11 myths of iraqi war

[LuvRPgrl]

Hmm, funny, I didn't hear Bush list any of those reasons as a reason to invade IRaq before we actually did it. If the war was actually justified by those reasons - you'd think he would have told us about it, don't you?


Why aren't we in N Korea? They've got plenty of death camps - I'm almost certain they would be shooting at our planes if our planes were flying over their country - and hey, they actually HAVE WMD and we know this for a FACT.

In fact, in North Korea, when you commit a "political" crime, they send you and your entire familiy for three generations above and below you to a death camp - where the average life expectancy is one year from the day you enter - where they feed infants born in the camp to dogs - and where they give guards money for college scholarships for every inmate they shoot. What is Bush doing to stop this inhumanity? Hmm. nothing.

So don't feed me that death camp BS. The right wingers didn't care about the IRaqi people when they were supporting Hussein in the 80's while he gassed the Kurds - if they claim to care about them now its only because its politically CONVENIENT to do so.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLA BLAH,,,do they have idiocy schools to pump out morons like you?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm also having trouble finding the Resolution where military force by the U.S. was authorized. In fact - I'm fairly certain it was the President who decided to use US military force in IRaq, and not the UN. Please, if you can find evidence to the contrary, let us all know.

The US congress authorized Bush to use the military to invade. The PEOPLE of the US voted Bush in to make that decision, and their senators and Congressman to make that vote,,,

Oh, and you know whats funny, get this, in case you havent heard, the people RE ELECTED BUSH, AFTER he invaded Iraq, bwahahhahahah

BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

YOU LOST YOU FUCKING IDIOT,

How do you like smearing shit all over your sandwhiches before eating them every day? Hahaahha, you must REALLY HATE every day hearing about BUSH AS OUR PRESIDENT, COMMANDER IN CHIEF.... and now he is appointing two new SUPREME court justices to further carry out his agenda for decades to come. bwahahhahahahhaha

BWAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Iraq and the US did not enter into any treaty. The agreement was between Iraq and the U.N. We are not responsible for unilaterally enforcing the UN's treaties - the UN is responsible for that.

So, why do you love terrorists who like to kill innocent kids and hate the US so much?

Why do you revel and enjoy so much when TERRORISTS blow up schools and kill scores of little kids blowing their heads off and arms

why do you love terrorists who behead people and tape it to show the world what barbaric evil satanic worshipping creatures they are????

Why do yo love and support terrorists so much, who love to torture people, treat women worse than dogs, hate liberty and freedom, who want to force everyone to convert to radical islam or be killed, who want to control every aspect of your life?

WHy do you love and support terrorists so much and hate US servicement and women?

just wondering

 

[SpidermanTuba]

i am not debating with anyone.

i like the term world police so i use it

the security council voted 18 times the 19th time they bailed .... france germany china and russia decided not to join so UN forces were not deployed ....many say they bailed because of the huge debt owed them by iraq....or for the oil they were getting in spite of the embargo they voted to enforce or for the sale of military weapons systems they were trading for oil.....personally don't care...they bailed

the countries that did not bail decided to do something and correct what they perceived to be a wrong.... the decided to forgo debt...they decided to right a wrong.....the US is a world power.... for the US to lead is a no brainier....

Uhh - but you said a little while ago that the UN did authorize US forces invading Iraq. Here's you're saying they did not. So which is the truth?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Since when was it the only mission of war to save Iraqi civilian lives?

Actually - that never was the mission. Bush said if Saddam Hussein complied with inspections he wouldn't invade. The purpose was to enforce compliance with inspections. Saving the Iraqi people didn't become a reason until it became clear the WMD weren't there. How convenient.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Uhh, yeah, actually, I'm right. The war we are presently engaged in is larger than simply Iraq. We have been ignoring the threat of terrorism and condoning complicity for decades...Iraq is one of the end results of this complacency.

There was no threat of terrorism against the US from Iraq. At least not as much as about 25 other nations that we have yet to invade.

9/11 has much to do with the war in Iraq. Just not in the direct way you are attempting to view it as.

After 9/11 many people realized that we had been involved in this "war" with radical fundamentalist Muslims for decades and that no one in any administration had done anything to combat it and in fact, recent administrations like Clintons and HW Bushs had probably made it worse.

Saddam Hussein wasn't even a radical fundamentalist Muslim. He was a secular Muslim who put thousands of radical fundamentalist Muslims to death during his regime,

Invade a nation that was centrally located in the Middle East, one that was seen to be easily defeated, one that had a base population in great need of help and hopefully, one that wanted a chance to build a democracy, and one that had a goverment hostile to the US and possibly capable of causing the nation great harm.

