Sarin-loaded artillery shell in Iraq

Kodiak said:


The President's WOT makes no such distinctions. Israel is a much closer ally than Russia.
Click to expand...
First of all the statement is utter and obvious nonsense, of course the priority is groups that might target the US. Secondly it's self-contradicting; if no distinction is made, then it’s irrelevant that Israel is a closer ally.
 
Kodiak said:



I've backed up my claim about Syria's role in allowing the emtrance of terrorists into Iraq.

Care to back up your claim of border neglect by coalition forces?
Click to expand...

How about the fact that they are coming from Syria. A country is ultimately in control of its own border. If unwanted peeps are coming across dont blame the other side, blame yourself.
 
Kerberos said:

First of all the statement is utter and obvious nonsense, of course the priority is groups that might target the US. Secondly it's self-contradicting; if no distinction is made, then it’s irrelevant that Israel is a closer ally.
Click to expand...

Please pay closer attention.

I never said there was 'no priority', only that terrorist organizations will not be ignored, nor indeed supported (as Tmy suggests) if they are not considered a threat.

Since that's cleared up, it now makes perfect sense that the U.S. would act on behalf of Israel's interests before Russia's.
 
Tmy said:


How about the fact that they are coming from Syria. A country is ultimately in control of its own border. If unwanted peeps are coming across dont blame the other side, blame yourself.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but we are not talking about jobless Mexicans crossing the Rio Grande here...

Still no defense of your 'negligence' crack?
 
Kodiak said:


Since that's cleared up, it now makes perfect sense that the U.S. would act on behalf of Israel's interests before Russia's.
Click to expand...

But to invade and occupy another country in order to take out a piece of a 3rd countries terror threat??? Thats a little overkill in the generic leg of the WOT.

We have a war on drugs, and we didnt even bother to take out the Afgan poppy fields.
 
Kodiak said:


Please pay closer attention.

I never said there was 'no priority', only that terrorist organizations will not be ignored, nor indeed supported (as Tmy suggests) if they are not considered a threat.

Since that's cleared up, it now makes perfect sense that the U.S. would act on behalf of Israel's interests before Russia's.
Click to expand...
I did pay attention, you said "The president's WOT makes no such distinction” my emphasis. “no such distinction" means that no distinctions is made, not that we sort of make a distinction, but we don't like terrorist of any kind. Anybody can misstate their position, but don't accuse me of not paying attention, because what you said, wasn't what you meant.

In any case the argument doesn't hold water, Iraq is by far the single most expensive part of the war against terrorism, both in lives and in dollars. I have absolutely no doubt that Bush is willing to help Israel with Hizbollah (Or however that's spelled), but you don't spend tens of billions of dollars and several hundred lives, to deal a fairly minor blow to one of many terrorist groups, who doesn't even attack you. No-one is that good allies.
 
Tmy said:


But to invade and occupy another country in order to take out a piece of a 3rd countries terror threat??? Thats a little overkill in the generic leg of the WOT.

We have a war on drugs, and we didnt even bother to take out the Afgan poppy fields.
Click to expand...

Just because invasion and occupation was used in Afghanistan and Iraq, does not mean that there are not other methods at our disposal for other instances.

Your sad but accurate point about the poppy fields is a good one, though... :(

In related news, from a AP article I found online regarding the sanctions imposed against Syria: "John Kerry, Bush's probable Democratic opponent in November's election, endorsed the sanctions but said Bush had waited too long to impose them."
 
Kerberos said:

I did pay attention, you said "The president's WOT makes no such distinction” my emphasis. “no such distinction" means that no distinctions is made, not that we sort of make a distinction, but we don't like terrorist of any kind. Anybody can misstate their position, but don't accuse me of not paying attention, because what you said, wasn't what you meant.

In any case the argument doesn't hold water, Iraq is by far the single most expensive part of the war against terrorism, both in lives and in dollars. I have absolutely no doubt that Bush is willing to help Israel with Hizbollah (Or however that's spelled), but you don't spend tens of billions of dollars and several hundred lives, to deal a fairly minor blow to one of many terrorist groups, who doesn't even attack you. No-one is that good allies.
Click to expand...

Sorry. What I said, I meant. What you read isn't what I posted.

Where I come from, 'such' is meant to mean "certain" or "specific", "exemplified" or "specified quality", not "NO distinctions are made".

The most expensive part of the WOT in lives was 9/11. If you had told me that the cost in American lives to invade and occupy Iraq for over a year was less than 800 lives, I would've told you that you were crazy and way too low.

Saddams involvement with terrorist groups was just one of a half dozen reasons for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam. You can't compare the monetary cost to the accomplishment of only that single objective.
 
Kodiak said:


Al-Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group out there. Saddam provided aid and comfort to several different Islamic terrorist groups, included, but not limited to, Hezbollah (sp?).
Click to expand...
Can you supply evidence for this please? Is there any indication that he permitted them a presence in his country?

At the end of the article I linked to was an interesting statement:
However, earlier this month US officials told the New York Times newspaper that documents found with Saddam Hussein at his capture seemed to show that the ousted Iraqi leader had warned his followers against forging links with Arab fighters.

