JackC Posted December 15, 2003 Author Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by Sarge And there is reasonable intel that Iraq did finance and/or aid atta There is more reasonable intel that says Saudia Arabia did more than did Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Another reason to show this is big for world security is how all the other countries are responding to the news. We are getting thanks from everyone because they know what this means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by JackC There is more reasonable intel that says Saudia Arabia did more than did Iraq. Make no mistake, I'm all for cleaning their clocks next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Did you know it wasn't Iraq that attacked us on 9/11? You might be half right - or half wrong on that statement... Mohammed Atta's Iraqi Connection But it seems that your mind is already made up with questions and vague insinuations. Perhaps you can tell us where you stand… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 I heard it was David Boston and Bill Clinton behind all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by La muerte de Bufford I heard it was David Boston and Bill Clinton behind all of this. :laugh: Don't know about Clinton, but at least someone can find David Boston this year - even if they aren't in San Diego ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by JackC WOW! Another right wing spin. It's good to occupy Iraq because it draws the terrorists to Bagdad to try to kill Americans instead of drawing them to our shores. That's a laughable theory. Uh, Jack, you may want to pay attention to what's actually happening in Iraq rather than simply mouthing off when something confuses you. It appears that, indeed, terrorists are going to Bagdad to try to kill Americans which is, in fact, keeping them from our shores. It seems insane, but these are terrorists we're talking about. These people are actually centering their resistence to Iraq, which plays well into our hands and helps keep this country secure. This certainly wasn't a reason -- given or projected -- for going into Iraq, but it has certainly developed as a great boon to the American people and our war on terror is far more simple given their current efforts there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 It turns out that David Boston and his personal trainer were working with Saddam to get him into "fleeing" shape. Saddam would be in the Caf, walking by all the fried foods. It would smell so good but he wouldn't let himself eat that crap. He'd say "I don't eat that....I'm Saddam" and that's why he was caught in such fine shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted December 15, 2003 Author Share Posted December 15, 2003 Art, You ignore the fact that this invasion has helped these terrorist groups with their recruitment. So, given that some of these "terrorist" might have remained in their previous occupations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 That's not a fact Jack. That's a Liberal talking point that is unproveable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Sorry, Jack, but there IS evidence that suggests terrorists are going to Iraq to take a shot at an American. There is no evidence that the liberation of Iraq has led to increased recruitment. This was a common slogan from the left prior to the war, as was that we were going into Iraq for oil, but, neither has been evidenced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Art, You ignore the fact that this invasion has helped these terrorist groups with their recruitment. So, given that some of these "terrorist" might have remained in their previous occupations. Actually Jack with the terrorists attacking their own, they have also pissed off a lot of muslims. The majority in Iraq are now against them not for them. With Sadam gone they don't need to fear anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted December 15, 2003 Author Share Posted December 15, 2003 whatever guys. Keep you GOP glasses on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted December 15, 2003 Author Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma Actually Jack with the terrorists attacking their own, they have also pissed off a lot of muslims. The majority in Iraq are now against them not for them. With Sadam gone they don't need to fear anymore. Did you take a poll of the majority of Iraqi people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Did you take a poll of the majority of Iraqi people? I didn't have too, just saw all of them celebrating yesterday. You don't see that everyday now do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 The sad thing Jack is you don't even know if the people are on this thread are republican or democrat you are just guessing because we think we are doing something good in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Jack, We certainly hope the people of Iraq are against terrorism. In your unending effort to simply counter the words from the right, are you actually suggesting the majority of Iraqis are FOR terrorism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 979guy Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by Sarge Make no mistake, I'm all for cleaning their clocks next. Sarge, do you think that this is even a remotely feasible option? At the risk of sounding cynical, it seems to me that the US's economic interests regarding Saudi Arabia by far eclipse the fact that it is a leading contender with Iran in the Heaviest Supporters of Terror charts... I'd have thought that both should have been targets in the War on Terror way before Iraq and Saddam, as they do pose more immediate and substantial threats. Somehow it seemed Iraq was the easier, cheaper