Edwards has me confused - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-26-2004, 03:44 PM   #1
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 11:17 AM
Edwards has me confused

Regarding the NY Times story about the missing weapons Edwards said today in Wilmington, Ohio: "These are exactly the kind of explosives terrorists want. They're the dangerous weapons we wanted to keep from falling in the hands of terrorists. And now these explosives are out there, and we have no idea who's got them."

So Edwards is now acknowledging that when we invaded Iraq Saddam Hussein possessed "exactly" the kind of "dangerous weapons" that "terrorists want." Does Edwards still believe that this was "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?"
__________________

__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 03:51 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:17 AM
He would make the terrorists pass a global test before giving them a license for the weapons (except assault weapons - those are really bad).




__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 03:51 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Way to twist words.

Edwards meant that the weapons should have been properly secured as soon as the complex was reached, as was advised by the IAEA.

If you mean WMD, that's not WMD. Nothing in those 348 tonnes was Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical. It was all standard conventional explosives. Saddam obviously had conventional explosives.

Oh, and isn't every weapon a "dangerous weapon"?
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 03:55 PM   #4
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 06:17 AM
How many times do I have to say it? There is NO connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. These explosives were accounted for by the IAEA -- ya know, the inspectors that Bush didn't let complete their jobs. The IAEA knew these existed, they knew they were sealed and they left them there for use only for civilian use for civilian projects. We didn't protect them, giving free reign over 350 TONS of explosives for terrorists. Do you think Saddam is the one that is blowing off the limbs of our soldiers, killing our troops, sending them home brain dead because of crude roadside bombs? Where have you been for the past year and a half? We invaded Baghdad. We have Saddam in custody and yet more soldiers have died AFTER Huessin's capture than before. Saddam's troops never used roadside bombs on our troops the way these renegade terrorists have. And where do you think they got the materials to kill our troops?
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 03:59 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky
How many times do I have to say it? There is NO connection between al Qaeda and Iraq.
Except for the al Qaeda training camp located in Iraq referenced in the news report you posted this morning.

Maybe they didn't have an official permit for operating a terrorist camp signed by Saddam......
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 04:02 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Except for the al Qaeda training camp located in Iraq referenced in the news report you posted this morning.

Maybe they didn't have an official permit for operating a terrorist camp signed by Saddam......
I'm sorry, did Muhammad Atta have an official permit for operating a terrorist cell signed by Bush/Clinton?

Is there a connection between the USA and al Qaeda we should be investigating?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 04:04 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:17 AM


Was this meant to further the discussion? If so, care to point to the al Qaeda training camp we allow to operate in the US?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 04:05 PM   #8
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Except for the al Qaeda training camp located in Iraq referenced in the news report you posted this morning.

Maybe they didn't have an official permit for operating a terrorist camp signed by Saddam......
Umm...Saddam never talked with them, gave them money, or invited them into his country. They went because the no-fly zone had terrorists in it that supported as Qaeda. Are you saying the 9/11 commission was wrong? Are you saying Cheney and Rumsfeld are wrong when they INCORRECTLY tell us "We never said there was a connection"? Why would they feel the need to say "We never said there was a connection" unless inferring there was a connection is WRONG.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 04:07 PM   #9
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

Was this meant to further the discussion? If so, care to point to the al Qaeda training camp we allow to operate in the US?
Well, according to your criteria for Iraq, Atta and Co. were allowed to operate in the U.S., hence 3000 people died. and since they were allowed to operate in the U.S. even though we didn't know about, we sanctioned terrorists.

Or are you using two different criteria for Iraq and the U.S.?
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 04:08 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Oh, please, nbc.

You have no proof whatsoever that Saddam encouraged/permitted/willingly furthered the proliferation or existence of the al Qaeda camp in Iraq. They could have been there in the no-fly zone, operating fully and completely outside of the scope of the governing of Saddam. Hey, if al Qaeda operates in Saudi without the blessing of the royal family and that we're supposed to swallow with our afternoon tea, then this is even more possible.

Your government did not "permit" al Qaeda's terrorist cell (not camp, as you misread). You have no proof Saddam did either. So why is it fine to imply a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq but not the USA and al Qaeda? You have no proof to support either, yet you're feeding us one but spitting on the other.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 04:08 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Based on the existance of the camp on Iraqi soil - do YOU think there is a connection? Or is there simply no other hard evidence of a connection, other than the camp?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 04:11 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 06:17 AM
I do not believe there is a connection based on the evidence at hand (ie. presence of terrorist camp). I also do not believe there is a connection to your government based on the evidence at hand (ie. presence of terrorist cell).
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 04:13 PM   #13
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Based on the existance of the camp on Iraqi soil - do YOU think there is a connection? Or is there simply no other hard evidence of a connection, other than the camp?
If a camp is the only evidence you need, I know there was at least one in an apartment building in Florida where Atta and Co. were renting space. So that means the U.S. supported the 9/11 terrorists. Oh wait, does it not count if they didn't make tents with the furniture and blankets laying around.

A camp isn't always a tent with sleeping bags in the desert.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 04:20 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 06:17 AM
I really have next to 0 respect for a guy who runs against a candidate, dissing him all the way, then suddenly joins fists in the air, grins a plastic smile and kisses ass as soon as he's asked to be the running mate of his ex adversary. (not only Edwards, anyone in that position)
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 04:32 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:17 AM
George Bush Sr. ran much harder against Reagan than Edwards did against Kerry.

So, I guess you have less than zero, say negative 10 respect for G H W Bush?
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com