In other words - invade a nation that really isn't a threat and thats easy to invade and because its at the center of a region you want to exercise power over. There's a word for that - fascism. All to do what? Build a nation - which Bush is against doing in the first place (see the 2000 Presidential debates)

In time (again - Bush was not looking for a quick fix...but a permanent solution to dealing with terrorism) with a stable democracy starting to flourish in the Middle East other peoples in other nations would see its successes and begin to fight for their own independence. When people were given the choice to have the freedom to live their lives, not be oppressed, have a chance to provide for their families - choosing terrorism would become less of an attractive option.

Funny - he didn't outline his long term plans to the American people before we invaded.

No...but if I knew this "innocent" other kid was paying the kids who hit me to do it, was teaching all the others how to hit me, was possibley getting ready to beat the shit out of me big time, AND if I beat up this bully I might be able to stop other people from picking on me...you bet your sweet bippy I'd kick that guy in the junk in
a heartbeat.

Hussein did not pay Al-Qaeda to do 9/11, nor did he train the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 - nor in fact were there a Al-Qaeda training camps anywhere within the areas of the country which he controlled. In fact - there was NO COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN AL-QAEDA AND HUSSEIN AT ALL. Though you could certainly try to convince the other kids that the weakling you chose to pick on was really the same as the bully who hit you - and rally them to your cause to make you look better. It might backfire, though. Its likely though that if you started beating up people who had no clear ties - if any - to the bully who beat you up, you would be the one people would start calling a bully.

To close, I'd just like to remind you (since you are so fond of accusing others of not reading reports) that you might want to look into some of the things Kay said upon his return from Iraq. I'm sure you were fascinated by the "No WMD" comments, as I was. However...rather than stopping at the headlines, I continued on...and was further intrigued by his statements to the effect of: It is more apparent now than ever before that we needed to remove Saddam. While he was not stockpiling WMD he was keeping everything ready...and as soon as the UN backed off, he was going to start again.

So in other words - we could have kept Hussein from having WMD through the non-violent means of weapons inspection. But since you and Shrub prefer to use violent means whenever possible - we invaded.

So you see...I could care less if the UN inspectors were done with their tours or not.

So you could care less if Bush's stated reason of invading Iraq to disarm Hussein was even his real reason?

 

[theHawk]

Actually - that never was the mission. Bush said if Saddam Hussein complied with inspections he wouldn't invade. The purpose was to enforce compliance with inspections. Saving the Iraqi people didn't become a reason until it became clear the WMD weren't there. How convenient.

I guess thats why on the first day of the war it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom and not Operation Find the WMD.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

BLAH BLAH BLAH,,,the connection has been proven over and over and over, sorry if you refuse to deal with reality...

And this connection is what?

Actually - there is no connection between 9/11 and Hussein at all. Except that Hussein is a Muslim bad guy and the people who did 9/11 were Muslim bad guys. That's not really a "connection" in anything but the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game.

People, errr, idiots, who continue to bring up the arguements that have been refuted over and over show one thing, they are EXTREMELY MYOPIC, which comes from a deep rooted hostility....

You mean people who conitnue to insist Hussein and Al-qaeda were collaborating? Yeah, it amazes me that those people continue to insist that even though its been well demonstrated there was no collaborative relationship.

funny, you have a serious problem with us killing Iraqi soldiers who were drafted "on the pain of death",,,you dont see anything IRONIC (quite unintentional Im sure as anyone with a peabrain your size couldnt possibly be that witty) with that statement of yours?

SADDAM IS KILLING THEM IF THEY DONT JOIN,,,you dont have a problem with that? BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Uhh... so its OK for us to kill them instead? What's the irony? That you think killing by the US is OK but killing by others is not? That's not irony that called hypocrisy.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Ya know,,,,wishes that would come true

That you would be in a room alone with a Marine who is serving in Iraq, and say that to his face,,,ohhhh I would love to sell tickets. How fast can you run coward???? Just dont trip over that tail between your legs....

Right because Marines go thousands of miles away to defend my freedom of speech so they can come home and beat me up me for exercising my freedom of speach. That makes a lot of damn sense. Very mature viewpoint to have - that people who don't share your particular view should be beat up. I suggest you build a time machine, set it to 1939, and join Hitler's SS.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The US congress authorized Bush to use the military to invade. The PEOPLE of the US voted Bush in to make that decision, and their senators and Congressman to make that vote,,,

Oh, and you know whats funny, get this, in case you havent heard, the people RE ELECTED BUSH, AFTER he invaded Iraq, bwahahhahahah

Actually, the people didn't choose Bush in 2000 - the college of electors did. The people chose Al Gore - reflected by the fact that more people voted for Al Gore than for Bush.

