How is Iraq connected to the war on terror?

CrimsonWhite

*****istrator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
7,978
Reaction score
1,778
Points
123
Location
Guntucky
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?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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?
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.
 
OP
CrimsonWhite

CrimsonWhite

*****istrator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
7,978
Reaction score
1,778
Points
123
Location
Guntucky
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.
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?"

Did Saddam have ties to terrorist organizations?
Absolutely. So does Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and the United States.

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

After being wounded in Afghanistan, al-Zarqawi was treated in a Baghdad hospital. I can't imagine that happening without Hussein's knowledge.
This is true, but this wasn't uncovered until after the invasion.

Then al-Zarqawi set up an AQ training camp within Iraq's borders.
What is wrong with surgical air strikes?

IMO, Saddam supported terrorist organizations insofar as they were enemies of the US.
I agree. This is my opinion as well, but foreign policy shouldn't be formed by opinion.

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.
So we attacked him, because he wasn't cozy with terrorists?
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
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.
Called the 'flypaper strategy" upon the lead in to this war.
Did Saddam have ties to terrorist organizations?

He financially supported Hezbollah.
He paid $25k USAD to the families of 'martyrs.'
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.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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?"

Dude, I'm a Gunny. Of course the only way to win is to destroy their ability to wage war by whatever means necessary. If that means killing them all, so be it.

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

Irrelevant to this thread. You said Iraq, not the rest. It is to that I responded.

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

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that Saddam Hussein supported financially = Saddam's tie to supporting terrorism. When Bush declared war on terror, he said whoever and wherever, not specifically AQ.


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

The training camp he had in Northern Iraq was available knowledge prior to the invasion.

What is wrong with surgical air strikes?

To do what? Take out al-Zarqawi's training camp? Nothing as far as I'm concerned.

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

When it walks like a duck, smells like a duck and quacks like a duck .......

So we attacked him, because he wasn't cozy with terrorists?
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.
 
OP
CrimsonWhite

CrimsonWhite

*****istrator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
7,978
Reaction score
1,778
Points
123
Location
Guntucky
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.
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.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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.
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.
 

insein

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
6,096
Reaction score
356
Points
48
Location
Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
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.
 
OP
CrimsonWhite

CrimsonWhite

*****istrator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
7,978
Reaction score
1,778
Points
123
Location
Guntucky
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.
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.

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.
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.

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

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.
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.
 
OP
CrimsonWhite

CrimsonWhite

*****istrator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
7,978
Reaction score
1,778
Points
123
Location
Guntucky
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.
I can dig that. Nice job.
 

Hobbit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
5,099
Reaction score
421
Points
48
Location
Near Atlanta, GA
Here's the reasons we went into Iraq.

1. WMDs. We know he had them. The libs won't admit it, but it's true. He was also crazy enough to use them, as we saw in the Gulf War.

2. Violation of U.N. sanctions. Iraq had violated dozens of sanctions, each of which carried the stipulation that violating them would constitute an act of war. As impotent as the U.N. is, it's even more impotent when the U.S. doesn't enforce their sanctions.

3. Weakness. The armies of Saddam were weak and easily folded under the weight of the awesome and terrible power that is the United States armed forces. Of all the targets we could have hit, this one was the ripest for the picking.

4. Demonstration of Power and Resolve. After the initial invasion and demonstration of our strength and swiftness, several countries and terrorist groups were quick to submit to our rules. This effect, however, has all but died out, thanks to the left's determination to turn all public opinion against military action.

5. Pinch Iran. Iran is the world capitol of terrorism. It was concieved in the West Bank and born in Munich, but it is based in Tehran. From the beginning, we knew that this would culminate in a grand battle against Iran, our first enemy in the long standing conflict between the United States and Islamic fascism. If you look on a world map, you will notice that Iraq and Afghanistan are located on opposite sides of Iran. When that battle comes, we are in perfect position to crush the Iranian army between the might of our combined forces as a vice would crush a tomato.
 

GeeWhiz

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
166
Reaction score
25
Points
16
Boy did everyone on this thread swallow the kool aid or what?

The only reason we are in Iraq is the money honey. It has nothing to do with terrorism or democracy or any of the Junior bullshit.

It's the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned this country about. The cabal behind this war is laughing all the way to the bank.

Do you want Junior to take out his Osama doll, shake it in front of you and go boo? Then you better hand over your money, cause Junior needs a new tricycle.
 

dmp

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
746
Points
48
Location
Enterprise, Alabama
Boy did everyone on this thread swallow the kool aid or what?

The only reason we are in Iraq is the money honey. It has nothing to do with terrorism or democracy or any of the Junior bullshit.

It's the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned this country about. The cabal behind this war is laughing all the way to the bank.

Do you want Junior to take out his Osama doll, shake it in front of you and go boo? Then you better hand over your money, cause Junior needs a new tricycle.
Wow. Are you running for most naive Member of this forum? You've got my vote, kid.

lmao :)


One thing people don't want to understand about the War against Terrorism; It's NOT a 'War against only those who were behind 9-11' - it's a war aganst those who SUPPORTED them, and who suppport OTHER terrorists, too.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Wow. Are you running for most naive Member of this forum? You've got my vote, kid.

lmao :)


One thing people don't want to understand about the War against Terrorism; It's NOT a 'War against only those who were behind 9-11' - it's a war aganst those who SUPPORTED them, and who suppport OTHER terrorists, too.
Such posters are NOT naive...they know damn well what they are doing.
 

GeeWhiz

Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
166
Reaction score
25
Points
16
Wow. Are you running for most naive Member of this forum? You've got my vote, kid.

lmao :)


One thing people don't want to understand about the War against Terrorism; It's NOT a 'War against only those who were behind 9-11' - it's a war aganst those who SUPPORTED them, and who suppport OTHER terrorists, too.
Junior admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 911. The war to Iraq is just based on a story. That's it, a fiction Junior and team made up.

As for your claim that I'm naive, try and answer the following questions. Eisenhower warned this country about the military industrial complex.

What do you think the warning signs will be that such a complex is heading our way? What do you suppose the red flags will look like?

Would it look like people that worked for government moving on to the private companies that deals with military contracts and later move back to work for government that deals with contracts with private companies? And somehow it just seems to work out that war gets started.

You obviously didn't see my post on Cheney and the first gulf war.
 

dmp

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
13,088
Reaction score
746
Points
48
Location
Enterprise, Alabama
Junior admitted Iraq had nothing to do with 911. The war to Iraq is just based on a story. That's it, a fiction Junior and team made up.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Your president never said Iraq wasn't connected to 'Terror Groups"

As for your claim that I'm naive, try and answer the following questions. Eisenhower warned this country about the military industrial complex.
You sound unintelligent.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top