WMD-Terrorist Connection?

[Longhorn85]

This article about a shipment from North Korea bound for Syria suggests there is one. We know that insurgents and terrorists pour into Iraq from Syria.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_2.html

 

[strongsmartsexy]

This article about a shipment from North Korea bound for Syria suggests there is one. We know that insurgents and terrorists pour into Iraq from Syria.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_2.html

A connection after the fact is silly. Of course they're going to pour into Iraq now and do their best to engage the US.

This issue isn't that they are coming in now, the issue is whether a viable connection existed as a justification to go to war over a year ago. The fact that the are coming in at this point doesn't justify going to war over a year ago.

 

[Longhorn85]

Well, I made no attempt to establish a link prior to the war in my post. I simply asked if the link existed. Now that you mention it, it is clear that at least the potential for a link existed, and it arguably was already well established. It won't be hard to find out. The answers are in Syria.

 

[bluepeter]

Well, I made no attempt to establish a link prior to the war in my post. I simply asked if the link existed. Now that you mention it, it is clear that at least the potential for a link existed, and it arguably was already well established. It won't be hard to find out. The answers are in Syria.

No, it has been well established that there were no WMD or Al Quaeda connections prior to invasion. They may be there now or on the way now but that is in response to only one thing

 

[WODIN]

Lmao!!!!

 

[Longhorn85]

No, it has been well established that there were no WMD or Al Quaeda connections prior to invasion.

Absolutely untrue statement. You are either terribly misinformed or you haven't been paying attention.

 

[bluepeter]

Absolutely untrue statement. You are either terribly misinformed or you haven't been paying attention.

I await your proof with great interest (as does the rest of the world).....

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Well, I made no attempt to establish a link prior to the war in my post. I simply asked if the link existed. Now that you mention it, it is clear that at least the potential for a link existed, and it arguably was already well established. It won't be hard to find out. The answers are in Syria.

DUH! That they've known for a long while. There and Saudia Arabia. Now the question is, why didn't we invade THOSE countries instead of Iraq?

 

[Longhorn85]

I await your proof with great interest (as does the rest of the world).....

Oh I see. You make a bold lie, and leave it to others to prove you wrong.

 

[bluepeter]

DUH! That they've known for a long while. There and Saudia Arabia. Now the question is, why didn't we invade THOSE countries instead of Iraq?

Thank you for clarifying, yes littlepackage, what does that longstanding knowledge have to do with Iraq? Where is the proof that WMD and ties to Al Quaeda existed before the Christian Crusader invaded?

 

[Longhorn85]

The presence of WMD in Iraq is a matter of public record. I will not review that here.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Oh I see. You make a bold lie, and leave it to others to prove you wrong.

The irony in this can be heard around the universe.

 

[Forge]

Well, I made no attempt to establish a link prior to the war in my post. I simply asked if the link existed. Now that you mention it, it is clear that at least the potential for a link existed, and it arguably was already well established. It won't be hard to find out. The answers are in Syria.

I agree, we should go into Syria next. After that, Saudi Arabia would be a good target. And when the French condemn us and vow to stop us, we should be able to prove that they have connections to the terror network as well. After we get the answers in France and England threatens to take action against us, well we will be justified in freeing England from the terror of the Queen. Eventually we will make the whole world a democracy and then we won't have these terror problems. Make the world America! Free the people!!!

Serioulsy, when will enough be enough? At what point do we consider ourselves and our nation "safe" from "terror"? You speak like Syria should be invaded next, and the fact that you are posting connnections between N Korea and Syria suggests that you don't approve of the way their country is governed either. Should we be marching around the world invading other countries because they might possibly threaten the USA someday?

 

[Longhorn85]

For Bluepeter:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/563841/posts

 

[WODIN]

The presence of WMD in Iraq is a matter of public record. I will not review that here.

Of course Iraq had wmd...They used them blowing up Iranians and Kurds.

 

[Longhorn85]

Thank you for clarifying, yes littlepackage, what does that longstanding knowledge have to do with Iraq? Where is the proof that WMD and ties to Al Quaeda existed before the Christian Crusader invaded?