YOU LOST YOU FUCKING IDIOT,

How do you like smearing shit all over your sandwhiches before eating them every day? Hahaahha, you must REALLY HATE every day hearing about BUSH AS OUR PRESIDENT, COMMANDER IN CHIEF.... and now he is appointing two new SUPREME court justices to further carry out his agenda for decades to come. bwahahhahahahhaha

Hey guess what - Miers hasn't been appointed yet. Its pending Senatorial approval. You don't put to much stock in facts, do you? Seems to me all you care to do is hurl childish insults.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So, why do you love terrorists who like to kill innocent kids and hate the US so much?

So why do you fabricate lies about your ideological opponents? Is it because you can't make a real argument?

Why do you revel and enjoy so much when TERRORISTS blow up schools and kill scores of little kids blowing their heads off and arms

Why do you revel and enjoy so much when US bombs destroy wedding parties?

why do you love terrorists who behead people and tape it to show the world what barbaric evil satanic worshipping creatures they are????

Why do you beat your spouse?

Why do yo love and support terrorists so much, who love to torture people, treat women worse than dogs, hate liberty and freedom, who want to force everyone to convert to radical islam or be killed, who want to control every aspect of your life?

When did you realize you were gay?

WHy do you love and support terrorists so much and hate US servicement and women?

Why do you love war and hate peace?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I guess thats why on the first day of the war it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom and not Operation Find the WMD.

Bush said if Hussein complied with weapons inspectors we wouldn't invade. Had Hussein done this - how would that have freed the Iraqi people?

 

[theHawk]

IF he did comply, they probably wouldnt be free. Then again we wouldnt be wondering about whether or not he had WMD. Now we know he didn't, now his people are free from him.

 

[Gem]

There was no threat of terrorism against the US from Iraq. At least not as much as about 25 other nations that we have yet to invade.

Never claimed that there was a threat of direct terrorism from Iraq. If you are going to participate in this conversation only by continually attributing beliefs or statements to me that I do not hold nor have ever expressed...then we should stop now, I won't waste my time.

What I did say, was that by supporting terrorists, by paying their families, by giving them shelter in his nation, Saddam was someone who was involved in terrorism on a broader scale. Terrorists come and go, they blow themselves up, or they end up trapped in caves in remote regions of the world...those who do not have to hide themselves, who support the terrorists, reward their families, who develop weapons that could be used by the terrorists to kill innocent people are the ones that in any intelligent plan to combat terrorism have to be taken into consideration.

Saddam Hussein wasn't even a radical fundamentalist Muslim. He was a secular Muslim who put thousands of radical fundamentalist Muslims to death during his regime,

Again, I never claimed Saddam was a radical, only that going to war to remove him from power was a part of Bush's plan to combat radical fundamentalist Muslims.

In other words - invade a nation that really isn't a threat and thats easy to invade and because its at the center of a region you want to exercise power over. There's a word for that - fascism. All to do what? Build a nation - which Bush is against doing in the first place (see the 2000 Presidential debates)

No...invade a nation that is supporting terrorism, that could quite possibly be building wmd and who we know is incredibly hostile to the US, invade a nation that is centrally located in the middle east and a nation whose people have shown a strong desire to rid themselves of their brutal dictator and demonstrate their ability to govern themselves.

Why is it so difficult for you to look at ALL of the reasons why an invasion of Iraq was a good idea?

We do things for a variety of reasons every day. When you go to a restaurant do you ONLY look at what place has the best food? If so, I'd be flying to a restaurant in Florence I'm particularly in love with at least twice a week...but rather than only consider ONE issue...I look at several, what kind of food I want, what's close by, how much money I want to spend, how much time I have, what kind of food my husband wants...

Obviously, we do things for a myriad of reasons everyday...so why wouldn't you think there was a myriad of reasons to go to war with Iraq? We did not go to war ONLY to find WMD...ONLY to remove Saddam...ONLY to help the people Saddam was oppressing...it was for all of these reasons and many more that Iraq was chosen. By making it such a black and white issue liberals seem to be saying that they are incapable of thinking of an issue in a complex, multi-faceted way...which is ironic, considering that they are the ones who claim to be able to see the "nuances."

I'm not saying, in this argument, that the invasion of Iraq was the right way to go, Spidey...which is why I find your attempts to attribute so many typical stereotypes to my argument so amusing. I think it will take years to see if changing the goverment in Iraq was the right step needed. I am however, well aware that the other options being discusses at the time - like simply finding Osama bin Laden and ending it, as if that would have solved anything - was not a reasonable solution either. And now, all I'm hearing from people like yourself was how terrible this idea was...but no solutions or ideas or even a willingness to discuss what should have been done or what could be done now! Where are your ideas??? Aside, of course, from hanging Bush and then the world will be happiness and rainbows (sorry for the sarcasm...but I think that you've shown a bit of it yourself so far here).

