Whoops

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 16, 2003, 6:40 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ll_chile_4

Did Powell slip up? Ruh roh Rhaggy!

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » April 16, 2003, 7:16 pm

Maybe he's just slicing through all of the BS.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 16, 2003, 10:13 pm

Someone needs to convince Powell to run for the big chair.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 16, 2003, 10:50 pm

It's sad, as an outside observer, my feelings towards Powell's credibility have dropped a ton from where they were before Bush took office. Either way you slice it, he's coming off poorly in my eyes. Either he really believes some of the stuff he's saying, which is a negative in my view, or he's being a good soldier and saying what he is supposed to say, regardless of his personal opinions, and that's a negative in my view as well.

That being said, I couldn't think of another person I'd want to win as a republican

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 16, 2003, 11:36 pm

I'd be hesitant to vote for him because he never really has established himself as a conservative.

Statesman yes, conservative...... unclear

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 17, 2003, 8:04 am

I believe (and Frontline agreed with me heh) that Powell was the one who wanted to go through UN and pushed hard for that. However, I also believe that they made a deal that if it didn't work, Powell had to sell Bush' plan of war. His heart was never in it, that was clearly obvious.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » April 17, 2003, 10:45 am

You know it's funny when I hear that Colin Powell is refered to as the dove in the Bush administration. I mean unless I'm mistaken he is the only one that actually served his country in times of war and reached the highest position in the military.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 17, 2003, 11:09 am

I doubt any of those working there take lightly the use of troops and the risks associated with it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 17, 2003, 5:25 pm

Crav wrote:You know it's funny when I hear that Colin Powell is refered to as the dove in the Bush administration. I mean unless I'm mistaken he is the only one that actually served his country in times of war and reached the highest position in the military.

At the end of the day it is always the lords of the battlefield that are the biggest advocates for peace, because they understand the horrifying consequences of warfare. Throughout history it's always been the generals on the battlefield that condone and conduct peace negotiations. It's always the generals that advocate non-violence over military action.

The problem with the Bush administration is there are too many chickenhawks and not enough warriors. To cowards like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, casualty and damage statistics are just that; statistics. They don't understand war on the most fundamental level, and just use it as a political tool.

noel · Post by **noel** » April 17, 2003, 5:28 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Crav wrote:You know it's funny when I hear that Colin Powell is refered to as the dove in the Bush administration. I mean unless I'm mistaken he is the only one that actually served his country in times of war and reached the highest position in the military.
At the end of the day it is always the lords of the battlefield that are the biggest advocates for peace, because they understand the horrifying consequences of warfare. Throughout history it's always been the generals on the battlefield that condone and conduct peace negotiations. It's always the generals that advocate non-violence over military action.

The problem with the Bush administration is there are too many chickenhawks and not enough warriors. To cowards like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, casualty and damage statistics are just that; statistics. They don't understand war on the most fundamental level, and just use it as a political tool.

That's a great post, Kyoukan. I completely agree.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 17, 2003, 6:02 pm

His heart was never in it, that was clearly obvious.

I disagree on that completely. Powell worked his ass off to get the a unanimous vote on 1441 and trying to get another resolution. The night before the vote (or one of the night's near the vote), he was at his daughter's wedding and got a call from Devillepin (I know I completely butchered the name) asking him to confirm the exact wording of the resolution. He had to put off walking down the aisle with his daughter to talk with him and work the semantics out.

Many people who think Powell failed keep forgetting that the true victory was getting 1441. Powell continued to work through the U.N. until it was obvious that nothing could be done to convince France/Russia to see reason. At that point it could be said he gave up on the UN, and I don't see how you can fault him for it after all he tried to do.

However, I also believe that they made a deal that if it didn't work, Powell had to sell Bush' plan of war.

Could it have been because no significant progress concerning WMDs in Iraq was being made, and other members of the security council were refusing to put anymore pressure on Iraq, while just wanting to keep Blix driving around Iraq visiting the same sites in some cases over 10 times? I believe Powell cuts through the BS and wants to actually get stuff accomplished- in this case the full disarament of Iraq.

I find it funny how so many people before were hailing Powell as the dove, as someone who kept by his principles, then the second he disagrees with you all, he's suddenly just someone following the party line who has put aside his principles and decency.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 17, 2003, 6:28 pm

kyoukan wrote:... They don't understand war on the most fundamental level, and just use it as a political tool.

A typical Kookyism. A big dramatic generalization, but no evidence to support it.

