Carolyn Parrish

[Said1]

Put up some links if you want, but I for one do not think Saddam had any legitimate links to Qaeda. As in self-serving links.

I know I've said it before,but I'll say it again: I think Saddams sole purpose for staying in power after the first Gulf war was to keep a lid on dissent and Kurdish independance movements. Even Turkey has about 100,000 troops at their boarder in Northern Iraq.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Are you kidding? There was sufficient evidence from all angles showing ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda before the war started. Hell, even the left wing folks then substantiated those ties. Here is a link ...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

Bullshit...there was no evidence then and there is none now that suggests that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda...because he wasn't...

Just because the Neocon Standard says it's so, doesn't mean that it is... :roll:

With all respect, Vanni Fucci, even John Kerry agreed that Saddam and bin Laden were linked. But even when Chretien and his aide, and Carolyn Parrish were badmouthing the US, the US politicians showed far more restraint and did not respond in kind to Canada. I stand by my thoughts about Parrish, she makes all of us look childish by her actions.

Not everyone agreed with her, either. And I would remind both you and Reverend Blair that Al Queda attacked the US first. So in that regard, did Al Queda start an illegal war? Responding to a first attack hardly seems illegal to me.

Ah nice...another fledgling neocon...how feckin' sweet... :roll:

Show me, Mr. Musicman, pre-invasion evidence that there was collusion between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda...

...and really, I couldn't give a rat's ass about Caroly Parrish...she got her mug on TV and her name in the papers, and really that's all she was trying to accomplish...I say good for her...cause I don't give a flyin' feck about her or her politics...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

:bs:

I guess you did not watch any of the US presidential campaign. Too bad.

What does that matter...Kerry was a neocon too...feckin' bonesmen the both of them...

 

[Musicman]

:bs:

I guess you did not watch any of the US presidential campaign. Too bad.

What does that matter...Kerry was a neocon too...feckin' bonesmen the both of them...

What I was trying to say, obviously with not much success, is that both candidates would have done the same thing as Bush ended up doing. Both would have gone into Iraq, for whatever reason either one came up with. I have no great truck with either one of them, could care less. But to ignore the truth about this issue is a bit odd. Both the Republicans (right) and the Democrats (left) would have responded to 9-11 in the same way, so to criticize the current president and not John Kerry is somewhat selective. My personal feelings are not the issue. I wish they were not in Iraq, but they are, so complaining about it is rather pointless. Whether Kerry or Bush were president at the time, the troops would still be there, so to complain about Bush without acknowledging what Kerry said he would have done is being dishonest.

 

[Said1]

:bs:

I guess you did not watch any of the US presidential campaign. Too bad.

What does that matter...Kerry was a neocon too...feckin' bonesmen the both of them...

I know this is off topic, but humor me if you will.

Anyway, I always thought religious fundamentalism in the US was not as big as people (the media) are saying it is. Then, as I was reading your post, I remember thast Kerry tired to play the "Roman Catholic" card with respect to abortion (I think). Would he have done that if the religious right wasn't actually so prominent? Evangelicals are scary peeps.

 

[Said1]

:bs:

I guess you did not watch any of the US presidential campaign. Too bad.

What does that matter...Kerry was a neocon too...feckin' bonesmen the both of them...

What I was trying to say, obviously with not much success, is that both candidates would have done the same thing as Bush ended up doing. Both would have gone into Iraq, for whatever reason either one came up with. I have no great truck with either one of them, could care less. But to ignore the truth about this issue is a bit odd. Both the Republicans (right) and the Democrats (left) would have responded to 9-11 in the same way, so to criticize the current president and not John Kerry is somewhat selective. My personal feelings are not the issue. I wish they were not in Iraq, but they are, so complaining about it is rather pointless. Whether Kerry or Bush were president at the time, the troops would still be there, so to complain about Bush without acknowledging what Kerry said he would have done is being dishonest.

I don't think Kerry would have sent troops into Iraq. I think he would have stalled and relied on the UN to act.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

What I was trying to say, obviously with not much success, is that both candidates would have done the same thing as Bush ended up doing. Both would have gone into Iraq, for whatever reason either one came up with. I have no great truck with either one of them, could care less. But to ignore the truth about this issue is a bit odd. Both the Republicans (right) and the Democrats (left) would have responded to 9-11 in the same way, so to criticize the current president and not John Kerry is somewhat selective. My personal feelings are not the issue. I wish they were not in Iraq, but they are, so complaining about it is rather pointless. Whether Kerry or Bush were president at the time, the troops would still be there, so to complain about Bush without acknowledging what Kerry said he would have done is being dishonest.

I don't see it as being dishonest at all...and you are correct, that had Kerry taken the election, I'd likely be bashing him right now...but he didn't...so my condemnation is reserved for Bush et al...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

:bs:

I guess you did not watch any of the US presidential campaign. Too bad.

What does that matter...Kerry was a neocon too...feckin' bonesmen the both of them...

