DROPPING THE BOMB

[Guru-In-Vegas]

Normally  I would agree to just drop the big one on our enemy, but as far as Iraq it would be insane to do.It is mostly Al-Queda and terrorist from other middle eastern states blending in with peaceful Iraqis that is causing all the problems.
As far as Iraq not being involved in 911 it depends on who you believe, as there are reports Saddam Hussein was connected, mined you the liberal media disagrees.
Heck theres even reports Iraq was involved with Tim McVeigh, I am just telling there are reports out there no matter if you believe it or not.

I agree with you.  It is ultimately who or what you want to believe.  The truth or the lies.  Reality or propaganda.

[Phishfan]

Heck theres even reports Iraq was involved with Tim McVeigh, I am just telling there are reports out there no matter if you believe it or not.

I wouldn't believe them since Mcvey was basically a white supremest. Involving Iraq would go agaisnt his nature. Blaming Iraq on everything is propoganda at its finest.

[simeon]

Several eye witnesses saw McVeigh with Middle eastern men and saw them run from the scene. But here is a news article I found.

A few top Defense officials believe Timothy McVeigh, executed for his role in the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, was an Iraqi agent, reports U.S. News in the Oct. 29 issue.

The stunning news item is buried in the "Washington Whispers" column of the magazine under the byline of Paul Bedard.

"Some dismiss it as being akin to Elvis sightings, but a few top Defense officials think Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh was an Iraqi agent," Bedard writes. "The theory stems from a never-before-reported allegation that McVeigh had allegedly collected Iraqi telephone numbers. Why haven't we heard this before about the case of the executed McVeigh? Conspiracy theorists in the Pentagon think it's part of a cover-up."

Those unnamed Defense Department officials are not alone.

Last week, House impeachment counsel David Schippers told WorldNetDaily Radio host Geoff Metcalf's audience that he is convinced of a Mideast connection in the bombing. Schippers represents Jayna Davis, the former Oklahoma City television reporter who attempted to follow up the Mideast connection story until her bosses told her to let it go.

"I am thoroughly convinced that there was a dead-bang Middle Eastern connection in the Oklahoma City bombing," said Schippers. "I think bin Laden was behind it. I think that there were Middle Eastern people on the scene running away."

There would not necessarily be a contradiction between an Iraqi connection and a bin Laden connection. According to terror expert Yossef Bodansky, author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America," bin Laden worked closely with Iraq for years.

See related stories:

Oklahoma City blast linked to bin Laden

Bin Laden link remains elusive

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I wouldn't believe them since Mcvey was basically a white supremest. Involving Iraq would go agaisnt his nature. Blaming Iraq on everything is propoganda at its finest.

It is just propaganda.  But the Iraqi-Bin Ladin connection is just as much so.  Bin Ladin hates the secularist just as much as the West.  Yes, Alqadi is NOW in Iraqi, but they don't want a secular Sadam-type gov't back they want a religious based on like Afganstan under the Talban. 

[simeon]

All right everyone, google this name.
 Hussain al-Hussaini

[run_to_win]

That's one of the historical things that I have trouble with.  Sure, it ended a war, but bombing civilians just seems really, really fucked up.  Isn't that kinda considered a crime against humanity?

You're judging 1945 actions with 2008 morality.  It doesn't work.

[run_to_win]

And dropping the bomb on a remote military base wouldn't have accomplished the same thing? Was it really necessary to bomb both Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?

Dropping the bomb off-shore as a show of force was debated.

It would have indicated that we don't have the fortitude to drop the bomb on a city ... so dropping the bomb on a city would have been necessary anyways.

Had the Japanese military not prevented the Emperor from surrendering after Hiroshima then Nagasaki would not have been necessary.

[run_to_win]

Yes.  Exactly.

What point are you trying to make?

That's easy!

You're comparing 1945 with 2001.  Societies evolve ... well, some do anyways.  What we wouldn't consider in 2001 our enemies had no problem with.

[run_to_win]

The Japanese would have surrender by the end of August without the bombing of Nagasaki.

Based on what? 

As for the comparison of 9/11 and Hiroshima many would agree, both were the killing of innocents. 

That's really simplifying it.

Hiroshima was the attacked country ending a war.  9/11 was the start of a war.  In this respect it would be more applicable to compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor. 

Another difference is that one was 63 years ago and the other was 7 years ago.  What is and is not acceptable in war has changed.

[Guru-In-Vegas]

^ Wasn't it your boy who kept comparing the "war" on terror to WWII?

And I'm not sure but Dave isn't the one who brought up 9/11 as a comparison  to the A-bombs. 

Edited to take away the infallible run-to-win's only countering argument. 

[run_to_win]

It is ultimately who or what you want to believe.  The truth or the lies.  Reality or propaganda.

It seems you've closed your mind to anything that doesn't fit your agenda.  The rest of us can't be 100% sure which is truth and which is propaganda.  

What does "operational cooperation" mean and to what extent did it go?  Was there a "third terrorist"?  (link)  Since it's impossible to prove a negative ...

[Guru-In-Vegas]

You're judging 1945 actions with 2008 morality.  It doesn't work.

So Jesus getting crucified was fine since it happened way back then?  

[run_to_win]

^ Isn't it your boy

Just sad...

[Guru-In-Vegas]

It seems you've closed your mind to anything that doesn't fit your agenda.  The rest of us can't be 100% sure which is truth and which is propaganda.  

What does "operational cooperation" mean and to what extent did it go?  Was there a "third terrorist"?  (link)  Since it's impossible to prove a negative ...

Riiiiiight...this coming from the guy whose "favorite" president is Bush.  

[simeon]

So Jesus getting crucified was fine since it happened way back then?  

You are judging what was prophesied and needed to be done.
Jesus said no man including the Romans had power over His life.