DO NOT FORGET
- Thread starter Sharky
- Start date
The Other One
Banned
Sharky said:
Thanks for the site, Sharky.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Saddam was a problem that needed to be taken care of. Had been since 1989. Whether he is ever linked to Al Quaeda or not is moot.
Missionaries who preach in Muslim countries are always caught.
As for my point being 'oversimplified', I think yours is overly complex. You try to find answers to a problem by using the most simple means. Any mathmetician will tell you that.
Missionaries who preach in Muslim countries are always caught.
As for my point being 'oversimplified', I think yours is overly complex. You try to find answers to a problem by using the most simple means. Any mathmetician will tell you that.
Gato_Solo said:As for my point being 'oversimplified', I think your's is overly complex. You try to find answers to a problem by using the most simple means. Any mathmetician will tell you that.
It's called Occam's Razor.......
...Sorry, please continue with yer political wotsits....
Winky
Well-Known Member
Occam's Razor:
“one should not increase, beyond what is necessary,
the number of entities required to explain anything”
Yup
At its core it is really simple.
Terrorists armed with WMD bad.
Doing what is needed to keep that from happening, Good
simple
How to go about it?
Well that's a tad bit more involved. Heh
“one should not increase, beyond what is necessary,
the number of entities required to explain anything”
Yup
At its core it is really simple.
Terrorists armed with WMD bad.
Doing what is needed to keep that from happening, Good
simple
How to go about it?
Well that's a tad bit more involved. Heh
chcr
Too cute for words
That works well in mathematics, Gato. People have been trying and failing to use it in human relationships since before history. Apples and oranges.As for my point being 'oversimplified', I think yours is overly complex. You try to find answers to a problem by using the most simple means. Any mathmetician will tell you that.
I'll say this again. Whether or not Saddam needed "taking care of," the only legitimate reason for going to war is an attack or imminent threat to your country or it's people. Neither existed in this case.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:That works well in mathematics, Gato. People have been trying and failing to use it in human relationships since before history. Apples and oranges.
I'll say this again. Whether or not Saddam needed "taking care of," the only legitimate reason for going to war is an attack or imminent threat to your country or it's people. Neither existed in this case.
Not just mathmatics, chcr...Ever heard of KISS? Notice, I don't use the term 'dumbing down'. That's insulting and degrading. Life is not that complex until you start adding to it. What are the 3 things absolutely necessary for life? Now you add other things to 'make life easier', and what do you end up with?
You argue the point of "We shouldn't have done it", but you forget that diplomacy and ignoring don't work. We used diplomacy for 12 years, and it did not work. We had a mandate from the UN to enforce the dopcuments signed by his regime. He played games with the UN. He threatened a former president with assassination. He implied that he had weapons he shouldn't have had, and let people think he was creating deadlier weapons, and you decided that we should just let him go? Complex documents, and complex plans, and complex ideas all failed. You say that the only legitimate reason for a war is an attack or imminent threat. How much of a threat would a nuclear-armed Iraq have been? That he had no such weapons is beside the point, because he led the world to believe that he was developing them. That he lied about his chemical and biological weapons is also beside the point for the exact same reason.
chcr
Too cute for words
Sharky said:
I have, Sharky. I still believe my point is valid. This is my opinion, based on the information available. Everything in your little presentation supports my position. I have never been shown a shred of credible evidence that Iraq was involved in 9-11. I still want to know why we back-burnered the hunt for the perpetrators of that attack on our country to go after a petty dictator of a third world country, except that I believe I already know the answer. I want an accounting, but I'll never get one. I've said it time and again. I really don't understand why otherwise seemingly intelligent people are so gullible when it comes to this issue. Clearly, terrorism and actual attacks on America are not this administrations first priority. Why do so many people accept that as okay?
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
chcr,
Your opinion is valid and valued as an opinion. I however, do see the connections that you don't. I too have looked for those connections of AQ to Iraq and I have found a number of 'em. Saddam and OBL may not have been caught in bed together, but they were certainly dating.
The workings of the Islamo-facist network is done in secret as much as possible. Much like the way the UN oil-for-fraud program was run right under the nose of the UN. We will never know the full scope of that scandal nor all the players in it. The documentation of the Iraq/AQ relationship does exist in limited quantities. I doubt the symbiotic relationship between Saddams people and OBL people were documented beyond the absolute minimum to maintain contact.
They shared several common goals, Saddam praised the 'fine job' OBL had done.
This war is more than Iraq, more than OBL, and it is not over yet. We're still actively hunting OBL. We're also looking for other people in other countries. During WW2 we had 2 fronts going on (actually 3 but...) because we are multi-tasking doesn't mean OBL has Bin forgotten.
You may not see it, you may want a full detailed account, you may think its about oil.
This about Islamic-extremist-terrorist and the people that support them, and train them to unwittingly and ruthlessly attack civilians in and from many nations pinnacled on the WTC attack on 9/11.
NEVER, EVER FORGET
.
Your opinion is valid and valued as an opinion. I however, do see the connections that you don't. I too have looked for those connections of AQ to Iraq and I have found a number of 'em. Saddam and OBL may not have been caught in bed together, but they were certainly dating.
The workings of the Islamo-facist network is done in secret as much as possible. Much like the way the UN oil-for-fraud program was run right under the nose of the UN. We will never know the full scope of that scandal nor all the players in it. The documentation of the Iraq/AQ relationship does exist in limited quantities. I doubt the symbiotic relationship between Saddams people and OBL people were documented beyond the absolute minimum to maintain contact.
They shared several common goals, Saddam praised the 'fine job' OBL had done.
This war is more than Iraq, more than OBL, and it is not over yet. We're still actively hunting OBL. We're also looking for other people in other countries. During WW2 we had 2 fronts going on (actually 3 but...) because we are multi-tasking doesn't mean OBL has Bin forgotten.
You may not see it, you may want a full detailed account, you may think its about oil.
This about Islamic-extremist-terrorist and the people that support them, and train them to unwittingly and ruthlessly attack civilians in and from many nations pinnacled on the WTC attack on 9/11.
NEVER, EVER FORGET
.