RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11

RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 4:46:05 AM)
The two most widely respected period writers concerning the wars in Dacia were Dio Cassius, a Roman who could hardly be considered all that pro-Roman, and Cryton, a Macadonian Greek. Neither of these writers portray the Dacians as savages. I'm not sure where you got that from. Josephus was a Jew. Claudius pre-dates Titus and Masada by about twenty years. He never banned Jews from the levant, he banned them from Rome. That edict (51AD) was widely thought of as one that was completely ignored. At that time the term "Jew" in Rome, meant anyone that was basically of the Jewish faith, or was a money lender, or was someone that wasn't willing to pay protection to the Praetorian Prefect. No offense intended, you are one of my favorite posters ... but you should just end this now, and save yourself being eaten alive on this topic. Unless of course you are going to claim that the Rice University Ancient Civilizations and Medieval Studies course selection, is a tool of Roman propaganda. [;)][;)]

cloudboy -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 5:00:16 AM)
Funny, what we could use now in IRAQ would be a secular strongman.

meatcleaver -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 5:45:39 AM)
Yep. I fucked up big time on the Jewish/Rome issue. Trajan was certainly after Dacia's gold and got it. Trajan's Column although made as celebration of Rome's power, is in fact a depiction of Rome's barbarity.

mnottertail -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 5:55:13 AM)
Don't we still got Noriega rotting in Florida somewhere?

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 8:37:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Yep. I fucked up big time on the Jewish/Rome issue. From my limited life experience, you now seem to fit into the top five percent of society, that will actually admit to having made a mistake.[:D]

WhipTheHip -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 11:23:03 AM)
> There are dangers in this world that far outweighed Saddam, > and it pretty much has been shown he had no WMD Saddam was the low hanging fruit. He seemed like a loose cannon ready to anything to hurt us if he could get away with it. The fear was he would acquire WMD and share them with terrorists. In the Arab world there is an expression, the enemy of my enemy is a friend, so even though Saddam and bin Ladin were enemies, they both would cooperate to hurt us. Just like we cooperated with Stalin to fight Hitler. Stalin was not our bosom buddy when we sent him fighter planes and all kinds of armaments to fight Hitler.

SirKenin -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 2:13:53 PM)
Actually the accepted theory, and most plausible one, is that Saddam did indeed have WMDs and they were shipped off to Syria before the US arrived. Every intelligence agency out there had sufficient intelligence gathered that Saddam had them. Bush and friends did not go off half-cocked. They were cooperating with other countries to arm themselves with as much information as possible. They are not going to share it with you, of course, due to security reasons, but it was there. Of course you will always have the twit that loves conspiracy theories and bashing the President in every second paragraph they type... Those same people, however, think that Elvis is still alive, there are aliens and UFOs at Area 51 and man never landed on the moon... [8\|]

NorthernGent -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 2:55:33 PM)
Actually the accepted theory, and most plausible one, is that Saddam did indeed have WMDs and they were shipped off to Syria before the US arrived. Every intelligence agency out there had sufficient intelligence gathered that Saddam had them. Bush and friends did not go off half-cocked. They were cooperating with other countries to arm themselves with as much information as possible. They are not going to share it with you, of course, due to security reasons, but it was there. Of course you will always have the twit that loves conspiracy theories and bashing the President in every second paragraph they type... Those same people, however, think that Elvis is still alive, there are aliens and UFOs at Area 51 and man never landed on the moon... So, in your words "they are not going to share (the information) with you for security reasons". Yet, to arrive at your conclusion that "it was there" you must have swerved security and have been party to the information that can't be shared with anybody else. This means one of the following: a) You are George Bush. b) You are psychic. c) You are invisible. d) You have an over-active imagination that can be magnified with one glass of orange juice too many (added preservatives etc). Regards

NorthernSwitch11 -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 3:52:20 PM)
The accepted theory, who accepted it, i certainly didn't and dont, its somebody's opinion nothing more not the world concensus.

LTRsubNW -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 5:40:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip The time to stop an enemy is before they get WMD, not after. Well let's blow the shit out of North Dakota. They might get them someday. And Sri Lanka; I think we should consider Trinidad and Tobago, and of course Nigeria and Ghana. Ron (Ya know...that North Dakota thing's really not that bad an idea). Sri Lanka makes a lot of my shirts, so I wouldn't be agreeable to that one.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 6:08:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin Actually the accepted theory, and most plausible one, is that Saddam did indeed have WMDs and they were shipped off to Syria before the US arrived. Every intelligence agency out there had sufficient intelligence gathered that Saddam had them. Bush and friends did not go off half-cocked. They were cooperating with other countries to arm themselves with as much information as possible. They are not going to share it with you, of course, due to security reasons, but it was there. Of course you will always have the twit that loves conspiracy theories and bashing the President in every second paragraph they type... Those same people, however, think that Elvis is still alive, there are aliens and UFOs at Area 51 and man never landed on the moon... [8\|] Or you could simply accept the fact that "They were wrong" and Bush and Blair are both now on record of having said so. Not much of a conspiracy theory there.

pahunkboy -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 6:09:49 PM)
when in doubt follow the money. can you say halliburton ?

StrongButKind -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 8:28:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring Even Bill Clinton has gone on record as believing Saddam had WMDs. I suppose he is a liar too? I'm not saying he's the most famous liar in history -- but I'm also not saying he isn't. He was impeached for lying for crying out loud.

Archer -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 8:28:39 PM)
500 shells, documented and cataloged, enough when they were full stregth to kill thousands, OK degraded maybe a few hundred dead in a city, that's OK they were degraded so they don't count. The reason everyone thought Saddam had them is simple math. (numbers made up but can be looked up if you really want to) 1,000 grams Anthrax 2,000 kilos VX 8,000 kilos mustard 4,000 kilos Sarin after subtracting out what was documented as destroyed there was a significant discrepancy in PRE Gulf War 1 inventory and total accounted for by 2003. 20, 000 kilos - 15,000 kilos = 5,000 kilos unaccounted for after 14 years of sitting on the border asking nicely that they complete their agreed to inventory and destruction for which the cease fire agreement from G1 was something like 2 months. The agreement was Saddam would destroy and provide proof of destruction within that time. If this were Union Carbide and it was Haz Waste and they went beyond the EPA time limit the same folks who are willing to say "Oh Saddam didn't need to be removed from power", would be calling for the CEO's head on a pike. The onis was not on the allies to prove Saddam still had them, it was on Saddam to prove he did not. A basic logic step that always seems to be skipped over.

StrongButKind -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 8:29:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: babygirl005 So you are saying that Christians want to kill innocent people? Amazing. Estring Not all of them. Just the ones that are going to heaven.

StrongButKind -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 8:38:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip You are right. We can't occupy the place forever. What we should have done is let the Iraqis fight it out among themselves and supported those who were least antagnostic towards us. The pay-per-view rights and taxes on gambling on this should be enough to pay for increased oil prices and a separate air travel system for dark-skinned travelers, solving all our problems. When the Pepsi Kurds fight to the death against the Nike Shiites in the Desert of Aflac, capitalism will have finally triumphed over evil.

StrongButKind -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 8:40:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich So, if this is the standard, are you going to be all supportive of the suggestion that every Muslim on the planet is an evil terrorist? Not all of them. Just the ones that are going to heaven.

subexploring -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 8:40:15 PM)
Saddam could not prove he did not have them because Bush would not accept any proof whatsoever that he didn't. The Bush administration simply wanted to invade. Bush ordered U.N. inspectors out of Iraq as they were searching for WMDs so that the U.S. could begin bombing. WMDs were a pretext, and nothing else. No one, no one in the world besides a few neocons, believed Saddam had any kind of plausible nuclear program. The most people believed he had was some old chemical or possibly a few primitive bio weapons that would be less destructive than most conventional weapons. Stuff like mustard gas or perhaps some not very potent anthrax. People who know weapons understand that this stuff is less destructive than conventional bombs, although it's very scary to the rubes. Turned out Saddam didn't even have that. This war was a con job from start to finish. It was about putting a police station next to our gas station. Certain people thought that if we occupied a colony in the Middle East then those funny A-rabs would settle down and be pliable. This is an inane theory, but it appears that the neocons believed it. People have trouble admitting they were conned, hence the wishful thinking one sees from various holdouts on these kinds of threads.

StrongButKind -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 8:46:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Actually the accepted theory, and most plausible one, is that Saddam did indeed have WMDs and they were shipped off to Syria before the US arrived. Every intelligence agency out there had sufficient intelligence gathered that Saddam had them. Bush and friends did not go off half-cocked. They were cooperating with other countries to arm themselves with as much information as possible. They are not going to share it with you, of course, due to security reasons, but it was there. Of course you will always have the twit that loves conspiracy theories and bashing the President in every second paragraph they type... Those same people, however, think that Elvis is still alive, there are aliens and UFOs at Area 51 and man never landed on the moon... So, in your words "they are not going to share (the information) with you for security reasons". Yet, to arrive at your conclusion that "it was there" you must have swerved security and have been party to the information that can't be shared with anybody else. This means one of the following: a) You are George Bush. b) You are psychic. c) You are invisible. d) You have an over-active imagination that can be magnified with one glass of orange juice too many (added preservatives etc). Regards Why just one of those things? Can't I be psychic, invisible, and George Bush? That would rock. I could find out what Cheney says about me when I'm not there. I bet he makes fun of my accent.

fosterpiti -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/24/2006 8:53:39 PM)
Gee, back in the '90's long before Bush was around to blame, I remember Clinton, Gore, Albright, and Kerry ALL saying that it was a sure bet that Saddam wasn't complying with the UN sanctions and was probaly building up a stockpile of chemical weapons working towards a nuclear program, and probably trying to develop biological weapons as well. Funny, I never thought of THEM as "neocons"! I also remember during the initial war, Kofi Anan saying he did NOT believe that Saddam had any prohibited weapons even while missles that had a range exceeding what was allowed under the terms of the cease fire were being shot down by Patriot batteries in Kuwait. These missles, if not shot down, and allowed to follow their original trajectory, would have gone 35-50 MILES beyond what had been deemed acceptable to defend Iraq (the criteria for what Saddam was allowed to keep) Furthermore, Saddam was all for allowing UNSCOM inspectors to inspect, when it became apparent that we were prepared to invade. He had already stopped them on several occaisons, and had ejected them from the country at one point. He had NOT fully complied with the inspection process in 12 years, what makes you think he was suddenly about to start? Because he SAID SO? Remember, he SAID he was going to allow full and unfettered inspections in 1991, to stop the original war. He, like many others in the world today, learned that if you can lock up the other side in negotiations long enough, you can achieve what you want without having to fight for it, just by talking the opposition to death! Where have YOU been? I've spent probably a year out of the last three in the Persian Gulf, and get tired of armchair quarterbacks who pontificate on situations they only know by slanted and biased media accounts!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125