|
Post by botany on Jun 1, 2004 21:30:48 GMT -5
Perhaps I should requote... Boy, Bush sure would love to have Bryan and no name on his team! What terror has Iraq wrought, except on its own people? Did Iraq actually "terrorize" the U.S.? I believe that was Bin Lauden's group, not Saddam's. To say that the U.S. went to war with Iraq for violating the Gulf War Version 1 weapons inspection treaties is valid. BUT, to say that Iraq was a terrorist threat? That's embarrassing. Is the U.S. going to go after every country that's a terrorist threat? If so, why not North Korea (who has pretty much thumbed their noses at us as farted in our general direction, saying "we got nukes... pointed at YOU, you dumb Americans! tthhhppppttt!!" ). Sure, the Iraqi people may very well be happy that Saddam Hussein is gone, and there is no doubt that Saddam was treating the Iraqi people poorly. But, what was the real reason why the U.S. went to war? Is the U.S. willing to admit some mistakes ("WMD" lmao ;D)? I hope I'm living in another 50 years when the files start to come out to the public. Or, maybe paper shredders will claim the files first? andy
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jun 1, 2004 23:42:00 GMT -5
. . . . What terror has Iraq wrought, except on its own people? . . . . Aside from the obvious point that terror against his own people of such magnitude was not acceptable behavior, it is perhaps not well known outside of Colombia, but Saddam supported the rebellion of the FARC and encouraged and aided them in selling their drugs to the United States. He did this in an attempt to deteriorate our society. There are certainly our own internal causes for this problem that we can blame, but Saddam was in all respects an enemy of our nation and would have done anything in his power to destroy us. inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 2, 2004 0:45:38 GMT -5
Aside from the obvious point that terror against his own people of such magnitude was not acceptable behavior, it is perhaps not well known outside of Colombia, but Saddam supported the rebellion of the FARC and encouraged and aided them in selling their drugs to the United States. Whatever his behavior, it did not justofy an invasion. Remember, he was a threat to the United States. Just what threat seems a little unclear. This is BS. He did it to get the money. In poor countries that cannot sell their other resources (Afghanistan has huge natural gas supplies but cannnot get the industry up and running) resort to selling drugs. Oh come on. He worked with the CIA right up until August 1990. Besides if he had all of the weapons that were claimed with the delivery systems why didn't he join with the people of 9/11? Perhaps because he was not really connected to the terrorists after all.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 2, 2004 0:53:01 GMT -5
I believe Bryan already referenced that when he said: "the war... as in the war on terror.... not the battle in Iraq.
Iraq is just another part of the war on terror…"I keep seeing that but unless I am mistaken, and that is very possible, the only war that the US is currently engaged in is with Iraq. You can certainly say we are at war with the terrorists but in that case perhaps using "war" instead would be helpful so we would know that you are using a special meaning of the word.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jun 2, 2004 1:05:53 GMT -5
I keep seeing that but unless I am mistaken, and that is very possible, the only war that the US is currently engaged in is with Iraq. . . . . We are not fighting "with" or "against" Iraq, we are fighting "for" Iraq and against those who seek to control it for their own benefit (many of them foreigners) against the will of the majority. This is very similar, though greater in magnitude, to the way we are fighting (could be called a war as well) in Colombia to save the country from the rebel groups there. The two countries are closely related by the support that Saddam gave to keep the FARC active for many years, only now they have to find other resources, so they are getting desperate. inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 2, 2004 2:09:30 GMT -5
We are not fighting "with" or "against" Iraq, we are fighting "for" Iraq and against those who seek to control it for their own benefit (many of them foreigners) against the will of the majority. We went to war against the country of Iraq. You can believe that we bombed them to help them. But we declared war and then inveded. Oh, there is a lot of history here as well. Read about the United Fruit company in the early 1900's. When a new leader was elected who wanted to return rights to the people of Colombia he was, not unlike Allende in Chile, killed. Think we might be interested in Colombia because of the new oil production? It is their largest export. The two countries were much closer related by the support they got from the US. Colombia is now the third largest recipient of U.S. military aid.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jun 4, 2004 22:54:28 GMT -5
I’m sure many Iraqis would disagree with this. Seems that nothing would justify an invasion in your eyes (unless a President of your liking is in office, perhaps . . .?).
