Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Go with your Heart of hearts and then who do you want. (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=264112)

  • Oct 13, 2008, 06:28 PM
    kanicky73

    Babram- your kidding right? If you go back and read what I said, "someone named Hussein played a part" I did not say he was completely responsible for the attacks. If you don't understand that Saddam Hussein, Iraq, Osama Bin Laden and all the others are all connected then you would be confused by my comment. As far as questioning my right to vote, you stated that we should "vote on the issues". And I simply stated that I have the right to base my vote on whatever I chose to base it on. Whether it be the issues at hand, his name, his race or any thing else. I am not one of those people to try and sway your opinion. You are completely entitled to it. I 100% respect your choice in voting for Obama. I am proud that as an american you are going to stand up for your beliefs and your opinions and stand up for who you believe should be the next president and cast your vote. I commend you for that. As I stated before, the original poster asked us "in our heart of hearts" what our thoughts were. I also expressed that it sounded strange but for whatever reason I can not get past his name. September 11 had a big impact on my life and I just can not bring myself to vote for someone that makes me think of that horrible day every time you say his name. Trivial as it may seem. However, names aside, I am a republican and proud to say it and I do not agree with Obama's ideas and views. Most importantly being is idea to immediately bring home our troops. Then did all those people die for nothing? All our loved ones, brothers, sisters, fathers, aunts, uncles etc died for nothing because we just call it quits and give up and bring everyone home. I, notice that I said I, this is my opinion, think we need to sta and finish what we started. War is never a good thing but those men and women were brave enough to take the position and do what they thought was right. I support them 150%.
  • Oct 13, 2008, 08:42 PM
    BABRAM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kanicky73 View Post
    Babram- your kidding right? If you go back and read what I said, "someone named Hussein played a part" I did not say he was completely responsible for the attacks. If you dont understand that Saddam Hussein, Iraq, Osama Bin Laden and all the others are all connected then you would be confused by my comment. As far as questioning my right to vote, you stated that we should "vote on the issues".



    Your information is wrong. Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11

    Tuesday September 12 2006 03.54 BST Article history

    "George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 terror attacks, but he asked Americans to support a war in Iraq that he said was the defining struggle of our age.
    On a day of sorrow and remembrance, beginning with a moment of silence at Ground Zero and ending in a prime time TV address from the Oval Office, Mr Bush tried to steel Americans for the long war ahead against al-Qaida which he described as an epochal struggle.

    His speech was also focused on November's congressional elections where the Republicans face a groundswell of discontent about the war in Iraq.

    The president conceded some crucial ideological ground, formally disavowing the neo-conservative accusation that Saddam had played a role in the attacks on September 11 2001. But he was unapologetic about the decision to invade Iraq.

    "I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Mr Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat - and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.

    "The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

    The admission that Saddam had no connection to the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon was a departure for a president who is famously averse to any expression of regret. But Mr Bush, angling to regain the trust of US voters in his leadership of the war on terror, made another display of humility, admitting to other unspecified mistakes in the war on Iraq.

    However, the president brushed aside any idea of an early exit from Iraq, saying a withdrawal of US forces would hand a victory to al-Qaida.

    "Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us," Mr Bush said.

    "If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened ... they will gain a new safe haven ... and they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement."

    Last night's address crowned a series of speeches intended to retune the political agenda to the Republicans' traditionally strong suit: national security. Although the 2,600 US forces killed in Iraq now approaches the toll on September 11 and polls this month showed some 60% of Americans opposed to the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, Mr Bush continues to inspire confidence for his leadership on terrorism and in matters of national security.

    With that in mind, Mr Bush moved last night to cast himself as a wartime leader in the mould of the two US presidents who presided over the epic battles of the last century. Both were Democrats: Franklin Roosevelt against Germany and Japan in the second world war, and Harry Truman in the cold war.

