The Iraq thread 3

[denoir 0]

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.

Yeah, tell that to Blair and Bush next time when they talk nice about Gaddafi!

Diplomacy is the name of the game. You can't go around shooting people you don't like. In the end they'll gang up on you.

Saddam was effectivly contained. He did not have any WMD and he was not capable of invading another country - on the contrary, he didn't even have control over the norther parts of Iraq. What should have been done is the same what was done with Libya: diplomacy. You lift the sanctions in exchange for stuff (like inspections, human rights etc). You give him a chance to get back to the warm and fuzzy embrace of the international community. Give him legitimity.

He would still be a bastard who you wouldn't like to have near your kids, but that's a very small price to pay when the alternative was 800+ dead US soldiers and thousands of Iraqi civilians and a lot more Iraqi soldiers.

Gaddafi is a ruthless bastard renown for his support of terrorists. Do you support an invasion of Lybia, or do you think that the diplomatic approach as applied by Bush & the international community in this case was good?

[farmcoot 0]

Saddam was effectivly contained. He did not have any WMD and he was not capable of invading another country - on the contrary, he didn't even have control over the norther parts of Iraq. What should have been done is the same what was done with Libya: diplomacy. You lift the sanctions in exchange for stuff (like inspections, human rights etc). You give him a chance to get back to the warm and fuzzy embrace of the international community. Give him legitimity.

You see this is where we differ. Go ahead and give Saddaam a "big warm fuzzy hug". While he murders and rapes your family. Sadaam wants nothing more to kill you.

[denoir 0]

You see this is where we differ. Go ahead and give Saddaam a "big warm fuzzy hug". While he murders and rapes your family. Sadaam wants nothing more to kill you.

And what about Gaddafi?

[farmcoot 0]

You see this is where we differ. Go ahead and give Saddaam a "big warm fuzzy hug". While he murders and rapes your family. Sadaam wants nothing more to kill you.

And what about Gaddafi?

The same.

[billybob2002 0]

interesting pew poll.....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...._poll_1

Quote[/b] ]

Poll Suggests Bush Support Has Grown

Thu Jun 17, 4:03 PM ET  Add Politics - AP to My Yahoo!

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) got a boost from the public's recent focus on the funeral of Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) and support for his Iraq (news - web sites) policy spiked over the last month as the United States prepared to hand power over to Iraqis, according to a poll released Thursday.

Quote[/b] ]

Almost six in 10, 57 percent, said the situation in Iraq is going well, up from 46 percent a month earlier. Almost that many, 55 percent, said military action in Iraq was the right decision, up slightly from 51 percent a month earlier.

Optimism that U.S. troops will come home in the next two years was up, with 50 percent now saying that compared to 35 percent in April. While the violence in Iraq has continued, much of the recent news coverage has focused on the gradual handover of power to Iraqis.

[denoir 0]

You see this is where we differ. Go ahead and give Saddaam a "big warm fuzzy hug". While he murders and rapes your family. Sadaam wants nothing more to kill you.

And what about Gaddafi?

The same.

So you disagree with Bush on bringing back Gaddafi to the international community and lifting the sanctions aganist Lybia?

[homerj 0]

Whats so stupid about that? Of course you liberals are going to downplay them but like it or not they are WMD's. You guys are always saying that they dont exist. Oh really? Then wtf did we just find? Waterballoons?

Saddam and osama dont have to be tied, (thought they were). In a post 9/11 world we cant take any chances. Clinton didnt do shit for 8yrs even though we were attacked by terrorists numerous times. The sudanese even offered us osama, but bubba said no.

We cant do that anymore. You liberals attack Bush for not doing enough to stop 9/11, but at the same time attack him cause he went after saddam. WTF? Make up your minds, do you or dont you want him to stop any threat, percieved or real? The guy dosent want 9/11 to happen again, thats why we went after iraq. Clearly saddam was hostile, a terrorists himself by terrorizing and attacking his neighbors and his own people, he never stopped shooting at us, and had ties with osama(ansar al islam) so you want us to wait for him to give the terrorists wmds? He already gave them safe haven, cash, and supplies, wmds would be next. So really for all those reasons, plus the liberation of millions why not attack saddam??

