How is Iraq connected to the war on terror?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by CrimsonWhite, Sep 14, 2006.

  1. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    There has been much debate on this board about this, but as yet, I have not seen anyone present a strong case for either side. Please don't turn this into a catfight and please keep the debate informative.

    How is the War in Iraq connected to the War on Terrorism. Has anything been gained against terrorists that would not have been gained had we not invaded? What are the advantages to staying the course over pulling out?
     
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Now? Right now, Iraq seems to be attracting every wananbe terrorist in the ME. As a magnet for terrorism, it has been a huge success.

    Did Saddam have ties to terrorist organizations?

    He financially supported Hezbollah.

    After being wounded in Afghanistan, al-Zarqawi was treated in a Baghdad hospital. I can't imagine that happening without Hussein's knowledge.

    Then al-Zarqawi set up an AQ training camp within Iraq's borders.

    IMO, Saddam supported terrorist organizations insofar as they were enemies of the US.

    I don't think he would get TOO cozy with them because Islamic extremists were as much a threat to him as they were/are to us.
     
  3. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    Can we agree that the terrorists are there because of us? They are there to fight us and the only way to get rid of them would be a Sherman type "total war?"

    Absolutely. So does Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and the United States.

    Yet we weren't attacked by Hezbollah. We were attacked by Al Quaida.

    This is true, but this wasn't uncovered until after the invasion.

    What is wrong with surgical air strikes?

    I agree. This is my opinion as well, but foreign policy shouldn't be formed by opinion.

    So we attacked him, because he wasn't cozy with terrorists?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Called the 'flypaper strategy" upon the lead in to this war.
    He paid $25k USAD to the families of 'martyrs.'
     
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    The US invaded Iraq for numerous reasons. The depth of his relationship with terrorist organizations was not discussed as far as I know. Only that the relationships existed.
     
  6. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    That's a LOT of money in that sandbox.
     
  7. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    The reason I listed countries is to show that we didn't invade the others. We chose Iraq. What I'm looking for is the stepping stone that goes from Afghan to Iraq. Why couldn't it wait until the conflict in Afghan was over and what Iraq had to do with the War on Terror prior to invasion and the Mission Accomplished event. You are going to have to do better than "had terrorist relations." Damn near every third world country that I have seen has had terrorist relations.
     
  8. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    In actuality, Iraq was unfinished/ignored business from the 90s and predated 9/1/1 by a decade. The situation in Iraq should have been absolved during the 90s.

    No, I really don't have to do better than "terrorist relations" as that was the only statement ever made, that I recall. "Saddam had ties to terrorist organizations." Saddam was a damned terrorist himself. He terrorized the population of his own country for close to 3 decades.

    Strategically, I would not have invaded Iraq without a complete resolution in Afghanistan. While he WAS tying up a good deal of our deployable military, he was contained.

    Be that as it may, we did invade, and beating the decision to death is not the way I operate. We're there, we need to win.
     
  9. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Ive done this like 30 times since ive been here but here goes again.

    Lets start with a list detailing the direct involvements of Al Queda and Iraq during the 90's and early 2000's.
    http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

    We then have the reports of Al Queda camps in Iraqi borders being used for training as well as taking in Terrorist refugees from Afghanistan after US invasion.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html
    http://www.nysun.com/article/24480
    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200602\SPE20060202a.html

    Debka, a middle East based news agency, reported in 2002 that IRaq had shipped its WMDs to Syria and other middle eastern nations before a US invasion.
    http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=482

    The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection commission verified these reports to the UN Security Council in 2004.
    http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323

    The US Forces removed 1.7 metric tons of nuclear material (material that can be used to make nuclear bombs) from Iraq in 2004.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124924,00.html

    Saddam's Chief Nuke Inspector reported in 2004 that Iraq was developing Nuclear Weapons in violation of UN Sanctions.
    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/114239.shtml

    So again, ITs pretty clear to those that look at the evidence why Iraq is part of the WOT. They had pretty convincing ties to our direct enemy at the time, Al Queda as well as other Terrorist organizations. We had credible evidence that Saddam had WMD's. We have credible proof that he was developing Nuclear weapons which has been substantiated by his documents and subordinates testimonies after his capture. So Iraq had WMD's, ties to Terrorist organizations and were actively harboring terrorists within their borders. We couldnt take the risk that they would pass on WMD's to said terrorist organizations.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  10. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    Then why wasn't this given as a reason for invasion. This has nothing to do with terrorism and doesn't connect the dots as pertinent to my original question.

    Why Iraq? Pakistan had terrorist relations and was probably harboring Bin Laden at the time of the Iraqi invasion. Terrorist relations could be used as an excuse to invade the world, yet we don't. Relations don't connect Iraq to the WOT. We were told that Saddam was an inevitable threat to the US. He wasn't.

    Contained is not captured. It is not brought to trial, as was promised.

    I agree. I am not against the War in Iraq in any way, shape, or form. I simply would like to know what it has to do with the WOT.
     

Share This Page