Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/10/04 10:17 am:
Excon,

>>>I dont see how you can view what we're dong in Afghanistan the same as we're doing in Iraq.

They are two seperate wars fought for two seperate reasons. The first is justified. The second is not. The first is going ok. The second is not. The first one would have won re-election for your goy (I meant guy). The second one will mean his defeat.<<<

With all due respect, that is all just political justification for finding a way to get Bush out of office. It always has been.

Can you honestly tell me that there is no political/financial/ideological connection between the fighters fighting in Afghanistan and the ones fightng in Iraq? If there was no connection between Saddam and al-qaeda, why are there so many al-qaeda fighters in Iraq today? Can you honestly argue that you seen no connection between the terrorists caught in Jordan last week with 'Syrian' chemical weapons that originated in Iraq, and the Saddam government? Can you truly argue that there was no contact between al-qaeda and Saddam prior to 9-11?

It has always been the same war. We are fighting the same enemy in several different countries. Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Israel. IT IS ALL THE SAME ENEMY. And those enemies are RADICAL MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS AND WORLD TERRORISM. It doesn't matter if they go by the name 'al-qaeda', or "Fatah" or "Hisbolah" or "Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade" or "Hamas" or "Ansr Al Ibrahim" or "Iraqi Government" or "Iranian Government" or "Syrian Government" or any of the other names that these animals go by. They are all the same. It is the same war, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. And as soon as you see that, the whole picture changes.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 05/10/04 11:32 am:

Hello Elliot:

>>>With all due respect, that is all just political justification for finding a way to get Bush out of office. It always has been.<<<

Not now, and never has been. I’m no fan of Kerry. To me they both suck, just in different ways. At least Kerry served in Viet Nam where the neo-cons avoided going. He gets a couple a nods for that. The Demopublican candidates are no worse than each other, and equally bad for America – only in different ways.

>>>If there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, why are there so many al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq today? Can you honestly tell me that there is no political/financial/ideological connection between the fighters fighting in Afghanistan and the ones fighting in Iraq?<<<

No. Not now - but it’s the wrong question to ask. Yes, today we are fighting Arab insurgents from all over the middle east. And why wouldn’t Al Qaeda jump into the fray? We gave them ample opportunity – now that we’ve lost the peace and given them a recruiting poster. But this war didn’t start out that way. Remember Saddam and his Republican Guard? That was one war, this is another.

You conveniently forget the reasons that we went to Iraq in the first. You made the ethereal connection because there was information that an Iraqi official had met with Al Qaeda. The administration exploited it to the point where more than half of us thought that Iraq was involved in 9/11. I guess that includes you. To me, one meeting with one official doesn’t create a connection – certainly not connection enough to go to war.

>>>It has always been the same war. We are fighting the same enemy in several different countries.<<<

It isn’t the same war, but I agree that we are fighting the same enemy. If it’s the same war, how come we’re not fighting all those enemy’s you mentioned? Are we waiting for something? Had the war been declared against that enemy and been fought that way (instead of making up reasons to go for Saddam) I would have supported it.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/10/04 2:27 pm:
>>>To me, one meeting with one official doesn’t create a connection – certainly not connection enough to go to war. <<<

And if that was the only connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, your argument would be right.

Unfortunately we have connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda that go much deeper than that.

1) There were al-qaeda training camps in northern Iraq. Those didn't get there by accident. Specific equipment found at the training camps included aircraft fuselages used to train terrorists in how to hijack a plane. Ergo, Iraq was housing and giving refuge to the very people who were training to committ the 9-11 attacks... maybe not those specific people, but certainly people from the same overall group.

2) Al qaeda has had a stronghold in Iran for quite a while now (or do you deny that connection as well?). Weapons that were hidden in Iran by Iraq during the UN 'sanctions' have been ending up in the hands of terrorists for at least 7 years.

3) With the capture of the Jordanian terorists, it is pretty clear that CWs hidden by Iraq in Syria are ending up in the hands of terrorists as well... and we have no idea how long THAT has been happening.

4) Saddam had been PERSONALLY bankrolling terrorist activities in Israel.

There's a whole lot more that the government knows about, and that I have read about. I just don't have all of it at my fingertips like I used to.

The point is, the connection between Saddam and the global Muslim terrorist network is more than just a single meeting between an al qaeda member and a member of Saddam's government. The connections run deep and long, with a history going back at least as far back as the first Gulf war, and in many cases pre-dating that as well.

Saddam has always been a key supporter of terrorism, both financially and in terms of infrastructure and equipment. And THAT is why the war was fully justified.

Ignoring the connection between Saddam and terrorism is very unlike you, Excon. Usually when confronted with a fact, you have an alternate explanation for it. But completely ignoring facts is very unlike you.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 05/11/04 11:46 am:
damn :
try again

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 05/11/04 1:42 pm:
Chou,

If you'd done your research you'd know the whole story, not just the "outrage of the week" portion taken out of context. Just reading your words here it seems fairly, no make that extremely obvious that "rational debate" is not your concern...

"That gasbag of right wing "Conservatism" Rush(heroin(synthetic)) Limbaugh..."

"a professional liar"

"They are really harming us."

"OReilly is a gassbag too!"

"I have listened to all the right wing gasbags/liars..."

"YOu should hear all the lies Rush is telling."

"He is a genuine herion(synthetic)addict/liar/hypocrite."

Now tell me, how is that "rational debate?" Better yet, how is it any different than the outrage you claim Rush is guilty of?

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 05/11/04 2:17 pm:
tom,

Uh, yeah, that's "rational debate." Just for the benefit of everyone, I've done a little transcript of Randi's comments. It goes something like...

"We have the Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn't uh, his father take him, or his brother, one of 'em, take him out for a little fishing? You know and let him say some Hail Mary's, he loves God so...yeah, take him out and you know, Hail Mary full of grace, God is with thee (pretends to fire a gun)...works for me."

I'm having a hard time finding the "rational debate" in that one.

Steve