So it appears you've backed down from your first lie. Of course there were WMD in Iraq. I'm waiting for you to back down from your second.

 

[bluepeter]

For Bluepeter:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/563841/posts

Shit, that's rock solid, nuke the whole country. Please disregard all my previous posts

 

[75th]

No, it has been well established that there were no WMD or Al Quaeda connections prior to invasion.

Uh, no, it hasnt.

 

[Longhorn85]

Shit, that's rock solid, nuke the whole country. Please disregard all my previous posts

Caught in lie #2. Now let's continue this discussion grounded in reality.

 

[bluepeter]

So it appears you've backed down from your first lie. Of course there were WMD in Iraq. I'm waiting for you to back down from your second.

I'm not backing down at all. There is tenuous evidence that such material exists in Syria, I repeat, Syria. Not Iraq.

So your justification for war was......?

 

[bluepeter]

Uh, no, it hasnt.

OK, then I ask you the same question, where is the proof?

littlepackage tried to pawn off some ridiculous bullshit statement by one Iraqi diplomat as proof and justification for going to war over but perhaps you'll do better

 

[Longhorn85]

I'm not backing down at all. There is tenuous evidence that such material exists in Syria, I repeat, Syria. Not Iraq.

So your justification for war was......?

Ha, ha. You're in serious denial dude. You lied twice in one thread and got caught in both of them.

 

[bluepeter]

Caught in lie #2. Now let's continue this discussion grounded in reality.

I see you're well versed in sarcasm

 

[75th]

OK, then I ask you the same question, where is the proof?

littlepackage tried to pawn off some ridiculous bullshit statement by one Iraqi diplomat as proof and justification for going to war over but perhaps you'll do better

Well, I dont have access to Iron-Clad proof proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a connection and WMDs. But guess what, neither do you to prove otherwise.

There is this, though:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

 

[bluepeter]

Ha, ha. You're in serious denial dude. You lied twice in one thread and got caught in both of them.

I'm in denial because you call 2 statements that I made a lie without refuting either of them? Dude, I enjoy talking to you although I obviously disagree with your views, but stop talking shit.

 

[WODIN]

As far as saying that WMD was and is our reason for invading though you don't have a leg to stand on. So after you turn damascus into beruit 2 and you have no wmd then where ya going? Iran? Saudi?

HEY! There's an idea. Saudi Arabia...HOME to 17 of the 19 9/11 terrorist.

 

[bluepeter]

Well, I dont have access to Iron-Clad proof proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a connection and WMDs. But guess what, neither do you to prove otherwise.

There is this, though:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

I don't need iron clad evidence because I didn't invade Iraq. Your Ayatollah in the Oval Office did so I believe he's the one that requires the evidence. littlepackage is his blind supporter, hence my request for proof to justify a war that appears to be based on lies and deception.

 

[Longhorn85]

I'm in denial because you call 2 statements that I made a lie without refuting either of them?

They've both been refuted, though you for some reason refuse to acknowledge it. The presence of WMD in Iraq is not even worth arguing, you've already admitted to that.

The connection with Al-Q has also been established. Did you actually read the link I posted? Some of those names should ring a bell. Note the date on that article as well.

You can make a valid argument that you don't think war was justified, but you cannot seriously deny that WMD existed and that Hussein supported terrorism and had ties to Al-Q.

 

[75th]

I don't need iron clad evidence because I didn't invade Iraq. Your Ayatollah in the Oval Office did so I believe he's the one that requires the evidence. littlepackage is his blind supporter, hence my request for proof to justify a war that appears to be based on lies and deception.

"My Ayatollah?" Ok.

No, it has been well established that there were no WMD or Al Quaeda connections prior to invasion.

You are the one who made this claim, so naturally you should be able to provide proof. And no, "we havent found any" does not count as proof.

I provided a pretty detailed article that should be read.

For the record (again), I dont agree with the war. I was wounded while fighting over there. But still, baseless claims get us nowhere. (And these come from both the right and the left).

