Ted Re...He barely supported terrorism.
Isn't that a bit like saying someone is barly pregnant. Either Saddam did, or didn't support terrorism. Secondly Saddam's whole life was centered around terrorism, usually he terrorized his own people, but he also supported several anti Israel groups.
And as for al Qaeda, you have not proven any link so get over yourself.
Reread what I said. I said, You could say Saddam didn't support Al Qaeda' By that I meant, I wouldn't have an argument, if you limited your no support of terrorism claim to just Al Qaeda.
Secondly, the heart of the problem is always the heart of the problem no matter what the discussion is all about.
LOL Well, you got me there. Did you ever think of writing to AFLAC and telling them some of your witticisms. Then maybe in the next commercial, instead of Yogi, you could sit in the barber's chair, and confuse
the hell out of everybody.
That's impossible.......the Taliban didn't come into power until the early 90s, maybe the late 80s.
Really
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO210B.html
Distorting History
These "human rights" and "peace" buzzwords serve to distort the history of US foreign policy. Here again, the US media has failed to mention a crucial "missing link" -- a factual piece of information on Carter’s presidency which has a direct bearing on our understanding of the ongoing post-9/11 crisis.
Amply documented, but rarely mentioned in 9/11 news reports, the "Islamic Militant Network" (the forerunner of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda), was actually created during Jimmy Carter’s presidency (1976-1981). In July 1979, Carter signed a presidential directive to launch a secret plan in support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Confirmed by former CIA director, Robert Gates, in his book, From the Shadows, this "secret plan" was instrumental in triggering the Soviet-Afghan war. (Robert Gates, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War, gtexts.com ).
Most American high school history books describe how the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, "without provocation and with overwhelming force". America then "came to the rescue" of the Afghan "resistance". This happened under president Jimmy Carter.
Yet Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski confirms that it was the US and not the Soviet Union which started the war:
"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention…." (Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur, 15-21 November 1998)
In other words, the Soviet-Afghan war was triggered on the orders of President Carter, the latest recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.
................................................
Actually, that writer also was trying to distort history. The Soviets installed a puppet regime in Kabul, and Carter under Brzezinski, supplies weapons through the CIA to dislodge the puppet regime. Russia, later invaded in force, to save that regime.
Really, you think? Then why isn't Karzai safe outside of Kabul? In fact, why isn't he safe in Kabul?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe it is for the same reason every US president has had a security detail for the last 100 yrs.
In six weeks, it will be one year and the country is less under control than it was a year ago
Oh, now I get it. It isn't how free, or democratic, or prosperous the Iragis are, it is how much control there is in Iraq, which prompts you to call Iraq a failure. I thought you hated a gov. which control its people; or just why are against the Patriot act?
And I contend that Iraq is the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. You can bookmark this post.
Done.
Dang! Was that easy to come up with or what?
In your case; yes.
Excuse me.........al Qaeda is not a standing army. Arresting al Qaeda "higher ups" means little.........al Qaeda has numerous cells each with its own leaders. That's why fighting Saddam did squat for......the war against terrorism except drain our treasury.
Then, why are you dems. arguing that the Iraq war was bad, because it diverted resources from capturing OBL; if capturing Al Qaeda's leaders don't mean squat.
Sorry, but I ain't buying it. I don't trust what our gov't says on the subject.
Ah, reading with your usual closed mind again I see. |
