Temperature at which the brain begins to die

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB

Again, a link of communication is not a link of support. The US had representatives going back and forth with Iraq before the war?

The conclusion drawn from these reports is wishful thinking I'm afraid. If I was to use this logic I could "Prove" that Bush was behind 9/11 (I don't think he was, but I'm pointing out how flawed the logic is).

---

This intuitive bone US officials have is very often overhyped, my point is that wheather they cant reveal more info or dont have any real/enough proof of this happenings , they tend to give chopped information about meetings and whereabouts of this terrorsts but nothing conclusive.

Remember when they presented on TV that they found a "Biological Lab" and then some pics of some facilites but NOTHING special/ solid/ specific nor out-of-ordinary about them?

If they say these terrorists met in 1996, can it be possible that later on they became enemies? well, just remember what happened between the US and Noriega/Bin Laden/ Saddam Hussein etc...

Conclusion, Im hungry.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
Okay, so where's your proof there were no terrorists inside Iraq until the US invasion?

---

I didn't say there weren't any, but it certainly wasn't swarming, and I doubt if any of them were Al-Quieda (certainly not without the knowledge of the government). Do a good for "Saddam Osama Infidel", you will find that Osama repeatedly calls for Saddam to be overthrown and killed.

But of course you can't believe everything you read on the web, so we'll go to another source. How about the US governments independent commission which decided there were no links between Al-Queida and Sadam.

Here's some links to back this up

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html


and the UN
http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20030627/449_5878.asp

even good old Fox news brushed lightly on the subject
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122821,00.html

I believe that Iraq was said to be "crawling with terrorists".


We appear to have taught them how to stand;)

On the racism issue:
(I was talking about present day, not the 70's)
Maybe some places are breaking the law. Maybe there is some racism. The majority of it is over with though. I feel that an African American can get a job just as easy as a white guy now. None of the people I am around discriminate...Maybe it is the people you are around? Or it could be the state


On the poverty issue:
Do you agree with welfare programs? This ties in with another question. Do you agree with taking the responsibility right away from the entire community?
How does someone get out of poverty?

Look, I do think that welfare plays a big role in poverty.

Don't they ever get tired of playing victim? Try to succeed...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
I believe that Iraq was said to be "crawling with terrorists".


We appear to have taught them how to stand;)

---

You are telling me that Iraq didn't have terrorist to begin with? This is non-sense.....
What middle-eastern country doesn't have terrorist???:lol: :lol:
( no offense )

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
You are telling me that Iraq didn't have terrorist to begin with? This is non-sense.....
What middle-eastern country doesn't have terrorist???:lol: :lol:
( no offense )

---

What country in world doesn't have terrorists???

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lokespas
What country in world doesn't have terrorists???

---

:eek: Good point....... Australia? :lol: Point is: Radical Islamist...are mainly in the middle eastern countries...

Yeah, but Radical Christians are mainly in the west :p

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/Wo..._040122-1.html

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...l_abortion.htm

Personly I don´t think Iraq was crawling with terrorists, I don´t know what they would be doing there.(the only thing I can think of is to overthrow saddam or maybe steal the hidden WMD )
:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lokespas
Personly I don´t think Iraq was crawling with terrorists, I don´t know what they would be doing there.(the only thing I can think of is to overthrow saddam or maybe steal the hidden WMD )
:D

---

training and recruiting....flying planes into buildings

Radical Christians are scary, they look like me:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
I didn't say there weren't any,

---

Yes you did.

Quote:

---

Where were the terrorists in Iraq? There weren't any.

---

Anyway, my point was that there were indeed terrorists in Iraq including Al-Qaeda prior to the US being there.

We can link to differing views all day and night. Simple fact is, it's insane to think that Iraq didn't have dealings with Al-Qaeda. Iraq and Al-Qaeda hate the US, it's not hard to believe (whether Osama hated Sadaam or not) that they would buddy up to wage war on the US, their common foe. That's been stated publicly by many of the same people who have jumped to the other side of the fence and seem to have forgotten their prior statements, prior evidence, prior testimony etc etc etc.