 

[strongsmartsexy]

This is a bit like the biblical phrase "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."

The Bush administration went to WAR with Iraq over WMD and ties to Al-Quaida. It convinced a few that we could no longer wait.

Now here we are in Iraq. Where are the WMD that were so intolerable that we had to commit US lives and money in this war? Where are the ties to Al-Quaida? We went to WAR over this.

Now we have tenuous ties and hints of evidence that we're at war over? And the best folks can come up with is things that happened a good while before this war and now ties to terroists coming into Iraq after we are already there as justification for this war?

That is more like straining at a gnat and swallowing a whole regions worth of camels.

 

[bluepeter]

"My Ayatollah?" Ok.



You are the one who made this claim, so naturally you should be able to provide proof. And no, "we havent found any" does not count as proof.

I provided a pretty detailed article that should be read.

For the record (again), I dont agree with the war. I was wounded while fighting over there. But still, baseless claims get us nowhere. (And these come from both the right and the left).

It's not a baseless claim and I must say that not having found any evidence is far more proof that they and the terrorists links don't exist than they do. I'm also Canadian so I'm not a Dem. or Rep. and my views aren't clouded by my blind party devotion like Longhorn.

No weapons or terrorist links have been found and you read recent statements from people such as Colin Powell indicating that his big speech justifying the war contained many inaccuracies and some deliberately misleading information. That doesn't inspire much confidence that this was done for the right reasons does it?

 

[Longhorn85]

This is a bit like the biblical phrase "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."

The Bush administration went to WAR with Iraq over WMD and ties to Al-Quaida. It convinced a few that we could no longer wait.

Now here we are in Iraq. Where are the WMD that were so intolerable that we had to commit US lives and money in this war? Where are the ties to Al-Quaida? We went to WAR over this.

You're leaving out a lot of contextual circumstance. We had a little history with Iraq, did we not? WMD inspections failed over and over due to a lack of cooperation on the part of Hussein. We were at war with him in '91 for invading Kuwait and still had troops there and a no-fly zone, which he repeatedly violated. 9-11. War in Afghanistan. The Bush doctrine which states we will go after threats of terror before they fully materialize, and agressively attack state sponsors of terror. Hussein was paying terrorists in the West Bank. Al-Q connections existed. He had WMD and refused to disclose the status. Husseins antics and bad timing made him the poster boy for the Bush doctrine. Congress agreed. The UN agreed. The US acted. The war was just, and Iraq and the world will be much better off once we've finished what we are doing.

 

[WODIN]

Looks like Hans Blix was right all along.

 

[bluepeter]

You're leaving out a lot of contextual circumstance. We had a little history with Iraq, did we not? WMD inspections failed over and over due to a lack of cooperation on the part of Hussein. We were at war with him in '91 for invading Kuwait and still had troops there and a no-fly zone, which he repeatedly violated. 9-11. War in Afghanistan. The Bush doctrine which states we will go after threats of terror before they fully materialize, and agressively attack state sponsors of terror. Hussein was paying terrorists in the West Bank. Al-Q connections existed. He had WMD and refused to disclose the status. Husseins antics and bad timing made him the poster boy for the Bush doctrine. Congress agreed. The UN agreed. The US acted. The war was just, and Iraq and the world will be much better off once we've finished what we are doing.

I respectfully disagree.....

 

[strongsmartsexy]

You're leaving out a lot of contextual circumstance. We had a little history with Iraq, did we not? WMD inspections failed over and over due to a lack of cooperation on the part of Hussein. We were at war with him in '91 for invading Kuwait and still had troops there and a no-fly zone, which he repeatedly violated. 9-11. War in Afghanistan. The Bush doctrine which states we will go after threats of terror before they fully materialize, and agressively attack state sponsors of terror. Hussein was paying terrorists in the West Bank. Al-Q connections existed. He had WMD and refused to disclose the status. Husseins antics and bad timing made him the poster boy for the Bush doctrine. Congress agreed. The UN agreed. The US acted. The war was just, and Iraq and the world will be much better off once we've finished what we are doing.