Funny - he didn't outline his long term plans to the American people before we invaded.

Funny - who were you listening to? I never got the impression that this was a quick fix. That the invasion of Iraq was going to be easy, neat, or over in a blink of an eye. Perhaps because thats the way Clinton did things for 8 years - say we'll help, put troops in who do next to nothing, suffer some casualties, or people at home interests wain, so we pull them out and claim instant success...that so many Americans are unprepared for the concept of a prolonged stay in Iraq...but I for one, never heard Bush say that it was going to be quick...so I don't know why on earth you would have gotten that idea.

The Post-War planning in Iraq was abysmmal in many respects...very few people will disagree with that. However, once again, I'm left wondering where the suggestions (other than the typical liberal offerring of - RUN AWAY AND CALL IT A FAILURE SO WE CAN RUN ON IT FOR YEARS AND YEARS!) for alternatives were and are. There are mistakes - often huge ones, in every situation and have been throughout history. Whether or not the nation(s) can recover and move on from those mistakes, rather than fall over them, dwell on them, and allow themselves to be beaten by them...is often the determining factor in whether the war is won or lost.

Hussein did not pay Al-Qaeda to do 9/11, nor did he train the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 - nor in fact were there a Al-Qaeda training camps anywhere within the areas of the country which he controlled. In fact - there was NO COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN AL-QAEDA AND HUSSEIN AT ALL. Though you could certainly try to convince the other kids that the weakling you chose to pick on was really the same as the bully who hit you - and rally them to your cause to make you look better. It might backfire, though. Its likely though that if you started beating up people who had no clear ties - if any - to the bully who beat you up, you would be the one people would start calling a bully.

Not going to waste a whole lot of time on this one - I never said nor implied that there was a direct tie between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, by continually insisting that I was you are marginalizing your argument.

Saddam was paying terrorists families and protecting known terrorists. The fact that they had no ties to al-qaeda doesn't matter because we did not go to war with Iraq to get revenge for 9/11...we went to war in Iraq as an initial step to making sure that in the future...9/11's wouldn't happen. By stopping people who support terrorists, and making a first step in giving people in the middle east a chance for something better...Iraq was a logical step in the war to stop radical Muslim fundamentalists from convincing people to kill themselves and hundreds of others.

So in other words - we could have kept Hussein from having WMD through the non-violent means of weapons inspection. But since you and Shrub prefer to use violent means whenever possible - we invaded.

On this one you are almost absolutely right. It seems that we could have kept Saddam from making WMD if we had only allowed him to continue to use millions upon millions of Oil for Food dollars to buy disgusting and corrupt members of the UN while starving and torturing his people, paying off the families of terrorists, harboring terrorists who needed shelter after attacks, and making a complete and total mockery of an organization which should be an example of how the world should be.

Bravo...that would have been much preferable to free elections and the possibility of a stable democracy in Iraq.

I prefer direct action with the posibility of a safer, healthier future for Americans and Iraqis as oppossed to allowing Saddam to continue to make a mockery of everything the UN claims to stand for, while continuing to keep all of his weapons programs up to date for the day he can pay the UN to look the other way.

But hey, sure...I love violence and always love causing as much death and destruction for no reason whatsoever aside from my insane love of carnage...sure, why not. If the "you and Shrub love violence" level of rhetoric is all you are cabable of giving to this conversation, then fine...I'm a blood-thirsty, death-loving warmonger. Whatever.

So you could care less if Bush's stated reason of invading Iraq to disarm Hussein was even his real reason?

You're just so amazing off here its funny. I stated that I could care less if the UN weapons inspections were done because they were a corrupt joke. Considering that the UN was searching for weapons because the majority of the worlds intelligence supported claims that he had them...it seemed silly to me to continue allowing Saddam and his UN cronies to play ten-games-of-grabass with farces of inspections that served no purpose.

However, you have already implied that you would have rather left Saddam in power, paying off the UN for mockeries of weapons inspections until the UN finally gave up and left him alone so he could return to his weapons productions and oppresion...so obviously we are going to differ in our opinions here quite a bit.

 

[USMCDevilDog]

Ya know,,,,wishes that would come true

That you would be in a room alone with a Marine who is serving in Iraq, and say that to his face,,,ohhhh I would love to sell tickets. How fast can you run coward???? Just dont trip over that tail between your legs....

haha points!

Spider, cut the bullshit, frankly I don't believe a word of what you say because you haven't provided one link throughout this entire thread that proves anything you're saying.