Yeah what about all that? EVERYONE, including your beloved un and france came to the same conclusion. Ok that intel could have been a bit dated, or he could have hidden or moved them noone knows now. All that is the result of clinton screwing up our defense and intel agencies with budget cuts and all that.

Read a history book, youll be amazed hoe it repeats itself. We fight badguy, fail to fully disarm them and neutralize them, what happens? They regain their strenght and we have to fight them again. Remember a guy named hitler? We fucked up with him, sorry if we dont want to do the same with saddam.

[Akira 0]

Saddam was effectivly contained. He did not have any WMD and he was not capable of invading another country - on the contrary, he didn't even have control over the norther parts of Iraq. What should have been done is the same what was done with Libya: diplomacy. You lift the sanctions in exchange for stuff (like inspections, human rights etc). You give him a chance to get back to the warm and fuzzy embrace of the international community. Give him legitimity.

You see this is where we differ. Go ahead and give Saddaam a "big warm fuzzy hug". While he murders and rapes your family. Sadaam wants nothing more to kill you.

What are you? Twelve? Because thats what I gather from your responses.

Not one person here wants to give Saddam "a big fuzzy hug." Not one person didn't think he was a horrible depot.

But Saddam was NOT a threat to the US or anyone else. He had NO military. Even Al-Queda, the very same group you and others claim were cozy to Saddam, refused to help Saddam in anyway. Bin Laden hates Saddam as much as the Sauds, and wanted in no way to be tied to Saddam. This comes from intelligence and interogations from Al Queda prisoners.

(can give links if you want)

[homerj 0]

So with your stupid logic your sugesting that just cause hitler wasnt a imenent threat in 1939 we were right to not do shit, even though by doing so we would have saved the lives of millions? Is that right??

They obviosly didnt hate eachother enough to not work together to fight the kurds. Saddam is a paranoid control freak. He crushed everyone who could even pose a threat, including political parties that have no army. But we know ansar al islam operated out of the north. If he distrusted them so much why they hell would he allow and suport another military force in his own country? If they hated eachother like you claim, he would have crushed ansar al islam or denied them refuge in the first place.

LOL, he had no military?? Then what were we shooting at during the invasion? Paper targets? Last time I checked the average iraqi didnt drive a tank, or own AA guns. All that stuff was military hardware fielded by an army. Maybe not much of one, but 9/11 has proven that groups weaker than an army have done something that no army has ever done in quite a while, hit us at home. So there dosent have to be a huge army for a country to threaten us.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Un-friggin-believable... check this transcript out. (White House press conference, btw)

Quote[/b] ]Q Scott, I'm a little confused, and it could be a factor of age, but I'm just wondering, you were saying this morning that the findings of the 9/11 Commission, which definitively say that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, are completely consistent with your position that there was such a collaborative relationship. And I'm just wondering if you could explain how those two disparate thoughts are completely consistent.

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. If you go back and look at what the September 11th Commission said, they talked about how there had been high-level contacts between the regime in Iraq and al Qaeda. And they specifically pointed out to contacts between Iraqi intelligence officials and bin Laden in Sudan; and they talked about other contacts. And if you go back and look at what Secretary Powell outlined before the United Nations, this was back in February of 2003, he talked about how we know -- this is quote, "We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service." So he talked about some of contacts in his presentation to the United Nations.

Q Right, but the 9/11 --

MR. McCLELLAN: And that is perfectly consistent with what the September 11th Commission talked about in their report yesterday.

Q But here's where the two positions diverge, and that is that the 9/11 Commission says, yes, there were these contacts, but they did not result in any kind of collaborative relationship. It means the same thing as you and I contact each all the time, but I don't think anybody here at the White House would account you of having --

MR. McCLELLAN: John, we made it clear a long time ago --

Q -- a collaborative relationship with me.

MR. McCLELLAN: We made it clear a long time ago that there is no evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the attacks of September 11th.

Q But they say -- the 9/11 Commission is saying, not only is there no evidence to support that or any collaboration in any other attacks on America, but no evidence to support any kind of collaborative relationship which you have claimed.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, if you go back and look at what Secretary Powell said, and look at what Director Tenet said -- let me point out what Director Tenet said, as well, let me read you facts because you're talking about impressions, let's talk about the facts. I think you need to look at the facts, and look at exactly what was said prior to the decision to go into Iraq and remove that regime from power.