The UN did NOT agree as well as quite a few significant countries.

If he HAD WMD, where are they?

And the rehtorical Bush *doctrine* of "we will go after threats of terror before they fully materialize, and agressively attack state sponsors of terror" is pure an utter bullshit. If that were the case Iraq would not have been the target of this war. Syria and Saudia Arabia would have been. Possibly even Jordan.

How is the world better off having an aggressor like the US, who will make up it's own rules for going to war? An agressor who makes up information to convince it's citizens that it should go to war and are now forcing the US' version of "freedom" down the throats of those who's country we're occupying? We did it against the major world consensus.

 

[sh4dowf4lcon]

Anyone who denies a link to terror in Iraq and a clear and present danger is an idiot IMO.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Anyone who denies a link to terror in Iraq and a clear and present danger is an idiot IMO.

Have you conjured one suddenly? Iraq wasn't a clear and present danger to the US even at the height of their military might pre-Iraq war I.

 

[75th]

When we attacked Iraq it couldnt kick its own ass. It wasnt an even minor direct threat to us.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

When we attacked Iraq it couldnt kick its own ass. It wasnt an even minor direct threat to us.

 

[WODIN]

Anyone who denies a link to terror in Iraq and a clear and present danger is an idiot IMO.

Go back to being a bush dick sucker and a karma whore. You wouldn't know truth if it jumped up and bit you on the ass moron.

 

[LanceMan]

"Go back to being a bush dick sucker and a karma whore. You wouldn't know truth if it jumped up and bit you on the ass moron."

Is that the best you got Wodin ? sad !

 

[Badbart]

Go back to being a bush dick sucker and a karma whore. You wouldn't know truth if it jumped up and bit you on the ass moron.

No that's class

 

[ChefWide]

Oh I see. The President makes a bold lie, and leaves it to others to prove him wrong.

snore.

 

[bluepeter]

Lmao

 

[sh4dowf4lcon]

Have you conjured one suddenly? Iraq wasn't a clear and present danger to the US even at the height of their military might pre-Iraq war I.

ummmm. my previous statement on this matter stands. There is one factor which is too easily forgotten and too easily dismissed by LIbs looking for an excuse to pin the economy on Bush. What is the factor I have described? NINE ELEVEN

The year America was devastated. Where was the plane going? the plane those men and women took out of control of those beligerent arabic bastards.
What if it had struck the white house? A school? Sporting event? Have you forgotten the kids on a field trip aboard one of the planes they flew into the towers? Can you imagine the fear in her heart when those evil bastards took control of the plane? They could have killed one of them as a Nick Berg example. They prey on Fear, they attack when you cant see or dont look. They want to see our economy, and our Freedoms taken down so we may live in poverty and fear (as they do). Then some radicals call it a Holy ar and sell a few thousand hateful bastards the same wolf ticket.

Now, I wonder how you will dismiss 911 as cause to attack Afghanistan. Iraq? Hell we were in the areea, THEY VIOLATED CODES with Al Samuud Missles. It was worth a look. THEY VIOLATED THE PEACE AGREEMENT WITH THE MISSLES ALONE> Period. It is justified. Like it or not, Saddaam and the Muslim Extremeists are connected, they funnell money into accounts used to finance atacks. IF you say they dont you have not done your own homework.

If you say they aren't connected to Al Queada, then why did Bergs body turn up in Bagdad? The CIA ?

911 is reason enough for me to bust Iraq's ass since they violated the agreement. It was worth a look. I support Bush and our troops 100%, we have prevented other attacks. That alone is worth it IMO.

again, sincde the short version was not enough...if you believe the Iraq Sadaam Hussein Regime was not connected to Terror, you are an idiot.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

ummmm. my previous statement on this matter stands. There is one factor which is too easily forgotten and too easily dismissed by LIbs looking for an excuse to pin the economy on Bush. What is the factor I have described? NINE ELEVEN

The year America was devastated. Where was the plane going? the plane those men and women took out of control of those beligerent arabic bastards.
What if it had struck the white house? A school? Sporting event? Have you forgotten the kids on a field trip aboard one of the planes they flew into the towers? Can you imagine the fear in her heart when those evil bastards took control of the plane? They could have killed one of them as a Nick Berg example. They prey on Fear, they attack when you cant see or dont look. They want to see our economy, and our Freedoms taken down so we may live in poverty and fear (as they do). Then some radicals call it a Holy ar and sell a few thousand hateful bastards the same wolf ticket.

