Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ralphwiggum

The Iraq thread 3

Recommended Posts

Quote[/b] ]Iraqi officials met with US officials too. Does that mean the US was responsible for 9/11?

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT....BUSH DID NOT DIRECTLY PIN IRAQ TO 9/11 ATTACKS BUT SAID THEY HAD TIES TO THE GROUP.... tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? The US had ties to Al Qaida as well. Its irrelevant unless you define what the ties were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, he said Iraq had no role in 9/11 attacks but had ties to the group that it. Common sense....

Bush

I'll highlight the important part:

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.

He said AFTER repeatedly linking them, that there was no link. But by then the damage was done:

Quote[/b] ]While a poll shows that a majority of American believe Iraq played a role in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, President Bush said Wednesday there's no indication that such a link exists.

From the same article I linked.

Also, the letter he sent to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq:

Quote[/b] ] March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

rock.gif

White House Website

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And besides all the non-existant terror links, you still have the distinct lack of WoMDs or NBC weaps.

That war, and the subsequent invasion and occupation, is a perverted travesty on an international level. The UN was set up to prevent this sort of thing.

Oh well, we might learn in a few centuries sad_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UN couldnt stop the US even if their lives depended on it. The US simply doesnt give a dang about the UN, and thats that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]He said AFTER repeatedly linking them, that there was no link. But by then the damage was done:

taken from your link:

Quote[/b] ]

Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Publically being the operative word.

Again from my post, his letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq:

Quote[/b] ] March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]The UN couldnt stop the US even if their lives depended on it. The US simply doesnt give a dang about the UN, and thats that.

Black Bush said the UN you can sanction me with your army... wait a minute, you do not have a army.... I guess that means you need to shut the fuck up. tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The UN couldnt stop the US even if their lives depended on it. The US simply doesnt give a dang about the UN, and thats that.

The UN is corrupt organization that has lost all of its credibility. UN is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is just a big lying hypocrite. I love the US people (I've lived there for 8 years; wonderful country), but the government is a mess. For instance, let's look at WMDs. Ok, so Bush says that Saddam is a very bad man because he has WMDS, and is definitely threatning the United States of Arrogance. Don't ask me how he knows this, but he does! So we must go and kill thousands of innocent people, torture innocent people, keep innocent people locked up for years without a trial (look at Afganistan!), and arrest it's leader to make the world safer. And has it? Hmm, let's see. Bombs going off almost every day in Iraq, militant groups growing stronger... So we find no WMDs in Iraq. So what's the reason we went over there now? *bush scratches head*. Ah yes! Saddam's an evil man as he committed genocide against his own people! That's it! Ok, very good. But my point is, why pick on Saddam? He's NEVER threatened America, America's always been the one who invaded Iraq. And he's no worse then other dictators through history. Look at Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pal Pot etc etc. How much "intervention" did America do with them? And they were much worse then poor old Saddam. And so what if Saddam had WMDs? Let's see, one of the biggest owners of WMDs is the United States of Arrogance itself! And what about Russia? China? North Korea? France? England? Pakistan? Iran? Why don't we embarke on WWIII and clense the earth of WMDs! Attack all the before mentioned countries! No, Bush is just an imperalist who attacked a weak defenseless nation to impose a US puppet regime. I think that Terry Jones said it best!

Quote[/b] ]

I'm Losing Patience Mr. Bush!

 I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really [mad] with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

 As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

 Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.

 They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

 And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.

 That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

 Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.

 Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

 Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

 It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.

 My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

 Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

 It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Again from my post, his letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq:

It is linking Iraq to war on terrorism in that it is a necessary step against international terrorists and terrorist organizations. Furthermore, it is not did said that Iraq to be one of those "nations" that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]The US is just a big lying hypocrite. I love the US people (I've lived there for 8 years; wonderful country), but the government is a mess. For instance, let's look at WMDs. Ok, so Bush says that Saddam is a very bad man because he has WMDS, and is definitely threatning the United States of Arrogance. Don't ask me how he knows this, but he does!

