NEW TODAY possible al-Qaeda/IRAQ link

[FloydGondolli]

"20years ago after the Carter debacle and the hostage crisis Saddam was your bestest cuddliest buddy as he waged war on the Iranians."

That is just a mis-characterization and you know it.

At the time, Saddam was the lesser of two evils and was supported so fundamentalist Islam would not sweep through the entire Middle East as it did through Iran.

And prior to the Iran-Iraq war Saddam was nowhere near as brutal as he was during and after that war. During the early 70's, Saddam appeared to be a more benevolent tyrant who built schools and hospitals with oil profits. He only became the brutal monster after the Iran war went badly and by then the US had cut him off.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[FloydGondolli]

"If my cynicysm is correct, its not the first time its happened either."

eek, get real, you are not cynical, you are BIASED.

If you were a true cynic, you would not automatically believe the accounts of a few Iraqi doctors (who are probably Baathists) spun by a letf-wing, anti-Bush BBC reporter.

Tha would make you a cynic. You are just an biased ideologue who hates the Bush administration. Why not just admit it?

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[Oceans11]

-That is just a mis-characterization and you know it.-

Where foreign policy is concerned Your entire system runs on media driven mis-characterisations, and agenda driven half-truths.

Before the Iraq Invasion....
The UK had one of the biggest anti-war demonstrations in post-war history.
Tony Blairs own party rejected going into Iraq(the opposition saved his ass) on the Iraq war vote.

Everyone HERE knew it was BS.

 

[PatPatriot]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The fact that he's just been caught...10 days before xmas...is kind of convenient, and fits right in with a cynical manipulation BS theory.
Not a shot was fired, and he had a whole 2 bodyguards<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

eek....your right..just before x-mas..I think that was really an actor they pulled out of the ground...the CIA made that hole in the ground.....You fxckin assholes are so blinded by your hate for Bush...that you are more dilusional than Saddam....Where do you come up with this shit??...Grantt??
Get use to it because Bush is going to be around for another 4 years...then lube up your ass because then it will be Jeb Bushes turn....Bwa bwa wa ahahahahahahahah!!!!

 

[FloydGondolli]

"Everyone HERE knew it was BS."

More nonsense from Eek.

Apparently not "everyone". Your PM, Foreign Sec. and the majority of Parliament didn't think it was "BS" and anywhere from 40 to 55% of the people approved of the war.

Please explain how that is "everyone"?????????

Radicals marching in the streets don't get to decide foreign policy in democracies.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[xpanda]

Floyd:

While I have never agreed with the reasons behind Chretien's decision to not join the coalition, I definitely did agree with the decision itself. As for your assertion that the US will not need anyone else's stamp of approval on foreign policy issues, that is exactly the sort of arrogance that leads one to wonder why they even bother wasting everyone's time with UN participation in the first place?

We could sit here and debate all day on whether or not Saddam was ever a direct threat to the US, but perhaps we can at least agree that it is this specific difference of opinion that will keep the two camps, the anti-wars and the pro-wars, separate. So how to move forward and repair the damage? Martin has shown an incredible gesture of goodwill (one might call it ass-kissing) towards the US. We shall see if the act is acknowledged, or if, yet again, Canadian goodwill will be treated not unlike the dinner the battered housewife prepares.

Perhaps we'll just have to 'get used to that idea.'

 

[FloydGondolli]

xpanda,

The belief that one does not need the permission of all others to defend itself is not arrogance. It's pragmatism in the face of danger.

The true arrogance is the attitude displayed by France (and to a lesser extent Canada) that other nations require their express permission to defend themselves from what they see as a threat.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[xpanda]

Floyd:

Why, then, did the US re-join the UN? If ultimately the consensus is irrelevant, then what's the point? If you're going to show up at a Board Meeting dressed like the CEO, talking like the CEO, and making decisions like the CEO, then you'd better damn well BE the CEO. Otherwise, yes, that is indeed arrogance.

Unless and until the US realises that they are not one big ass-cheek in need of a smooch, that somewhere in the middle a shitstorm is brewing, their 'us vs. them' mentality will eventually come back to haunt them.

 

[FloydGondolli]

xpanda,

You may not believe so, but one day Canada will face a serious threat (probbaly from the same radical Islmaists that hate the US so much). Then perhaps you'll understand.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[xpanda]

I agree with you fully. When you border on the US, inevitably its enemies become your own. You have justified my position.