Now, I wonder how you will dismiss 911 as cause to attack Afghanistan. Iraq? Hell we were in the areea, THEY VIOLATED CODES with Al Samuud Missles. It was worth a look. THEY VIOLATED THE PEACE AGREEMENT WITH THE MISSLES ALONE> Period. It is justified. Like it or not, Saddaam and the Muslim Extremeists are connected, they funnell money into accounts used to finance atacks. IF you say they dont you have not done your own homework.

If you say they aren't connected to Al Queada, then why did Bergs body turn up in Bagdad? The CIA ?

911 is reason enough for me to bust Iraq's ass since they violated the agreement. It was worth a look. I support Bush and our troops 100%, we have prevented other attacks. That alone is worth it IMO.

again, sincde the short version was not enough...if you believe the Iraq Sadaam Hussein Regime was not connected to Terror, you are an idiot.

So, what you're trying to do now is tie the events of 9/11 to Saddam and Iraq? If you'd even read a bit of anything I've ever written, you'll find I have not issues with us going into Afghanistan and continuing that activity.

Since we're "in the region" there are other countries with significantly less tenuous ties to Al-Quaida and other terrorist organizations that we haven't gone after. The UN inspectors couldn't provide evidence that Iraq had anything to go after them for. And with all of our military might and intelligence we STILL can't find any evidence supporting the WMD theory that brought us to wage war in Iraq again at the cost of a significant number of American lives and the 10,000 plus Iraqi civilian casualties, or as the Bush administration prefers to call them, "collateral damage".

The US has and will continue to engage in illegal activities to overthrow governments that it believes are contrary to the safety of US interests. If you look up the definition of terrorism, that is exactly what the US has engaged in with other countries in the past and will continue to do so in the future if they feel it warranted to "protect US interests". The purality of stating that anyone who does this is a terrorist or is supporting terrorism, with exclusive exemption of the US of course, is beyond arrogant. The US is connected to terror throughout the world, we just conveniently happen to call it something else.

Now, if you can't play like a nice adult and have a civil discussion about diverging opinions and viewpoints without calling me an idiot, I'll have to let you foam at the mouth of your own illusions and ideas and dismiss what you say in these discussions. If you don't have the adult capacity to recognize and respect that other's may have opinions and ideas different from your own, then I have no reason to recognize or respect anything you write in these threads.

 

[Gonzosc1]

Just my 2 cents here but as I remember there was a connection between Saddam and bin ladin awhile back, it was all over the news at the start of the war. it seemed they disagreed on some things and ended their alliance,,,
Or did they?????????????????????
lets not forget the bombs filled with sarin gas that they just found!!

 

[manny78]

Can someone answer this question:

- Why didn't you invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq since we all knew hijackers came from this country and probably made more damage than any WMD would in NYC ?

 

[Longhorn85]

The 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. That does not make SA a state that sponsors terrorism. With your logic we should invade Colorado since the Columbine killers are from that state.

 

[Longhorn85]

I'm also Canadian so I'm not a Dem. or Rep. and my views aren't clouded by my blind party devotion like Longhorn.

Since when does having strong beliefs equal blind party loyalty? Maybe if you had some conviction you wouldn't have to make shit up to try and make a point. Besides, Canada has a really screwed up party system with the Libs, Cons, NDP and Alliance parties. Which are you? Oh, wait, don't tell me..."registered" independent.

 

[manny78]

The 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. That does not make SA a state that sponsors terrorism. With your logic we should invade Colorado since the Columbine killers are from that state.

