Perhaps you should return to Earth.
Are you really questioning the fact that Saddam’s regime supported terrorists in Palestine?
What pipeline would that be?
And thanks to President Bush’s diplomacy in Pakistan, Pakistan is no longer aiding al Qaeda. In fact, Pakistan is now fighting al Qaeda. And, Pakistan’s sientists are no longer selling nuke technology to anyone. Seems like Bush did a good job with Pakistan.
If that were the case, we wouldn’t be fighting so many foreigners in Iraq now.
If we used the same logic, we wouldn’t have declared war on Germany, because it was Japan that attacked us.
Which god?
I don’t think it’s that open and shut. I’d like to see this “Feith Memo” that was written about in the article “Case Closed,” by Stephen F. Hayes, in the conservative periodical The Weekly Standard, on November 24, 2003. I haven’t been following the matter of alleged Iraq-al Qaeda connections closely, and after the discrediting of the Prague allegations, I just took everybody’s word for it that there was no connection. I’ve just glanced at the article just now, but apparently it excerpts and analyzes an October 2003 memorandum from Douglas M. Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, to U.S. Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller. If it is from an authentic and extant memorandum by Undersecretary Feith, then it seems to catalogue a great number of connections between al Qaeda and Iraq.
Please see weeklystandard.com/Utilities … =798D1B52B
Then there’s this, from The Guardian, in 1999:
[quote]At the head of the group was a man by the name of Farouk Hijazi, President Saddam Hussein’s new ambassador to Turkey and one of Iraq’s most senior intelligence officers. He had been sent on one of the most important assignments of his career - to recruit Osama bin Laden.[/quote]“The Western nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden versus the world,” The Guardian, Saturday, February 6, 1999, at guardian.co.uk/bin/Story/0,208761,00.html
See also “Saddam link to Bin Laden,” Jim Borger, The Guardian, Saturday, February 6, 1999, at guardian.co.uk/international … 00,00.html
And this one, again, from 1999:
[quote]In the past year Saddam has made great efforts to cultivate the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. . . .[/quote] “Saddam wields sword of Islam,” Jason Burke, The Guardian, Sunday, December 19, 1999 at guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,197350,00.html
And this from Knight-Ridder, also in 1999:
[quote]But American and Arab intelligence officials said that beginning in late December, when bin Laden met a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Kandahar, Afghanistan, there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world.[/quote] “Ties between bin Laden, Iraq raise fear of terrorism,” John Walcott, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, February 16, 1999, at emory.edu/WHEEL/Archive/99Feb16/nation2.html
Of course, I’m not saying the above little news tidbits are conclusive, not at all, but I’d sure like to see the original Feith Memo. If it is what Mr. Hayes said it is, then it sounds pretty close to conclusive.
[quote=“spook”]Reality check:
The vast majority of us – including the French – supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the routing of al Qaeda and their hosts, the Taleban.
They’re the real enemy.
[/quote]
isn’t revisionism great? 
the left was vocally against the war and tried to blame us troops for atrocities during the conduct of the war. oh how quickly they forget. moore? pilger? chomsky? sorry, all against the war in afghanistan.
and because of russia’s veto, afghanistan was illegal because the un didn’t approve it. isn’t that how it works?
[quote=“Flipper”][quote=“spook”]Reality check:
The vast majority of us – including the French – supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the routing of al Qaeda and their hosts, the Taleban.
They’re the real enemy.
[/quote]
isn’t revisionism great?
the left was vocally against the war and tried to blame US troops for atrocities during the conduct of the war. oh how quickly they forget. moore? pilger? chomsky? sorry, all against the war in Afghanistan.
and because of Russia’s veto, Afghanistan was illegal because the UN didn’t approve it. isn’t that how it works?[/quote]
And not only that … Wasn’t there talk recetnly from DNC talking points that “IRAN” is the real threat??? By there own admission, we should have gone in guns ablazing into Iran? What is really going on is that Democrats are consistently anti-war, even anti-war to protect from immenent threats. They have been for decades. They are now desperate to latch on to anything that makes them look like they ‘like’ war too, but in a way that is ‘moot’, like nominating Kerry, an anti-war guy that went to war or saying that we should have gone to Iran when it is already in the past and moot. But don’t think for one minute that we wouldn’t have had the Michael Moore movie and DNC condemnation if we HAD gone into Iran instead of Iraq.
Democrats consistently preach that America is the source of evil in the world and it should be weakened in order to get along with its neighbours. Always look at their intentions this way when reading their posts.
If you’re going to claim revisionism you should at least come up with more than three names from the far left.
Any mainstream liberal politicians in the U.S.? Any major European countries which opposed the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan?
Anyone here at Forumosa who opposed the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan?
If my recollection is wrong I’m willing to admit it but I need something to work with. Otherwise I’m left with my original view that those who supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq are just trying to create a false analogy between Iraq and the justified U.S. retaliation against al Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan.
i picked those 3 because they’re 3 of the most frequently referenced liberals on this board. i’m not sure exactly who you would consider “mainstream” liberal as opposed to far left. a lot of the liberal hawks(liberman, fenstein, and kerry before he started flip-flopping) supported both afghanistan and iraq.
the same groups who organized the anti-war marches for iraq also organized the anti-war marches for afghanistan.
yes, there was more support for afghanistan on the left than for iraq. but it’s a bit of a stretch to say that the left, as a whole, supported the war in afghanistan.
you must have missed the “us faked the wtc bombings” thread where many of the more zealous lefties on this board were trying to convince each other that it wasn’t even an attack by al-qaeda after all. 
pinesay wrote
Do you really believe that Democrats want an America which is weak? Where is your proof of that?