By the way, war has been a "diplomatic" tool for ages. GW didn't invent it. GW has his father's first hand experience to know that war doesn't make a good "political" tool.

Are you smoking those tea leaves you're trying to read?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 17, 2003, 6:32 pm

Aranuil wrote:That's a great post, Kyoukan. I completely agree.

Wow, did she catch you at a bad moment? Critical thinking skills on a short break?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 17, 2003, 6:58 pm

Metanis wrote:
Aranuil wrote:That's a great post, Kyoukan. I completely agree.
Wow, did she catch you at a bad moment? Critical thinking skills on a short break?

WTF kind of crack-rock are you smokin Met?
War is not a dipomatic tool. War is a conflict in which people die. War is the after-effect if dipomacy fails.

Example you say? Look at this entire board and the history of this war.
We dipomatically tried to get Saddam to reliqiush. He did not. So we waged war.

War is not a form of dipomacy, it is a form of resolving a conflict.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 17, 2003, 7:07 pm

I just want to quote this in case you decide to go back and edit it. So we did try to solve this diplomatically, and then when Saddam did not comply we went to war. Nice to see you're coming around Acies

Acies wrote:We dipomatically tried to get Saddam to reliqiush. He did not. So we waged war.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 17, 2003, 7:16 pm

Brotha wrote:I just want to quote this in case you decide to go back and edit it. So we did try to solve this diplomatically, and then when Saddam did not comply we went to war. Nice to see you're coming around Acies

Acies wrote:We dipomatically tried to get Saddam to reliqiush. He did not. So we waged war.

...
K...

igit

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 17, 2003, 8:35 pm

Metanis wrote:A typical Kookyism. A big dramatic generalization, but no evidence to support it.

What sort of evidence would you like me to provide for you?

And where is your "evidence" to support your rebuttal that I'm making "sweeping generalizations?" Oh that's right you don't have any.

By the way, war has been a "diplomatic" tool for ages.

No it isn't. Are you a retard? War is what happens when diplomacy either fails or never took place at all.

GW didn't invent it. GW has his father's first hand experience to know that war doesn't make a good "political" tool.

Bush sr's popularity skyrocketed amazingly during and after the gulf war. He ultimately failed to get re-elected because of typical GOP economy-fucking, over spending and tax cuts for the wealthy elite. He also lost to a candidate who out-charisma'd and out spoke and out-thought him. Other than that the gulf war was astronomically successful for his political career.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 17, 2003, 8:37 pm

Brotha wrote:I just want to quote this in case you decide to go back and edit it. So we did try to solve this diplomatically, and then when Saddam did not comply we went to war. Nice to see you're coming around Acies

Sanctions, embargos, routine bombing raids and enforced no-fly zones do not equal diplomacy.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 17, 2003, 8:43 pm

Acies wrote:
Metanis wrote:
Aranuil wrote:That's a great post, Kyoukan. I completely agree.
Wow, did she catch you at a bad moment? Critical thinking skills on a short break?
WTF kind of crack-rock are you smokin Met?
War is not a dipomatic tool. War is a conflict in which people die. War is the after-effect if dipomacy fails.

Example you say? Look at this entire board and the history of this war.
We dipomatically tried to get Saddam to reliqiush. He did not. So we waged war.

War is not a form of dipomacy, it is a form of resolving a conflict.

Ok guy, take a step back and understand that the universe doesn't revolve around you. Now take a historical perspective of war as it's been waged down through the centuries. I will agree with your points that war is conflict in which people die, however, it's not always the big scary thing you seem to think. For example, American Indian nations regularly warred on each other long before Europeans showed up here.

Be that as it may, if you go back and check my original post I used quotes around the word "diplomatic". I was actually trying to point out Kooky's retarded comment calling war a "political" tool. It is even less a "political" tool than a "diplomatic" tool.

And you using this board as some sort of "proof" of anything is evidence that your medication is much stronger than mine. Most of the posters on this board are goofballs. Many times I would even consider myself in that category because it's fun to bait people.

Finally, what about "the history of this war"? We won this battle, there are more battles to come... write the history of this war from the distance of some time and calm perspective.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 17, 2003, 9:02 pm

Ah, I see the sacrasm now. Sorry.
On the other issue, WTF kind of crack-rcok are you smoking?
Are you telling me, that you believe that wars are not started, fought and continued due to monetary or political aims?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 17, 2003, 9:12 pm

kyoukan wrote:Bush sr's popularity skyrocketed amazingly during and after the gulf war. He ultimately failed to get re-elected because of typical GOP economy-fucking, over spending and tax cuts for the wealthy elite. He also lost to a candidate who out-charisma'd and out spoke and out-thought him. Other than that the gulf war was astronomically successful for his political career.