So with your logic, we should also invade North Korea, Iran, Isreal, India, Pakistan and why not China since all of them have either chemical or nuclear weapons.

 

[75th]

The 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. That does not make SA a state that sponsors terrorism. With your logic we should invade Colorado since the Columbine killers are from that state.

There is more sponsorship in Saudi Arabia than almost anywhere in the Middle East.

 

[ChefWide]

The 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. That does not make SA a state that sponsors terrorism. With your logic we should invade Colorado since the Columbine killers are from that state.

No, that in itself does not make the Saudis sponsors of terrorism.

Does having the royal family finance, supply and harbour terrorists and their infrastructure make Saudi a state that sponsors terrorism? Or does our 'royal' family's ties to the Saudi Royal Family absolve them of their evils?

 

[bluepeter]

Since when does having strong beliefs equal blind party loyalty? Maybe if you had some conviction you wouldn't have to make shit up to try and make a point. Besides, Canada has a really screwed up party system with the Libs, Cons, NDP and Alliance parties. Which are you? Oh, wait, don't tell me..."registered" independent.

Who is making up shit? For all your bullshit filibustering on here, you have still not provided a shred of evidence that any WMD have been found in Iraq or that the former Iraqi administration had Al Quaeda ties.

Colin Powell himself is admitting that his big speech to convince the United Nations of the need for war was filled with inaccuracies an deliberately misleading information.

I admire your strong beliefs brother but those beliefs only ride the Republican train regardless of whether it's wrong or not. Bush is a republican and Bush ordered an unjust invasion of another country so it must be right. If a Democrat had done the same thing, you'd be on here saying pretty much the same things I have been.

As for Canada's political system, who gives a fuck? We're just the 'insignificant Jr. Americans' that live in igloos and subsist on whale blubber right?

 

[Longhorn85]

Colin Powell himself is admitting that his big speech to convince the United Nations of the need for war was filled with inaccuracies an deliberately misleading information.

He did admit that the intel was screwed up. He did not say that Iraq never had, or doesn't presently have, WMD. Only time will tell what became of the WMD that we know he had.

 

[bluepeter]

He did admit that the intel was screwed up. He did not say that Iraq never had, or doesn't presently have, WMD. Only time will tell what became of the WMD that our fake intel said he had.

 

[manny78]

Originally Posted by Longhorn85
Since when does having strong beliefs equal blind party loyalty? Maybe if you had some conviction you wouldn't have to make shit up to try and make a point. Besides, Canada has a really screwed up party system with the Libs, Cons, NDP and Alliance parties. Which are you? Oh, wait, don't tell me..."registered" independent.

----------------------------------------------

Lol.... the Conservatives and the Alliance are now the same party (been this way for about a year) and are the New Conservatives...

 

[Longhorn85]

Lol.... the Conservatives and the Alliance are now the same party (been this way for about a year) and are the New Conservatives...

LOL at what? You should be glad that someone outside of Canada actually knows or cares even a little bit about Canadian politics.

 

[manny78]

LOL at what? You should be glad that someone outside of Canada actually knows or cares even a little bit about Canadian politics.

Hummm why should I be glad ? Am I going to be rich cuz you guys care about canadian politics ?

 

[MAX 300]

Ok, next time when the President of the United States feels like he needs to start another war, could Australia please be excused from participating?

We've been in just about every fucking war that the US has started since WWII, and we're really getting tired of them. So next time you want to invade some country, North Korea, China, Syria, Lybia, Iran or whatever country, could you like, do it on your own?

 

[Longhorn85]

Ok, next time when the President of the United States feels like he needs to start another war, could Australia please be excused from participating?

We've been in just about every fucking war that the US has started since WWII, and we're really getting tired of them. So next time you want to invade some country, North Korea, China, Syria, Lybia, Iran or whatever country, could you like, do it on your own?

No offense to Australia, but I don't think your presence tilted the balance one way or another. That being said, I am very appreciative of your country's contribution to the war on terror.

