Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
I have no reason to believe so based on your statements in opposition to the facts.
|
I am unconcerned over your beliefs, nor am I concerned with your obvious attempts to label me as a liar.
And you criticize me for "style" arguments...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
And when you can't argue the facts argue style.
|
Pointing out your response is a non-sequitur has nothing to do with style.
Unless you're trying to tell me that making non-sequiturs is your style?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Sure, it would make it much easier for you if we leave out all the other terrorist activities and groups he was involved in, folly but that is all you are left with.
|
"easier for me"????
Talk about arguing about "style"...
I am talking about my position on this issue.
Heck, how many "terrorists" could the United States be said to be associated with? With funding for guerillas, etc, etc, etc...
If you want to show a non-al Qaeda "terrorist group" which has SIGNIFICANT impact upon the U.S. (which Saddam supported), that would obviously be "not easy" for me.
Can you do that?
Or is your response a meaningless complaint on your part?
I don't see why America should shell out 1-2 trillion dollars over some small-time group that can be labelled as "terrorist"...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
ROFL........oh and THAT was OK.
|
Again, you allege my position is something I never even hinted at.
Of COURSE it was not "ok".
But is it worth 1-2 trillion dollars of American tax-payer money?
THAT is the question.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
It has always been the issue, any and ALL terrorist groups.
|
The fact that Bush tried so damn hard to link it to al Qaeda for the American people proves this claim to be false.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
The same the Clinton administration had.
|
1) Do you think that mentioning "Clinton" somehow means something to me?
It doesn't.
2) Since Clinton did not invade Iraq over whatever he thought, I don't see the relevance...
3) You are AGAIN FAILING to show me Bush's evidence...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
|
Irrelevant considering I am talking EXPLICITLY about al Qaeda.
It is Bush's deceit regarding the AL QAEDA connection which is at issue.
And furthermore, that web-site is so poorly put together I don't see how you could consider it as a "credible" resource.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Already refuted, go read the actual report.
|
Don't lie.
You have NEVER refuted the Pentagon report with any substance.
Show me what you said in which post which had any REAL discussion on the content of the Pentagon report...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
After we went in. What happened to the ones he had, he was required to tell you else be removed from office.
|
Again, you're trying to re-write history in the JUSTIFICATION for going to war with Iraq.
If Bush had come to the American people with THE TRUTH that Saddam didn't have WMDs, but we didn't know how he disposed of them, so we should invade, costing us 1-2 trillion dollars, he would have been laughed at.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Then how did he use them to kill so many people.
|
Quit obfuscating.
I am talking about the fact that WHEN WE INVADED IRAQ, he did not have them.
These dishonest tactics of yours to try and misrepresent things are deplorable!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
There you go again refusing to admit it was one of the several reasons from the get-go and dodging the question.
WAS HE IN COMPLIANCE?
|
Irrelevant.
If Bush had told the American people THE TRUTH that Saddam didn't have WMDs, but we didn't know how he disposed of them, so we should invade, costing us 1-2 trillion dollars, what would be the response of the American people?
Would Bush shouting "he's not in compliance" have persuaded anybody???
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
It was one of the several reasons.
|
It was the MAIN reason.
The one that was repeated OVER and OVER and OVER again.
And now that the MAIN reasons have been proven false, people like you keep trying to point to menial reasons that nobody thought significant as "justification".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
The compliance with the UN mandates was the KEY issue.
|
Bush disagrees with you...
The MAIN issue was the WMDs, which he DID NOT HAVE.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
It was a key issue your denial of that shows your ignorance of the matter. It was a key issue going back to 1998. Didn't know that did you.
|
< yawn >
Are you about to give me ammo on the classic liberal conspiracy theory that Bush was gunning to invade Iraq long before?
< end sarcasm >
There is a difference between something being "an issue" and something being a justification for invading another country and overthrowing the leader of that country.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Ahh go back your attempt to refute the latest study went down in flames. ABC didn't do it's homework and relied on the false assertions of another reporter. You posted hearsay. Fallacious hearsay. I post FROM THE STUDY ITSELF!! I have posted it TWICE and it directly refutes what ABC picked and reported without reading the study themselves. I posted where the study itself totally refutes what this one reporter asserted.
So try again and refute the study based on the facts not hearsay.
|
Let's post "FROM THE STUDY ITSELF"...
This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.
....
But the similarities ended there: bin Laden wanted-and still wantsto restore the Islamic caliphate while Saddam, despite his later Islamic rhetoric, dreamed more narrowly of being the secular ruler of a united Arab nation. 96 These competing visions made any significant long-tenn compromise between them highly unlikely. After all, to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the worst kind of "apostate" regime-a secular police state well practicedin suppressing internal challenges.
....
Some aspects of the indirect cooperation between Saddam's regional terror enterprise and al Qaeda's more global one are somewhat analogous to the
Cali and Medellin drug cartels. Both drug cartels (actually loose collections of families and criminal gangs) were serious national security concerns to the United States. Both cartels competed for a share of the illegal drug market.
Saddam and al Qaeda were more COMPETITORS than anything else.
NOT "collaborating".
Your attempts to change the issue to OTHER "terrorist groups" is an attempt to bypass the fact that BUSH DECEIVED US in claiming that al Qaeda and Saddam collaborated.