one last link

To be completely honest. I stand on both sides of the war. I support the troops big time. And I think it was the right war. The war was inevitable. It was going to happen eventually. (Saddam is ruthless and was doing a lot of behind the scenes stuff the public probably doesn't hear about. You know how that goes, though.) BUT I am not quite sure now was the best time. I know 9/11 caused a crap load of grief and it was a terrible thing to have happen. But if the Iraq war was spawned by that intel, then the war was based on bad intel. (Similar to another country suspecting us of doing something we weren't and then invading us and finding out they were wrong...what to do then.......Sorry? :lol: )

Now that I got that off my chest. I do agree with the war because he was ignoring ( I think 17 ) 17 UN resolutions. Which is reason enough for war. But it doesn't stop there. Like demotivator says, the intel that was given to Bush says that there were links. What would you do if you were given all that intel and you had to act on it. You had a furious country and a recent terrorist act that had killed 3000 people. The intel that is given to you is pointing all fingers to Al Qaeida (SP ) and Iraq. You can't ignore the intel that is given to you and you have to act now.

Elaboration on the UN resolutions:
Because they wouldn't comply with the UN. So when Bush realized that the UN wasn't going to enforce the resolutions. He went in. The problem now is: Ok we liberated Iraq (which is a good thing) but now we have a crap load of terrorists....and a nice, warm, moist breeding ground for them to spawn. So (in my opinion) the main question to be asking is: Was it worth it? And I say YES. Saddam was crazy....his 2 sons were a**holes that raped innocent women picked up on the street. Had teachers killed because they gave him bad grades or had the rules apply to them. Saddam needed to be yanked from control of that country so it was worth it. But now was probably the worst possible time you can think of. When terrorists are at large you attack a country of the mid-east. Think of the ripple effect...

To sum it all up. Right war. Bad intel. Leading to bad timing. More terrorist now. Don't bash Bush. Bash his intel. I like Bush~ and I agree with his decision to go to war. Saddam needed to be yanked.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
The war was inevitable. It was going to happen eventually. (Saddam is ruthless and was doing a lot of behind the scenes stuff the public probably doesn't hear about. You know how that goes, though.)

---

The war against Afghanistan was inevitable, BUT the war on Iraq wasnt, you dont go to the UN and demand permission to invade by saying that a lot is going on behind the courtains IMO. You just dont try to convince the UN to invade another country with the the 9/11 flag waving.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xcoder
The war against Afghanistan was inevitable, BUT the war on Iraq wasnt, you dont go to the UN and demand permission to invade by saying that a lot is going on behind the courtains IMO. You just dont try to convince the UN to invade another country with the the 9/11 flag waving.

---

we weren't going there because of 9/11. We were going there because they were in violation of 17 UN resolutions and the UN wouldn't do anything, and for the sake of our protection Bush felt it was needed to settle it. ( first diplomatically, then with force if that didn't work)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
Yes you did.

---

:p I'll conceed that point happily! :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
Simple fact is, it's insane to think that Iraq didn't have dealings with Al-Qaeda. Iraq and Al-Qaeda hate the US, it's not hard to believe (whether Osama hated Sadaam or not) that they would buddy up to wage war on the US, their common foe.

---

This sounds like serious paranoia. Remember, more than two sides to every conflict. By your reasoning, my enemies enemy is my friend. Wouldn;t it have been just as likely that Saddam would have teamed up with the West to fight Al-Quieda, it doesn't work like that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
we weren't going there because of 9/11. We were going there because they were in violation of 17 UN resolutions and the UN wouldn't do anything, and for the sake of our protection Bush felt it was needed to settle it. ( first diplomatically, then with force if that didn't work)

---

Interesting. I've seen a number of people on here call the UN weak for not backing the war.

The UN has always been a meeting place for world powers, it does not have power to tell countries what they can and cannot do. It can back actions, but I think you would be the first to complain if the UN had the power to order countries to attack other countries. It's a meeting forum, nothing less, nothing more.

Now, on to the violation of the resolutions. The head of the UN has repeatedly said that that was not a justification for war. Many countires have stated that when they voted for those resolutions it was never intended to be a precursor to a war, and if they had known the system was going to be abused they wouldn't have backed them. So quite simply, the UN didn't back the war, what makes you think that you can use the UN violations to justify the killing of thousands. Sorry, you can't. The only tactic I see for people justifying this war is to change tac left right and centre. Next someone will say it was to liberate the Iraqi's, then when that's shot down, someone will change the reason to supsected WMD, then when that's shot down someone will change the subject to Terrorist links, then when that's shot down we'll be back to UN violations... hoping that everyone will have forgotten that that reason was shot down to.

