Funkyalligator Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 he has infered that they are linked numerous times and the ignorant masses in the US don't see the difference or can't tell the difference so they do believe that the two are directly linked...look at surveys done asking if the two are linked and look at how many people believe they are.....a very high percentage...and I wonder were they got the idea they were linked...hmmmmm....I wonder.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I bet that if you did a poll, the average person would think Iraq is linked with 9/11. Can we do an extremeskins poll that everyone in the US takes part in??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Originally posted by Funkyalligator he has infered that they are linked numerous times and the ignorant masses in the US don't see the difference or can't tell the difference so they do believe that the two are directly linked...look at surveys done asking if the two are linked and look at how many people believe they are.....a very high percentage...and I wonder were they got the idea they were linked...hmmmmm....I wonder.... I think people in the US are stupid. And I would agree that Bush doesnt necessarily do anything to prove they dont have a link. But I think that issue is a very small piece of the debate, or at least it should be. Because whether he was or was not is frankly irrelevant in the war on terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Originally posted by Funkyalligator he has infered that they are linked numerous times and the ignorant masses in the US don't see the difference or can't tell the difference so they do believe that the two are directly linked...look at surveys done asking if the two are linked and look at how many people believe they are.....a very high percentage...and I wonder were they got the idea they were linked...hmmmmm....I wonder.... What about the people that think they know what they are talking about, when In fact they do not.. They go off of what the press says, instead of believing those that are in the know....hmmmmm.... I wonder.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Originally posted by airborneskins What about the people that think they know what they are talking about, when In fact they do not.. believing those that are in the know....hmmmmm.... I wonder.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Originally posted by codeorama I bet that if you did a poll, the average person would think Iraq is linked with 9/11. Can we do an extremeskins poll that everyone in the US takes part in??? I think they are linked , IF 9/11 did not happen Saddamn would STILL be in power. Someone had to pay and the taliban were too easy. That is a cause -effect scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 He may have never stated there is a direct link with 9/11 and Iraq, that's what drudge and newsmax is for. But he has stated many times a direct link with Iraq and WMD. Though I missed that part of his speech last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Man, it's funny how stuff changes for the purpose of justifying things. I thought that Colin Powell told us that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US because of WMD's. They could strike us at anytime. Does anyone still believe that? So now, you guys are saying that the war is REALLY about Terrorism, that Iraq is the first stop. Why? Clearly there are other targets that are a bigger threat? Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe Bush didn't directly link the 9/11 attacks and Saddam, but he has clearly done everything he can to put them together with out crossing the line so that someone can say he lied. Why say "9/11" over and over if Saddam and Iraq were not linked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Because the people who were responsible for 9/11 are cut from the same cloth as Saddam. Iraq was next on the list for lots of reasons. One Im sure of is it's close proximity to the troops we had alredy in the region. But also because I believe, and the President believed (in fact Congress both sides agreed) that Saddam possesed the ability to strike the US. Do you doubt that he would have if given the right opportunity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Do you doubt that he would have if given the right opportunity? I'm not sure if he would or not. Possibly underhandedly, where it could not be proven, but I don't think he was crazy enough to strike us. I think the whole WMD thing was something he claimed because he wasnted to make iraq sound more powerful than what it was. I think that's where the bad intel came from. But I still can't relate the 2. Why just Iraq? I thought it was a humanitarian issue? Sadam just needed to go? See that's the problem, the "story" is ever changing. First it's WMD's, then it's a humanitarian effort, now it's just the "general" war or terror. We need to mind our own business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Code, cmon man. The story hasnt changed at all. In fact before the war many on this board complained that we had TOO many reasons. Bush was clear that their were many reasons for war. And I dont think it's just in Iraq. I think this war on terror wil have a new battlefront in the next few year. And I wish we could mind our own business. Let's shut the borders down, kick out each and every foreigner in the US and pull back all of our exports. Im all for it. But the last time we tried minding our own business, people flew planes into our buildings. Bush has been clear in his Doctrine. We wil no longer wait to respond. That time is gone. Our new Doctrine says we will attack before anyone has the chance to attack us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 So even if it's not justified, if we "think" someone is a target, we are just goingt to attack... great. Soon, we are going to piss of the wrong people and it will be on. Everyone "supports the troops" yet recruiting is WAY down. That's the real indicator of the support for Bush's policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I am all for the war on terror....god knows it should have started longer ago with targeted assasinations but...the problem is that the current government has lied/mislead the masses into supporting the war....they realized that they couldn't just go to the people in the US and state real reasons for starting the war on terror because frankly the "ignorant masses" just wouldn't get it..there many suspicious things surrounding the war from the billions of dollars that Haliburton has conviently recieved to many other issues....none of which reflect well upon the current administration but the administration certainly knows how to blind the masses with the term war on terror... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Kilmer, you hit the nail on the head! If you guy's don't believe Saddam floated any of his billions to terrorist group, you're crazy. After desert storm he hated America for humiliating him, did he funnel money to Osama, he probably did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Originally posted by Brown 43 Kilmer, you hit the nail on the head! If you guy's don't believe Saddam floated any of his billions to terrorist group, you're crazy. After desert storm he hated America for humiliating him, did he funnel money to Osama, he probably did! You know, Russia "probably" helped Iraq by giving them things like night vision goggles etc... so clearly they are the enemy, why aren't we out kicking their ass too?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Code, in due time. I'm sure Iraq has some U.S. weapons also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boobiemiles Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Originally posted by Brown 43 Kilmer, you hit the nail on the head! If you guy's don't believe Saddam floated any of his billions to terrorist group, you're crazy. After desert storm he hated America for humiliating him, did he funnel money to Osama, he probably did! Remeber what they said about asummption, it makes an a$$ out of you and me. Kilmer is probably wrong. You need hard facts not speculation to send peoples children to die in the name of peace. Just because Sadaam is an arab doesn't mean that he supported the efforts of 9-11. Osama didn't need Sadaams money, he was a rich man all by himself, and I think the real pipe line comes from Saudi Arabia, but again that is speculation. Sadaam never attacked America, he attacked Kuwait. There was a time when we supported Sadaam. This whole effort stinks. And talking about shuting down borders and kicking out foriegners is a farse. Get off your high horse before you catch a nose bleed, you're a foriegner too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Originally posted by Brown 43 Code, in due time. I'm sure Iraq has some U.S. weapons also? We know that's true. We arm others all the time. Just look at Bin Laden, we armed him to fight against the soviet union in Afghanistan. Seems like we have a bad habit of arming people that end up being our enemies. That's why I say, Mind our own business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Code, if we minded our own buisness the world would be ruled by communists. Every nations should be kissing our behinds! Boob, you changed my mind, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Actually technically we never armed Osama Bin Laden....we gave financial support to the ISS(Paskistani Secret Service) who in turn gave weapons and financial support to Bin Laden's group in Afghanistan....although we never supported or trained Bin Laden directly we did arm and train other members of his organization.....the war in Afghanistan brought together many different groups of Islamic extremists and than they were "indoctrinated" under the Wahabi sect of Islam from Saudi Arabia....it is during this time that the basis for the international terrorist organization Al-Qaeda was formed...prior to that war all these organizations were strictly country oriented without a common cause... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Originally posted by Brown 43 Code, if we minded our own buisness the world would be ruled by communists. Every nations should be kissing our behinds! Boob, you changed my mind, right. I just don't get the "take over the world" type thinking. If a country freely chooses to be communists, then so be it, it's their choice. What right do we have to think everyone should be like us? Protect or borders, protect our citizens and let the rest of the world have the freedom to choose what they want to do for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Originally posted by Brown 43 Code, if we minded our own buisness the world would be ruled by communists. Every nations should be kissing our behinds! Boob, you changed my mind, right. I never knew the world was in danger of being ruled by warped Islamic fundametalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I love the whole, "he probably did, so who cares how many civilians end up dead" attitude. Also, Kilmer, there's no way you can make an argument that terrorists and saddam are cut from the same cloth. Saddam would never be suicide bomber. Ever. Thier end goals are entirely different. They both hate the US, but that's where thier interests end. And that is nowhwere near enough of a connection to risk the lives of hundreds of thousnads of iraqis. I supported the war, and I still think some good can come out of it. I'm not one of these bush lied nutjobs. I also believe that it is in our long term goals to try and bring some stability to the region. But when idiots go off about how saddam was probably in cahoots with the people who did 9-11 how can you do anything but laugh? Of course everything is related, but you can't go on pretending that these are all some cutout of american hatred to be dealt with by whatever force we can muster. These problems are more subtle than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Not ruled by, but certainly terrorized by. I think our ends do justify our means. If we make a mistake, it's no different than mistakes we made in every other war we've ever fought. The difference is now it's on TV 24/7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I don't believe there will ever be peace in the middle east, just my opinion, but I just don't see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.