Bush's failed Mideast policy is creating more terrorism

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
It's just another case or two of how, if you use a nasty person as a tool to do your bidding, then you shouldn't be surprised when it all turns on you.

I couldn't agree with you more!

We had no business thinking we could 'do business' with Saddam and expect him to keep his word. I agree with you whole heartedly.

As for Bush, bin Laden et al, it's important to remember he did business (for better or worse) with the bin Laden [/i]family.

 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
researchok said:
moghrabi said:
well this is what you think. It is oversimplifying the issue. No one in his/her right mind is going to believe this theory of yours. I really hope you don't start believing yourself.

Theories??



http://slate.msn.com/id/2085263/

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3553

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2003/02/18/World/Eurobiz.Is.Caught.Arming.Saddam-357431.shtml

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect3.html

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020916/story.html

http://www.meforum.org/article/293

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2799755.stm

http://www.mideastnews.com/blix140203.html

There are more referances available.

You say it is a theory. On what basis do you say that?


Please give some accountable resources. Do you really think I am going to visit the Whitehouse.org to read the truth? Heh

I you read the rest, they are outdated sources. Talking about Blix complaining in 2003 is irrelevant now. NO WMD is found nor it exists. You should read his most recent statement. How about David Kay. He says there is no WMD. If there were any, they were destroyed in 1991-1993 when Saddam Said he destroyed them.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
Please give some accountable resources. Do you really think I am going to visit the Whitehouse.org to read the truth? Heh

Well, I could refer you to Blix' most recent statement, saying WMD were probably shipped to Syria, etc.

As for the rest of yuour point-- I'm puzzled.

What on earth would lead you (siurces, please) to think everyone is lying?

As you say, Hint, Hint
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Probably to Syria. Now they are sure there is no WMD. this is the latest and most accurate. The only way we can win this argument is to wait if Bush is going to find any.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
moghrabi said:
Probably to Syria. Now they are sure there is no WMD. this is the latest and most accurate. The only way we can win this argument is to wait if Bush is going to find any.

Yes, On that I agree. I think most reasonable people would agree with your position.

Despite all the 'noise', I suspect the WMD issue will be around for a while. There has been too much conflicting evidence to date.

I'm glad we can agree on some things!
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
researchok said:
moghrabi said:
Probably to Syria. Now they are sure there is no WMD. this is the latest and most accurate. The only way we can win this argument is to wait if Bush is going to find any.

Yes, On that I agree. I think most reasonable people would agree with your position.

Despite all the 'noise', I suspect the WMD issue will be around for a while. There has been too much conflicting evidence to date.

I'm glad we can agree on some things!

I am also glad we agree on something. Maybe in the future we come to agree ona lot of things. You may be able to convince me of some of your ideas and I may convince you of some of mine.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
We both might be right. It is up to Bush to find them as he said he will. If he does, You should be happy. If not, I'll be happy.

Thank for the links.
 

researchok

Council Member
Jun 12, 2004
1,103
0
36
moghrabi said:
We both might be right. It is up to Bush to find them as he said he will. If he does, You should be happy. If not, I'll be happy.

Thank for the links.

Personally, I'd much rather WMD's NOT be found-- if they are, the possible scenarios are disasterous.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
researchok said:
As for the Talibanization of Iraq, it was bin Laden who funded the Taliban, to a great degree. It was also he who instigated and reinstated the policy of growing and selling poppy. He very much set the tone for Mullah Omars regime.

As far funding bin Laden, his antipathy towards the US came after the war.

It was his choice to expand his war from fighting the Russians.

A correction here. Taliban means Student (as in student of the Qu'ran).

Not only were the Taliban against drug use, they were far more successful in eliminating the poppy trade in Afghanistan than any group before or since.

During the 1990’s, Afghanistan poppies supplied approximately 70% of the world’s opium, but in 1999 the Taliban's fatwa prohibitted the planting of poppies and was 96% successful in eliminating the crops. However, the Taliban government allowed for the trade of opium, and taxed it heavily. Since the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 and the subsequent ousting of the Taliban, crop production resumed with full-force.

http://www.american.edu/TED/taliban-poppy.htm

That's not a statement of support for the Taliban, just an observation.

The Taliban not only banned growing opium, they also banned movies, television, videos, music, long hair (except beards), keeping birds, flying kites, applause, objectionable literature, the internet... not to mention all the restrictions related to women....
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
Regan supported the Taliban. America supported Iraq against Iran. They were so sure that they had weapons of mass destruction because the Conservatives had the receipts!
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
researchok said:
More

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html
speculation

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg03861.html
?

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040319-082104-9642r.htm
deceptive

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6D5CBD96-3349-4C20-B953-E887B8152378.htm
Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix believes that Iraq got rid of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago...


http://www.iraq.net/News-article-sid-1180-mode-thread.html
broken link

As mentioned, the case for WMD's in Iraq is far from closed.

I disagree. By 1998 Iraq posed nearly no WMD risk. The evidence supports Blix's statement above.

Iraq had been more or less disarmed by UNSCOM in the mid 90's. Even Butler who was tasked with proving the non-existance of Iraq's WMDs said as much:

AMBASSADOR RICHARD BUTLER

Re: ...if this was a five-lap race, you know, we were halfway into the fifth lap. Why stop the race when you're getting towards the finishing line? I don't know...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/butler_8-6a.html

Most of what is commonly known about Iraq is BS.
I suggest reading
http://zmag.org/Zmag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm

Iraq was more or less disarmed, and Iraq because of past deceptions, power politics, had been forced into proving non-existance of WMDs with 100% certainty.

Proving non-existance is a logical impossibility.

Nothing has been found in Iraq since the mid 1990's that could be construed as an effective WMD. The last WMD found in Iraq was probably anthrax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rihab_Rashid_Taha

Since then, Iraq has not been a WMD threat. Punitive measures against Iraq were kept 100% in place long after Iraq had 0.1% chance of being a WMD threat.

Nothing has been found in Iraq since 1998 that justified the economic sanctions let alone invasion/occupation.