“did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates”. It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

“Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support,” it said. The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

But why should we listen to the CIA on intelligence matters when we have that credible source of intelligence, “an online news service called CNSnews?”

…published 42 documents that they claimed came from … documents supposedly came from … who claimed they were … authenticated the documents to the best of their ability. I know there is a good chance that these documents … look right … which increases the likelihood that they are all real.

If I gave you a link with all those qualifiers in it, you’d laugh in my face. The American Thinker says they appear to “pass the smell test,” but there has never been any verification from the CIA or the DoD that they are genuine, which would be the only “smell test” to have any validity.

He asks “If these document were not authentic, why would an investigation have been conducted into who released them?” Uhm, investigations into document authenticity by definition starts with doubt—the fact that they were investigated means that they were questionable. He tries to make a connection between Saddam and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and links to globalsecurity.org, but if you read the GS link, it says that EIJ

Operates in the Cairo area, but most of its network is outside Egypt, including Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom, and its activities have been centered outside Egypt for several years.

Note the absence of Iraq.

You mention training camps—which ones? You mention weapons caches—so what? We found no WMD caches, Saddam was not banned from having conventional weapons. You mentions mass graves—we knew he slaughtered the Shiites after we told them to rise up against Saddam and then didn’t help them. The mass graves were no surprise. What’s that got to do with al Qaeda?

Oh, forgive me. But I wasn’t thinking about myself (ourselves)

So you’re an advocate of the US military being sent into countries around the world on humanitarian missions to liberate all oppressed people? Who’s next on your list, Congo? North Korea? Zimbabwe?

I think that the Iraqi’s do have it better … you also cannot bring up soldiers who volunteered for the job.

Fine, forget the 30,000 maimed and mutilated U.S. troops and the thousands dead and their families. Let’s look at what the Iraqis dealt with just yesterday.

its more than a civil war. its a religious war. the only way to stop it is to help one side win. so lets pick sides!

That’s not stopping the civil war, that’s accelerating it and fighting in it. Now you’re advocating that the U.S. military fight another countries civil war for them. Not sure that’s going to go over so well here at home.

In any case, whose side would we choose? There’s the Sunnis—supported by Saudi Arabia, where 17 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from. Al Qaeda are Sunnis. King Abdullah just called our presence in Iraq an “illegal foreign occupation.”

On the other side there’s the poor Shiites—supported by Iran, who president Bush says we might have to go to war with. They have just captured 15 British soldiers.

Whose side you gonna take? The Sunnis blowing up car bombs in Shiite neighborhoods or the Shiites going through Sunni neighborhoods executing entire families? Who’s team are you on?

No Chad, it’s no joke. Saddam and al Qaeda were not working together.

agree to disagree. With training camps, weapons cache’s, and mass graves everywhere…. I can see how it could have been mistaken for Never Land Ranch.

Chad, I said WE have a far larger problem in Iraq.

Oh, forgive me. But I wasn’t thinking about myself (ourselves), because I think that the Iraqi’s do have it better, but they sure as hell don’t have it as good as we do.

about half the Iraqi people think things were better under Saddam

what?!? no source link!!!? what is happening to you guav. you must have had more work than usual, today.

The only people getting killed are jihadis?

Okay, that was broad… but lets not get overboard with it. you also cannot bring up soldiers who volunteered for the job. there is always collateral damage in war, im sure you know that. When you go to chemotherapy to kill the cancer, it kills you a little bit too. But its a necessary evil.

And our occupation is generating terrorists in other ways

i didn’t quite read all that, but i skimmed it to understand your point.

so a bunch of kids are excited to go killing in a war that isn’t theirs. then i’m glad they came so we can kill them. we don’t need their kind anyhow. it’s as if iraq is the place for bad guys to go, so we can kill them.

but your point is taken, and it still doesn’t matter to me.

You know I’m Straight Edge.

yea, i know. that was just some humor to end on. i was reaching…

Do you believe there is a civil war in Iraq?

its more than a civil war. its a religious war. the only way to stop it is to help one side win. so lets pick sides!

No Chad, it’s no joke. Saddam and al Qaeda were not working together. Are you gonna tell me Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague next? No matter what sympathies Saddam may have had for various ragamuffin terrorist groups here and there, Iraq was not a “terrorist hotbed”—it was absolutely nothing even remotely close to what it is now.

We have a far larger problem in Iraq than existed before 2003.

before in saddams iraq, i recall an abu garib where “real” attrocities were committed … i recall mass graves, i recall senseless killings and nerve gas on kuwaitians.

