OT: Election 2004

[primitive]

I get a bit scared when I read some of these Posts. There seems to be some very strong opinions regarding how to fight the "war on terrorism" based on some very loose asumptions.

I would like to ask a question to among others; Perrin and the Wombat.

- Do you (still) belive that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that by invading Iraq, the US could therefore hurt Al Qaeda in some way ?

If so, your Posts make perfect sense to me and I would be happy to discuss the facts. If not, please explain to me how the invation could be seen as a part of the "war on terrorism". I'm at a loss here

[AMF]

And, well, debate by sound bites ("those who ignore history...") is not really useful. I can just as easily say "History never repeats itself" and we have advanced the discussion no further.

[tesco samoa]

If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.


Interesting post. Who is the little guy and who is the bully?

[AMF]

That's exactly the question.

The problem with resorting to aphorisms and sound bites is that one can appeal to the "right" emotions without actually presenting any cogent arguments.

So...who is the bully and who is the little guy? and in any given situation, who defines them? And what if the actor who defines the bully is the one who benefits from that defintion? ad nauseum...

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.


Interesting post. Who is the little guy and who is the bully?

[AMF]

And, it has been definitively shown not only that there was NO known link between AQ and Saddam (in fact, they hated/feared each other even after 9/11), but also that we knew there was no link, and, it seems pretty obvious (unless there has been willful ignorance in play) that the administration lied/misled the US and world publics about all this.

Originally posted by primitive:
I get a bit scared when I read some of these Posts. There seems to be some very strong opinions regarding how to fight the "war on terrorism" based on some very loose asumptions.

I would like to ask a question to among others; Perrin and the Wombat.

- Do you (still) belive that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that by invading Iraq, the US could therefore hurt Al Qaeda in some way ?

If so, your Posts make perfect sense to me and I would be happy to discuss the facts. If not, please explain to me how the invation could be seen as a part of the "war on terrorism". I'm at a loss here

[rextorres]

Nazi Germany is a good example of what happens when a country's leaders lie to start wars for political purposes and the citizens do nothing or go along. I think that's the real historical lesson in this particular case.

[Combat Wombat]

So may I ask why is spain up in arms because they got attack by AQ because they are helping in Iraq, if Sadam and AQ hated eachother so much why are they attacking countries that helped bring down their supposed enemy.