First off, Saddam and Al-qaeda DID have relations, he DID support them and funded them with some stuff. Here let me do something that you need to learn to do: http://hnn.us/articles/5745.html, read it dumbass.

And seriously, this is the most annoying thing, when you say "Then why didn't they tell us about these things?". Are you serious??? Does the gov't EVER tell the public about their secret operations and their spy operations to get information on other countries, no, they don't because that would be retarted.

Just because the people "investigating" never found anything doesn't mean it was never there. Shit happens that WE will NEVER know about, you need to realize and stop acting like you know everything about the gov't because no real civilian does.


Hey guys who am I? "uuuuuh, uuuuuuuh no, uuuuuuuh thats a lie, uuuuuuh you're wrong, uuuuuuh" you sound like a fucking 3rd grade girl, type something up that we can actually take seriously because you're little fits are childish.

 

[USMCDevilDog]

As well as the link I posted above here's another with alot of info on the connections. You're wrong Spider and here's the proof.

I've posted this for Mally so he'd shut the hell up as well:

Every day it seems another American soldier is killed in Iraq. These grim statistics have become a favorite of network news anchors and political chat show hosts. Nevermind that they mix deaths from accidents with actual battlefield casualties; or that the average is actually closer to one American death for every two days; or that enemy deaths far outnumber ours. What matters is the overall impression of mounting, pointless deaths.

That is why is important to remember why we fight in Iraq -- and who we fight. Indeed, many of those sniping at U.S. troops are al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq. And many of bin Laden's men were in Iraq prior to the liberation. A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.

Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.

Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists like bin Laden.

In fact, there are plenty of "Stalin-Roosevelt" partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common purposes and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing defeat which he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and believes that non-Muslims shouldn't have military bases on the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda's avowed goal for the past ten years has been the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, where they stood in harm's way solely to contain Saddam.

The most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Saddam is money. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in federal courts that the terror network was always desperate for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100 difference in pay between Egyptian and Saudis (the Egyptians made more). One al Qaeda member, who was connected to the 1998 embassy bombings, told a U.S. federal court how bitter he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to see a doctor.

Bin Laden's personal wealth alone simply is not enough to support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin Laden's fortune is probably not as large as some imagine. Informed estimates put bin Laden's pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small school district, not a global terror conglomerate. Meanwhile, Forbes estimated Saddam's personal fortune at $2 billion.

So a common enemy, a shared goal and powerful need for cash seem to have forged an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources."

The Iraqis, who had the Third World's largest poison-gas operations prior to the Gulf War I, have perfected the technique of making hydrogen-cyanide gas, which the Nazis called Zyklon-B. In the hands of al Qaeda, this would be a fearsome weapon in an enclosed space -- like a suburban mall or subway station.

Mr. Miniter is a senior fellow at the Center for the New Europe and author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" (Regnery) which is now on the New York Times' bestseller list.

 

[Annie]

Hmm, funny, I didn't hear Bush list any of those reasons as a reason to invade IRaq before we actually did it. If the war was actually justified by those reasons - you'd think he would have told us about it, don't you?


Why aren't we in N Korea? They've got plenty of death camps - I'm almost certain they would be shooting at our planes if our planes were flying over their country - and hey, they actually HAVE WMD and we know this for a FACT.

In fact, in North Korea, when you commit a "political" crime, they send you and your entire familiy for three generations above and below you to a death camp - where the average life expectancy is one year from the day you enter - where they feed infants born in the camp to dogs - and where they give guards money for college scholarships for every inmate they shoot. What is Bush doing to stop this inhumanity? Hmm. nothing.

So don't feed me that death camp BS. The right wingers didn't care about the IRaqi people when they were supporting Hussein in the 80's while he gassed the Kurds - if they claim to care about them now its only because its politically CONVENIENT to do so.

Well it wasn't ONLY WMD's, contrary to what many would suggest, I'm only going to go with two examples, prior to the war; here's the 'foreign' part of 2003 SOTU Address:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

...Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. (Applause.)

Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility. (Applause.)

America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.

In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks. And we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. (Applause.) Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. (Applause.)

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. (Applause.)

On the Korean Peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed. (Applause.)

America is working with the countries of the region -- South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia -- to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship. (Applause.) The North Korean regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions. (Applause.)

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. 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. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)

Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country.

Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.)

We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know -- we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.

May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

END 10:08 P.M. EST

This Feb. 2003 spells out the Iraqi problem in more detail:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

... In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.)

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving into place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry.

We'll make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites, operating under the Oil For Food program, are stocked and open as soon as possible. The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, and to such groups as the World Food Program and UNICEF, to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people.