Chad, I said WE have a far larger problem in Iraq. Last time I checked, neither you nor I was Iraqi, so when I say “we” have a problem, I am not talking about Mohammed, I am talking about this country.

Every single last intelligence agency has said that our invasion of Iraq has not decreased terrorism but increased it. Al Qaeda was not operation in Iraq under Saddam—now al Qaeda is in Iraq. Worldwide terrorist attacks since 2003 have increased 600%. The National Intelligence Estimate found that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since 9/11—the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse. This is the war bin Laden wanted.

Were things bad for the Iraqis before 2003? Yeah, they sucked. That being said, about half the Iraqi people think things were better under Saddam—not because they were good, just that they were not as bad—Iraqis are sure dying at a faster rate now than they were under Saddam. Most Iraqis were never touched by Saddam’s depredations. Nobody is immune the violence there now.

at least right now the only clowns getting killed are the jihadist islam0-fascists who preach death to all non-muslims and apply it to their daily life. killing them is good, just in case you weren’t sure

The only people getting killed are jihadis? So the hundreds of civilians getting blown up by car bombs are jihadis? The dozens of bodies turning up in ditches every day after being tortured to death are jihadis? The American and British soldiers getting blown up every day are jihadis? The 30,000 crippled and brain-damaged veterans returning home are jihadis? If it was only jihadis getting hurt and killed I wouldn’t be arguing with you—nobody would.

do you really think that i think that for every one jihadi taken down, a supernatural calculating machine produces another jihadi? true, that occasionally a dead brother will inspire one to join his cause. but im pretty sure we’re puttin em down faster than they can come up.

No, I don’t think every jihadi death produces another jihadi. But I think every civilian death produces more than one person willing to fight us. Imagine your beautiful family was killed, Chad. What would you do? Nothing? No, you’d fight the people who did it to the death—theirs or yours. You think Iraqis are any different? And our occupation is generating terrorists in other ways—it’s a recruitment drive for al Qaeda.

im sure that during the 40’s, folks just like you were saying “It is simply never going to happen.”

And they’d have been right, it wouldn’t have happened—if not for Little Boy and Fat Man.

just think about it guav. sit back, take a hit on that bong, and get all enlightened.

You know I’m Straight Edge.

Iraq never attacked us a first time.

please point out where i said “iraq was planning its next attack”. don’t make me waste my time typing out a additional blockquote. thanks.

Iraq was not a terrorist hotbed

wait… we’re having a serious conversation, right? was there a joke here that i missed??

We have a far larger problem in Iraq than existed before 2003.

weren’t you just saying something about “thats all nonesense”? and what do you call that? before in saddams iraq, i recall an abu garib where “real” attrocities were committed. not undies on the head or serious nuclear weggies, mind you. real, bonified, genuine attrocities. i recall mass graves, i recall senseless killings and nerve gas on kuwaitians. at least right now, the only clowns getting killed are the jihadist islam0-fascists who preach death to all non-muslims and apply it to their daily life. killing them is good, just in case you weren’t sure

you know… i feel rediculous for having to say all this. i mean, it constitutes common sense and common knowledge. i dont understand you guys. yer all so weird.

According to your admitted “kill one, one appears,” that’s mathematically impossible.

come on, guav. if you ignore everything else we’re talking about here, and answer this one question… i will be satisfied. do you really think that i think that for every one jihadi taken down, a supernatural calculating machine produces another jihadi?

true, that occasionally a dead brother will inspire one to join his cause. but im pretty sure we’re puttin em down faster than they can come up. thats why they had to import them from iran and saudi arabia!

please answer that one. im very curious as to how your peculiar mind works, and what realm you live in. are there elves and leperchauns there? (you dont have to answer that one if you dont want to)

But I can see your comparison of the culture in japan as compared to the culture of iraq. its an interesting opinion. but its just that. and im sure that during the 40’s, folks just like you were saying “It is simply never going to happen.”

just think about it guav. sit back, take a hit on that bong, and get all enlightened.

We’ve taken out alot of trash from over there… trash that if left alone would be scheming which American city to attack next.

Next? Iraq never attacked us a first time.

We put a huge damper on their plans being over there…

“Their” being alQaeda, the people who actually attacked us on 9/11? Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, and Iraq was not a terrorist hotbed.

…and that is something you cannot deny.