So, if the UN didn't back the attack (and let's face it, why should they have - there was very little reason to single Saddam out form all teh other nutters in power around the world), how can the violation of UN provisions be used as a reason?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer

To sum it all up. Right war. Bad intel. Leading to bad timing. More terrorist now. Don't bash Bush. Bash his intel.

---

Bad Intel? Yet anyone with any knowledge of the middle east could have told him that such a link was dubious and there would not be WMD (I posted the reasons on this very forum many times before the attack - if a dummy like me can see it, then surely someone could have pointed it out to Bush).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
I like Bush~ and I agree with his decision to go to war. Saddam needed to be yanked.
:p

---

At what cost though. Thousands dead, massive recruiting drives for terrorism, proving Osama Bin Laden right!!!(his assertions, not morally).

No, the world is a much worse place. As for the thin tissue of reasons for the attack. Suddenly the UN resolutions are all important, ... I thought we were in the middle of fighting a war on terrorism???? Do you remember Colin Powell being laughed out of the UN when he presented his intelligence about Iraq's WMD program...... it may not have looked like it to you guys, but from outside the US it looked like Bush was itchin' to become a "war president" and Saddam was an easily identifiable person to attack. Then, to make matters worse there's the whole "if you're not with us you're against us" approach. You lost a number of good allies because of Bush's apparent "get Saddam at all costs" approach.

Am I sorry that Saddam is rotting in Jail? Not in the least.

Do I think the cost was worth it? Not at all. Osama Bin Laden has been proven right in the eye's of the muslim world. You have created a rift with many of your old allies. You've created more terrorists than ever before. You've killed thousands. You've lost over a thousand of your own (not to mention the wounded and crippled). You're stuck in another country with no hope of pulling your troops out (at last count there were 80 attacks a day against US personnel). All to bring one man to justice? I don't think so. This was a personal vendetta by Bush, and that my freind, is unforgivable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
we weren't going there because of 9/11. We were going there because they were in violation of 17 UN resolutions and the UN wouldn't do anything, and for the sake of our protection Bush felt it was needed to settle it. ( first diplomatically, then with force if that didn't work)

---

Resolution 1441 was the key resolution to allow Iraq a "last chance" to disarm. Everyone (except US and Britain) was pushing for a second resolution when Blix stated that significant advances were made by the Iraquis, of course the US didnt think the same and invaded anyway.

Why give them another chance....? If he didn't the first time...he probably wouldn't the next time~

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Remember, more than two sides to every conflict. By your reasoning, my enemies enemy is my friend. Wouldn;t it have been just as likely that Saddam would have teamed up with the West to fight Al-Quieda, it doesn't work like that.

---

It certainly does, ala the Iran-Iraq war, Afghan vs Russia etc etc. Politics is a goofy game, and unless you're in it, the truth will never be known. Maybe I should ammend that to - especially if you're in it. What it comes down to is that it's all a load of bs, just depends on which side of the heap you lay. Either way, both sides stink, but one stinks less than the other. In this case, although I concede there were alot of things that could have been done differently, I stand by the decisions made by the guy my vote helped put in power. The extent of that power is another story. Regardless, all this crap was inevitable. War was looming. The most popular interpretation of Islam preaches war against the infidels. Just so happens, US falls into the infidel category. Despite the fact that less radical interpretations of the Kuran will show that infidel had a completely different meaning than that which is tought world wide now. Currently, there is a holy war being waged against the US. I'll support whoever I must in order to protect this country from radical Islam. Until Islam changes to the peaceful religon many Islamists claim it is, I'll be here ready to pull the trigger, as will the president I support. As for the rest of the worlds radical governments trying to take advantage of a country stretched thin by war, get in line, you're time will come as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Remember, more than two sides to every conflict.