We will also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos, or settle scores, or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime, and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners -- the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. (Applause.)

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Never claimed that there was a threat of direct terrorism from Iraq.

No threat from Iraq = no justified invasion. Civilized people do not go off starting wars against people who aren't threats to them.

a nation whose people have shown a strong desire to rid themselves of their brutal dictator and demonstrate their ability to govern themselves.

If the Iraqi people had such a strong desire to rid themselves of their dictator why didn't they do it themselves? Democracy is earned by blood - we didn't get our democracy because some other nation decided "Hey - let's bring democracy to America!" We fought for it ourselves - which is why is has endured for so long. IRaq is going to be a mess for years to come because their democracy is unearned.

It's like in high school when kids first start getting cars - some kids have parents who buy them a car, some kids save up the money themselves to buy the car - which do you think takes better care of their car and drives more safely?

Why is it so difficult for you to look at ALL of the reasons why an invasion of Iraq was a good idea?

Invading nations is never a good idea unless our hand is forced by powers outside of our control. And before you even ask - YES Clinton was wrong for the wars he started, as well, and NO I never even voted for Clinton and that was one of the reasons.

We do things for a variety of reasons every day. When you go to a restaurant do you ONLY look at what place has the best food? If so, I'd be flying to a restaurant in Florence I'm particularly in love with at least twice a week...but rather than only consider ONE issue...I look at several, what kind of food I want, what's close by, how much money I want to spend, how much time I have, what kind of food my husband wants...

So decided which nation you want to bomb is kind of like deciding what to eat, for you?

Obviously, we do things for a myriad of reasons everyday...so why wouldn't you think there was a myriad of reasons to go to war with Iraq? We did not go to war ONLY to find WMD...ONLY to remove Saddam...ONLY to help the people Saddam was oppressing...

So if Hussein had complied with inspections - and Bush had thus not invaded (like he said he wouldn't do if Hussein complied) - there would be only one of a myriad of reasons to invade that no longer existed, and you would have been highly critical of Bush for not going ahead with the invasion anyway, right?

it was for all of these reasons and many more that Iraq was chosen. By making it such a black and white issue liberals seem to be saying that they are incapable of thinking of an issue in a complex, multi-faceted way...which is ironic, considering that they are the ones who claim to be able to see the "nuances."

Some things are black and white. Like resorting to violence only as a last resort. People like you don't believe in this - however. You've already admitted, that as a kid, you would initiate violenct conflict with a kid in the schoolyard who you thought was friends with a kid that assaulted you. So I don't really expect you to understand the "violence as a last resort" idea.

I am however, well aware that the other options being discusses at the time - like simply finding Osama bin Laden and ending it, as if that would have solved anything - was not a reasonable solution either.

So its your position that Bush has the capability of bring Bin Laden to justice - but has simply chosen not to do so?

And now, all I'm hearing from people like yourself was how terrible this idea was...but no solutions or ideas or even a willingness to discuss what should have been done or what could be done now! Where are your ideas???

Right winger:"Hey, I'm going to drive this car off this cliff - unless anyone has a better idea!"
Left winger:"Here's one - don't do it"
Right winger:"That's not an idea - oh well, here I go!"


"Did we have to do this? I saw the intelligence right up to the day of the war, and I did not see any imminent threat there. If anything, Saddam was coming apart. The sanctions were working. The containment was working. He had a hollow military, as we saw. If he had weapons of mass destruction, it was leftover stuff -- artillery shells and rocket rounds. He didn't have the delivery systems. We controlled the skies and seaports. We bombed him at will. All of this happened under U.N. authority. I mean, we had him by the throat. But the president was being convinced by the neocons that down the road we would regret not taking him out."
-Gen. Anthony Zinni Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000

Aside, of course, from hanging Bush and then the world will be happiness and rainbows (sorry for the sarcasm...but I think that you've shown a bit of it yourself so far here).

I haven't suggested violence against the President of the United States, that's for sure.

Funny - who were you listening to? I never got the impression that this was a quick fix.

The find me a quote where the President or one of his underlings told the American people we would be tied down in Iraq indefinitely for years.

That the invasion of Iraq was going to be easy, neat, or over in a blink of an eye.

Dick said they would greet us with roses.

Bush declared "end of major combat operations" how long ago?

Perhaps because thats the way Clinton did things for 8 years - say we'll help, put troops in who do next to nothing, suffer some casualties, or people at home interests wain, so we pull them out and claim instant success...that so many Americans are unprepared for the concept of a prolonged stay in Iraq...but I for one, never heard Bush say that it was going to be quick...so I don't know why on earth you would have gotten that idea.

How long did BUsh say it would take? Did he even bother mentioning it?

