Iraq and Al Queda Link ?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Backtothemac, Nov 15, 2003.

  1. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #1
  2. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #2
    Nothing new here.
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    Re: Iraq and Al Queda Link ?

    first, i'd have to better know the depth of any relationship and any help to al qaeda for me to agree that a massive military response was appropriate.

    but, the problem remains that the administration went in w/o having any solid evidence of these things. i cannot support offensive wars based on conjecture.
     
  4. idea_hamster macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #4
    Re: Iraq and Al Queda Link ?

    This isn't really a fair question. Most people who opposed the war in Iraq didn't oppose the action in Afghanistan against the Taliban (who openly harbored Bin Laden) and don't oppose (in general terms) the "war on terror". They opposed the war in Iraq because they saw it as unrelated to the war on terror. If we accept as given the Bush adminsitration's claim that Saddam=terrorism, then it probably would, by definition, change a lot of people's outlooks.

    The real issue has always been credibility: few people (who weren't already on board) were convinced by Bush's ranting, Powell's UN presentation, or, frankly, the reporting of Fox News that has drawn open criticism from other media sources.

    If this was the real proof, we would have heard about it back in April. I don't think that the administration can line up the same old ducks in a new way to convince more people.
     
  5. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #5
    We know there is a strong link between the USA and Al Qeada having funded them and given them arms. Maybe there is a link between Hussein and Al Qeada.

    The odd thing is that the Taliban are becoming stronger again in Afghanistan. Our efforts there are stagnent. The country drifts again into lawlessness and is forgotten by the outside world again. The administration talks about Al Qeada but spends all its capital in Iraq.
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    exactly. which is why i believe the action there has nothing to do w/ terrorism.
     
  7. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #7
    What does it matter, sadam had to be taken out anyway. I am glad that it was done now rather than when he actually did pose a threat to Israel or the US.
     
  8. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #8
    it's a precarious position for the US to put itself in, to decide what is right for the world, what is wrong.

    in this particular instance, i don't believe the humanitarian factor had a single thing to do w/ the administration's decision. what you've bought into is the marketing of the war.
     
  9. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #9
    I have not bought into anything. Just because you dont believe it does not been it is not true. If you want to see evil in it the you will. What if humanitarianism was their man goal, would you have been for it then?
     
  10. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #10
    you're making the same mistake you did above -- you're assuming that a bad situation _needs_ to be corrected by the US. nothing i've ever written should give you the impression i didn't think hussein was a bad person.

    depends on how it was done. i'd need an actual coalition, along w/ UN approval, for me to start buying in.

    have you read the PNAC document?

    how can i believe you on that? you're good at toeing the administration line, and i've yet to see you call for anything that addresses humanitarian issues outside of iraq. are you actively lobbying for action elsewhere? what aspect of the administration's position do you question?
     
  11. MIMIC macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    #11
    DoD News
     
  12. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #12


    If our military was big enough, I would call for action in Iran, North Korea, and many African nations. Before the US went into Iraq, in my social circles, i was saying that the US can wait for Saddam for a while. I said that the biggest threat was and still is North Korea. China also has a horible human rights record. When the US fave China "favored nation" status I was outraged that their human rights violations were overlooked. I was also outraged when Lybia was in charge of the human rights comitte for the UN for a while.

    Also the UN is only a viable coalition if the US wants them to be. The US does not need the UN, the UN needs the US. I have called for it before and I will say it again, the US should back out of the UN. The UN is nothing more than a debating society. WHen it is backed by the us it can be effective, ohterwise it is useless. The USA is a independent state. It does not need the aproval of the UN to do anything.
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    the US needs the UN to legitimize its actions.

    offensive US actions done w/o the UN decreases the world's opinion of the US, heightens the extent to which the world regards the US as an outlaw nation, and increases terrorism.
     
  14. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #14
    Get out of the UN then and form a new coalition, maybe a coaling of the....


    "WILLING".

    I think you make the mistake of thinking that politcs has to do with terroism. To some extent it does. But the main reason we are under attack in america is because for the most part it is a christian/jewish nation. It is no coinsidence that islamic terrorists are attacking us. I dont see jews flying planes into buildings, do you.

    the peacefull forms of islam are welcome in my country and in my world but the islamic extremists need to be wiped off the face of the earth in the most inhuman way.
     
  15. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #15
    Holy ****, I can't believe you actually see it that way.

    Jews committed terrorist activities against the British to gain their independence.

    Was that religious or political?

    Oooh does this mean we get to wipe the Christian extremists off the face of the earth in a most inhuman way too?

    WOO HOO!! GOODBYE FALWELL!!!

    (sorry if I ****ed up your nifty little double standard there, pal)
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    To do what, exactly? Clean things up like we did in Somalia? Afghanistan? Iraq?
     
  17. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #17
    What about this: Charles Taylor has committed equally atrocious things to the people of Liberia. Our only response to him, was a rided buried in the last appropriation of funds for rebuilding Iraq that offered a $2 million reward for his capture. If humanitarianism is our goal, why did one dictator warrent a multi-billion dollar military action, and another a $2 million bounty?

    Paul
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    it was lame. and it had a lame name. compare it to the coalition bush sr. built. hey, he even got them to fund it.

    terrorism, by definition, is political in nature. remove the politics and you're left with a holy war.

    wow, you're kinda scary.

    in another thread, you were musing about removing the US' separation of church and state. now you state that politics is absent from terrorism.

    do you see this as a war of christianity vs. islam? do you want it to be?
     

Share This Page