 

[Oceans11]

 

[lander]

The arrogance of my 'fellow' Americans is down right embarrassing at times. I appologize to the internation readers at the RX, but fortunately we're not all redneck cowboys.

Incidentally, I was talking with a Republican friend of mine and asked him - "do you agree that the best universities are in the North East and the West Coast?". He answered 'yes, of course." I asked, "do you also agree that the the North East and the West Coast are genarally Democrat?". Again, he answered "yes, of course." So, I then asked him, "Do you suspect that most people that went to university in the North East and the West Coast generally stay in those areas?". He said, "yes, of course.".

So, finally I got to the point and asked him - "Am I the only one that sees a correlation between quality education and voting democrat?".

He said, one last time, "yes, of course you are". LOL

 

[GrandSlam+]

Impressive logic Lander. All we need now is for the Democrats to get their voting base into those fine schools rather than dropping out of high school. Then we'd have a real progressive party in this country.

 

[FloydGondolli]

Lander,

I think the number of Democrats on the coasts has more to do with the concentration of minorities in large coastal cities (NYC, LA, SF, etc.) that it has to do with universities.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[xpanda]

Or perhaps the minorities settle there BECAUSE there is a greater proportion of Democrats. After all, it was the Democratic platform that enabled the success of the civil rights movement. People tend to prefer living in regions which make them feel welcome. Simple human nature.

 

[FloydGondolli]

Yeah and perhaps they were transported ther by Martians.

Minorities have lived in significant numbers in urban areas like NYC since before the modern Democrat Party came into being and were in LA in large numbers when LA was a very conservative city politically. San Francisco was always filled with minorities because of its ports.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998

 

[lander]

Floyd,
Most people I know that come to NY come there for opportunity. They strive to build themselves a better life, much unlike the hicks scattered throughout the South and MidWest.

Regardless, your point is off base (and more accurately it's most likely intentionally spun that way. All you have to do is take a sample of the universities themselves - they are predominately Democratic.

If only the founding fathers had thought of the stupidity bug when putting together checks and balances

We wouldn't have this problem of appointed alcoholic murderer presidents

 

[SanJose]

Lander,

Now that's a laugh. People come to New York for opportunity???

Then please explain to me why New York state has consistently lost population and business over the past 35 years? The number of Congressmen in New York State (based entirely on population figures off the census data every 10 years) has dropped from 45 in the 1970 census to 29 as of the 2000 census. People have left NY state in droves. I know, I'm one of them. ANd it's not just NY, it's Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey and Maryland, all states that have lost Congressional seats over the past 30 years. All the while, the "hick" states like North Carolina, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Nevada, etc...have all gained seats/population.

And as to Floyd's point. Do you deny that it is the heavily minority vote that is currently a large part of the success of the Democratic Party in New York, California and other states you are so fond of? True or False, black voters consistently vote more than 90% for a Democratic candidate? True or False, while only 12% of the national population, blacks make up over 20% of NY residents?

 

[lander]

San Jose,
Floyd's retort was based on my comparision to the intelligence of republicans versus democrats. You're implying that the democrats are not intellects, rather they are mostly minorities - specifically "blacks".

Why are you suggesting that black people are not intelligent?

I think that is a very ignorant implication that you have made. Are you a racist?


---------------------------------------------

And secondly, what does the number of representatives have to do with people moving for opportunity? I moved to Manhattan for a job, so certainly it's possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Then please explain to me why New York state has consistently lost population and business over the past 35 years? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Historical Resident Population
1860 to 2000

I don't see any dips, do you? Well, I do see one dip .. but not in the graph

 

[SanJose]

Lander,

Nice graph. Nice way to twist statistics. Obviously EVERY state has gained population as the population of the nation has risen so dramatically and people have a longer life expectancy.

BUT, the real issue is what percentage of the US population currently lives in New York compared to what percentage lived there in 1960...as you very well understood before you posted your disingenuous graph. The rate of population growth has been SLOWER in New York than in any of the 50 US states, meaning that New York has "lost" population at a greater rate, percentage wise, than any state in the country.

True or False---New York has lost Congressional seats/Electoral Votes in each of the last four times the Census was taken?

True or False---The number of Congressional seats is determined by a state's population relative to other states? Hence, if Florida gains a seat because it has a higher pecentage of the overall US population, some other state loses a seat.

True or False---As a percentage of the overall US population, fewer people, percentage wise, live in NY now than in 1960, 1970, 1980 or 1990?

I can't believe you would post that graph and take the childish position that NY hasn't "lost" population in real terms. Come on, you can do better than semantic word play like that?