Here's Director Tenet to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in a letter October 7, 2002:

"We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda had discussed safe-haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad."

So those are the facts. And I think if you go and look back at what the September 11th Commission report said yesterday, it's consistent with that report.

Q Scott, let me try to take a stab at this because I think one of the things that you're asserting there is a statement from the Director of Central Intelligence, who has since resigned, who apparently was the same one who told the President that it was a slam-dunk case.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's not trying to say he resigned for reasons other than were personal reasons.

Q People can make up their own minds.

MR. McCLELLAN: As he cited, for family reasons.

Q Okay, but they can make up their own minds.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, well, you're trying to lump it all together, though.

Q I'm pointing out that he resigned. And he also said -- you quoted him as saying that -- he's also the one who told the President that it was a slam-dunk case that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Today -- as of today, there are not. And isn't the issue that whatever the intelligence was about ties, any kind of relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, that for the Vice President of the United States two days ago to assert deep, long-standing ties is, at its most charitable, an overstatement of what the evidence shows?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he's actually referring to exactly what Secretary Powell outlined before the United Nations and what Director Tenet outlined in open session to members of Congress. So, again, I would go back to what we stated were the facts and what we knew. And if you --

Q But that's in direct contradiction to what the 9/11 Commission has found.

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you look back at what we said, we said that -- we said all along that Saddam Hussein's regime supported and harbored terrorists, and that there were ties to terrorism -- including al Qaeda. And if you go back and look at what was outlined before the United Nations -- Secretary Powell goes to talk about how there was support for suicide bombers in the Middle East who sought to undermine the peace process, who sought to undermine the road map.

Q But, Scott, you're trying to make such a technical --

MR. McCLELLAN: Director Tenet --

Q -- argument, cherry-picking what you want to see.

Q Not Iraq.

Q And not only that, this President has said that he thought that Saddam Hussein would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army, as one of his forward armies. The 9/11 Commission is saying, contacts a relationship don't make.

MR. McCLELLAN: David, you're just ignoring the facts. You're not looking at what Director Tenet said. You're not looking at what Secretary Powell said before the United Nations.

Q Scott, do you really think people buy this?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I think that you can seek to drive a wedge, but there is no wedge there between what the September 11th Commission said and what the facts --

Q Between what the facts are and what the reality is.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and what the facts are. You're talking about impressions; I'm talking about facts.

Q No, I'm also talking about facts. The President said he thinks that al Qaeda would like to be a forward -- that Saddam wanted to use al Qaeda as a forward army -- his words from, I believe, October 2002 at a Michigan rally.

This commission has said after its own investigation, and you were the ones who set up the commission, that there was no collaborative relationship. So the conclusion -- the question and conclusion seems to be that administration overstated the evidence that exists.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish what I was saying a minute ago, David. I appreciate your comments, and I'd like to make some myself because there are important facts that I think are being ignored here in this discussion. The facts were very clear. They were outlined by Secretary Powell before the United Nations.

Q Repudiated --

MR. McCLELLAN: They were outlined by Director Tenet to members of Congress.

Q Powell wants know why the intelligence was wrong, doesn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, if you'll let me finish, I would like to go through some of this, because this is an important discussion to have. It's important for the American people to have the complete picture, and to have all the facts before them. And that's exactly what this administration put before the American people in a very public way. Secretary Powell, one of the key things he talked about in his remarks was -- and let me just go back to those remarks -- quote from Secretary Powell's remarks:

"Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the intifada. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s. But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants."

And he goes on to talk about Mr. Zarqawi. We certainly have seen Zarqawi up close during --

Q After the invasion.

MR. McCLELLAN: He was in Iraq prior to the invasion, David. And it's important to point that out to the American people. He had a safe harbor in Iraq. He received medical treatment in Baghdad. And that's what Secretary Powell talked about. And certainly, when you're talking about a post-September 11th world, this President is not going to rely on the good intentions of Saddam Hussein to protect the American people. Saddam Hussein had a long history of using weapons of mass destruction, of supporting and harboring terrorists, and he had a long history of oppression in that country. He certainly knew what was going on in that country. This was a police state in Iraq. And the world is safer and better off because Saddam Hussein has been removed from power.