The ousted Iraqi president may have feared that foreigners might hijack the insurgency for their own ends, the newspaper quoted the officials as saying.
Click to expand...
My emphasis.

If accurate, it's certainly revealing.
 
Okay here we go; here's the link to the NY Times article (registration required) and here's a freely available version:

Hussein Warned Against Using Foreign Arab Fighters in Iraq
Officials said Saddam apparently believed that the foreign Arabs, eager for a holy war against the West, had a different agenda from the Baathists, who were eager for their own return to power in Baghdad. As a result, he wanted his supporters to be careful about becoming close allies with the jihadists, officials familiar with the document said.

[O]fficials said they had no evidence that the document found with Saddam was a fabrication.
Click to expand...
Whatever Hussein's relationship with extra-national terrorist groups, it would appear her preferred to keep them extra-national.
 
Kodiak said:


Sorry. What I said, I meant. What you read isn't what I posted.

Where I come from, 'such' is meant to mean "certain" or "specific", "exemplified" or "specified quality", not "NO distinctions are made".
Click to expand...
I have never in my life heard "such" used to mean certain or specific. I also checked two online dictionaries and couldn't find any trace of such a use of "such" in either of them. I did find something about "such that" meaning specified quality, but no quality was specified anywhere so that's a moot point. Perhaps "such" is used in some weird way in your village/town, but it's hardly my fault if you use words in ways that are totally different from the way they're used in standard English.

Edited to add: And I never claimed that "such" meant no distinction was made, "no distinction" meant no distinction was made. "Such" was used (at least in normal English) to indicate that it was the distinction in question that we were talking about, namely the one of whether terrorist were "our" problem or somebody elses.
 
Kodiak said:


Sorry, but we are not talking about jobless Mexicans crossing the Rio Grande here...

Still no defense of your 'negligence' crack?
Click to expand...

I think thats helps my point. THe reason we dont crack down on the Mex border is cause we dont really care about the jobless mexicans. Now if psycho terrorists were running across, we'd have a hell of alot more presence on the Rio Grande. We wouldnt sit back and say "Mexico do sumthin!"

Maybe there shoudl be morethan 75 men plugging the holes from Syria.
 
Kerberos said:

I have never in my life heard "such" used to mean certain or specific. I also checked two online dictionaries and couldn't find any trace of such a use of "such" in either of them. I did find something about "such that" meaning specified quality, but no quality was specified anywhere so that's a moot point. Perhaps "such" is used in some weird way in your village/town, but it's hardly my fault if you use words in ways that are totally different from the way they're used in standard English.

Edited to add: And I never claimed that "such" meant no distinction was made, "no distinction" meant no distinction was made. "Such" was used (at least in normal English) to indicate that it was the distinction in question that we were talking about, namely the one of whether terrorist were "our" problem or somebody elses.
Click to expand...

I got my info from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus.

Regardless of our differing uses of 'such', you are now clear at least on the specific distinction I meant, namely that IT IS NOT TRUE THAT the President's W.O.T. ignored, or was unconcerned with (or indeed looked favorably upon, as Tmy suggests) some forms/organizations of terrorism. While some forms/organizations of terrorism would have different priorities for the Bush Administration, all were considered targets of the WOT.
 
Kodiak said:


IT IS NOT TRUE THAT the President's W.O.T. ignored, or was unconcerned with (or indeed looked favorably upon, as Tmy suggests) some forms/organizations of terrorism. .
Click to expand...

Well Bush didnt seem to have a problem when the rebels ousted President whozits in Haiti.

And GW would plotz in his pantaloons if the Iran govt was overthrown.
 
Tmy said:


Well Bush didnt seem to have a problem when the rebels ousted President whozits in Haiti.

And GW would plotz in his pantaloons if the Iran govt was overthrown.
Click to expand...

Come on...

You consider those terrorist groups?!
 
Kodiak said:


In a word, Yes.

See here
Click to expand...
Okay... forgive me for being skeptical, but I do get a little suspicious about how reams of documents just happen to fall into certain people's laps, but as Hussein is on record (IIRC) offering aid to families of suicide bombers, I won't contest this.

Here
Click to expand...
This one is hereby debunked as being vague, contradictory and post-invasion anyway.

Or here
Click to expand...
I've no way to evaluate the credibility of this website, and it opens up a ton of commercial pop-ups which I never find particularly endearing.

From Kodiak:
That was during and after the coalition invasion. He sang a different tune when he was operating freely.
Click to expand...
You've yet to evidence that; just to clarify, I'm not necessarily contesting that Hussein supported terrorist activity in other countries, but that he allowed them a presence in his country.
 
BillyTK said:

Okay... forgive me for being skeptical, but I do get a little suspicious about how reams of documents just happen to fall into certain people's laps, but as Hussein is on record (IIRC) offering aid to families of suicide bombers, I won't contest this.


This one is hereby debunked as being vague, contradictory and post-invasion anyway.


I've no way to evaluate the credibility of this website, and it opens up a ton of commercial pop-ups which I never find particularly endearing.


You've yet to evidence that; just to clarify, I'm not necessarily contesting that Hussein supported terrorist activity in other countries, but that he allowed them a presence in his country.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the post-invasion article.

Instead of diregarding the evidence based solely on the website, could you address the content?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom