9-11, was the day my Commander in Chief told the world that our Nation is at war. War on terrorism as it has been coined by the media. But war no less.

1. Was SH not a terror threat himself? Or to his people?
2. Did he not use WoMD on the Kurds to prove he was capable?
3. Did we just overlook the fact that al-quadi are located in Iraq?

OBL did not do this by himself, he has operatives (puppets) world wide. He and they along with their associates are our target. Bagdhad may have fallen, but the real war has only begun!

Felix

Now I'm sure you've well and truly made your mind up about the rationale of your opinions and actions already, but all I can say is that the only real threat to world peace present in the human world today are people like you my friend. People who look for enemies anywhere they can find them.
Granted, civilization needs unquestioning, dutiful individuals such as yourself in order to function. But have you ever considered trying a little subtlety? Being a aspiring future politician myself I hope to have plenty of expendable tools, err sorry, faithful patriots such as yourself ready to fight for my country's freedom. But have you ever considered just how belligerant and sinister your well-meaning bravado sounds?

Subtlety is just for pansy assed, err, dutiful politicans. I, however am a soldier. A person that has a switch that goes from conservative to killer in 1.8 nano seconds. I do not look for anyone to fight, but I will not leave any objective until it is fully secure. When I retire in 2 years and go to a normal job, with normal folks, then I will turn my switch off forever. I will support which ever pansy assed, err, dutiful politican that needs to be supported to better benefit the health and well being of others. And might actually use words of a higher caliber than those of this engagement. We could possibly talk about dual crossover voltage, what exactly the 10,001 transistor does on the latest MB, and how fast the AGP 8X really is when supported by a AGP 8X MB and CPU. The density of RDRAM versus DDR, and exactly how many gigajoles it needs to retain its bandwith before it loses stability. But then again, algorthyms are just that, bits and pieces of a language that you and I cannot digest.

I will Meet You on the High Ground
Felix

Yes, you're absolutely right Felix. Let's not bicker over this any more.
As for discussions about transistors and voltage, I regret to admit that my knowledge is sorely lacking. Perhaps sometime in the future we shall be able to parlay long into the wee hours of the morning about such topics.
Until then, adieu.
;)

[ 04-13-2003, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Can someone please explain to me, in easy to understand words, the direct connection between the events on 9/11/01 and Saddam's Iraq? Please be lucid and provide links and sources.

I have seen people actually say, on camera, that we need to take out Saddam and his regime because they were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. How much of the Pro-War group believe this is so? Has any poll been run asking this question?

On the other hand I'd like to know what percentage of the Anti-War group believes it is about Oil.

Mark

To add to my first question:

Friday, April 11, 2003 2:37 a.m. EDT
Pataki: Melt Down Saddam Statue for Ground Zero

New York Gov. George Pataki told a support-the-troops rally at Manhattan's Ground Zero Thursday that the massive statue of Saddam Hussein that was toppled by liberated Iraqis in Baghdad the day before should be melted down and included in the steel used to rebuild the World Trade Center.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecov...003/4/11/23801

Is he confused, or does he too, believe Saddam has responsiblity for the terrorist attack on the Towers?

Mark

Hes just trying to draw attention away from the fact that the New York budget is horribly screwed up this year. Iraq just happens to be a convienent method of doing so.

I can answer this one Spelca - it depends on what television station you watched for your war coverage ;) . If you got the CNN or BBC or SKY live feeds then you got to watch either the War on Iraq, or Operation Iraqii Freedom. If you happen to get your news from a more foxy channel, then you were watching the War on Terror. This one station quite clearly wanted to link the war implicitly and inextricably with the events of 9-11. It made for plenty of extra pathos at times in the coverage, and may well have "rated its' socks off" with some viewers. I couldn't really tell though how this battle of the media channels got scored in the US.

I have heard that almost 30% of Americans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. That is quite a large amount since the people who implied the statements later retracted them. An example of how the media can be very dangerous.

To be honest .... I don't know if there is a link between Iraq and 9/11. I have heard some retired CIA officials say there isn't one, and I have heard intel people say there is.

Either way, the sources of the info is currently classified. There is no way to publish it publically until it is downgraded.