Forums Register login What's New?
Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11
Page 14 of 18

  1. Some evidence at all would be nice, especially when making wild ass claims. Two officials speaking about a probable reaction to an event isn't evidence of some uber conspiracy. They could have been speaking out of line, or may have been dumb.
  2. I've already answered this. They said that the US has no position on their border dispute (go read the quote) with Kuwait, meaning a contested oil field on the border. We really didn't care about how they split the royalties. But we in no fashion told them they had a green light to invade Kuwait. We had already reflagged Kuwaiti tankers to protect them during the Iran/Iraq war. Only fools and lunatic dictators thought that the US would stand idly by while Iraq occupied Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. :insane:

    What nonsense. The US has had far more than a toehold in the middle east for many decades. We have a NATO ally in Turkey and air bases there, once including nuclear missiles. We have a fleet in the Mediterranean and another fleet in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. We have bomber bases on Diego Garcia. We have logistics bases in Turkey, Khazkhstan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. We have naval bases in Bahrain and Oman. We have a unilateral ally in Israel with whom we hold no exercises and has not fought with us. We have unilateral allies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia who we hold exercises with and who have fought alongside us.

    We supply military weaponry to Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Oman, the UAE, Bahrain, Pakistan, and Jordan. We have prepositioned military supplies at six sites in the region including entire mothballed air bases in Saudi Arabia. We have shot down Iranian airliners, supported coups (Iran), fomented revolutions (Iran, Georgia), propped up friendly strongmen (Sadat, King Faisal, The Shah, King Hussein), bashed unfriendly strongmen (Qadaffi), intervened in wars (Yom Kippur, the "tanker" war) and has supported Israel for 40 years of merry Palestinian-bashing.

    The US has been a big swinging dick in the middle east for a long time now.

    It's not just the quantity of evidence, which is scant, but the quality of evidence, which is deficient.
  3. i cant believe a truther submitted questions with a false premise.

    how long have you hated america?

    do you feel guilty about being a child molester?

    when did you start being a racist?

    how did the towers collapse when steel never melts?

    what? cant answer the questions on my terms? ...wait, dont attack me, i just asking questions man! nobody can answer my questions?
  4. I will come back to the first Gulf War but I have to ask if the second Gulf War was supposed to be based on WMD and Iraq had no WMD doesn't that mean that Gulf War II was based on a false premise? Do you suggest that Gulf War II was legitimate?

    If Gulf War II was based on propaganda then why is it so difficult to believe the same is the case for Gulf War I?

    Would you at least concede that the US resorted to propaganda to build public support for Gulf War II? Isn't is clear that the US is resorting to the same propaganda in its current stance regarding Iran and WMDs?
  5. This would not be funny if not for the post immediately above it.
  6. I don't know what it is you guys expect to be able to post here to satisfy your requirements for evidence. I already posted two US officials stating days before the attack that the US would not defend Kuwait.

    Do you have any other official statements from the US contradicting their statements? Before the Iraqi invasion? I would very much like to see them. If so, please post them.

    The US government made misleading statements right before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. To act like the Iraqis were not aware of the US statements is absurd. The US government made misleading statements and provided a false pretext for the invasion of Iraq in the second Gulf War also. (WMDs)

    In both case the modus operandi is the same......to provide a public cover for the real cause behind the military operations in Iraq. The real purpose was to secure the energy resources located in the Persian Gulf and provide an opportunity to expand the US military presence in the Gulf. All part of the wider plan to protect American global hegemony.

    Also:
    Part 40: A one-way bombardment called Gulf War

    It is ridiculous behavior to request evidence, then dismiss it while providing none of your own to contradict it. So please post the statements that contradict either the Asst. Sec. of State's testimony before Congress or the US Ambassodor to Iraq.
  7. "Border dispute"? Where do you find that in these quotes?

    The Last Ditch -- GULF WAR 1991: PREFIGURATION AND PRELUDE TO THE 2003 IRAQ DEBACLE by Stephen J. Sniegoski -- Part One

    Please provide the clarification from the State Department or White House on the US position regarding Kuwait/Iraq's dispute. Certainly the Bush White House would be on top of such "rogue agents" running around spreading wild and irresponsible rumours.....so please provide the evidence that contradicts these statements from three seperate US government officials.

    To answer your other points more directly the US lost Iran and the Shah some time ago, for one. Turkey refused to let the US military attack Iraq from Turkish soil, if I'm not mistaken. Saudi Arabia has been a very reluctant ally which is one reason our military bases there are not in use.

    The occupation of Iraq allowed the US military to establish a footprint in the Middle East that is of much greater magnitude than what we had directly following the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq war. To suggest otherwise is simply being disingenuous.
  8. No, I do not.

    The evidence for NO WMD's was overwhelming before the Iraq War and proved conclusively after the war. The President of the United States lied to us. That is big.

    There is nothing like this in the Kuwait war. No Presidential lies, no missing WMD. No evidence at all. None.

    It is called the Iraq War and Yes. You resort to a logical fallacy once more when you say that since A=B then obviously X=B. It doesn't add up.

    No it isn't. There is evidence that Iran is building up a nuclear weapons program and Iran has indicated that it is their right to do so. We have had no weapons inspectors working inside Iran for 10 years merrily destroying all of the WMD's as we did in Iraq. We have no experts telling us that the WMD's are bogus like we did in Iraq.
  9. I don't have to provide evidence to contradict these statements. Not one of them constitutes the US green-lighting a Kuwaiti invasion. NOT ONE OF THEM. Your imagination runs wild.

    Tutweiller just stated a fact--we did not have a defense treaty with Kuwait. So what, we had been defending their tankers for years, it was obvious that we would defend Kuwait . . . to everyone but you and Saddam Hussein.

    Kelley simply corroborated this. Neither person lied. We did not have a treaty. But we do not need a treaty to defend an ally. Kelley clearly stated that he could not get into "what if" questions, he could just state the facts. Eveybody realizes this. Nobody said that "the US will stand idly by while Iraq invades Kuwait." Nobody.

    Nonsense. The bases in Saudi Arabia are there for us to use when deployed. The bases in Turkey likewise. The notion that we have to use subterfuge to "establish a toehold" in the middle east is bullchit. I offered a ton of evidence proving that we are all over the middle east and have been since WWII.

    You simply ignore all of the evidence I presented. Your ignorance of international geopolitics is profound. martin is right, you are talking like a lunatic.
  10. Absolute bullsh!t. If that's the case, then Congress lied to us as well. The evidence of WMD's was there. If they hadn't fkd around so long giving Saddam time to move them they'd have been found. It is fact that Saddam had WMDs and used them. It was also feared (post 9/11) that he would give them to al qaeda and other radical islamists. Bush's concern was protecting the United States, not trying to explain a cum stain on a dress. Your statement is outrageous and just as idiotic as flabengal's stupid claims.

    The biggest fears of our troop commanders was the use of biological weapons against our soldiers. Were the generals in on the "big lie" as well?

    GDammit Red. Sometimes you are just as bad as the fking Move On people.
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 14 of 18