target: No pissing off stronger armies or wealthier assests, plus Saddam was already a well-known and much-hated character in America and as such easier to aim the wrath upon with a strong domestic support. All the while, Saudi Arabia had much more to do with 9/11 than Saddam and Iran has much more to do with worldwide Islamic terror than Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Too much backroom money mixed up there, although if we ever did a real "War for Oil" , that'd be where I would go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 979guy, I think you're spot on. Not to mention the gazillions of dollars the Saudis have tied up in the US economy--it would hurt us, if not cripple us, if they pulled it out. Also, their oil production dwarfs that of Iraq. If we attacked Saudi Arabia, they'd cut off supply and we'd be up a creek for a little while at least. One point in which I agree with fully with JackC: either the war was right or it was wrong, but the capture of Saddam does not change that property one way or the other. If it was right, then it was right even before we captured Saddam. If it was wrong, then it remains wrong even after the capture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Hmm, maybe I missed something. Did someone state that the justification of the war hinged on catching Saddam? WMDs, maybe… getting rid of an evil dictator, maybe (though that was done a while back)… but simply catching Saddam as reasoning behind the war? I would agree with you, that is not a cohesive argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by JackC Did you take a poll of the majority of Iraqi people? Did YOU take a poll of the majority of Iraqi people? I think the bottom line with this whole argument is that nobody on this board has enough information to say whether what's going on in Iraq will be good or bad for the Iraqi people in the long run. In fact, unless you believe in psychics, nobody anywhere knows for a fact what's good or bad for the Iraqi or the American people. Why did we go into Iraq? Because President Bush thought we should. Am I convinced that it was a good idea? No, and I'll probably still hold that belief even if WMD's are found. Did Bush have a duty to convince me before he acted? No, he's the President of the United States and he has the prerogative to do what he thinks he needs to defend this country. He convinced plenty of Americans and a majority of Congress that what he was doing was right, and that's good enough for me. He may not have convinced me, but that simply means that he isn't guaranteed my vote next fall, it doesn't mean that what he did was wrong. I'm probably more towards your side than most posters on this board JackC, but the simple fact is that it's impossible to make an unequivocal statement about this war being "right" or "wrong". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by 979guy Sarge, do you think that this is even a remotely feasible option? At the risk of sounding cynical, it seems to me that the US's economic interests regarding Saudi Arabia by far eclipse the fact that it is a leading contender with Iran in the Heaviest Supporters of Terror charts... I'd have thought that both should have been targets in the War on Terror way before Iraq and Saddam, as they do pose more immediate and substantial threats. Somehow it seemed Iraq was the easier, cheaper target: No pissing off stronger armies or wealthier assests, plus Saddam was already a well-known and much-hated character in America and as such easier to aim the wrath upon with a strong domestic support. All the while, Saudi Arabia had much more to do with 9/11 than Saddam and Iran has much more to do with worldwide Islamic terror than Iraq. Well think about this for a moment. If SA & Iran are part of a vast worlwide conspiracy to promote terrorism and they (SA) holds us by the balls with oil, then what better way to "send' a message then to come right into their back yard? By taking Iraq first we now border both Iran & SA have access too Iraq's oil just in case SA plays the oil card. Seems pretty smart to me. Least path of resistence, we can keep a check on them, and even start playing the same game with them. Both SA & Iran regimes might fall on their own so why not let it happen. We are right there to insure that it dosen't turn into a cinder box, hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma I didn't have too, just saw all of them celebrating yesterday. You don't see that everyday now do you. That was "all of them"?:dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 The best way would be to develop and make accessable a fuel economy that requires zero oil, then sell that around the world. It would bankrupt the terrorist states. The capture is a good step, but I suspect it will raise the violence at least in the short term. I think that the pro Saddam, pro terrorist guys will throw a tantrum to try to get their way. If we can weather that... it may lead to greater peace. I think the way he was captured... without a bomb tied to his back, without him firing a shot, with him as meek as can be shouts a pretty strong message to the followers of those who shout jihad. It says yes, you should sacrifice yourself, but that only goes for you sheep. For us, it is not quite the holy war. That message hopefully makes some scratch their heads. As to the war itself, its justification did not hinge on it being successful. It's justification is based on what the world looks like five, ten years down the road and if it is peaceful whether that can be directly correlated to the elimination of a threat there. Remember the greatest weapon of mass destruction is human will. The weapons we haven't found, the money links are symptoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.