The truth is that you Republicans seem to enjoy attacking others , even when there is no justification for going to war with another nation, such as that which happened in Iraq.
The Dems, on the other hand, respect life and realize that war should be used as a last resort. Thus, we may be slower to declare war against another nation until we are certain that war is the best and only route to take.
To you and other Republicans such tactics may be seen as weakness but it takes more strength and brains to not attack another country than it does to send troops to fight a war that was based on a lie.
What you and other Republicans here like to gloss over is that Bush firmly believed that he could go into Iraq, quickly capture Hussein, and come out looking like a hero so he could get put back into the White House for a 2nd term. However, like he is so prone to do, he miscalculated things quite badly and now America is seemingly trapped in Iraq and we get the unpleasant task of reading the daily body count of foreign troops and Iraqi civilians who have needlessly died.
When will you Republicans finally admit that Iraq was a mistake and Bush’s megalomania has been responsible for far too many lost lives?
Howard Dean, for example, the anti-war candidate of the Left, supported – and still supports – the invasion of Afghanistan.
I also believe the vast majority of people have no doubt al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attack on the WTC.
Porcelainprincess, shouldn’t your title read 3 million minus the women and children intentionally killed by US forces? Should we be thankful for that too?
[quote]. . . Guckenheimer, 22, shared his experiences during Operation Anaconda. He was sent on March 6 in a company of more than 100 soldiers to participate in the largest U.S.-led ground engagement in Eastern Afghanistan.
“We were told there were no friendly forces,” said Guckenheimer, an assistant gunner with the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. [color=red]“If there was anybody there, they were the enemy. We were told specifically that if there were women and children to kill them.”[/color][/quote]
theithacajournal.com/news/st … 80284.html
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Porcelainprincess, shouldn’t your title read 3 million minus the women and children intentionally killed by US forces? Should we be thankful for that too?
[quote]. . . Guckenheimer, 22, shared his experiences during Operation Anaconda. He was sent on March 6 in a company of more than 100 soldiers to participate in the largest U.S.-led ground engagement in Eastern Afghanistan.
“We were told there were no friendly forces,” said Guckenheimer, an assistant gunner with the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. [color=red]“If there was anybody there, they were the enemy. We were told specifically that if there were women and children to kill them.”[/color][/quote]
theithacajournal.com/news/st … 80284.html[/quote]
Thank you for this vital information [color=red]Comrade Theresa![/color] Unfortunately it seems to be just more capitalist lies from your Western reactionary press.
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
A soldier’s story
Tuesday, June 4, 2002
Recently your paper quoted me as saying that my unit was ordered to kill women and children.
I would like to clarify this quote and provide more context.
Prior to the operation, we were made aware of the fact that the hostile forces of the Whaleback might include women and children. In that event, if those women and children showed hostile intent, we were ordered to kill them as hostile forces, just like any other hostile force we encountered. However, this does not mean that we were ordered to slaughter noncombatants such as babies.
We were further informed that some of these children are trained starting at a very young age to be soldiers. Knowing this, we could not afford to just dismiss them as noncombatants.
However, I do not want anyone to get the idea that we were ever sent out to kill anyone and anything that moves. We are better than that, both as a military unit and as a society.
Matt Guckenheimer
Why don’t you ask the 3 million refugees who returned to Afghanistan? Better still, ask the women who are voting and running for office, along with the women who are now free to walk the streets uncovered without fear of getting acid thrown in their faces?
There is no straightforward moral calculus in life, but there is such a thing as weighing the pros and cons. Perhaps the subtlety required for that is beyond you. Are you seriously suggesting that one should begrudge the incredible freedoms Afghanis have gained since the fall of the Taliban due to the few unfortunate deaths of civilians at the hands of US troops?
Here’s a hypothetical one for you: Did the unfortunate French father whose daughter was raped and murdered by US troops in the summer of 1945 decry that the whole resistance and defeat of Hitler was fraudulent, should never have happened?
3 million! what are they returning to?
The bush supporters would have you believe that it was a paradise they were returning to…
No haven for returning refugees
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3686124.stm
Cake:
Nice try. Regardless of whether Afghanistan is a paradise or not, 3 million refugees have returned. People from the left were arguing that the US would create 5 milliion more refugees and that millions would starve. (chomsky). That did not happen. It is not our job to make Afghanistan a paradise but you have to ask yourself: If so many Afghans are willing to return home now, why didn’t they before and in this scenario who was the key actor in changing those conditions? I would argue the US. For you not to admit this is just mean-spirited partisanship.
What responsibility might that be Fred? I really want to know.
What responsibility might that be Fred? I really want to know.[/quote]
what’s the european/un solution for north korea? THE US NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING!
what’s the european/un solution for the sudan? THE US NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING!
what’s the european/un solution for the israel conflict? THE US NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING!
what’s the european/un solution for cuba? THE US NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING!
what’s the european/un solution for india/pakistan tensions? THE US NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING!
what’s the european/un solution for aids in africa? THE US NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING!
see a pattern?
[quote=“Flipper”]
see a pattern?[/quote]
yes Flipper i see the pattern
but i don’t see the answer for my question
and i don’t see a US solution either
but thank you for being American
How about: get rid of the Taliban, and give upwards of 14 million women the kind of freedom they could never have dreamed of? It may not be a comprehensive solution to the problems a culturally and economically benighted area like Afghanistan has had for centuries, but by any reasonable estimation it’s a damn good start.
Freedom in Afganistan?? That is a good one.
Maybe some parts of Kabul.
But still no US solutions.