    Mr Bush said he was leading a struggle that in these early days may seem just as daunting as the beginning of the second world war. But he said that the war on terror was as much an existential struggle, and that America could not afford to lose heart now, despite the high cost in Iraq.

    "The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation," he said. "If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons."
    "



    On the voting issue, I said, "vote on the issues folks." Not that you had no right to vote. Big difference.
  • Oct 13, 2008, 08:44 PM
    rankrank55

    Obama has it... :)
  • Oct 14, 2008, 07:28 AM
    kanicky73
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BABRAM View Post
    Your information is wrong. Bush: Saddam was not responsible for 9/11

    Tuesday September 12 2006 03.54 BST Article history

    "George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 terror attacks, but he asked Americans to support a war in Iraq that he said was the defining struggle of our age.
    On a day of sorrow and remembrance, beginning with a moment of silence at Ground Zero and ending in a prime time TV address from the Oval Office, Mr Bush tried to steel Americans for the long war ahead against al-Qaida which he described as an epochal struggle.

    His speech was also focused on November's congressional elections where the Republicans face a groundswell of discontent about the war in Iraq.

    The president conceded some crucial ideological ground, formally disavowing the neo-conservative accusation that Saddam had played a role in the attacks on September 11 2001. But he was unapologetic about the decision to invade Iraq.

    "I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Mr Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat - and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.

    "The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

    The admission that Saddam had no connection to the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon was a departure for a president who is famously averse to any expression of regret. But Mr Bush, angling to regain the trust of US voters in his leadership of the war on terror, made another display of humility, admitting to other unspecified mistakes in the war on Iraq.

    However, the president brushed aside any idea of an early exit from Iraq, saying a withdrawal of US forces would hand a victory to al-Qaida.

    "Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us," Mr Bush said.

    "If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened ... they will gain a new safe haven ... and they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement."

    Last night's address crowned a series of speeches intended to retune the political agenda to the Republicans' traditionally strong suit: national security. Although the 2,600 US forces killed in Iraq now approaches the toll on September 11 and polls this month showed some 60% of Americans opposed to the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, Mr Bush continues to inspire confidence for his leadership on terrorism and in matters of national security.

    With that in mind, Mr Bush moved last night to cast himself as a wartime leader in the mould of the two US presidents who presided over the epic battles of the last century. Both were Democrats: Franklin Roosevelt against Germany and Japan in the second world war, and Harry Truman in the cold war.

    Mr Bush said he was leading a struggle that in these early days may seem just as daunting as the beginning of the second world war. But he said that the war on terror was as much an existential struggle, and that America could not afford to lose heart now, despite the high cost in Iraq.

    "The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation," he said. "If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons."
    "



    On the voting issue, I said, "vote on the issues folks." Not that you had no right to vote. Big difference.


    Again, I said they are all "connected". That is a big difference. Your misunderstanding.
  • Oct 14, 2008, 08:49 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kanicky73 View Post
    Again, I said they are all "connected". That is a big difference. Your misunderstanding.

    Hello k:

    Please refers us to ANYTHING, other than your imagination or what your pastor says, that connects them. You DO know, don't you, that these things ARE knowable? We don't have to guess.

    Don't you think that if they WERE connected, that the dufus in chief would have used THAT as a reason why we invaded?? Of course, he DID use it, and it was proven not to be so.

    excon
  • Oct 14, 2008, 09:43 AM
    kanicky73

    Who said anything about my pastor?? You guys are taking this discussion way to serious. All these posts are our each individual opinions. I don't believe I have EVER criticized you for your opinion EXCON And yes you can go on the internet and read absolutely anything about either individual and they are in some way connected. Maybe not directly or in your face connected but they have ties in some similar areas.
  • Oct 14, 2008, 09:47 AM
    excon
    Hello again, k:

    Didn't sound like opinion. Sounded like you knew something. Still sounds like you do... But if it's just your OPINION that they're connected, then you're welcome to it.

    excon
  • Oct 14, 2008, 10:00 AM
    kanicky73

    It is my opinion based on what I have read. Please understand, somehow the point of my opinion got lost. I stated that in some way they were connected. I did not say that they both were completely responsible for the 9-11 attacks. However, we can not deny that they have shown that there were communications between the two for example here is one such collaboration:


    From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
    By Stephen F. Hayes
    11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11

    Editor's Note, 1/27/04: In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank reported that "Vice President Cheney . . . in an interview this month with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the 'best source of information' an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified information."