I can absolutely deny it, because it’s a complete and total invention that has no bearing on reality whatsoever. You’re basically saying things that the pro-war was saying in 2003, things that we now know to be patently false. But you’re still saying this stuff as if we don’t know that we were wrong. Chad, it’s all nonsense.

However, it is undeniable and proven that Iraq is now a terrorist hotbed, and now al Qaeda is active in Iraq. This is a situation that we created with our invasion and occupation—by “going there.” It did not exist until our invasion. We have a far larger problem in Iraq than existed before 2003.

BUT, eventually… all of the evil iraqi’s that lean toward the jihad will eventually be snuffed out…

According to your admitted “kill one, one appears,” that’s mathematically impossible.

…till they are nothing but a small underground movement that have to live in the dark and in fear.

Unfortunately, that contention is completely refuted by history. Guerrillas have rarely been strong enough to defeat a professional army in a head-on battle, but they conduct surprise raids at a time and place of their choosing and flee before the army can bring its superior firepower to bear. The army—in this case, us—then carries out a heavy-handed response which alienates the non-combatant populace and leans their support towards the guerillas.

That’s why the Brits no longer rule in Palestine; the French in Indo-China, Algeria or Madagascar; the Portuguese in Angola; the whites in Rhodesia—not to mention the examples of the US in Vietnam and the Commies in Afghanistan. Chechnya is still fighting Russia, the FARC is still fighting in Columbia, and I guess you may not have noticed, but Israel has been doing what you’re talking about for 50 years, and the Palestinian terrorists are no closer to being “snuffed out” than they were half a century ago.

In fact, I don’t know if there’s a single example in the 20th century that you can point to that supports your prediction.

in WWII, the japs were training their wimmin and children to sword fight, so when the evil Americans invaded by land to rape pillage and plunder, they would all die fighting.

And if the Emperor—who was literally God to them—had given the order for the women and children to fight with chopsticks until every single last Jap was dead, that is exactly what would have happened. But the Japanese were, and still are,totally obedient to authority and bound by strict rules of honor. Hirohito gave a radio address to the nation, the “Imperial Rescript on Surrender” and that was that. Game over.

There is absolutely no comparison with WWII Japan whatsoever. Japanese culture is not Arab culture. If you think there’s gonna be a replay of WWII in Iraq, donn’t hold your breath Chad. It is simply never going to happen.

true, we’re not exactly winning hearts and minds.

true, W went in with a weak understanding of their resolve, and the inability of the iraqi people to “get r done” for themselves.

true, when we kill one jihadi, another one joins up

BUT, eventually… all of the evil, yes i said the word evil, iraqi’s that lean toward the jihad will eventually be snuffed out, till they are nothing but a small underground movement that have to live in the dark and in fear.

this will take time. this type of work doesn’t happen over night. in WWII, the japs were training their wimmin and children to sword fight, so when the evil Americans invaded by land to rape pillage and plunder, they would all die fighting. this is just a false mindset that faded with the time of our bases being all over their country. now they’re our new friends… and they like to appease us by making video games, and anime, and 2 fast 2 furious cars, and other things of that nature.

eventually, iraq will be our new friends, and they will appease us by giving high volumes of oil at discount prices, sending us a new wave of immigrants to open up a 7/11 in a town near you, and occasional videos of iraqi men making sweet love to Equus asinus

And they’re not going give a crap if we “mean business” or not. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but Arabs are not particularly scared of dying. If we have made any mistakes in Iraq, the most grave is this one: We went there.

I can see where yer comin from there Guavo. I completely understand your “macho-istic” attitude and I respect it. Smash away, Guav! Smash away!

****This comment has been deemed not-so-serious and thus should be taken as such. I just ran out of time and had to leave and could not post a big long (short to medium really) debate on my disagreements. Maybe later.

“And I woulda gotten away with it too! If it wasn’t for that rotten kid Guav!”

from my experience, I have seen some males show more emotion than some females.

Well of course there are exceptions to every rule—some males show more emotion than some females, and of course some females are far more rational than some males—but I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to note that GENERALLY SPEAKING, women tend to be more emotional, and men tend to be more rational. We view, process and interpret information with entirely different parts of the brain.

I didn’t think her reporting itself was terrible, I just felt that the emotion she imparted to it was unprofessional—so did she—and that I’m willing to wager that if she was a man, she wouldn’t have lost control like that.

Anyway…I guess me n Guav disagree now in that I disagree that fer femininity played a part in her terrible “reporting”.