You are making my point for me. I will agree that his popularity skyrocketed during the Gulf War. It had no lasting impact! Do you think this point is lost on Bush Jr.? Why would he use a "tool" which had such poor ultimate results for his father? Why would he use a tool that had a massive downside potential if the war turned badly? Why would he use a tool which he knows would cause massive political issues for his administration?

The answer is... your comment was pure bullshit.

Ha! You acuse me of stupidity! Well Kooky, if common sense was quarters... you couldn't buy a cup of coffee. $\:D/$

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 17, 2003, 9:28 pm

Acies wrote:Ah, I see the sacrasm now. Sorry.
On the other issue, WTF kind of crack-rcok are you smoking?
Are you telling me, that you believe that wars are not started, fought and continued due to monetary or political aims?

You are right on both cases. Perhaps we should define our use of the word "war". Look at Europe during much of the last millenium. There was almost never a time when it wasn't at war... but the actual battles were rather rare. War as expressed in that time was just another facet of diplomatic maneuvering. Look at America in the last 50 years. We have fought numerous tiny little "police" actions that were largely a form of iron-fisted diplomacy.

My point is simply that Kooky is taking a cheap shot in her comments here...

The problem with the Bush administration is there are too many chickenhawks and not enough warriors. To cowards like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, casualty and damage statistics are just that; statistics. They don't understand war on the most fundamental level, and just use it as a political tool.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 17, 2003, 9:36 pm

Metanis wrote:
kyoukan wrote:You are making my point for me. I will agree that his popularity skyrocketed during the Gulf War. It had no lasting impact! Do you think this point is lost on Bush Jr.?

By having no lasting impact you must mean that it didn't deify him in the hearts and minds of children everywhere forever then no I guess it didn't have any lasting impact.

Bush sr. was at best a mediocre president that over spent and fucked the economy just like every other GOP president in the last 50 years. The fact that his success in the first gulf war didn't make up for his shortcomings economically and otherwise doesn't mean that the war was not good for him politically.

Wars are ultimately good for all politicians in power as long as they are winning, because wars stir up patriotism and resolve in people and gets them poltiically motivated; usually to support their current leader.

I'm still waiting for your logical counter argument other than "No, you're wrong and that's that!"

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 17, 2003, 9:45 pm

The trouble I have is, I'm never quite sure when some of the regulars here honestly belive what they post, or if they're just baiting people for the fun of it.

For instance, Kyo, do you honestly belive that Bush started a war, just to pad his pocket and get reelected? Do you honestly feel this way?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 17, 2003, 9:58 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The trouble I have is, I'm never quite sure when some of the regulars here honestly belive what they post, or if they're just baiting people for the fun of it.

For instance, Kyo, do you honestly belive that Bush started a war, just to pad his pocket and get reelected? Do you honestly feel this way?

Lynden B. Johnson did it with Vietnam.

And Metanis, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are cowards.
Tell me, is what we recently did in Iraq "brave" in your opinion and why?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 17, 2003, 10:03 pm

From what I remember from history is that LBJ tried to limit the bombing in order to negotiate for peace....he also withdrew his candidacy for re-election in order to try to concentrate on peace.

*edit* rushed typing and hit enter before done!

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 17, 2003, 10:21 pm

Boogahz wrote:From what I remember from history is that LBJ tried to limit the bombing in order to negotiate for peace....he also withdrew his candidacy for re-election in order to try to concentrate on peace.

*edit* rushed typing and hit enter before done!

OP Air America. All I have to say about that.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 17, 2003, 10:51 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:The trouble I have is, I'm never quite sure when some of the regulars here honestly belive what they post, or if they're just baiting people for the fun of it.

For instance, Kyo, do you honestly belive that Bush started a war, just to pad his pocket and get reelected? Do you honestly feel this way?

I said no such thing.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 17, 2003, 11:03 pm

Ok, let's zoom in on this.

Kyo,

Do you belive the prime motivation for Bush ousting Saddam was based on something other that what he promoted on TV? Do you think he did it for hidden reasons?

Someone asked me up above if our actions against Iraq was brave or not.

I'd say it was brave for this president to stick to his guns and do the right thing when in my opinion the UN failed to live up to its responsibilities.