The Post-War planning in Iraq was abysmmal in many respects...very few people will disagree with that.

So was the post-war planning messed up because Bush is stupid - or because Bush didn't think we would need much postwar planning?

However, once again, I'm left wondering where the suggestions (other than the typical liberal offerring of - RUN AWAY AND CALL IT A FAILURE SO WE CAN RUN ON IT FOR YEARS AND YEARS!) for alternatives were and are.

The alternative was containment - which had been working. We've been containing Fidel Castro for decades - seems to be working.

Not going to waste a whole lot of time on this one - I never said nor implied that there was a direct tie between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, by continually insisting that I was you are marginalizing your argument.

So 9/11 has nothing to do with invading Iraq - OK then.

Saddam was paying terrorists families and protecting known terrorists.

So were a dozen other dictators that we didn't topple.

The fact that they had no ties to al-qaeda doesn't matter because we did not go to war with Iraq to get revenge for 9/11...we went to war in Iraq as an initial step to making sure that in the future...9/11's wouldn't happen.

That doesn't make sense. If Iraq had nothing to do with it - how would taking out Iraq have prevented it?

I prefer direct action with the posibility of a safer, healthier future for Americans and Iraqis as oppossed to allowing Saddam to continue to make a mockery of everything the UN claims to stand for,

The containment strategy was working - this is evidenced by the fact he had no WMD.

But hey, sure...I love violence and always love causing as much death and destruction

Apparently so. You like starting wars.

However, you have already implied that you would have rather left Saddam in power,

Hey, you'd rather leave Kim Jong Il in power and the Ayatollah

 

[theim]

No threat from Iraq = no justified invasion. Civilized people do not go off starting wars against people who aren't threats to them.

Don't be assinine. Civilized powers have started wars all throughout history. From the Romans to the British.

If the Iraqi people had such a strong desire to rid themselves of their dictator why didn't they do it themselves?

They tried after the Gulf War, which I know you remember but just choose not to mention. It didn't work.

Democracy is earned by blood - we didn't get our democracy because some other nation decided "Hey - let's bring democracy to America!" We fought for it ourselves - which is why is has endured for so long. IRaq is going to be a mess for years to come because their democracy is unearned.

Freedom, Mr. Stalin, is God's gift to human kind. It is earned by being born. Just because one country won their war and the other got gassed/gunned down doesn't mean they deserve to be fed into woodchippers and shredders. I know how much you love seeing that stuff, but still. Most think it's bad.

It's like in high school when kids first start getting cars - some kids have parents who buy them a car, some kids save up the money themselves to buy the car - which do you think takes better care of their car and drives more safely?[/quit]

1)Are you comparing buying a car to geopolitics?

2)I know a kid whose parents his own car and has 0 tickets. I know more who bought their own and wrapped it around a telephon pole. Bad analogy.

Invading nations is never a good idea unless our hand is forced by powers outside of our control. And before you even ask - YES Clinton was wrong for the wars he started, as well, and NO I never even voted for Clinton and that was one of the reasons.[/quit]

Well at least your a consistant idealistic buffoon.

Some things are black and white. Like resorting to violence only as a last resort. People like you don't believe in this - however. You've already admitted, that as a kid, you would initiate violenct conflict with a kid in the schoolyard who you thought was friends with a kid that assaulted you. So I don't really expect you to understand the "violence as a last resort" idea.[/quit]

That's because the "violence as a last resort" idea is the last bastion of idealistic buffoonery in political discussion. The idea that if we just talk long enough dictators will realize the error of their ways is ludicrous. Every great power in the world fought wars. Every weak nation-state whose name you don't remember shied away from fighting when necessary and was thus conquered and consigned to the garbage bin of history. Theres a reason everyone remembers Winston Churchill but no one really reminisces on the great Neville Chamberlain.

The alternative was containment - which had been working. We've been containing Fidel Castro for decades - seems to be working.

Where you in a coma? Oil-for-Food ring a bell?

So 9/11 has nothing to do with invading Iraq - OK then.

It has everything to do with 9/11. 9/11 happened because we let an evil organization fester and plot, instead of killing them outright, because they hadn't done anything major.

So were a dozen other dictators that we didn't topple.

America does not have an unlimited number of soldiers. They will be toppled eventually, unless lefties have their way of course.

The containment strategy was working - this is evidenced by the fact he had no WMD.

OIL...FOR...FOOD.

Apparently so. You like starting wars.

We are not afraid of starting wars. Unlike pacifist weaklings who would rather preemptively surrender than fight for their ideals.

Hey, you'd rather leave Kim Jong Il in power and the Ayatollah

You're right, that's exactly right.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by USMCDevilDog:
As well as the link I posted above here's another with alot of info on the connections. You're wrong Spider and here's the proof.