Terry.

Q The New York Times says the President should apologize to the American people. Also, are you saying that the 9/11 report is wrong? Is that what you're saying that you reject the findings?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that it's consistent with what we have said.

Q It is not consistent. They said this business on the nexus -- sinister nexus is not so.

MR. McCLELLAN: Where did they say that?

Q It's in the story.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.

Q No collaborative relationship.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Terry.

Q Well, I'll pick up on that, if I may.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well -- and we never said that there was operational ties involved in attacks on the United States. Let's be very clear about that. The President talked about that just a short time ago.

Q What are people supposed to conclude, that they're having lunch with each other?

MR. McCLELLAN: A short time ago in his remarks.

Q You talk about deep, long-standing ties. What is that supposed to mean?

MR. McCLELLAN: Saddam Hussein supported and harbored terrorist groups --

Q Why don't you just say the commission is wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: All right.

Q Well, because the terms that you did use, "deep, long-standing ties -- sinister nexus," and the President himself saying, "By removing Saddam Hussein we have removed an ally of al Qaeda," that means they are working together. Did Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda work together, where and when?

MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with your characterization about --

Q Well, what does "ally" mean?

MR. McCLELLAN: But Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda had a common enemy: It was the United States of America. And when you talk about a regime that has a history of supporting and harboring terrorists, and has a history of using weapons of mass destruction on its own people and on its neighbors, and then you look at the world through the lens of September 11th, the President made the absolute right decision to go in and remove that regime from power.

Q That's an argument. Those are not facts.

MR. McCLELLAN: One of the most dangerous --

Q That's just an argument. The facts as determined do not bear out that argument.

MR. McCLELLAN: One of the most dangerous threats we face in this day and age is the nexus between outlaw regimes with weapons of mass destruction and --

Q But you didn't find any.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- terrorist organizations. And the President acted, based on the information that we outlined, and that you can go back and look at. It's public information. Secretary Powell speaking before the United Nations --

Q Who has repudiated his own testimony.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and Director Tenet testifying before Congress about these ties.

Q And just to button this down, the President stands by his statement that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were allies.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, if you go back and look at the facts --

Q I'm asking what the President would say today.

MR. McCLELLAN: He stands by saying that Saddam Hussein's regime had ties to terrorism, including al Qaeda. And the basis of that is what I pointed out in Secretary Powell's remarks and Director Tenet's remarks. And that is consistent with what the September 11th Commission said. The relationship and contacts go back over the last decade.

Q One more on this.

MR. McCLELLAN: And they have a common enemy in the United States of America.

Q That's your definition of allies. One more on this: the information you are pointing us to all comes from before the war in Iraq. In other words, it comes from that same -- we now know, certainly, when it comes to weapons of mass destruction -- deeply flawed intelligence. Since then, the substantial majority of the leaders of Saddam Hussein's regime have been captured and interrogated, and we also have, as the President likes to tell us, two-thirds of the leadership of al Qaeda captured and interrogated. Is there anything new that you can add, because the 9/11 Commission, the only new fact they added was that two senior leaders of al Qaeda denied that there were any ties at all.

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, what they said was that there were high-level contacts, going back for quite some time. And that's consistent with what we said prior to going into Iraq and removing that regime from power.

Q But I'm asking whether there is new information since the war, developed from all of these leaders that we have captured on both sides. We now have in our custody leadership of this alliance on both sides. What have they told us?

MR. McCLELLAN: What do you want to dispute that Secretary Powell said and Director Tenet said? I mean, let's talk about the facts, because those were the facts that we outlined before making the decision to go in and remove that regime from power. And so let's talk about those facts.

Q Have they been borne out by these --

MR. McCLELLAN: It's nice to talk about these impressions and the way people are trying to spin certain things, but let's talk about the facts.

Q I'm looking for facts.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's not ignore those facts. Well, the facts were before the United Nations, through Secretary Powell's statement, and they were before Congress, through Director Tenet's testimony.

Q What have we learned since then, from all this intelligence?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, obviously you learn more post the decision to go into Iraq, and you learn more as you get information from those detainees. And I'm sure that Director Tenet can talk to you about those issues and give you a read on that. That's a very general question you're asking me right here, right now.