There were several official reasons as to why the U.S. went to war with Saddam. If you’re honestly unclear (but I doubt it) as to what threat the man and his regime posed to the U.S., then you must have your eyes closed, or refuse to admit what is true.
That too, probably. But he also did derive great joy in seeing the harm that 9/11 did to us. Just as he aided and abetted terrorists who killed innocent Israelis.
Perhaps people still want to remain blind.
And there is actually more and more info coming out that establishes a pretty suspicious connection between Saddam and those involved in plotting 9/11. The man wanted nothing more than to see the U.S. fall, just as the Jihadist terrorists do . . . . birds of a feather.
I would say, yeah, you’re mistaken. As Bryan said, Iraq is another part of the war on terror. If you still can’t realize that – sorry.
How do you mean?
Inatent’s description is accurrate in many respects. Officially, the U.S. did draft a war resolution against “Iraq”, with numerous reasons listed as to why the action would be taken.
But it was always clear that the war was not with the Iraqi people, but rather the regime of Saddam Hussein. And yes, we did go in to help the civilians as well. On the night the first bombs were launched (in an effort to take out Saddam himself), Bush said:
“My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.”
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 7, 2004 1:54:58 GMT -5
I’m sure many Iraqis would disagree with this. Were they ever asked? The US, as well as many other nations, have agreed on the reasons one nation might invade another. I listened to Bush et al explain them over and over. As it turned out the reasons were not true. You continur to repeat them. It has become like a mantra for you. What was the clear and direct threat to the US? Is this one of the reasons we bombed the country? This was a threat to the safety of the US? Yes they do. they support the current administration no matter how many lies they have been told. This is news. Do you have any other information where we all can learn more about this link? Guilt by association - just the sort of justice we should be fighting for. Screw the facts - innuendo is good enough for us! Is there a resolution regarding the war on terror? well, let's just wait for the time when the US is out of Iraq and they are allowed to rule themselves. How many decades do you think this will take? Oh, June 30. Rihgt. We can wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jun 10, 2004 21:43:27 GMT -5
Redundant comments - Dark Ages thread. I repeat them, because the reasons were true, just as Clinton declared when he was in office. I support the administration’s war on terror, including the actions in Iraq. I disagree that Bush has “lied”. Yeah, we’re just going to hell in a handbasket, aren’t we? We’re just soooooo bad and worthless, aren’t we? Good grief The transparent contempt you have for the U.S. is amazing. You’d be right at home in Europe. Not that you will believe it, but: Iraq and al Qaeda There's more evidence of a link than the critics admit. www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004046The connectionwww.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.aspThere was another link, but it’s only available for paid subscribers to the Wall Street Journal Online (of which I am not).
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jun 12, 2004 15:54:38 GMT -5
When you want to prove a connection you need more then just some isolated cases. The author of the first article made that quite clear: "Of course, none of this "proves" any Saddam-9/11 link, as Mr. Bush acknowledges. But neither can we be sure there wasn't one." So we can't be sure there wasn't one, but there's no prove there was one either.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jun 14, 2004 22:44:37 GMT -5
Imo, the 2nd article provides pretty compelling evidence to support a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Did you read it?
At any rate, Iraq and Al-Queda definitely have a "history" together, and this has been known for a long time. What politicians are shying away from is saying there's an "absolute" connection between Saddam and 9/11, but there was an Iraq/Al-Queda connection, and it was mentioned/discussed long before September 11.
Even without concise evidence of a Saddam and 9/11 “connection”, I’d still always perceive Saddam as a threat to the U.S. I’ve always felt he was a threat – ever since the first Gulf War, his assassination attempt on Bush #1, and his connection with Islamic terror groups. Birds of a feather.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 15, 2004 9:43:49 GMT -5
Even without concise evidence of a Saddam and 9/11 “connection”, I’d still always perceive Saddam as a threat to the U.S. I’ve always felt he was a threat – ever since the first Gulf War, his assassination attempt on Bush #1, and his connection with Islamic terror groups. Birds of a feather. I think that if we are going to invade countries we should do it based on facts and not perceptions and and certainly not guilt by association. There is no evidence that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack. Why is this something you choose to cling to even when you admit there are no facts to support it? The administration distorted the facts and made their case. We all bought it at least for a period of time. We were misled. Now we know the score and need to find a leader who will be a little more forthright.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jun 16, 2004 14:05:02 GMT -5
There is no evidence that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack. Why is this something you choose to cling to even when you admit there are no facts to support it? Today, the 9/11 commission made a clear statement about this topic: "There is 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States" I'm getting interested to hear what Cheney has to say about this...
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 16, 2004 14:56:08 GMT -5
Today, the 9/11 commission made a clear statement about this topic: "There is 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States" I'm getting interested to hear what Cheney has to say about this... I will be interested to see what no name has to say about this. From the resolution she posted: (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. First no WMDs to support item one from the same resolution. Nothing found that could be considered a direct threat to the security of the US. Now we find out there was no connection between Iraq and September 11, 2001. So much for item two. The rest of the resolution was concerned with Iraq's stance against the UN sanctions, the rules put in place by the UN at the end of the last conflict. Bush, never a stickler for going with the facts, is repeating his assertion that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had ties to terrorists. I do note that he has now stopped short of saying which terrorists even though the resolution did specifically say the 9/11 attack. Good to see he has an exit strategy from this little bit of deception.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jun 20, 2004 22:11:08 GMT -5
Actually, there was never the official statement made that we went to war with Iraq because they were involved in 9/11. Why is this something you choose to cling to? As far as realizing that such a thing is not beyond the realm of possibility – this is simple common sense. Why is this something you choose to negate the possibility of? The above paragraph is self-explanatory, and does not make the statement that Iraq aided and abetted Al-Queda with 9/11. That statement was never made, though it is not something to dismiss as impossible. If Saddam was willing to do business (buy arms) from a country he called the Great Satan, why people still cling to the notion that it was impossible he would collude with Al-Queda (on 9/11 or for any other reason) is beyond me. Especially since Saddam and Al-Queda had the same hatred for the U.S. and both wanted to see our country fall. And it has come out in the news as well that Russia supplied info to the U.S. about Saddam’s intentions to plan attacks against the U.S. Additionally, the media has greatly misled the public with their headlines of “no Iraq-Al Queda ties”. This was NOT what the report stated, and the panel Co-Chair, Lee Hamilton indicates that there were indeed ties between Iraq and Al-Queda (THIS HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR YEARS, AND WAS EVEN REPORTED ON BY THE SAME NEWSPAPERS THAT TRASH THOSE WHO NOW SPEAK OF THOSE TIES). Hamilton is baffled by the disparity between what’s actually in the report, and how the media is reporting it. And if anyone had watched some of the testimony before the 9/11 commission, there were officials who testified there that again repeated the FACT about links between Iraq and Al-Queda. Another attempt to dismiss what was found. There’s been no such statement made by the administration that there was a connection between Iraq and September 11. No deception, simply the truth. Iraq has a definite history of association with terrorists/terror groups – including Al-Queda. He never said Iraq was associated with 9/11. The realization is held by many that it is strongly within the realm of possibility. And why people continue to insist that it’s beyond the realm of possibility is beyond me. What are the nay-sayers looking for – a convenient paper trail left by Al-Queda? In case anyone didn’t know it, terrorist groups don’t go to a lot of effort to leave evidence of their connections – these aren’t above the board people/groups.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 21, 2004 9:00:36 GMT -5
Actually, there was never the official statement made that we went to war with Iraq because they were involved in 9/11. Why is this something you choose to cling to? Perhaps you didn't read what you posted. From the resolution to use armed force against Iraq: ...necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.This resolution was to go to war against only Iraq. Since it only was to go to Iraq "those nations" mentioned must be Iraq. This was point #2. I am not saying it is not a possibility. It is just not something supported by the facts available. Again, having the same goals does not mean they worked together. Possibility and fact are two different things. Have there been weapons of mass destruction found? No. It is not an attempt to dismiss it it is an attempt to state the facts. You cling to the idea that some old artillery shells are WMD and are a threat to the security of the US. Nope. Again, an assertion expressing a possibility but without any indication that it is an actual fact. Really? I think having some facts to back up assertions are a good thing. Paper trails (or electronic ones) are how facts are established. There were many facts recovered from the PCs found and from the banking records. As citizens we gave up some of our rights to privacy so the intellegency community could gather more facts. The problem is that there are not facts to support thr administrations claims. If the VP has facts why doesn't he bring them forward?
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jun 27, 2004 16:22:59 GMT -5
You cling to the idea that what was found and what he was involved in were still not substantial enough to warrant U.S. action.