I've posted this for Mally so he'd shut the hell up as well:
Every day it seems another American soldier is killed in Iraq. These grim statistics...

Two things first off, just in case you missed my posts on the subject elsewhere:
Saddam is an evil, sadistic, megalomaniac, paranoid son of a bitch.
Osama is an evil, megalomaniac, sissypants son of a bitch.
They both deserve a public execution for what they have wrought on the world.

I shall not throw around Al Whazzaaa, Bin Lalalaaa and other Arabic sounding names to make my point. That should save you a lot of Googling to check the facts.

Saddam was a dictator.
That means he ruled his people by fear, backed up by the threat of force. He was a brutal man, no doubt, and hated by many Iraqi's. He was a paranoid man, that reportedly used body doubles whenever he left one of his palaces.

Under Saddam law, Iraq was a secular state. Unlike neighbouring Iran, where a theocratic regime dictates law from Teheran with the Koran in hand, in the secular Iraq Saddam was the law. In that, there was no place for any religion to contest his position. People were free to practice whatever religion they would choose under Saddam's regime, as long as they obeyed his law.

Osama Bin Laden was a rich kid, that turned into a Muslim extremist.
From the Bin Laden family that is one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia.
Osama, after a luxurious start of his life and the earning a college degree here and there, went to Afghanistan around 1979, to help in the fight of the Mujahadeen against the Soviet Invasion.

In this war, Osama provided weapons and money for the Mujahadeen and set up his own little branch of fighters, the MAK (Maktab Al-Khadamat).

America fueled it's material and financial support through Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services Intelligence agency), to be able to support the Mujahadeen but remain able to deny direct involvement. The reason for the American support was obviously to make it hard on the Russians. Osama was allegedly trained by the CIA in terror tactics to more effectively combat the materially superiour Russian army. The Russians finally gave up their efforts in 1989 (they had been refused a deal by the Americans to get out without losing face) and Osama was celebrated as a Mujahadeen war hero.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Osama offered to help defend Saudi-Arabia from a possible attack by sending 12,000 armed fighters, but his offer was refused by the Saudi government.

Instead, American soldiers were hailed by the Saudi government to help defend the country, and as America started building military bases there, Osama and other anti-governmental Islamists grew evermore critical of the Saudi regime. Saudi Arabia's government is seen as the guardian of the holy sites of Islam: Mekka and Medina. The stationing of foreign non-Muslim Americans could not be tolerated. By 1991 he was so openly critical of the Saudi government that he was expelled to Sudan.

From there, he started recruiting likeminded individuals and set up training camps that would teach these people to fight in the way of the Mujahadeen.
Osama his associates began developing and executing a series of meticulously-planned terrorist attacks. In 1995, the Saudi Arabian government stripped bin Laden of his citizenship after he claimed responsibility for attacks on U.S. and Saudi military bases in Riyadh and Dahran.

The Sudanese goverment by the mid 1990s wanted to send Osama back to Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi's refused. Then under international pressure from Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and America, Osama was expelled to Afghanistan. In 1998, Osama and Al Zawahri co-signed a fatwa, declaring in so many words, that Israel should be destroyed.

And nowadays, Osama is allegedly the mastermind behind the Sunni terrorist network called Al'Qaeda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

To make a long story short:
Osama is fighting the American presence in Muslim nations and wishes to establish theocratic regimes throughout the Middle East and possibly beyond.
He has tried to do this together with Al Zawahri using suicide bombers to shock the masses into accepting the dark reality that individualism by western standards defiles the shared moral values that should hold society together.
His followers are mostly Sunni Arabs.

Saddam was a dictator, thus ruling with an iron law over a secular state.
He was a terrorist to his own people, but beyond that, he couldn't pack a punch. He despised Muslim extremists, and had them frequently executed.
His country is mostly Shi'ite Arabs.

Do you see the conflict of interest here?

Now, enter America's war on terror.

After bombing Afghanistan for a while, things got bored pretty soon, so it was decided to get a little more action in Iraq. Iraq had been on the target list long before 9/11 and if you want to know how so and what for, forget Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and read the Project for the New American Century's document: Rebuilding America's Defences.
See: publications, http://www.newamericancentury.org/

It is the blueprint of what your country is doing right now.

Think of the consequences.
Think of the reasons given for the war, realize there is a conflict of interest at work here, for your president has to protect and better the American society on the one hand, and has his oil industry investers on the other seeking a profitable return for their investment in his presidential campaign.

Oviously the president will try his best to keep both parties satisfied, but his favours may tip over to one side easily as he is walking on a knife's edge.

Have you seen the prices of oil lately?