Q Is there anything else that goes to the notion of an al Qaeda-Iraq alliance?

MR. McCLELLAN: But if you go back and look at what we outlined, and the facts, we stand by that.

Go ahead, Connie.

Q It's an established fact that past administrations did not take adequate action against terrorists. Is there a lesson in this to Iran and North Korea, and is the U.S. strong enough to mount any offensive against those countries?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Connie, as you know, we're pursuing diplomatic solutions when it comes to North Korea and Iran. And we're working on taking a multilateral approach to address those issues. Certainly, when it comes to confronting threats, there are different ways to confront different threats in different parts of the world. And this President is committed to confronting those threats and addressing them before it's too late, because September 11th, which is what we're talking about here today, changed the equation and taught us that we must confront threats before it is too late. And that's exactly what this President is doing. That's exactly what he did in Iraq.

Q Where was the threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: Saddam Hussein was a threat, he was a destabilizing force in a dangerous region of the world.

Q Did he ever threaten the United States?

MR. McCLELLAN: And he was a sworn enemy of the United States of America who had a history of using weapons of mass destruction both on his own people and on his neighbors. He was a very destabilizing force, and the world is better off because he has been removed from power.

Q Scott, the last poll on the subject found that most Americans, more than half, believe that Iraq had some hand in the planning and the execution of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Do you believe that the White House, the administration has done anything to contribute to that misimpression? Do you believe that you have, in any way, at any time, overstated the ties, the connections between al Qaeda and Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said we said a long time ago that there was no evidence to suggest Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the September 11th attacks. We made that very --

Q After the war you said that.

Q Overstated the relationship in any way?

MR. McCLELLAN: We made that very clear.

Q Yes, in September, after the war you made it clear.

Q Two questions, one, what kind of message President Bush is sending to the new government in New Delhi of Mr. Singh by designating Pakistan yesterday a major non-ally status?

MR. McCLELLAN: Right, and we have previously -- and we have previously announced that.

Q Indian officials in New Delhi are saying that there will be an arms race between India and Pakistan. And now in the next two weeks, they are going to have peace talks again in Delhi.

MR. McCLELLAN: It's important that that dialogue continue, and that India and Pakistan continue to have close contacts and work to reduce tension in that region, work to address these issues through dialogue. We've made that very clear. We certainly have good relations with both countries, and we will continue to build on those relations and help to do our part to facilitate that dialogue so that we can continue to reduce tensions in the region.

Q But how about --

Q Why don't we go back to --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me keep going. Let me keep going because the President is due to be speaking here shortly.

Q I want to go back to Kathleen's question. Do you believe -- you're saying that the White House believes that administration officials bear no responsibility for this misperception of Iraq's role in 9/11 that polls indicate a good half of the American people have. Are you concerned about that? Two questions.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you can go back and look at the facts. And I think the American people recognize that Saddam Hussein's regime was a brutal one. It was an oppressive one. It had a history involving terrorism, and so you have to look at that and have to take that into account when perceptions are formed. There are some facts there that point to the dangers and point to reasons why people might have those views.

In terms of this administration, we laid out the facts very clearly for the American people. And it's important to look at the facts as we outlined them. And it's important to look at it in the context of post-September 11th. September 11th taught us that we must confront these threats before it is too late. September 11th taught us that we are -- or showed us that we are at war on terrorism. This was a terrible tragedy that occurred on American soil, and it taught us that we must confront threats that we face in the 21st century. That's what this President is doing. And you have to look at all the facts that are involved here. But we made it very clear that there was no evidence to suggest that regime was involved in September 11th.

Q And you're not concerned about the -- it doesn't trouble you that so many people have this misperception?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm dealing with the facts up here, and I'm pointing out to you what the facts are in what we said.

Q It is a fact that --

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040617-5.html

[Akira 0]

Holy shit. I'm going to respond to this then step away before I get banned.

<------------------And you can ask Denoir how I got that title before you dare call me a Saddam loving liberal

Quote[/b] ]Whats so stupid about that? Of course you liberals are going to downplay them but like it or not they are WMD's. You guys are always saying that they dont exist. Oh really? Then wtf did we just find? Waterballoons?

