OU-

excellent points.

I'm reminded of this passage.

"Choose your enemies carefully for you will become them."



But when it comes down to it. Was Iraq an enemy? When did Iraq attack us? That's why this pre-emption idea of the neo-cons was so very dangerous. We should set a higher standard for the world not a lower one. What if every nation held this pre-emption doctrine. What if every nation followed Cheney's 1% criteria? The world would soon be in chaos.

Machiavelli Wrote:But when it comes down to it. Was Iraq an enemy? When did Iraq attack us?

Do you arrest the gun for a murder? or who pulled the trigger?

the triggerman

Machiavelli Wrote:the triggerman

If we cut off all funding to the terrorist camps coming from Iraq, is that not going after the triggerman?

OUGwave Wrote:GG, since you won't answer my questions about whether or not our civilian judicial system should torture people, or where our rights come from, let me ask it a third way -- and answer it.

Why do Americans have rights?

Well, in your view, as I've seen you argue in other threads, we believe in rights because we believe in God. Our view of unalienable rights comes from an acknowledgment that there is a higher power and we are created in His image. Because our founding fathers were christians, they were able to realize this.

Is that about right? I mean, summarizing your views?

I did answer about the civilian system, crime and war are different also. And believe it or not, I'm not advocating real torture to be used on the terrorist, though there may be a time for it just not as policy. You are absolutely convinced that water boarding is physically damaging torture, I am not and say its our toughest form of interrogation which is rarely used.

This is what you are not getting, one person

Quote:If we cut off all funding to the terrorist camps coming from Iraq, is that not going after the triggerman?

This is a false assumption. Saddam was not funding Al-Qeada.

Machiavelli Wrote:

Quote:If we cut off all funding to the terrorist camps coming from Iraq, is that not going after the triggerman?

This is a false assumption. Saddam was not funding Al-Qeada.

If Saddam was the only one funding Al-Qaeda than we could have stopped the war by now since he is dead. some of you guys need to open your eyes and realize the potential of these terrorists. Its not something that we can just put off to the side like the 8 years Clinton was in office.

Machiavelli Wrote:

Quote:If we cut off all funding to the terrorist camps coming from Iraq, is that not going after the triggerman?

This is a false assumption. Saddam was not funding Al-Qeada.

July 8th, 2002. Saddam honoring the mother of a suicide bomber with a check and certificate.




The State Department listed Saddam as a State Sponsor of Terror throughout the 90's for a reason. Bill Clinton instituted "Regime Change in Iraq" in 1998 for a reason. A clinton appointed judge found enough evidence to award a 9/11 family damages in the matter.



if Saddam didn

You have the cut and dry right...........................

but it's the other way around. Your logic is so twisted and convoluted it doesn't make any sense. The simple fact of the matter is AlQueda was a threat to Saddam's regime. It's the same old ardument I have had on here for 4 years. Saddam had absolutely no ties with 9-11 or Al-Queada. Wanting it to be true, hoping it is true, doesn't make it so. The problem with so many of you is that you paint with too broad of a brush. The reason Saddam was the Champion of Palestine is because of the Sunni connection and the Arab world's hatred of Isreal. You rightfully brand Saddam with helping the Palestinians, but if that is your gauge, when will we invade Riyadh?

There are many differences in the region and smart diplomacy would take advantage of the differences and play on them to our advantage. With W's "democracy fiasco" we have emboldened our enemies, made our allies weaker, and have stretched our military to a breaking point.

Machiavelli Wrote:You have the cut and dry right...........................

but it's the other way around. Your logic is so twisted and convoluted it doesn't make any sense. The simple fact of the matter is AlQueda was a threat to Saddam's regime. It's the same old ardument I have had on here for 4 years. Saddam had absolutely no ties with 9-11 or Al-Queada. Wanting it to be true, hoping it is true, doesn't make it so. The problem with so many of you is that you paint with too broad of a brush. The reason Saddam was the Champion of Palestine is because of the Sunni connection and the Arab world's hatred of Isreal. You rightfully brand Saddam with helping the Palestinians, but if that is your gauge, when will we invade Riyadh?

There are many differences in the region and smart diplomacy would take advantage of the differences and play on them to our advantage. With W's "democracy fiasco" we have emboldened our enemies, made our allies weaker, and have stretched our military to a breaking point.

So what are you saying that your fellow democrats are stupid idiots? Look at all of them in the Senate that voted to invade Iraq.....

* Max Baucus (D-MT)
* Evan Bayh (D-IN)
* Joe Biden (D-DE)
* John Breaux (D-LA)
* Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
* Jean Carnahan (D-MO)
* Tom Carper (D-DE)
* Max Cleland (D-GA)
* Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
* Tom Daschle (D-SD)
* Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
* Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
* John Edwards (D-NC)
* Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
* Tom Harkin (D-IA)
* Fritz Hollings (D-SC)
* Tim Johnson(D-SD)
* John Kerry (D-MA)
* Herb Kohl (D-WI)
* Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
* Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
* Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
* Zell Miller (D-GA)
* Bill Nelson (D-FL)
* Ben Nelson (D-NE)
* Harry Reid (D-NV)
* Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
* Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
* Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)

Maybe it is easier to look backwards, huh? Hindsight is 20/20. If only you could have warned the President and Congress that there weren't WMDs in Iraq. You could have been a hero. Is it alright if we just start calling you Cassandra?

No doubt that Saddam funded Suicide Bombers in Israel. So do the Saudis and every other Gulf State.