    Here's the Stephen F. Hayes article to which the vice president was referring.

    -JVL


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




    OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

    The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

    According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

    The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

    The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."
  • Oct 14, 2008, 10:33 AM
    excon
    Hello k:

    Stephen F. Hayes is a columnist for The Weekly Standard, a prominent American Neoconservative magazine. Hayes has been selected as the official biographer for Vice President Richard Cheney.

    Douglas J. Feith is a neoconservative who served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for United States President George W. Bush from July 2001 until he resigned from his position effective August 8, 2005. His official responsibilities included the formulation of defense planning guidance and forces policy, United States Department of Defense (DoD) relations with foreign countries, and DoD's role in U.S. Government interagency policymaking. His tenure in that position was marked by controversy.

    Upon his resignation, Feith joined the faculty of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, as a Professor and Distinguished Practitioner in National Security Policy, for a two year stint despite strong objections from the student body and faculty. His contract was not renewed due to strong opposition from members of the faculty, despite "really good" teaching reviews.

    I suggest that your sources are biased toward the neocon agenda and have a stake in the outcome of their reports.

    excon
  • Oct 14, 2008, 10:44 AM
    kanicky73

    So I guess this direct quote from our current president means nothing either?

    "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."
    - President George W. Bush, 06/17/04

    It has been proven that these Iraqi intelligence officers did in fact meet with Bin Laden. That is the "connection" I speak of.
  • Oct 14, 2008, 10:52 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kanicky73 View Post
    So I guess this direct quote from our current president means nothing either?

    Hello again, k:

    It means that George W. Bush, our commander in chief, is a liar.

    If either YOU or HE understood that one group is Shia Muslims, and the other are Sunni Muslims, you wouldn't be making such outlandish claims. Saddam HATED Shia Muslims. Iran is a Shia Muslim state. Iraq and Iran fought a war that killed MILLIONS of their own, because they HATE each other. They do NOT have the same goals.

    They were killing each other in Iraq recently too.

    excon
  • Oct 14, 2008, 10:57 AM
    kanicky73

    I guess you just know everything. Honestly calling someone a liar when you do not sit next to that person every single day, or have played a part in every single report, conversation and dealings is kind of childish.
  • Oct 14, 2008, 11:03 AM
    excon
    Hello again:

    Like I said, these things are KNOWABLE. They're NOT guesswork. But, I'm not going to convince you. Let's leave it that you have an opinion, because that's all it is.

    excon
  • Oct 14, 2008, 11:45 AM
    kanicky73

    As is yours
  • Oct 14, 2008, 11:48 AM
    tomder55

    The fact that Iran actively supports Hamas should be enough evidence to forever put the canard that Shia and Sunni will not cooperate to rest .

    But OBL is a Sunni and so was Saddam so that argument doesn't work anyway.

    The idea that a so called secular Sunni like Saddam could not cooperate with AQ ,a radical jihadist organization against a common enemy is also a stretch .

    I have read and cross referenced this issue for a long time and I have yet to see any significant repudiation of Steve Hayes facts .

    However ;regardless whether I think there is a lot of truth there ;in fact the Bush Administration never made a direct linkage .
  • Oct 14, 2008, 04:05 PM
    BABRAM
    Again your mistaken. Look at the chronological order. Your quote of Dubya was dated 6/17/04. At that time he was still not in denial and/or lying through his silver spooned mouth.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kanicky73 View Post
    So I guess this direct quote from our current president means nothing either?

    "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two."

