Devastating.....:(
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
had Al-Qaeda links
"The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source." Saddam's al Qaeda Connection
Michel Prévost wrote:
had WMDs
What were those things Saddam shelled the Kurds with? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
I am not CIA specialist, nor I know whether Al-Qaeda had ties or not. But didn't Rumsfeld meet with Saddam Hussein not so long ago? Does this make rumsfeld have links with Al-Qaeda? Didn't Ossama Ben Laden used to work for the CIA? Anyway, this was not the point of my post. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
So you REALLY believe that Saddam never had WMD? You believe that he would not have provided them to terrorist to attack the US?
I never said that. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
I am not CIA specialist, nor I know whether Al-Qaeda had ties or not. But didn't Rumsfeld meet with Saddam Hussein not so long ago? Does this make rumsfeld have links with Al-Qaeda? Didn't Ossama Ben Laden used to work for the CIA? Anyway, this was not the point of my post. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Michel Prévost wrote:
I am not CIA specialist
Well you sure acted like one when you were making the assumption in your other post.
Michel Prévost wrote:
But didn't Rumsfeld meet with Saddam Hussein not so long ago?
No, it was long ago. Try December 20, 1983. 23 years ago. The world was a diffrent place then.
Michel Prévost wrote:
Does this make rumsfeld have links with Al-Qaeda?
What??? Did you read the article? Saddam gave money to Al-Qaeda.
Michel Prévost wrote:
Didn't Ossama Ben Laden used to work for the CIA?
No, he was given arms to defeat the Soviets. You are making big streaches with your assumptions. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
I never said that. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
I am not CIA specialist
Well you sure acted like one when you were making the assumption in your other post.
Michel Prévost wrote:
But didn't Rumsfeld meet with Saddam Hussein not so long ago?
No, it was long ago. Try December 20, 1983. 23 years ago. The world was a diffrent place then.
Michel Prévost wrote:
Does this make rumsfeld have links with Al-Qaeda?
What??? Did you read the article? Saddam gave money to Al-Qaeda.
Michel Prévost wrote:
Didn't Ossama Ben Laden used to work for the CIA?
No, he was given arms to defeat the Soviets. You are making big streaches with your assumptions. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
What??? Did you read the article? Saddam gave money to Al-Qaeda.
I could probably found numerous articles stating the reverse. But I am tired of this pointless discussion, as it was not the subject of this thread. Read the post "My point is...". -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Another idiot misinterpret what I say. Typical. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Can't the US make a better armour?:doh:, can't imagine if these sharpnels strike our body.:omg:, why not bush consider a pull out now? otherwise it will be too late :(. but i wish somehow, the americans pay back Iran someway. WTF:(^
VuNic
VuNic wrote:
Can't the US make a better armour?,
No. Armor means weight and weight means loss of manuverability. If you sacrifice manuverability to protection, your force would not even be able to move. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
America invaded Iraq because it posed a threat to the entire world (which turned out to be less than expected). So America decided to go against the popular and self-centered opinions of the rest of the world and commit itself to ousting Saddam Hussein and bringing liberty to Iraq (and Afghanistan). Where are America's ignoble deeds? We spent hundreds of billions of dollars to take over a couple of countried only so we can give them back better than before. What do we get out of it? Regional stability. That's it. Why do we do it? Because America is the best country in the entire world. It's that simple. We're better than Canada. Better than Europe. Better than everyone. We rule.
espeir wrote:
Where are America's ignoble deeds?
Giving the American smack-down to a country with no WMDs and no ties to terrorism against the USA, that wasn't a threat to anyone in the area, and that also wasn't a breeding ground for the kind of terrorists that actually do have a grudge against us. Also, there's the whole no-bid contract thing (not that past administrations haven't been ignoble as well), and the lack of commitment to rebuilding (both in Afghanistan and Iraq). I know you think things are better over there now, but that's not what our troops or their citizens are saying.
espeir wrote:
What do we get out of it? Regional stability.
Regional stability! That's rich. Let's see...fat contracts for a bunch of administration cronies, a puppet government in the region giving us just enough control to keep influence over the oil nations, but retaining enough chaos to provide another unsecured Islamic breeding ground for the kind of ideology that will keep our "war on terror" alive indefinitely (more tax dollars to the Department of Fatherland Security, less money for FEMA -- that works out well, doesn't it?). Oh, and the American people also get a massive national debt, a growing deficit, a falling dollar (propped up by our creditors at the moment because they're screwed if the bottom falls out), and migration of jobs offshore (of course, if the dollar falls far enough, we'll be cheap labor and the jobs will come back). And all for such a noble cause. I don't dispute that many people support the war for noble reasons. I'm just saying that that's not actually why we're there. We're there for the same reason any war is fought -- money, power, control. I agree that the USA is the best country in the world, but don't for a minute doubt the subjectivity of that belief. Many people can and do make the same claim about their homelands.
