• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

House OKs plan to withdraw US troops

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Nixon
Yes, because every time two people with opposing political viewpoints meet a budding new relationship is struck up.

Me>> Like the US and the USSR during WW2?

Richard Nixon said:
You can't apply those circumstances to the ones currently in motion.
Click to expand...

You most certainly can. Throughout history less than friendly countries have worked together against common enemies.

It is inane to think otherwise.
 
Is the world currently at war? Is some dictatorial power invading all countries around it at the moment? Is a fascist leader eliminating millions of minorities to feed his own racial prejudices?

No, I didn't think so. Different circumstances, different people, different time.

Also, why would Hussein and Al-Qaeda join up then? America wasn't invading Iraq before 9/11 and multiple reports have surfaced that state Saddam didn't trust terror groups like Al-Qaeda, and, as I stated earlier, documents retrieved from Afghanistan state that Al-Qaeda leaders warned against working with Saddam. At that time they had nothing to gain from working with each other.

Yep it's just a coincidence that OBL met directly with the ISI and Zawahiri met directly with Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...

How many times must we go through this? WE-KNOW-THEY-MET! What we also know, however, from all the years of intelligence provided by unbiased sources, is that a firm relationship was never established between the two. Al-Qaeda requested weapons and training centers into Iraq but Iraq didn't get back to them or, as I think is most likely, they simply didn't trust Al-Qaeda.
 
Richard Nixon said:
How many times must we go through this? WE-KNOW-THEY-MET! What we also know, however, from all the years of intelligence provided by unbiased sources, is that a firm relationship was never established between the two. Al-Qaeda requested weapons and training centers into Iraq but Iraq didn't get back to them or, as I think is most likely, they simply didn't trust Al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...

That's a load of crap the evidence points to the opposite conclusion but those opposed to the war choose to ignore that evidence.
 
From what? DocEx? DocEx is not a reliable means of proving anything.
 
Richard Nixon said:
From what? DocEx? DocEx is not a reliable means of proving anything.
Click to expand...

More reliable than the political witchunt that was the phase 2 intelligence report which quite obviously totally ignored the wealth of information in the captured Iraqi documents. It's like ignoring the Nazi files when trying to investigate the holacaust.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
More reliable than the political witchunt that was the phase 2 intelligence report which quite obviously totally ignored the wealth of information in the captured Iraqi documents. It's like ignoring the Nazi files when trying to investigate the holacaust.
Click to expand...


Prove that it is more reliable. Prove that our agencies are not corrupt.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom