Well, it sure took, a lot of left wing lies, but we did it..Follow

Stok responded to it.

I like that fact that none of you tried to take on the Vice President saying that Iraq wasnt involved either =)

Stok basicly restated his post and misread the part of mine he responded to. I said the Republicans were doing that, not the Democrats.

My main point was the cognitive abilities of the masses, and how the Republicans knew people would see a "War on Terror" as a "War on Al-Queda", and we believed that Iraq had links to people that had hurt us.

found a lil gem by gbaji under the Republican beliefs thread



So using that logic I have provided indisputable evidence that Saddam was not in cahoots with Al-Queda by quoting Saddam as saying he wasnt.

Conjecture is not proof.

Proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
Conjecture: Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.



You keep taking us down different rabbit trails with your part of the arguments. It appears that when you see we are about to reach an impasse you quickly make an attempt at justifying your side by making quick turns down a new path. At least you keep coming back for more discussion, attempting to prove that you are in control of the debate, kudos to you. However the name calling and attempts at slamming the opposing view is slightly grating on the nerves.

So what was your post with all the quotes supposed to be “conjecture” or “proof”? My future discourse on this matter is dependent on the stance that you are trying to take. So please try and stay consistent with your arguments, I would like to know what we discussing before I reply further.

Two points.

Can you even find a quote from Saddam saying he had no ties with Al-queda? That would be a start...


There's a huge difference between a politician talking about their politics in general (I'm a democrat, or republican, or pro-life, etc...), versus whether they deny a connnection to something.


Kinda like how I can be pretty sure that Clinton was a Democrat, but am not so believing of him when he said "I did not have sex with that woman". I hope you can see the difference...



As to Cheny saying that Saddam had connections to Al-queda. Well, he had connections with the Reagan administration as well, and that's never stopped the Dems from touting that fact over and over. It's really simple folks. Iraq had ties with a number of terrorist organizations, including some Al-queda operatives. We know this because we know that several of the top operatives of that organization fled *to* Iraq when we invaded Afghanistan. Iraq helped hide them *after* we'd already done the "nations harboring terrorists blah blah blah" policy change.


Was Al-queda a major contact? Who knows? Probably not as much as other terrorist groups. Did the administration count on the media blowing that relation out of proportion in order to gain support for the war in Iraq? Almost certainly. If it's a crime for a politician to make and use political hay to get something done, then Bush is guilty as charged. Um... But so is every other president who's ever served, including both Roosevelts, Lincoln, Wilson, Kennedy, and Johnson, to name some major players in that arena.


It's a matter of consistency. It's one thing to use that sort of media play to create something out of nothing. It's another to use it to get something done that needs to be done, but that the public might not understand the rationale for. This administration did the later. The Dems are essentialy arguing the semantics of the issue intead of the substance. Sure. They used the media, but the underlying need was still there. Iraq was a major player in international terrorism. It was poised to become a potential major supplier of arms and aid to terrorist groups. It really was one of, if not the greatest threat to our nation at the time. Everyone seems to scoff at that "threat", by pointing at their lack of missiles and weapons of war capable of reaching us, but they forget that a man sitting in the desert with nothing more then cash, connections, and will managed to kill 3000 US citizens.Iraq could easily have supplied those terorist groups with money funneling and covers, and weapons which they would have had hard time getting elsewhere.


Dunno. I just don't see how you can look at the list of actions by Iraq, and their list of "friends, and their stated goals, and then say that they weren't a threat. So yeah. It has been worth the money.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is — in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein’s bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.
MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

Um for those of you who cant seem to read here is VP **** Cheney saying Iraq had NOTHING to do with Al-queda. For the complete interview on meet the press click here.

http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm

lol the editor doesnt like the VPs first name =P

What ever Flishtaco. No one on the opposing side of your arguement is trying to link Iraq and Al-Qaeda.




Quote me where I have directly attacked you. I have addressed your opinions, I have even directed concern toward the facts that you have provided. I do not recall stating that you are stupid, or anything else derogatory. If that has happened quote me from this thread. Nor have I outwardly "yelled" at you or even purposefully misspelled your name. So if you are going to accuse me of doing something please provide proof.

Edited, Tue Jun 15 23:38:49 2004 by Platanum

I am not taking it personally just waiting for you to actually try and broach the subject at hand platapus.

My only point is that while Iraq may or may not have had connections to Al Qaida, they did have ties to terrorists. No question about it. It is irrefutable.

Argue with me that these terrorists were not a threat all you wish, but the fact remains Iraq harbored terrorists. Period.

Totem

Sure they did. Name a west Aisian country that didn't. When's the big invasion of Isreal again?

I am glad that you have conceded the point that Gbaji and Stok have been trying to make for the last 5 days.



Obviouosly the US Government, Great Britian and a host of others felt differently regarding the threat of Iraq toward the rest of the world. Don't forget the US is not the only country concerned about terrorism or wether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The US is only one of the countries that could lead a coalition and "actually get away" with what we did. The concerns of the other countries are valid, however the other countries that you mentioned where not in direct violation of UN Resolutions regarding armed agression against neighboring Kuwait, nor using wmd against it's own people. Up until September 2001, the world basically kept a hands off approach to things internal to soveriegn nations, 9/11 changed that. Keep in mind though that though NK, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are countries that concern us, the diplomatic process is still a strong tool for all four of those countries.

If anyone thought that Iraq was going to be a cake walk through the entire process of re-establishing its soviernty (sp?) then they truly do not understand life outside the borders of the US. This isn't a fight against good and evil, but a fight against different ideologies and control of the peoples lives in Iraq. But of course you already understand that.

I have one question for you though, had the coalition not gone into Iraq and overthrown Saddam, lifted the sanctions, and allowed him to pursue wmd, what would the world be five years from now?