And you neo-cons are using this for your trumped up war. 20 year old shells. I say again. Where are the mobile labs that were so proudly displayed at the UN? Oh thats right. They turned out to be nothing. Where is that airline hull claimed to be used by Al Queda to train hijackers. Oh thats right. It turned out to be used for training fire fighters.

One thing you forget is the M in WMD. That stands for MASS in case you forgot. One shell on a roadside that can't even be properly detonated is NOT a Weapon Of Mass Destruction.

You can get back to me when they find the alleged missiles that could be launched at the US in 45 minutes as stated in the State Of The Union.

Quote[/b] ]We cant do that anymore. You liberals attack Bush for not doing enough to stop 9/11, but at the same time attack him cause he went after saddam. WTF? Make up your minds, do you or dont you want him to stop any threat, percieved or real?

What the fuck are you smoking? So now we can just attack anyone or anything because ol' Dubya THINKS there might be a threat there??

PLEASE tell me you are not of voting age.

Quote[/b] ]Read a history book, youll be amazed hoe it repeats itself. We fight badguy, fail to fully disarm them and neutralize them, what happens? They regain their strenght and we have to fight them again. Remember a guy named hitler? We fucked up with him, sorry if we dont want to do the same with saddam.

Yeah. You should try opening some up yourself, since so far your repition of history has been extremely lacking.

Perhaps you should go back to the Original Iraq thread (this is the third one remember), and do some reading from the beginning of everything, because I get tired of asses like you coming in here and repeating the same bullshit that has been disproven and torn apart a thousand times already.

Saddam=Hitler. Fuck me...haven't heard that since the beginning of the Second Iraq thread.

[homerj 0]

LOL, that 911 commision is almost as big of a joke as the un.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

LOL, that 911 commision is almost as big of a joke as the un.

It was commissioned by the White House- what more do you want? And you are 12, aren't you?

[VerySolidSnake 0]

Quote[/b] ]But Saddam was NOT a threat to the US or anyone else. He had NO military.

It doesn't matter if Sadam had a military or not. He himself effectively contained terrorism in his own country. While he didn't have this army that could go around invading countries, he was supporting small groups of terrorists who bring down buildings. How could that not be considered a threat?

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]But Saddam was NOT a threat to the US or anyone else. He had NO military.

It doesn't matter if Sadam had a military or not. He himself effectively contained terrorism in his own country. While he didn't have this army that could go around invading countries, he was supporting small groups of terrorists who bring down buildings. How could that not be considered a threat?

Oh ffs, at least try to watch some news. The official 911 inquiry came to the same conclusion that was obvious to most that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the WTC attacks. There were no connections.

[denoir 0]

@ June 18 2004,03:10)]Un-friggin-believable... check this transcript out. (White House press conference, btw)

It's that damned liberal media  

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]But Saddam was NOT a threat to the US or anyone else. He had NO military.

It doesn't matter if Sadam had a military or not. He himself effectively contained terrorism in his own country. While he didn't have this army that could go around invading countries, he was supporting small groups of terrorists who bring down buildings. How could that not be considered a threat?

Oh ffs, at least try to watch some news. The official 911 inquiry came to the same conclusion that was obvious to most that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the WTC attacks. There were no connections.

The only terrorist groups Iraq supported directly were secular groups including Palestinian groups, the most notable being the various incarnations of Black September. This support ended with the death of Abu Nidal, who was found dead in his Baghdad apartment after "committing suicide" by firing several pistol rounds into his head. The other groups Iraq supported were leftist Iranian seperatists, the most notable of which was the People's Mujahedin, which had been a serious pain in the ass to Iran for over a decade.

edit: you can of course argue that Iraq supported terrorism by providing generous compensation to the families of suicide bombers. This would put them in the same league as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Oman, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, Quatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

[farmcoot 0]

You see this is where we differ. Go ahead and give Saddaam a "big warm fuzzy hug". While he murders and rapes your family. Sadaam wants nothing more to kill you.

And what about Gaddafi?

The same.

So you disagree with Bush on bringing back Gaddafi to the international community and lifting the sanctions aganist Lybia?

Yes.

[homerj 0]

20 yr old shells can still kill us all the same as new ones.