---

In a very small one will say 2 people there is 3 side!
My side, their side and the truth!
The truth is a 3-sided sword.
:sick: :sick: :sick:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
It certainly does, ala the Iran-Iraq war, Afghan vs Russia etc etc. Politics is a goofy game, and unless you're in it, the truth will never be known. Maybe I should ammend that to - especially if you're in it. What it comes down to is that it's all a load of bs, just depends on which side of the heap you lay. Either way, both sides stink, but one stinks less than the other. In this case, although I concede there were alot of things that could have been done differently, I stand by the decisions made by the guy my vote helped put in power. The extent of that power is another story. Regardless, all this crap was inevitable. War was looming. The most popular interpretation of Islam preaches war against the infidels. Just so happens, US falls into the infidel category. Despite the fact that less radical interpretations of the Kuran will show that infidel had a completely different meaning than that which is tought world wide now. Currently, there is a holy war being waged against the US. I'll support whoever I must in order to protect this country from radical Islam. Until Islam changes to the peaceful religon many Islamists claim it is, I'll be here ready to pull the trigger, as will the president I support. As for the rest of the worlds radical governments trying to take advantage of a country stretched thin by war, get in line, you're time will come as well.

---

War was only looming because Bush was going to attack someone regardless. Yes, you are now in the middle of a holy war, but the Muslims didn't start it, you did. And please don't say 9/11 was the start of it, 9/11 was caused by a small bunch of nutters which was widley condemed byt eh Muslim communities around the world. Diving into Iraq aided Osama Bin Laden no end. Simple. It was a dumb move.

No, it goes much further back than 9/11. It just took that long for someone to have the balls to start kicking the **** out of these whackos.

Condemned by the Muslim community the media decided to interview. As for the MAJORITY of the Muslim community, they were dancing in the streets. Don't be so naive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
No, it goes much further back than 9/11. It just took that long for someone to have the balls to start kicking the **** out of these whackos.

Condemned by the Muslim community the media decided to interview. As for the MAJORITY of the Muslim community, they were dancing in the streets. Don't be so naive.

---

:thumb: That I do remember.

So in the end, this war and the ongoing conflict is about revenge. Under a guise, of course. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
No, it goes much further back than 9/11. It just took that long for someone to have the balls to start kicking the **** out of these whackos.

Condemned by the Muslim community the media decided to interview. As for the MAJORITY of the Muslim community, they were dancing in the streets. Don't be so naive.

---

Really! This is quite a warped view of the world you seem to hold. You appear to be forming opinion based on your hatred for a small group of people and amplifying it out into a whole section of the world. I have know lots of Muslims, they were just as shocked as the next person.

Put the pictures of people dancing in the streets into perspective. I see a white supremicist rally on TV, does it stand to reason that all the US are White Supremisists? These are huge leaps. If you knew anything about Muslims you would find that they thought the attacks were abhorent. I stand by my original statement, the majority of the muslim world were horrified by the attacks. The people you saw celebrating were probably Palestinian, they kind of hate the US (and who can blame them, you arm Isreal and then turn a blind eye when they fire those self same missiles into crowded streets).... and you're shocked that they're happy that someone manages to hurt you back?

You seem shocked that people would celebrate such an event? Why would anyone hate the US so much? Unfortunately it's this blinkered view that got you into the mess in the first place. I hope there never is another terrorist attack on US soil, but if there is are you going to be one of the people waving their hands in the air and shouting "why us? what could they possibly have against benign old us?" and looking on shocked when more footage of people celebrating is aired.

yet, I see you guys talking here about nuking whole countries and laughing and joking about moving on to other countries and "sorting them out". I see your president making smug comments and jokes about Iraq with no regards to the all the people lying dead.

What about Afghanistan, that should have slated your blood lust. Over 4,000 civilians dead - isn't that enough for you? No, it isn't you go on to Iraq and kill again and again again..... open your eyes, and don't be shocked the next time a man who has lost his children in Iraq does something horrible (and unjustifiable, but understandable).
Out of interest are Isreal and Palestine also on your "hit list" that the US needs to sort out.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mendhak
So in the end, this war and the ongoing conflict is about revenge. Under a guise, of course. ;)

---

Very well said! :thumb:

It must be nice in your fantasy world. That's the way the world works jack, now more than ever. Get them before they get you, and I'm all for it.

And, funny how you condemn me for my feeling towards a large majority of a particular group (not all, mind you) - then you turn around and make a remark about Palestinians. I find that funny and utterly indicitive of your frame of mind. If you ever move to the US, move to Boston. You speak about it so much, and you'd fit right in.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
It must be nice in your fantasy world. That's the way the world works jack, now more than ever. Get them before they get you, and I'm all for it.