I feel better knowing that a group such as Saddam and sons, is put out of business. I saw a potential for them equipping terrorists with suitcase nukes within this decade's closure.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 18, 2003, 12:33 am

Well your paranoid fantasies are hardly basis for an invasion of a foreign country.

Do I think Bush sr's motivations for attacking Iraq was any more than supporting the UN to get a dictator out of Kuwait? No. Do I think Bush jr's motivations are different than "liberating Iraq and bringing freedom and democracy to the middle east?" Fucking hell yes. Especially since he's changed his stories about three times since steppign the rhetoric up after unsuccessfully changing world opinion to justify going against everything the UN stands for and invading a sovereign nation and physically removing a government and installing a new one more friendly.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 18, 2003, 12:55 am

Well, Kyo, given the gravity of my concerns, I hope I am paranoid.

Kyo,

What would motivate a President to risk soldier's lives, and spend billions of dollars during a sluggish economic period? I mean that's a lot to risk.

What in your opinion would push him to do it?

Do you dismiss the idea that he got a bunch of inteligence reports that indicated that Saddam and Sons were supporting terrorists aimed at attacking the USA?

Do you accept this premise and just disagree with how he handled this threat?

I'm not trying to bait you, I simply want to understand your reasoning. (since it differs so much from mine.)

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 18, 2003, 1:42 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:What would motivate a President to risk soldier's lives, and spend billions of dollars during a sluggish economic period? I mean that's a lot to risk.

What in your opinion would push him to do it?

Personal gain, but more importantly personal gain and more power to the old school GOP boy's club that's been running things in the white house as far back as Nixon but are too outwardly shifty and evil to ever run for political office themselves. The cronyism and long running hatred of the middle east runs so deep in the white house I am surprised that even you don't see it.

Do you dismiss the idea that he got a bunch of inteligence reports that indicated that Saddam and Sons were supporting terrorists aimed at attacking the USA?

Of course I do. And so does practically the entire international community and probably at least half of your own fucking country. If he had all these sooper seekrit documents exposing Iraqi WMD's and links to terrorism then why didn't he share them with the security council, and why hasn't the military been able to zero right in on the massive weapon labs and nuclear facilities the instant they entered Iraq? So far all they've found is a barrel of bug spray*, a truck with a pulley in it** and a bunch of nuclear waste the UN knew was there for 20 years***. WOW NICE INTELLIGENCE.

* chemical weapons if you watch Fox News
** secret mobile weapons laboratory if you watch Fox News
*** underground nuclear arsenal if you watch Fox News

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » April 18, 2003, 1:42 am

Acies wrote:Lynden B. Johnson did it with Vietnam.

Kennedy took the US into Vietnam, not Johnson.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 18, 2003, 6:06 am

Vetiria wrote:
Acies wrote:Lynden B. Johnson did it with Vietnam.
Kennedy took the US into Vietnam, not Johnson.

True, but to my knowledge Kennedy did not try to turn a few cool mil funding opium production among other things. Like selling weapons to the Kong.
Regardless of his motivations (The defeat of communism, yeah right), he is not the issue. Nither is Johnson. It was just an example.
I refuse to believe that you did not see that fact.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 18, 2003, 10:24 am

Kyou, they will find the WMDs, there's no question about it. The ties to terrorism are clear- although you refuse to see them. Bush never changed his arguements- there were added benefits that he made clear. Yeah, Bush really needed a fucking war with the VERY low approval rating he had before the war

. Also, didn't have a nice little war in Afghanistan? This kind of irrational arguing is pointless, but go ahead and believe what you want to.

The economy was growing under Bush Sr. in his last days of office, and don't forget Ross Perot...what an annoying little guy.

So I just want to know one thing, seriously. Let's put aside all the US hypocrity you see etc, etc. Don't you still support us removing Saddam Hussein? I don't see how anyone could say they don't.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 18, 2003, 10:32 am

The ties to terrorism are clear- although you refuse to see them.

Yeah? Where are they then? Just post some proof. It should be pretty easy to find since it's blatantly obvious to you that Saddam had ties to terrorists. I'm curious how you came to that conclusion and can state that opinion with such strong conviction. Remember, I asked for proof, not rhetoric. You seem to have a problem telling the difference between the two.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 18, 2003, 10:41 am

Someone above was asking about Bush and bravery.

