Lee3 wrote:I think you had better check your dictionary. "Undisputed facts" are stipulated, and by definition, no one disputes them. Saddam was up to his neck in Al Qaeda, offerring safe harbor if not material and intelligence help. Where you have seen this refuted escapes me. Maybe you could cite something authoritative?
LOL. So you're making the claim that Iraq was behind 9/11, are you? The burden of proof is on YOU, dumbass, not me. You're the one pretending there's a link. Saddam was not 'up this neck' in a islamic fundamentalist organization that hated him.
While you are at it, keep your eyes open for articles dealing with the information ministry. You miss a lot.
You made the claim, you provide the proof. I don't have to do your research for you- all you've presented me with is a lot of unsupported claims.
I didn't bring in the French people as opposed to the French government. Napoleon did. I made the point that the vaunted "love of peace and hatred of agression" cited by Napoleon is somewhat lacking when French financial interests are concerned. If this is an indictment of France in general and not Mr Chirac alone, then take it up with Napoleon. He would know better than I. What I said was that Chirac is *far* from being an altruist. If the people of France are supporting Chirac on this then your implied insult stands.
Or, you've got it totally backwards and Chirac is acquiescign to what the French people wanted, you know, politicans tend to do that- it's called democracy.
You must admit that France was very gung-ho about bringing in the US in the Bosnia business even though the US has no particular interest there. May I contrast the behavior of the US here with that of France? We held steady with treaty obligations. We certainly didn't sell information and hardware to Serbia!
Frnace brought the US into Bosnia? That's news to me. Got proof?
I agree that Chirac doesn't have to agree with Mr Bush. He doesn't have to commit France to anything he doesn't want to. The knife in the back is what irks me.
What knife in the back?!
As far as the nature of US evidence goes, I guess it boils down to who you trust. If you trust Baghdad Bob when he tells you there was no evidence of WMD, and thay they never heard of Al Qaeda, then we really have no basis to argue.
LOL- you act like WMD has actually been found. Small problem- Bush got up in front of the nation and lied his ass off- either that, or the people giving him his information are grossly incompetent.
I don't have to read arabic or see the training camps or the mass graves to know that the whole region is rotten with terrorist groups. As you stand by Saddam, I stand by my President, and our intelligence services.
Yes, let's talk about mass graves- you know they're from 1991? When the US asked the Shia's to rebel and then left them twisting in the wind? Where was your fucking outrage then? They hate the US guts now- you don't need to go far to see the news of them asking the US to go take a flying leap and get out.
Terrorist camps? Would those be those in Northern Iraq run by anti-Saddam Islamic fundies, and supported by Iran?
Ah yes, and then we have those glorious intelligence services who couldnt' spot obvious forgeries of nuclear documents, and who tried to characterize a student's term paper as "top secret" intelligence from reliable sources on the ground in Iraq- and gave the President all the rope he needed to hang himself with by having him meticulously detail all of Iraq's supposed WMD- except that they left out it was all hypotheticals and they haven't found a fucking drop.
And btw, if you stand by your intelligence services, then you must agree with the CIA that there is no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. QED.
And in addition, fuck you- just because I challenge your moron assertions without a shred of supporting evidence doesn't mean I 'stand by' Saddam.
If we differ on these basic facts, all I can see is that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this...
Yes, the basic fact is that you have yet to present any facts.