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
had Al-Qaeda links
"The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. "It's a lock," says this source." Saddam's al Qaeda Connection
Michel Prévost wrote:
had WMDs
What were those things Saddam shelled the Kurds with? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
That information is acknowledged to be possibly not credible. The assertion is that the weapons were destroyed during and immediately after the first Gulf War. The Kurds were shelled before that.
-
espeir wrote:
Where are America's ignoble deeds?
Giving the American smack-down to a country with no WMDs and no ties to terrorism against the USA, that wasn't a threat to anyone in the area, and that also wasn't a breeding ground for the kind of terrorists that actually do have a grudge against us. Also, there's the whole no-bid contract thing (not that past administrations haven't been ignoble as well), and the lack of commitment to rebuilding (both in Afghanistan and Iraq). I know you think things are better over there now, but that's not what our troops or their citizens are saying.
espeir wrote:
What do we get out of it? Regional stability.
Regional stability! That's rich. Let's see...fat contracts for a bunch of administration cronies, a puppet government in the region giving us just enough control to keep influence over the oil nations, but retaining enough chaos to provide another unsecured Islamic breeding ground for the kind of ideology that will keep our "war on terror" alive indefinitely (more tax dollars to the Department of Fatherland Security, less money for FEMA -- that works out well, doesn't it?). Oh, and the American people also get a massive national debt, a growing deficit, a falling dollar (propped up by our creditors at the moment because they're screwed if the bottom falls out), and migration of jobs offshore (of course, if the dollar falls far enough, we'll be cheap labor and the jobs will come back). And all for such a noble cause. I don't dispute that many people support the war for noble reasons. I'm just saying that that's not actually why we're there. We're there for the same reason any war is fought -- money, power, control. I agree that the USA is the best country in the world, but don't for a minute doubt the subjectivity of that belief. Many people can and do make the same claim about their homelands.
-
VuNic wrote:
Can't the US make a better armour?,
No. Armor means weight and weight means loss of manuverability. If you sacrifice manuverability to protection, your force would not even be able to move. "You get that which you tolerate"
So you find an acceptable middle ground, and adjust your tactics accordingly. Zeros were relatively unarmored and very agile, which hurt us until we adjusted our tactics. Never get into a turning battle with a Zero, right? Hit and run. Sacrificing protection for agility turned out to be a rather bad decision for them.
-
That information is acknowledged to be possibly not credible. The assertion is that the weapons were destroyed during and immediately after the first Gulf War. The Kurds were shelled before that.
-
You can't be. It's the home of the brave. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!
espeir wrote:
You can't be. It's the home of the brave.
:laugh::laugh: Jeremy Falcon
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
but that's not what our troops or their citizens are saying.
This is just not true. You are listening to the reports of journalists that can find someone to say anything.
Well put. Jeremy Falcon
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
but that's not what our troops or their citizens are saying.
This is just not true. You are listening to the reports of journalists that can find someone to say anything.
It is true, and my sources are not journalists. And your information comes from where?
-
That information is acknowledged to be possibly not credible. The assertion is that the weapons were destroyed during and immediately after the first Gulf War. The Kurds were shelled before that.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The assertion is that the weapons were destroyed during and immediately after the first Gulf War. The Kurds were shelled before that.
Right, that is the assertion, but under the resolution passed by the UN serurity council, Saddam was to provide proof those weapons were destroyed. To this day he has not. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
I'll ask you the same question that I posted above. Do you believe that Saddam had no WMD? Do you believe that he would not have given WMD to terrorist to attack the US?
I believe that Saddam had no significant WMD stockpiles after the first Gulf War, so the second part of the question is academic. I'll answer it anyway. Saddam was not a religious man. He commissioned a Qu'ran written in his own blood, FFS. He was considered an infidel and a blasphemer of the worst kind by the kind of Islamic ideologues that comprise Al Qaeda. Bin Laden was pissed when the Saudis let us fight the first Gulf War against Saddam; he wanted his Mujahadeen to fight the good fight against the infidel. Saddam might have given WMD to terrorists -- or not, since he was actually sitting pretty sweet with the oil-for-food deal and might not have wanted to jeopardize that -- but I think the ski lifts would be open in Hell before Al Qaeda would have approached him for help.
-
It is true, and my sources are not journalists. And your information comes from where?
-
Well put. Jeremy Falcon
Of course you would think so. All he did was contradict my statement and question my sources, without offering any argument or evidence himself.
-
I stand corrected. I'm still hearing information counter to that from people inside the country. Maybe it depends where in the country you are? Are you posting from Iraq?