Here's an NPR commentary that sums up why many people like Bush.

http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segmen ... Id=1236047

At the top of the page click the link titled " Bush's Gamble"

masteen · Post by **masteen** » April 18, 2003, 12:47 pm

kyoukan wrote:Bush sr. was at best a mediocre president that over spent and fucked the economy just like every other GOP president in the last 50 years.

Bullshit. RR fixed the economy that Mr. Peanut the nookyooler physicist couldn't. Bush Sr. tinkered, and the economy faltered. Clinton at least had the good sense not to fix what wasn't broken, and the economy boomed.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 18, 2003, 1:22 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Yeah? Where are they then? Just post some proof.

Colin Powell and Bush said there were, and I trust them. But ok ok, here goes.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq ... 40,00.html

LONDON - Saddam Hussein's regime was linked to an Ugandan Muslim terrorist group, according to a British daily which said that it had seen dossiers detailing evidence of ties between Iraq and terrorism.

The papers show that Iraq's charge d'affaires in Nairobi, Mr Fallah Hassan al-Rubdie, was in discussion with the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an Ugandan guerilla group linked to other anti-Western Islamist groups, The Daily Telegraph said yesterday.

In a letter to the head of the Iraqi spy agency, uncovered in the Iraqi intelligence service's headquarters in Baghdad, a senior ADF operative outlined his group's efforts to set up an 'international mujahideen group', the newspaper said.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq ... 40,00.html

Their most prized scalp is Abu Abbas, a factional head of the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) who masterminded the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in 1985 and was captured by special forces in Baghdad on Tuesday.

Abbas was arrested after advancing marines stumbled across a PLF training camp east of Baghdad. Photos of Abbas with senior figures from Saddam's elite Republican Guard, chemicals used in bomb making and documents were seized.

"The ties with terrorism I saw with my own eyes," said another public affairs officer (PAO) with the marines, who did not want to be named. "True, I haven't seen anything that serious in regards to al-Qaeda."

"But September 11 did not give America just a sense of duty to root out al-Qaeda but to root out all terrorism be that al-Qaeda or the PLF, it was a rallying cry against all forms of terrorism," he said.

http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_ties.php

What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?
Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:

Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.

Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in the Mediterranean.

Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.

And Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channels money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq announced that it had increased the amount it pays to such families from $10,000 to $25,000. (Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may hope to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq.)

And yes, solid, direct Al Qaeda ties have not been uncovered yet, but there's enough circumstancial evidence to support the argument that there were ties to Al Qaeda (from my own memory):

A. Al Qaeda members fighting alongside Saddam Hussein's army. I know now you're going to say "well America was attacking the an arab nation, they were there for the Iraqi people not Hussein." That just enforces in my mind the view that despite their differences, they would have come together eventually, if they had not already, because of their mutal hatred for America.

B. The two dozen or so Al Qaeda that were in Baghdad with Saddam Hussein's knowledge. At the very LEAST this shows that they had put aside their differences and come to a non agression agreement. That in and of itself completely blows apart the argument that Hussein and Al Qaeda hated each other. This is a link in my mind.

I myself am skeptical of whether or not Saddam Hussein would have given WMDs to Al Qaeda, but I believe that it would just have been a matter of time before they found their way into another terrorist groups hands- would it have made a difference if it had been them or Al Qaeda that set them off? Don't forget that before Sept 11, it was Hezbollah (sp) that had killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization, including Al Qaeda, so don't think that Al Qaeda is the only real threat. I don't mention that b/c Hussein had links to Hezbollah (I don't know if he did or not), but only to show that there are other very real threats from other terrorists organizations that are comparable to Al Qaeda.

To clear this part of my last post up where I said: "Bush never changed his arguments- there were added benefits that he made clear."

What I meant was that every argument Bush has ever made was centered around Saddam's WMDs and connections to terrorism and how much of a danger those two were together. Something that reinfornced the argument was Saddam being a ruthless dictator who had even used WMDs on his own people. The liberation of the Iraqi people was just another part of the argument, he never actually changed it in my opinion.

And yeah, it's nice to be able to use Saddam Hussein in the past tense

.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 18, 2003, 1:31 pm

I like Brotha's posts.. they make me zzzzleeepy...

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 18, 2003, 3:18 pm

why do people keep saying this war was about terrorism and WMD?

it wasnt.

this war was the US proactively attempting to change the political landscape of the region. This is not a secret motive. It has been publically stated.