Some media outlets already have; for some strange reason, they’re not being widely talked about and focused on by the mainstream “reporters”. Some of those people would rather focus on everything we’ve done “wrong”, how there’s supposedly “no link”, or that we were never in that much danger.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Jun 28, 2004 5:53:38 GMT -5
Hello everybody! In case anyone missed me ( ), I just got back from a month long holiday to Aussie land and Indonesia Havent followed the news in 4 weeks (except for Euro2004 football!! GO HOLLAND! ;D)But on my flight back to Amsterdam I read an interesting article in the USA Today: Wow!
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Jun 28, 2004 6:56:59 GMT -5
If this is true, it means that both Bill Clinton and John Kerry were wrong.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 28, 2004 13:45:17 GMT -5
Why do people assume that Kerry isn't as interested in fighting militant islamic terrorism as Bush is? C'mon people, any half-way decent american (or non-american)wants to combat this problem just as much as Bush does. Kerry will just do it better, by working in tandem with other nations (better), and using a more multi-faceted approach versus Bush's way, the unilateral, heavy-handed, less intelligent way. Just pay attention to the State Department's views to see the division. Then there are all the other benefits to getting rid of Bush, but I feel like I'm wasting my time explaining since y'all have made up your minds. Oh, one more thing. Isn't it interesting how people will vote for Bush based on issues that are mostly relegated to the Supreme Court, e.g. they are mostly out of his hands? I suppose he may appoint some justices, but otherwise, it seems to me he's just manipulating his supporters by galvanizing them to vote based on issues that he won't be able to do a single thing about. Pay attention to the issues that he will have a daily impact on, please!
|
|
Read along out loud
Guest
|
Post by Read along out loud on Jun 28, 2004 14:07:20 GMT -5
If this is true, it means that both Bill Clinton and John Kerry were wrong. Robb This might be the case if the commission was looking into any connection rather than just the 9/11 connection. That is why they called it the 9/11 commission. I do not believe Clinton said there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq and Kerry certainly did not. Perhaps this idea was promoted by Bush and his team to get the people behind his insane war on Iraq. It worked for a bit. The political preparation for the war with Iraq involved the systematic poisoning of American public opinion with three major lies: that Iraq had close ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist organization; that Iraq had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; and that Iraq might supply those weapons to Osama bin Laden, thus creating the conditions for a chemical, biological or even nuclear version of September 11. In the crudest presentation of the case, the three lies were amalgamated into a single, all-encompassing fabrication, linking Saddam Hussein directly to September 11, 2001. When asked about opinion polls showing that two-thirds of Americans believed that Iraq was responsible for the terrorist attacks, Cheney said last year, “It’s not surprising people make that connection.” Cheney was also the principal sponsor of the claim that alleged hijack leader Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague several months before September 11. The 9/11 commission staff report concluded that reports of such a meeting were groundless, citing video footage of Atta withdrawing money from a bank in Virginia on the day he was supposedly meeting the Iraqi agent in central Europe. Bush himself, in his 2003 State of the Union speech, two months before the war, declared, “Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans—— this time armed by Saddam... It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.” US troops participating in the invasion were told that the attack on Iraq was in response to the attacks on September 11. As they awaited orders in Kuwait to cross the border into Iraq, the soldiers were bivouacked in camps Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey, so named to commemorate those who died in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and on United Flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In testimony the same day before the panel—formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States—FBI and CIA counterterrorism specialists agreed with the report’s findings that there was no evidence of cooperation between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, or of any Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks. This consensus flatly contradicts comments made by Bush and Cheney on the eve of the report’s release. On Monday, in a speech to a right-wing think tank, Cheney declared that Saddam Hussein “had long-established ties to Al Qaeda.” Defending that claim on Tuesday, Bush cited the role of Abu Musab Zarqawi, the alleged organizer of a series of bomb attacks in Iraq, who the administration says is an Al Qaeda leader. This charge, even if true, would prove nothing about Al Qaeda ties with Iraq before the US occupation of the country. Zarqawi is reportedly a Palestinian who fought with the CIA-backed Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and was severely wounded. He later received medical treatment in Baghdad, but there is no indication that he played any role in terrorist actions until after the US invasion. There is considerable doubt about all the media reports on Zarqawi—it is by no means certain that such a person even exists, at least with the biography claimed by the US government—and the Bush administration has sought to build him up as a terrorist bogeyman responsible for much of the Iraqi resistance to the US occupation.
|
|