The Official Iraq War Thread...

[Load SM5]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I understand that, I just don't like that saying. I am just showing how that can be used to prove other things.

I don't see how what I said, taken out of context, has any bearing on the conversation. 2 people, who have a greater common enemy, can and will put aside their differences to take on that enemy. Are you just trying to start an arguement whenever possible CB?

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Load SM5


I don't see how what I said, taken out of context, has any bearing on the conversation. 2 people, who have a greater common enemy, can and will put aside their differences to take on that enemy. Are you just trying to start an arguement whenever possible CB?

No I am not. I simple made a comment to show how that idea can be takening. I hate getting into arguments so why would I want to start one

[Load SM5]

Correct, you took what I said, knowing full well what I meant, and twisted it to mean something else. I never said it was true all of the time, but in this instance it is. It's been true in quite a few instances throughout history.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Load SM5
Correct, you took what I said, knowing full well what I meant, and twisted it to mean something else. I never said it was true all of the time, but in this instance it is. It's been true in quite a few instances throughout history.

I turned your statement around to show you how danergous using that is.

[Load SM5]

Well thank you for taking it upon yourself to educate me. Please don't twist my words for me again. I don't appreciate it.

I stand by what I said.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Load SM5
Well thank you for taking it upon yourself to educate me. Please don't twist my words for me again. I don't appreciate it.

I stand by what I said.

Then don't post something as stupid as that. The saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a stupid way of getting around the I have no idea how to show how these two groups are "together" so I will just pull out this old time saying that has no bases and can be used to say the KKK and the Black Panthers are friends (Which obviously they aren't) for both of them hate the government of today.

[Load SM5]

Collegeboy, for someone who claims to hate arguments you certainly are at the core of them on this thread. Maybe you should go and evaluate why.

This is the last time I say this and then I am done you you.I never said it was true all of the time but it is true a lot of the time. I never presume to know the minds of terrorists and dictator thugs but there seems to be growing evidence that they have allied against the Coalition Forces. If it's true then they have apparently put aside their differences, would'nt you say? Therefore what I said has basis in this case.

I'll ask you again to not twist my words around to make up what you think is a point. I consider it insulting.

If you want to take this to PM's that's fine but this needs to stop. This is not what this thread is for.

[HoppysMag]

well the enemy of my enemy is a friend unless hes my enemy already. in wich case revert back to the begining of the statement. there forth his enemys are my friends unless they are my enemys

ok we will use an example i dislike some people on this bored, but they dislike you, who i also dislike... im willing to put our differances aside so we can all dislike you in peace and harmony. ( i dont actualy dislike you just an example u know)

[FactsOfLife]

CB do yourself a favor...

and go read this...

Dale Carnegie

[pbstu]

Originally posted by Load SM5
I never presume to know the minds of terrorists and dictator thugs but there seems to be growing evidence that they have allied against the Coalition Forces.

Where is this so called evidence, it's so easy to say that it is a possibilty but as of yet there is NO evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda are working together. There is, however, plenty of evidence to support them not working together. They hate each other, they come from completely different ideologies. so they have the same enemies, just as there are plenty of events in history to support the enemy of my enemy is my friend idea, so too are there plenty of events to contradict this. The point is, that arguement means nothing. It is just something to hide behind, because the fact is there is no evidence to support the link. If there was any evidence we would have heard about it a long time ago. We would have heard about it when Iraq first came up in regards to 1441, we would have heard this evidence in the state of the union address, we would have heard it every time we turned on the tv, because it would have been all the reason needed to invade Iraq legitimately. We have heard none of this evidence, because there is none.


Stu.

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by Hasty8
First off Jack, we were not there to change Kuwaits political government. We were there, as you said, to liberate it.

My point is that if we are so big on giving people "freedom" and "democracy", then how come we support so many non-democratic and oppressive regimes? Maybe the people in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Pakistan want democracy, why dont we put some pressure on them? Dont you think political enemies in those countries also get kidnapped, tortured,and killed, just like in Iraq?

Remember if Saddam hadnt invaded Kuwait he would still be our ally today, and he would be just as "evil" and oppressive.


JDub

[cphilip]

Well I do not equate trying to get along with "supporting" them. And I not all that fond of them either! All we did in Kuait was to run Saddam out and return it to its people. And a people that did not spend money trying to make weapons of mass destruction and pay terrorists to suicide bomd innocent people. But so far these others have not attacked their niegbors and committed mass murder either.... You got a long row to hoe to try and equate Saddam with those other countries. Your argument is vapid and weak. But again I do not think many are THAT pleased with them either.

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying,

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that
did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by cphilip
Well I do not equate trying to get along with "supporting" them. And I not all that fond of them either! All we did in Kuait was to run Saddam out and return it to its people. And a people that did not spend money trying to make weapons of mass destruction and pay terrorists to suicide bomd innocent people. But so far these others have not attacked their niegbors and committed mass murder either.... You got a long row to hoe to try and equate Saddam with those other countries. Your argument is vapid and weak. But again I do not think many are THAT pleased with them either.

My argument is that we dont really care if people are free or have democracy....its just a propaganda buzzword we like to use to make us feel better, especially when we are bombing people.
You are right, Kuwait doesnt have WMD or terrorist ties (that are known). But that description fits Pakistan perfectly. They have *true* WMDs and have links to terrorists. If you do some searching you can see what their links to both the Taliban and 9/11 terrorists are. Oh but i forgot they are our "ally"...and so was Saddam.

And I think if i see that Colin Powell "quote" posted on the Net another time im gonna puke
One good quote deserves another..
"We can support our troops without supporting the president" -Trent Lott (about Kosovo)


JDub

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by pbstu


Where is this so called evidence, it's so easy to say that it is a possibilty but as of yet there is NO evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda are working together. We have heard none of this evidence, because there is none.


Stu.

Sorry to burst your bubble there Stu, but we ALREADY destroyed an Al Qaeda camp in nothern Iraq.

Been there, bombed that.

Taken from Fox News:

Using airstrikes and ground forces, Kurdish soldiers and U.S. troops have cooperated in the past week to dislodge and crush Ansar militants in 18 villages surrounding the Iraqi city of Halabja -- about 160 miles northeast of Baghdad.

"We actually believe we destroyed a significant portion of the Ansar al-Islam force there," Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, vice director of operations on the Pentagon's Joint Staff, said Monday. He said forces were investigating the finds.

Among a trove of evidence found inside Ansar compounds were passports and identity papers of Ansar activists indicating that up to 150 of them were foreigners, including Yemenis, Turks, Palestinians, Pakistanis, Algerians and Iranians.

Coalition forces also found a phone book containing numbers of alleged Islamic activists based in the United States and Europe as well as the number of a Kuwaiti cleric and a letter from Yemen's minister of religion. The names and numbers were not released.

"What we've discovered in Biyare is a very sophisticated operation," said Barham Salih, prime minister of the Kurdish regional government.

Seized computer disks contained evidence showing meetings between Ansar and Al Qaeda activists, according to Mahdi Saeed Ali, a military commander.

[pbstu]

I hate to burst your bubble FOL, but Ansar al-Islam is not linked to the Iraqi government, it is linked to Al Qaeda. (not part of it, just linked) That proves nothing more than an Al Qaeda linked group is operating in Iraq. Im sure Ansar al-Islam has some form of representation in the US as well, but that doesnt mean Al Qaeda is operating with the US government, just like it doesnt mean Al Qaeda is operating with the Iraqi government.

EDIT: I just re-read what you posted FOL. Tell me, where in that article does it establish a link between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda? Besides the fact that they're in the same country, which means nothing.


Stu.