 

[WODIN]

Can someone answer this question:

- Why didn't you invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq since we all knew hijackers came from this country and probably made more damage than any WMD would in NYC ?

Read the book House of Bush-house of saud and you will find the truth to why we didn't counter attack saudi arabia. The saudi's have just as many terrrorist flowing in and out of their country as the rest of the arab states. All of their borders are open sieves without any real geographic bounderies. It's not like anyone has to have a visa to go from country to country.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

No offense to Australia, but I don't think your presence tilted the balance one way or another. That being said, I am very appreciative of your country's contribution to the war in Iraq. We'll get back to you on helping us on the war on terror, should we ever decide to go into Saudia Arabia, Syria or Lebanon.

 

[Longhorn85]

So WODIN if I understand you and Manny, you are advocating us declaring war on Saudi Arabia. Would you want to do that now, or wait until after we have finished business in Iraq? Personally I think we should go after Syria next, but wait until about one year after Bush is reelected.

You guys are such Hawks!

 

[p0ink]

or have them atleast wait until we have some more energy independance.

we really need to open up alaska to drilling.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

or have them atleast wait until we have some more energy independance.

we really need to open up alaska to drilling.

Check out the latest National Geographic, there isn't that much oil in Alaska to make the difference...

 

[vinylgroover]

The whole discussion is nonsense.

Until a supporter of this war can explain to me why Lybia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iran have not been invaded as well then the 'war on terror' and the invasion of Iraq is a ridiculous joke.

Personally, i find it offensive that the U.S and the UK have jumped into bed with Lybia and Pakistan. I mean for fucks sake, Lybia killed over 200 British in the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing and that piece of shit Blair goes to Lybia and shakes the prick's hand........gimme a fucking break.

You stupid yanks let Bush give Musharef of Pakistan $75 m in aid...........only a few months before that he was helping Al Qaeda take down your twin towers.

Fucking nonsense.

 

[mountain muscle]

or have them atleast wait until we have some more energy independance.

we really need to open up alaska to drilling.

There are lots of oil reserves near us we don't have the technology to get to yet. If we want less dependance on Middle Eastern oil we need to rethink our policies on use of our domestic oil reserves, give drilling companies more incentives for exploratory drilling and improving drilling technology to reduce the cost. Most of our oil doesn't come from the Middle East anyway. I just read a decent article on this in World Oil Magazine let me see if I can dig it up.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

The whole discussion is nonsense.

Until a supporter of this war can explain to me why Lybia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iran have not been invaded as well then the 'war on terror' and the invasion of Iraq is a ridiculous joke.

Personally, i find it offensive that the U.S and the UK have jumped into bed with Lybia and Pakistan. I mean for fucks sake, Lybia killed over 200 British in the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing and that piece of shit Blair goes to Lybia and shakes the prick's hand........gimme a fucking break.

You stupid yanks let Bush give Musharef of Pakistan $75 m in aid...........only a few months before that he was helping Al Qaeda take down your twin towers.

Fucking nonsense.

Some well deserved K for you!

 

[manny78]

So WODIN if I understand you and Manny, you are advocating us declaring war on Saudi Arabia. Would you want to do that now, or wait until after we have finished business in Iraq? Personally I think we should go after Syria next, but wait until about one year after Bush is reelected.

You guys are such Hawks!

What would I do ? I would withdraw from Iraq except the oildfields (which is what matters) and concentrate on SA. Cuz they're the root of most of your problems, cause they have oil and cause this country could collapse in a matter of weeks. Syria is a thick bone...

 

[Longhorn85]

The whole discussion is nonsense.

Until a supporter of this war can explain to me why Lybia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iran have not been invaded as well then the 'war on terror' and the invasion of Iraq is a ridiculous joke.

No, not a joke. What is laughable is that you think we could realistically wage war vs all of those countries at the same time. Iraq and Afghanistan drew short straws. These other countries have an opportunity to come clean and avoid an ass-kicking. Libya has taken that opportunity. Syria seems to be on the road to war with the US. Nothing new will be initiated during this election year.