Hmmm.....Clinton said that Iraq had WMDs.

Quote[/b] ]

No, Bush is just an imperalist who attacked a weak defenseless nation to impose a US puppet regime.

I cannot believe people still think this crap.

I think will have a Saddam fan...... unclesam.gif  crazy_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh God forbid we go liberate 25+million people. How awful of us. And how dare we eliminate a ruthless dictaotor who supported terrorism (in Israel, ansar al islam al quda affiliated org in N iraq). Wake up we did find wmds, hear of the sarin and mustard gas bomb?

If your expecting us to find all of it just piled nice and neat for us to find, your wrong. The guy hide the stuff for 12 yrs, hes gotten good at it, so if we couldnt find it for 12 years what makes you think were gonna find it any time soon? Especially when its probably in syria, the un staled too much and since they refused to do their job we wated time, that time probably was used to get rid of them. And yes he did have them EVERYONE said so, and if he didnt why did he get his ass kicked over something he didnt have. Someone who has nothing to hide dosent kick inspecors out for nothing does he? Or do they sacrifice their regime for something they dont have?

Plus we were at a constant state of war with them. Iraqi AA sites were constantly targeting and attacking coalition fighters over the no-fly zone. So how many more reasons do you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]It is linking Iraq to war on terrorism in that it is a necessary step against international terrorists and terrorist organizations. Furthermore, it is not did said that Iraq to be one of those "nations" that planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Really? What Iraq sponsored terror organization struck against or threatened the US?

And if, at the time, he was not making a connection between 9/11 and Iraq as justification for the attack, why put it in there?

The fact is, prior to the war, there was much media given to the alledged 9/11 hijackers, and Iraqi Intelligence agents meeting in Eastern Europe. Bush made many speeches, ever so subtly tying Iraq and Al-Queda and 9/11. And in the very letter written to Congress to authorize the war on Iraq, he does the very same thing, linking it to the war on terror AND 9/11 though there was no proof they were tied.

Quote[/b] ]Wake up we did find wmds, hear of the sarin and mustard gas bomb?

That may be the stupidest thing said on this forum, and that is saying alot!

Are you REALLY saying ONE left over artillery shell from the Iran-Iraq War, that didn't even go off properly on some roadside is justification for the war? That THAT is the WMD we were so worried Saddam would throw against us???

Give me a break. Turn the channel to something other than FOX News before you embarress yourself even more!

Quote[/b] ]If your expecting us to find all of it just piled nice and neat for us to find, your wrong. The guy hide the stuff for 12 yrs, hes gotten good at it, so if we couldnt find it for 12 years what makes you think were gonna find it any time soon? Especially when its probably in syria, the un staled too much and since they refused to do their job we wated time, that time probably was used to get rid of them. And yes he did have them EVERYONE said so, and if he didnt why did he get his ass kicked over something he didnt have. Someone who has nothing to hide dosent kick inspecors out for nothing does he? Or do they sacrifice their regime for something they dont have?

To late. You already did!

What happened to all the great intel Bush had for us? The mobile chemical labs that turned out to be nothing?? What about the oh so great UN presentation by Powell?

Do you do any reading on your own or do you just parrot what you hear?

Quote[/b] ]Plus we were at a constant state of war with them. Iraqi AA sites were constantly targeting and attacking coalition fighters over the no-fly zone. So how many more reasons do you want?

Heaven forbid they try to assert their national soverignty!!! crazy_o.gif

The UN as well as Blix as well as the paper trail as well as scientist not on the CIA payroll, have all said there were none left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The UN couldnt stop the US even if their lives depended on it. The US simply doesnt give a dang about the UN, and thats that.

The UN is corrupt organization that has lost all of its credibility. UN is a joke.

Yeah, that's why your beloved Bush was on his knees begging for a new resolution. Even agreed to allow the Iraqis veto US military operations. You got part right about who lost credibility, it starts with an "U" but is followed by another letter which is not "N".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

homerj and farmcoot vs. our regulars, this will be entertaining. Don't mind me. smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just wait denoir! when kerry is elected im going to wait......damn......neo-cons own the election....Dammit! mad_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]homerj and farmcoot vs. our regulars, this will be entertaining. Don't mind me.

The horror...... wow_o.gif  ghostface.gif

Quote[/b] ]

Give me a break. Turn the channel to something other than FOX News before you embarress yourself even more!

I love ze Fox news with the the no spin zone. You should hear Bill now about Iraq...it will suprise you.... wow_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]

Are you REALLY saying ONE left over artillery shell from the Iran-Iraq War, that didn't even go off properly on some roadside is justification for the war? That THAT is the WMD we were so worried Saddam would throw against us???

Hundreds of those shells from Iran-Iraq War/other was reported missing (cannot find) by the UN. Luckily that sarin did not mix..... crazy_o.gif  ghostface.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]
There wouldn't be terrorists in Iraq if we weren't there. tounge_o.gif

Where would they be instead if they weren't kept busy in Iraq? rock.gif

Getting shot up in Afghanistan or waiting for our idiot President to give them another reason to start shooting at us.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]

Don't get me wrong - I was all for the invasion of Afghanistan, but I really don't think that the Iraq debacle was necessary or justified - even if Saddam had WMDs. Lots of other countries have them, lots of other countries have more of a reason to use them against us.

Who?

North Korea and Iran off the top of my head. I'd argue that Iraq had more of a reason to use them on us than Syria or Libya, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Getting shot up in Afghanistan or waiting for our idiot President to give them another reason to start shooting at us.

Bush will pwn your ass in a sec... crazy_o.gif  tounge_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]

North Korea and Iran off the top of my head. I'd argue that Iraq had more of a reason to use them on us than Syria or Libya, though.

What will a war with North Korea be like? seoul disappearing from the map? or Iran? Will the body count be a hell of lot worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

North Korea and Iran off the top of my head. I'd argue that Iraq had more of a reason to use them on us than Syria or Libya, though.

What will a war with North Korea be like? seoul disappearing from the map? or Iran? Will the body count be a hell of lot worse?

Yes. But does that make it any less justified that Iraq? The principle is the same - both countries posess WMDs, both have either used and/or threatened to use them, both have an undying hatred for us, both have had conflicts with us (and lost) both have consistently violated UN sanctions and both are brazen supporters of terror and WMD proliferation (much more so than Iraq ever was).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any corrupt leader is going to start causing problems on the worldwide scale, why wait for that to happen when you could just go in and take him out? What was UN's plan of action? To send troops in and have a cup of tea with Sadam and send in counselors to change how he acts? Or maybe walk into some terrorists camps and ask them to stop. Don't you guys get it? The only thing that will ever get through to these kinds of people is violence, thats what they live for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any corrupt leader is going to start causing problems on the worldwide scale, why wait for that to happen when you could just go in and take him out? What was UN's plan of action? To send troops in and have a cup of tea with Sadam and send in counselors to change how he acts? Or maybe walk into some terrorists camps and ask them to stop. Don't you guys get it? The only thing that will ever get through to these kinds of people is violence, thats what they live for.

And what had Saddam done since 1991? His military couldn't even control it's own borders (evidenced by the Turkish Army's forays into Northern Iraq during the mid '90s) - what kind of threat did it pose? One as grave as Iran or North Korea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
homerj and farmcoot vs. our regulars, this will be entertaining. Don't mind me. smile_o.gif

At least some people have balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The UN couldnt stop the US even if their lives depended on it. The US simply doesnt give a dang about the UN, and thats that.

The UN is corrupt organization that has lost all of its credibility. UN is a joke.

Yeah, that's why your beloved Bush was on his knees begging for a new resolution. Even agreed to allow the Iraqis veto US military operations. You got part right about who lost credibility, it starts with an "U" but is followed by another letter which is not "N".

Oil-For-Food, even Kofi Annan probably had his grubby paws in that mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×