Iraqis protest American presence

[SurlyPIG]

Read through the article, and it doesn't mean anything. It mentions that the both of them had contact with eachother, but not that Sadam actually provided aid of any kind to Al Quada. The title, " The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden" is obviously an exaggeration.

Also, I'm sure a lot of people would like to see the evidence the US claimed to have before the war.

LOL, so what do you think happened then? Did Osama bin Laden meet with Iraqi officials for a cup of tea? Some small talk or chit chat? To discuss philosophy, place bets on the World Cup? What other possible explanation could there be for bin Laden and his cronies meeting with people from Saddam's government?

[Anathema]

Dude, it's still an assumption. It was 5 years ago, and there's no reason to assume there has been any contact between the two of them ever since.

And pay more attention to detail. Bin Laden himself hasn't been in contact directly with Hussein.

You know, if the US had showed the evidence they claimed to have before the war I wouldn't have been against it. They didn't show it because of "source protection", but even now, after the war, they don't show us anything. Wonder why... ::)

[Miles]

Dude, it's still an assumption. It was 5 years ago, and there's no reason to assume there has been any contact between the two of them ever since.

So what? evidence now shows that five years ago there was indeed some kind of collaboration between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein. It also shows that terrorist sites existed in Iraq. I think these put together make a pretty damn strong case.

And pay more attention to detail. Bin Laden himself hasn't been in contact directly with Hussein.

What's your point? Of course leaders, especially ones as paranoid as Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, surely would have contacted each other through diplomats or back-channel communications.

You know, if the US had showed the evidence they claimed to have before the war I wouldn't have been against it. They didn't show it because of "source protection", but even now, after the war, they don't show us anything. Wonder why... ::)

Who knows? perhaps the intelligence they gained from those sources inside Iraq came under the agreement of anonimity. Or maybe some of the methods such as intercepting telephone communications or the details of special forces operations are sensitive to what we may wish to employ elsewhere.

My guess would be that they had enough information to make a strong circumstantial case, but not to prove it absolutely, and that coupled with the knowledge of the oppression, murder and torture, as well as his defiance of both the UN and the US, along with the fact that he committed genocide in his own country with chemical weapons, and the hope that by installing a democratic government and improving Iraqi's lives, may cause some sort of dominoe effect in the middle east, all put together made our case for war. You focus too much on each and every piece of the puzzle, when the big picture shows us a clear pattern.

[Miles]

I would also like to point out that I find it funny that Gobalopper keeps posting these excellent articles, including the one about bad reporting, and you all just let it fade away. Many of you want to claim that American reporting is biased, I think that article shows that you are right, American and other western media is biased. They seem to side with the America bashers. Yet, you take them at their word, then criticise us when we accept information that tells us of the good things happening. This seems hypocritical to me.

[DukeLeto]

Welfare would be one example.

And the Republicans fight it to this day...well, at least welfare for the poor.

[TMA_1]

america is indeed ethnocentric we focus on ourselves more than the focus of other peoples or nations.

Thats the whope point of nationalism! America has always been strongly nationalistic. I mean the revoluionary war was fought to give the peoples living in america independance and national freedom.

Since when do we need to pander to all the other nations in the world? We look out for number one. that doesnt only include us, it includes our allies as well. All the other nations are not as important as the one we are living in. Frankly, I would hope that I am looked on as more important to my nation as a person who isnt a citizen.

This world isnt a perfect paradise, that is why it can be ruthless at times. you cant fool yourself into thinking that it can be changed. We went into iraq for our own interests. I did not agree with the war, but there is obvious logic behind it.

Edric, you say that we need to let the iraqi people decide their own fates because it is their nation. Why cant we americans do as we will for our own interests? it seems that you are a class discriminator. Instead of making all things fair, you destroy the better off in a zealous fashion. C.S. Lewis talked about it in the screwtape letters. People would eventually try to destroy the upper classes in order to panderto those who are lower. This is good up to a point. There are many who are in the lower classes though because they are their by their own faults.

YOu cant call me an elitist. I have grown up living with a sister who is disabled, we had to work so hard for her because of the problems she had. Thank the lord that we were given all we had for my sis, she deserves every bit of government spending and more. We had to survive on welfare and foodstamps, as well as going to food drives to get food. These programs are wonderful and should never be taken away.

that still doesnt take away from the reality that some people in the lower classes are their because of their own faults.

[DukeLeto]

america is indeed ethnocentric we focus on ourselves more than the focus of other peoples or nations.

Thats the whope point of nationalism! America has always been strongly nationalistic. I mean the revoluionary war was fought to give the peoples living in america independance and national freedom.

You may call it "nationalism" or "patriotism", I call it what it is: jingoism.

YOu cant call me an elitist. I have grown up living with a sister who is disabled, we had to work so hard for her because of the problems she had. Thank the lord that we were given all we had for my sis, she deserves every bit of government spending and more. We had to survive on welfare and foodstamps, as well as going to food drives to get food. These programs are wonderful and should never be taken away.

You miss the point: these type of programs would be intensified under Scoialism, not cut out. As a matter of fact, Bush's tax cuts are coming out of, you guessed it: welfare, public education, and veteran's benefits.

It seems, with time, you could see the light.

Power to the People!

[Egeides]

TMA, there is a time where America was reknowned for its acceptance of other cultures (French included) and was also reknowned by intellectuals as a place where knowing other cultures, many languages, trying to understand exterior ideas and so on was HIGHLY RESPECTED. More than in other monarchic countries.

What's that?... Certainly isn't exactly the same now as it was.

[TMA_1]

you are talking of the times during the 20th century. That of course was seeded by ideas of internationalism and such. Still though no matter what, you arent answering the question. American people are number one priority. People of other nations come second. That is just logical

You would always save your family first and then other people next. that goes along with nationalism. I never stated that I was a patriot or that I agree with my country. I am just stating the reality and am not resorting to silly idealism. Americans come first. That is why we so freaked out about the terrorist attacks in america. When an american is killed by forign powers, it is heard about. We protect our own. That is exactly how it should be. Why should I sacrifice american brothers and sisters over people of another nation? of course we are all equal and all deserve rights, but its a matter of who is closer. Its just the nature of the beast. I hear many of you who are against america talk of inclusion of other nations and to fight for all populations of the world. That we somehow are to break national boundaries. Why then at the same time do you tell americans to leave iraqi lands? You openly state that we should let them control themselves because it is their nation! why the hypocracy?

[Egeides]

In the same way, I come first. Therefore in a society I should be allowed to attack someone which I believe thretens me and no one has a word to say about this :D

Hey!!! One's actions has some effects on others too! Espescially the people that are attacked. Like when USA supports certain regimes.

[Edric O]

TMA, there's a difference between just putting your own people first and actually invading other nations to secure your own interests. The latter was Hitler's kind of "patriotism", and it seems to be the one advocated by Bush as well.

If you want to care only for your own family, fine. But that doesn't mean you can go around killing other people's families.