Plus a teaspoon of the stuff can kill all too many people. That enough mass destruction for you?

WTF? Our intel agencies arent perfect they make mistake, especially when they fall into disrepair under clinton. Thanks to that asshat we had no guys on the ground, all our intel was recieved through defectors and the iraqi ntl congress, which hyped intel, not us.

WTF are you bitching about, regime change was the policy of the US for years, by who? Clinton, so it was going to happen sooner or later, Bush just has the balls to go after them before its too late.

Until we have proof that they were or werent there theres still the possibility that they are out there. Do you have pysical proof that they never existed? And no not bs from iraqi officers. Think about it, its not all that hard to hide or ship the stuff out. Theres lots of desert out there, just bulldoze a hole in the middle of nowhere shoot everyone who had any knowledge of it and bingo, you have your missing wmds. And that sounds like the type of thing saddam would do too.

WTF are you smoking, your ignoring all the facts presented. And sorry if its so fucking wrong to free 25 million people. You asshole, wouldnt you like someone to do the same for you?

WMDs or not there are plenty of other reasons for going in. Sandwich iran, intimidate our enemies(look at lybia). Once we get democracy going its gonna spread like crazy, thats why everyone over their is fighting so hard to stop it. Once that happens we wont need to go in and invade people, revolution will be internal, and terrorism, the countries, and places that sponsor or spawn them will be no more.

There was a threat there, even clinton thought they were threatening enough to make our policy regime change. They were also dangerous enough for the un to keep up the sanctions. And arent you listening, look at afghanistan, they lived in the stone age and did something No modern military has done. So get it through your head, the threat dosent have to be massive armies for it to hurt us.

Fuck that im not going through more threads. And you probably couldnt disprove it anyway.

[python3 0]

you claim that ansar al islam operated out of northern iraq and that saddam did nothing to destroy yhtem. Yet you miss the fact that northern iraq was off limits to saddam due to the US giving 10 years of autonomy to the kurds and a no fly zone where the US operated out of Turkey. If ansar was such a problem why didnt the US blow the hell out of them?

[homerj 0]

I bet you wish I was 12, chester.

Look at the jokers on it. The dem asshats left the meeting with pres Bush cause they had something more important to do, like meet the pres of canada, lol.

So yeah it is a joke, its too politisized, their goal isnt the truth, its to hurt Bush.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

In fact, the 9/11 commission has produced evidence that some of the very first contact between AQ operatives and Iraq occurred when Iraq tried to cut a deal with AQ to get them to stop supporting anti-Baathist terrorists in northern Iraq. That group? The beginnings of Anzar al Islam. I've said it since day one: the AQ connection is bullshit because Al Qaeda is run by idealists, and Muslim idealists don't like secular pan-Arabists like Saddam Hussein.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

you claim that ansar al islam operated out of northern iraq and that saddam did nothing to destroy yhtem. Yet you miss the fact that northern iraq was off limits to saddam due to the US giving 10 years of autonomy to the kurds and a no fly zone where the US operated out of Turkey. If ansar was such a problem why didnt the US blow the hell out of them?

Because Anzar was varyingly anti-Saddam to violently anti-Saddam right up to the end.

[homerj 0]

They dont have to see eye to eye to cooperate.

Ever heard of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" ??

[python3 0]

Once we get democracy going its gonna spread like crazy, thats why everyone over their is fighting so hard to stop it. Once that happens we wont need to go in and invade people, revolution will be internal, and terrorism, the countries, and places that sponsor or spawn them will be no more.

thats where you are wrong. If anything, democracy is the last thing to spread in the middle east. The only thing that has occured in the middle east after 9/11 and the wars in afghanistan and iraq is the resurgence of Islam and a major political force. Its happening in all those secular arab nations. If any of those regimes fall an islamic one will rise that will be supported by its people. Besides even if democracy does succeed, who is to say that radicals such as muqtada and what not will not be elected. Just because it is a democracy does not mean they will be pro western. If anything, they will represent their people more, who will want the US out of their countires. You obviously have no clue about the middle east or the people their, i can tell you they dont share the same thoughts on issues such as democracy and western society. With your thinking, you are just setting the stage for more conflicts in the future.