    - President George W. Bush, 06/17/04
    It has been proven that these Iraqi intelligence officers did in fact meet with Bin Laden. That is the "connection" I speak of.


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


    Now look at what happened two years later when reality hit George W Bush between the eyes and he owned up.

    Tuesday September 12 2006 03.54 BST Article history

    "George Bush last night admitted that Saddam Hussein had no hand in the 9/11 terror attacks, but he asked Americans to support a war in Iraq that he said was the defining struggle of our age.

    On a day of sorrow and remembrance, beginning with a moment of silence at Ground Zero and ending in a prime time TV address from the Oval Office, Mr Bush tried to steel Americans for the long war ahead against al-Qaida which he described as an epochal struggle.

    His speech was also focused on November's congressional elections where the Republicans face a groundswell of discontent about the war in Iraq.
    "
  • Oct 14, 2008, 04:26 PM
    tomder55

    Bobby you are comparing 2 different things.

    In the first case Bush is describing a linkage between Saddam and AQ . There is substantial evidence of connections there .

    In the 2nd instance Bush is saying that there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9-11 . I'm not so sure about that ,in my view the jury is still out . Perhaps President Bush decided it was best to move on so he expediently conceded the point. Suffice it to say I disagree with his conclusion . History will most likely sort this out.
  • Oct 14, 2008, 05:03 PM
    BABRAM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    In the 2nd instance Bush is saying that there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9-11 .


    Tom, there's little doubt that we (US citizens) are on several counties most hated list. We are! Saddam Hussein was a dictator that was punished, rightly so, with a death penalty. He was a ruthless murderer Iraq, killing his own people. I admit it's very difficult to know when Dubya is telling the truth. But then again, I didn't vote for the him either time, and till this day Osama Bin Laden, the culprit terrorist behind 9/11, still hasn't been brought to justice. Barack Obama is running for president and between now and November 4th, as long as he doesn't change his name to "John McCain," I'm going to vote for him.
  • Oct 14, 2008, 05:25 PM
    twinkiedooter

    Obama traveled overseas on his Indonesian passport when he was age 20. Why didn't he use his AMERICAN PASSPORT? Because he didn't have one as he was still a citizen of Indonesia.

    Where is the official seal on his alleged Hawaii birth certificate? I don't find any and neither does anyone else. It's a forgery.

    How did his mother miraculously fly from Kenya to Hawaii when she was 9 months pregnant when airlines deny pregnant women on their planes?

    I think you are a disinformation agent. Anyone who brags that their cousins are in the Mafia and in prison is certainly a hoot. Anyone real person in the Mafia does not brag about it because there is no Mafia according to them and they don't go around telling other people of their business. This proves that you are a fake. You've been watching too much Hollywood pablum. I don't think you would recognize a real person who is actually in the Mafia if your life depended on it as they are highly secretive of their associations. The Italian Scicilian Mafia is a highly secretive organization. They do not banty about this information.
  • Oct 14, 2008, 05:30 PM
    kanicky73
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Bobby you are comparing 2 different things.

    In the first case Bush is describing a linkage between Saddam and AQ . There is substantial evidence of connections there .

    In the 2nd instance Bush is saying that there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9-11 . I'm not so sure about that ,in my view the jury is still out . Perhaps President Bush decided it was best to move on so he expediently conceded the point. Suffice it to say I disagree with his conclusion . History will most likely sort this out.

    FINALLY a voice of reason. It is two different things. And I did not say that Saddam Hussein played a part in 9-11. All I was saying was there was a "link" between Osam and Hussein. I agree with you as well that Im not convinced that somewhere along the line Saddam Hussein knew of the attacks planned on the US. Knowing how dangerous both of these men were and are, Im not sure that if I were Saddam Hussein that I would have admitted to any involvement with him either! Whether someone thinks that George Bush lied or not does not erase facts that were proven that there were meetings had between Osama and Husseins people. You can't erase facts.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:17 AM.