The terrorism and WMD were just part of the public justification. We just sent another 1000 people to Iraq to find some WMD though, cause it is kind of embarrassing the administration that none of them have been found yet.

i'm sure some will be found, but whether or not we will find giant vats of anthrax and all that, i'm becoming increasingly skeptical.

if the US had intelligence about WMD, it would seem to me that it would now be safe to release at least some of that intelligence considering we occupy Iraq militarily now.

but again, WMD and terrorism are subplots. they are not the reason this war happened. Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc wanted this war before 9/11 even happened.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 18, 2003, 5:12 pm

You know that Saddam Hussein's Ba'th party and Al'Qaeda's ideologies and goals for the middle east are juxtaposed right? As far as Osama bin Laden is concerned, he would probably help the US oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Trying to draw ties between Saddam Hussein and Al'Qaeda even "from your own memory" and trying to pass it of as legitimate is ridiculous, and anyone that knows shit about the middle east (which you clearly do not) would laugh at you for even mentioning it.

But yes your links from an African news site and a GOP think tank have totally convinced me. I guess they have access to the seekrit American itelligence documents that mainstream media does not.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 18, 2003, 5:40 pm

kyoukan wrote:Trying to draw ties between Saddam Hussein and Al'Qaeda even "from your own memory" and trying to pass it of as legitimate is ridiculous, and anyone that knows shit about the middle east (which you clearly do not) would laugh at you for even mentioning it.

As usual, a well thought out argument from Kyoukan. "If someone doesn't agree with me they must not know shit!"

I'm going to say it again:

The two dozen or so Al Qaeda that were in Baghdad with Saddam Hussein's knowledge. At the very LEAST this shows that they had put aside their differences and come to a non agression agreement. That in and of itself completely blows apart the argument that Hussein and Al Qaeda hated each other. This is a link in my mind.

So I guess you have access to the seekrit intelligence briefings that Colin Powell does not?

There are big differences in ideology between Al Qaeda and Hussein, I've never said otherwise. What I've said is that the hatred for a common enemy could drive them into a deadly partnership.

kyoukan wrote:As far as Osama bin Laden is concerned, he would probably help the US oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

You never let these little things called facts get in the way of your attempts to form a rational argument that in someway agrees with your warped views do you? Al Qaeda members were fighting alongside the Iraqi military. This was probably some conspiracy made by the US military though, or maybe they were planning on backstabbing the Iraqi troops at the last second. Go ahead, find a way to explain this that will suit your narrowminded, ignorant views.

Oh and the other things I posted- they were just from people "that don't know shit too! they don't agree with me so obviously they're ignorant and shouldn't be quoted!" Are you even going to dispute anything that was quoted? And suddenly the main stream media is this dependable voice of reason- couldn't you atleast try to stay consistent in your ramblings?

I swear you're like Ozzy Ozbourne. Sometimes you manage to say something that seems atleast coherent/intelligent/funny, but most of the time it's impossible to read your posts and not go "WTF?"

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 18, 2003, 5:46 pm

The two dozen or so Al Qaeda that were in Baghdad with Saddam Hussein's knowledge. At the very LEAST this shows that they had put aside their differences and come to a non agression agreement. That in and of itself completely blows apart the argument that Hussein and Al Qaeda hated each other. This is a link in my mind.

You never let these little things called facts get in the way of your attempts to form a rational argument that in someway agrees with your warped views do you?

ahahahahaha

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » April 18, 2003, 5:55 pm

I saw it in the mainstream media though Kyoukan!

From Powell's presentation:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.i ... index.html

Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of northeast Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.

During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.

Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible. Last year an al Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, "good," that Baghdad could be transited quickly.

We know these affiliates are connected to Zarqawi because they remain even today in regular contact with his direct subordinates, including the poison cell plotters, and they are involved in moving more than money and materiel.

Last year, two suspected al Qaeda operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell, and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide. From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond.

We, in the United States, all of us at the State Department, and the Agency for International Development -- we all lost a dear friend with the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan, last October -- a despicable act was committed that day. The assassination of an individual whose sole mission was to assist the people of Jordan. The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder.

After the attack, an associate of the assassin left Jordan to go to Iraq to obtain weapons and explosives for further operations. Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not credible. We know of Zarqawi's activities in Baghdad. I described them earlier.

And now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice, and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » April 18, 2003, 6:05 pm

Hmmm that is some nice warm, steamy pile of bullshit.

Saddam and Osama hate each other.

Propganda, love it when America emulates tyrants via lies.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 18, 2003, 6:05 pm

Yeah because Powell's presentation was so convincing and free of errors.. and using such good sources!