Originally Posted by AlexKall

I should also have said that they could not connect, give proof, that there ware any connections between SH and Al Queda. I'm sorry about that error.

I am still waiting for you to give prove that there isn't.

Originally Posted by RnderSafe

I am still waiting for you to give prove that there isn't.

superright, Rndersafe. The point is: it was Saddam who had to prove he had no such connections and he had no such weapons. Countries such as Ukraine, Kazakhstan or South Africa opened their gates to the UN inspectors and agreed on dismantling their arsenals on the basis of agreed-upon measures of standardized practice. Washington never threathened an attack on Kiev, then.
Why didn't Saddam just prove it?

Playing cats and mice sometimes end up with you being the mouse. And trapped in a hole.

Originally Posted by AlexKall

Thats quite anti europe there. You have to remember that operations like Overlord would probebly not have been forseable without the support of the french and british forces. To say that USA bailed europe out is not quite right, we might not have done it without the US but the US would not have been able to do it by them self either.

We should all be glad that we all togather put an end to the tyranic empire of hitler.

Yes, our great alliance between the Soviet Union, Britain, and the United States, never mind the fact that we made the British hand over several bases in return for 50 basically obsolete destroyers, that the Soviet Union was making a seperate peace with Germany, which had the assassination attempt on Hitler Succeeded would have been signed by the new Fuhrer and all of the sudden one million more Germans were attacking the American and British soldiers in France. Roosevelt was very angry with Stalin at his attempts to back out of the war. Of the three countries though, Britain had the most to lose, had the entire might of Germany been brought to bear right on them they would have eventually crumbled, and we in the United States had the least to lose since Hitler would still be 3,000 miles away and we had the best Naval fleet in the world. Hitler was a fool for declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt wouldn't dare declare war on Germany because we wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor and it would have been suicide, politically anyways, to go to war with Germany first. And the Soviet Union had the most powerful land army at the time, over 10 million men and plenty of good, reliable tanks to back them up, nothing like the death traps we had, the Sherman was one of the worst designs ever made, it should have been obsolete by WWII and on the way out, not being ushered in as the future.

To Damienall russians please dont mind)

I can freely say that staljin was a mad and mentaly unstable man,to which from some reason they gave power,anyway cuz Tito didnt wanted to br loyal to the east (to jouin the warsaw packt)staljin deployed an bunch of angry russian guys on every border of yugoslavia to east,
there were constan conflicts.Any way.........cuz USA saved our ass in WWII,"we" are greatfull,but as 1217 previously said we didnt took it foe granted we gave a lot back for that.And about France,they still have a right to disagree with something if the fell that they need to,you are acting like the Europe is "obligated" to serve to USA,where is democrasy there,power of free will......................................

There are a lot of things that is true for a lot of countries in Europe that I think is backwards. Foremost, the banning of firearms, and the drive for absolute equality. I got to thinking this when I was reading the discussion about the Swedish national anthem. I think its absolutely backwards how a country won't sing its own national anthem, for any reason.

That's my two cents.

Originally Posted by FutureRANGER

Foremost, the banning of firearms

I don't see your point? Do you think that it's wrong that I can only buy a firearm if I have been an active member of a shooting club for at least a year? I think that's a good law.

Originally Posted by RnderSafe

I am still waiting for you to give prove that there isn't.

Why?

Originally Posted by AlexKall

Why?

It was you that made the statement there was no connection. The burden of proof is on you, not me. I merely questioned your logic. "They hated each other, so that is proof there is no connection." That is weak. Keep up, Alex.

Originally Posted by RnderSafe

It was you that made the statement there was no connection. The burden of proof is on you, not me. I merely questioned your logic. "They hated each other, so that is proof there is no connection." That is weak. Keep up, Alex.

"They hated each other, so that is proof there is no connection."

That is defenetly not my logic
I said that they could not supply any evidance to support the thought of a cooperation between SH and Al Queda

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security.../0202ordam.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...3911report.htm

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3540586/

THE $&?@@# BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON SADDAM NOT ON BUSH !