---

I agree. If we were weak enough, they would have already declared war on us :eek: ......and if we were a neighboring country :lol: I don't think camels can swim. :lol:

edit:
[They being Iraq, Iran, etc. ) I say etc. because I can't name any more off the top of my head, but I know there are more.

If you want an outsider's comment, the last two comments were as piped opinions as you can have. Lets see... US is overseas, has probably the greatest defence in the world and the most terrifying weapons... yeah, I'll declare war on them :rolleyes: Having the weapons is good enough for your defence and enough to keep other countries from declaring a war on US.

And what you're doing? Attacking. Killing for no good reason. Except: oil. And mendhak said the other reason, revenge. Picture of US in the minds of most outside the US: both selfish and greed. Though, most couldn't care less. For now, there is much more important things to worry about in the every day life. For me and many others. Its funny as some write about this as if this was the most important thing in the world...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
It must be nice in your fantasy world. That's the way the world works jack, now more than ever. Get them before they get you, and I'm all for it.

---

Quite stunning.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
And, funny how you condemn me for my feeling towards a large majority of a particular group (not all, mind you) - then you turn around and make a remark about Palestinians. I find that funny and utterly indicitive of your frame of mind.

---

No matter how you try to twist my words, I think it's a valid generalisation. I wasn't excusing their reaction, but merely stating that if you wanted to find some people that were happy about 9/11, there's a good chance you would find them in Palestine. I didn't say that all Palestinians were celebrating, that's just a good place to find them. It's a lot like me saying if you want to go find Klu Klux Klan members, then the deep south is probably a good place to find them. It's simple logic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
If you ever move to the US, move to Boston. You speak about it so much, and you'd fit right in.

---

Er, I'm not sure what this statement means, but I did live in Boston for three months.... still not sure what you're getting at, I'm afraid you'll have to explain.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by demotivater
It must be nice in your fantasy world. That's the way the world works jack, now more than ever. Get them before they get you, and I'm all for it.

---

So really you're saying that Al-Queida was right to attack the pentagon..... is that what you're saying?

The US. was planning on invading Iraq before Bush was even president. I remember seeing "Invade Iraq" propaganda in 1998 :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
The US. was planning on invading Iraq before Bush was even president. I remember seeing "Invade Iraq" propaganda in 1998 :)

---

Woah...seriously? Do you have a source....I'd like to see that. I know Ex-FB is gona want to see it too :bigyello:

:p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidProgrammer
Woah...seriously? Do you have a source....I'd like to see that. I know Ex-FB is gona want to see it too :bigyello:

---

I have two sources actually, although one I cant document because I was driving in my car when I saw the first, It was a sign on a telephone pole that said "Invade Iraq", this WAS in 1998.
However I managed to find this article.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i16iraqwar.htm

here's a morality question:

What is the difference between a muslim calling westerners (predominantly Americans) "godless warmongers who come to destroy our culture and way of life. For that they can and may be killed according to Jihad." and an American average Joe unashamedly stating "those damn sand niggers will burn in hell and we'll help them on the way by bombing them to kingdom come."

In case you were wondering:

objectively: no difference.
subjectively: the difference lies in whichever side you choose following the old adagium "if we do it, we're doing it to let good prevail and if they do it, they're doing it because they're evil to the core."

PS: undoubtetly someone will come in and say "I've never heard anyone say that" but, albeit put a bit strong, you all (hopefully) grasp the idea.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
I have two sources actually, although one I cant document because I was driving in my car when I saw the first, It was a sign on a telephone pole that said "Invade Iraq", this WAS in 1998.
However I managed to find this article.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i16iraqwar.htm

---

nicely put~ very interesting site btw

Quote:

---

Wallys post
here's a morality question:

What is the difference between a muslim calling westerners (predominantly Americans) "godless warmongers who come to destroy our culture and way of life. For that they can and may be killed according to Jihad." and an American average Joe unashamedly stating "those damn sand niggers will burn in hell and we'll help them on the way by bombing them to kingdom come."

---

Lol. That is some pretty strong words. I've never heard it (as you predicted I would say) but I wouldn't doubt someone saying it...Out of all the Americans that are pissed off....I highly don't doubt it...

If you are referring to the war:
Are you saying that Saddam was not evil to the core? I would beg to differ

If you are referring to ....terrorism?:
No comment~