As far as the US court case you mentioned -- I guess you didn't read it. The judge found for the plaintiff by default because bin Laden, Saddam and the Taliban didn't show up in court to respond to the charges.

This is your evidence? This your justification?

I prefer the Republican-chaired 9/11 commission, the Republican-chaired Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the CIA, State Dept I&R, etc.

If we are going to fight a war against anyone who ever funded a terrorist anywhere, we're going to be very, very busy. IRA, ETA, etc. The LTTE in Sri Lanka invented suicide bombing. I wouldn't be surprised if they've received funding in some form from the Tamil Nadu state government in India. Should we invade them?

The idea is to fight the people that attack you and their allies. That case was not made by the Bush administration in the case of Iraq, because there is no evidence to support it.

Saddam and Iraq had no operational or financial relationship. Please, stop lying.

He was a thug, but he was not the thug we should have been looking for.

blah Wrote:Maybe it is easier to look backwards, huh? Hindsight is 20/20. If only you could have warned the President and Congress that there weren't WMDs in Iraq. You could have been a hero. Is it alright if we just start calling you Cassandra?

He's not talking about WMD's. He's talking about the connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

Its forgivable to believe Saddam had WMD. Logic was on the administration's side on that one, prior to the war. They didn't lie about it, but they didn't due their due dilligence either.

But nobody in government or intelligence circles believed that there was a financial or operational link between Iraq's regime and al-Qaeda or any terrorist group that targets Americans.

On this one, via Feith's office in the Pentagon, they just outright lied, assembled discredited intel into a dossier, and then leaked it to the weekly standard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL_wmg9SWdQ

Machiavelli Wrote:When did Iraq attack us?

When he tried to assassinate a former President. When he ordered SAMs to be fired on our pilots NUMEROUS times patrolling the no-fly zone. When he kicked out inspectors, which were a stipulation in the cease-fire.

We never ended the war, Dogger. We just put it on hold. Clinton could have done something about that **** YEARS ago, but didn't.


...oh, and Salman Pak wasn't a theme park.


Fact of the matter is, if this was President Gore in office, you would say nothing. You are playing politics with our troops lives....and I resent the ever-living HELL out of it.

OUGwave Wrote:I prefer the Republican-chaired 9/11 commission, the Republican-chaired Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the CIA, State Dept I&R, etc.

me too:

RebelKev Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:When did Iraq attack us?

When he tried to assassinate a former President. When he ordered SAMs to be fired on our pilots NUMEROUS times patrolling the no-fly zone. When he kicked out inspectors, which were a stipulation in the cease-fire.

We never ended the war, Dogger. We just put it on hold. Clinton could have done something about that **** YEARS ago, but didn't.


...oh, and Salman Pak wasn't a theme park.


Fact of the matter is, if this was President Gore in office, you would say nothing. You are playing politics with our troops lives....and I resent the ever-living HELL out of it.

don't forget Ramsey Youssef and the first WTC attack in 93, which took place on the 2 yr. anniversary of liberation of Kuwait. youssef on an iraqi passport and his co-conspirator Abdul Rahman Yasin who fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary.

and notice how they never once say a word about the fact that Bill Clinton's State Department had Iraq listed as a STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM and in 1998 they made Official US policy "REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ"....5 yrs later and the WTC-less US the next logical step comes.

the idea Iraq is not part of the War on Terror is INSANE and wrong, thus the modern leftist view.

and what does al-Qaeda say:

Quote:`the most serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War that is raging in Iraq." - Bin Laden

Quote:Al-Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri on Iraq ``is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.''

and what did the media report in say, 1999?

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/....binladen/

Quote:Saddam Hussein offered asylum

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities. [quote]

RebelKev Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:When did Iraq attack us?

When he tried to assassinate a former President. When he ordered SAMs to be fired on our pilots NUMEROUS times patrolling the no-fly zone. When he kicked out inspectors, which were a stipulation in the cease-fire.

We never ended the war, Dogger. We just put it on hold. Clinton could have done something about that **** YEARS ago, but didn't.


...oh, and Salman Pak wasn't a theme park.


Fact of the matter is, if this was President Gore in office, you would say nothing. You are playing politics with our troops lives....and I resent the ever-living HELL out of it.

Whenever he did, all you heard from your side is "wag the dog"

Could you even fathom the responses from Reb if Gore was in office right now? If Gore hypothetically f'd up as many times as W. The right wing media would have people all up in arms. I couldn't even imagine.

Machiavelli Wrote:Could you even fathom the responses from Reb if Gore was in office right now? If Gore hypothetically f'd up as many times as W. The right wing media would have people all up in arms. I couldn't even imagine.

Why would you? You didn't hear a damn thing from me when Clinton was doing it. Iraq needed to be dealt with. Didn't matter WHO was in office.

Don't assume you know how I feel and how I think, Dogger. You'll hurt yourself.

RebelKev Wrote:

Machiavelli Wrote:Could you even fathom the responses from Reb if Gore was in office right now? If Gore hypothetically f'd up as many times as W. The right wing media would have people all up in arms. I couldn't even imagine.

Why would you? You didn't hear a damn thing from me when Clinton was doing it. Iraq needed to be dealt with. Didn't matter WHO was in office.

Don't assume you know how I feel and how I think, Dogger. You'll hurt yourself.

At least you're consistent and I can respect that. I think Mach is talking about most of the Rush type conservatives that criticized Clinton for anything he did including air raids on suspected OBL hideouts and on Iraq. You know the type I'm talking about.