What I was trying to say, obviously with not much success, is that both candidates would have done the same thing as Bush ended up doing. Both would have gone into Iraq, for whatever reason either one came up with. I have no great truck with either one of them, could care less. But to ignore the truth about this issue is a bit odd. Both the Republicans (right) and the Democrats (left) would have responded to 9-11 in the same way, so to criticize the current president and not John Kerry is somewhat selective. My personal feelings are not the issue. I wish they were not in Iraq, but they are, so complaining about it is rather pointless. Whether Kerry or Bush were president at the time, the troops would still be there, so to complain about Bush without acknowledging what Kerry said he would have done is being dishonest.

I don't think Kerry would have sent troops into Iraq. I think he would have stalled and relied on the UN to act.

Oh...are we working under the assumption that there never was a President George W. Bush?

 

[Said1]

Oh...are we working under the assumption that there never was President George W. Bush?

Uhh, duh.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Well alright then...yes I think that Kerry would have invaded Iraq as well...his corporatist masters would have compelled him to... :evil:

 

[Said1]

Well alright then...yes I think that Kerry would have invaded Iraq as well...his corporatist masters would have compelled him to... :evil:

Aww, you're probably right. Just out of curiosity, do you think WMD would have been the premis for invasion?

 

[Musicman]

Well alright then...yes I think that Kerry would have invaded Iraq as well...his corporatist masters would have compelled him to... :evil:

Aww, you're probably right. Just out of curiosity, do you think WMD would have been the premis for invasion?

I don't. But I don't know what reason he would have had. But he would have had his supporters just as Bush did/does.

 

[Said1]

Well alright then...yes I think that Kerry would have invaded Iraq as well...his corporatist masters would have compelled him to... :evil:

Aww, you're probably right. Just out of curiosity, do you think WMD would have been the premis for invasion?

I don't. But I don't know what reason he would have had. But he would have had his supporters just as Bush did/does.

I think WMD was a bad choice. Saddam had actually violated several terms of the ceasefire (or whatever it was) that would have justified his removal.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Well alright then...yes I think that Kerry would have invaded Iraq as well...his corporatist masters would have compelled him to... :evil:

Aww, you're probably right. Just out of curiosity, do you think WMD would have been the premis for invasion?

Probably...that's really all they needed with the fear of another 911 type attack looming over the populace...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I think WMD was a bad choice. Saddam had actually violated several terms of the ceasefire (or whatever it was) that would have justified his removal.

According to international law, to which the US is a signatory, the only justifications a pre-emptive strike and subsequent invasion is a clear and imminent threat to peace and security...Saddam and Iraq posed no threat to the US...without the WMD "evidence" they had no case to bring before the General Assembly...

There is no justification for a memeber state of the United Nations to use unilateral force...

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/default.asp?task=read&id=8418&site=LE

By the way...Richard Perle has admitted that the invasion was illegal under international law...

War Critics Astonished as U.S. Hawk Admits Invasion Was Illegal

 

[Said1]

I think WMD was a bad choice. Saddam had actually violated several terms of the ceasefire (or whatever it was) that would have justified his removal.

According to international law, to which the US is a signatory, the only justifications a pre-emptive strike and subsequent invasion is a clear and imminent threat to peace and security...Saddam and Iraq posed no threat to the US...without the WMD "evidence" they had no case to bring before the General Assembly...

There is no justification for a memeber state of the United Nations to use unilateral force...

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/default.asp?task=read&id=8418&site=LE

By the way...Richard Perle has admitted that the invasion was illegal under international law...

War Critics Astonished as U.S. Hawk Admits Invasion Was Illegal

No, no. There was something else, athough it escapes me at the moment.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

No, no. There was something else, athough it escapes me at the moment.

Something else...you mean another lie told to launch an illegal invasion?

 

[Said1]

No, no. There was something else, athough it escapes me at the moment.

Something else...you mean another lie told to launch an illegal invasion?

No, a cease fire or peace agreement leaving him in power under certain conditons. UN backed of course. Don't make me look it up, I'm seeing duplicate.

 

[Musicman]

I think WMD was a bad choice. Saddam had actually violated several terms of the ceasefire (or whatever it was) that would have justified his removal.

According to international law, to which the US is a signatory, the only justifications a pre-emptive strike and subsequent invasion is a clear and imminent threat to peace and security...Saddam and Iraq posed no threat to the US...without the WMD "evidence" they had no case to bring before the General Assembly...

There is no justification for a memeber state of the United Nations to use unilateral force...

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/default.asp?task=read&id=8418&site=LE

By the way...Richard Perle has admitted that the invasion was illegal under international law...

War Critics Astonished as U.S. Hawk Admits Invasion Was Illegal

You may be right, BUT, given that this was close to 9-11, and that Saddam had repeatedly violated the nuclear inspection requirements, and remembering his invasion of Kuwait, and also knowing how Saddam felt towards the US, and how he treated his own people, many feel that any or all of these issues were justification for going to Iraq. Were they? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is they are there now, and the second inescapable fact is that no attacks have taken place in the US since 9-11.

 

[peapod]

You gots to be kidding....how stupid do you think people are...Iraq was invaded for the sole purpose of stealing another country's natual resources. The target was suppose to be bin laden not saddam...Its about OIL and the american goverment has killed thousands of innocent civilians and served up their childern to fight their battles...just so they can line their own filthy pockets.. :twisted: