist organizations doesn't make Bush's primary allegations true.

It'd be like someone murdering some random person on the street and getting pardoned because that random person was a murderer. If the reasons behind an action are faulty, the action is faulty.




asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1343 days
Last activity: 251 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95

    Originally posted by CRZ
    Oh, man, that'd be sweet! Also, whining about the Clinton presidency, also whining about the "stolen" 2000 election, also whining about the "in the crease" goal.


Don't forget Jesus!



-- Asteroid Boy


Wiener of the day: 23.7.02

"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport."
"Was he no-selling?"
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3662 days
Last activity: 3131 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on

    Originally posted by asteroidboy

      Originally posted by CRZ
      Oh, man, that'd be sweet! Also, whining about the Clinton presidency, also whining about the "stolen" 2000 election, also whining about the "in the crease" goal.


    Don't forget Jesus!



Maybe that'd shut those bleeding heart Neanderthal Rights people up, too. Okay, so we killed off another species of humans. It was, like, a hundred thousand years ago!



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka

"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2780 days
Last activity: 2780 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
CRZ sez:

    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Or has the statute of limitations ran out on whining about Iran/Contra?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Oh, man, that'd be sweet! Also, whining about the Clinton presidency, also whining about the "stolen" 2000 election, also whining about the "in the crease" goal.



Ah ha! Paraphrasing Our Great Dictator will flush him out from lurking in the reeds. This information will be verrry useful, should a regime change be necessary in the future.

Seriously though, I don't buy it. The world doesn't reinvent itself every morning when we wake up and eat our Weetabix. Events in the past have repercussions through the years, and if people stop whining about things in the past that have gone wrong, those events and their repercussions don't disappear.

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."
-- some Wiener or another, not talking about the New Protectorate of Iraq, nope that was years ago, talking about something completely different.

(Also ... Bret Hull's skate was in the fucking crease. All year they had been calling back goals on replay because of skates in the crease ... just because it was in the third overtime and the Stars flooded the ice in celebration they threw out the fucking rulebook? The Sabres got screwed. Waaaa waaaa waaaa.)






Any man who hates small dogs and children can't be all bad.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2901 days
Last activity: 2898 days
#11 Posted on
If we can justify a war on one country because they supported terrorists who may have known other terrorists who may have known other terrorists and so on and so forth until we finally get to the group that attacked us, then we should be declaring war on a fair amount of the current administration.



Weekly Visitor - EXXXXTREME MARCH!

Jersey Is Dead - Feel my Grief
Pages: 1Thread ahead: PETA BBQ
Next thread: NOW worried about Peterson case
Previous thread: Thank you Paul McCartney
(2095 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
(Miss one? http://wienerboard.com/cagcotd.php) ED BEYER (R) Website: www.electedbeyer.com - Nat Gertler (gertler.com) notes, "[His] website name ... may confuse some people.
- CRZ, CA GCOTD: BEYER (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Saddam link to terror group Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.12 seconds.