2006: Almost 90% of soldiers think war was retaliation for Saddams role in 9/11

[Koolblue13]

We now have a military pressence in the Middle East, I can see that being good for Isreal. Arn't they one of the countries who have publicly said they knew it would happen and told us before hand. I've also seen a lot of reports about Jews who worked in the towers taking off that day, don't know how true that is though.

Also, wasn't Saddam at war with the talliband before 9/11? If so, wouldn't he have been an allie?

[JMS]

We now have a military pressence in the Middle East, I can see that being good for Isreal. Arn't they one of the countries who have publicly said they knew it would happen and told us before hand. I've also seen a lot of reports about Jews who worked in the towers taking off that day, don't know how true that is though.

I think that has all been disproved. Jews were killed in 911. Israeli's were killed in 911. There were reports of a mosad spy ring infultrating US military bases selling paintings which was false. The 5 dancing Israeli's in the link above who were seen and detained as they celibrated the 911 catastrophy were originally tied to Israeli inteligence. I think that was disproven too. Just a bunch of idiots giddy about being in the middle of where history was being made.

Also, wasn't Saddam at war with the talliband before 9/11? If so, wouldn't he have been an allie?

No Saddam's Iraq shares no boarder with Afghanistan. Iraq was not at war with the Taliban. I believe Iran had fought some skirmishes with the Taliban. Iran being Shia and the Taliban being Sunni.

The taliban's big ally in that region was Pakistan. Who are now our "ally".

[Koolblue13]

Thanks for settin me straight.

[Predicto]

Yep. However, it is pretty much understood that Al Queda hated Saddam prior to the invasion, because he was a secular dictator and they want theocracy.

[JMS]

Yep. However, it is pretty much understood that Al Queda hated Saddam prior to the invasion, because he was a secular dictator and they want theocracy.

Yep, In Bin Laudin's statements he refers to Saddam and Iraq as Communists. Because Saddam was allied with the secular anti religious communists before the soviet union collapsed. Bin Laudin hated Saddam because he as you say was a secular leader. Saddam did not trust Bin Ladin for the same reasons.

Bin Laudin doesn't want a theocracy, he wants a return of the Caliphate, which was a hereditary monarchy. The religious aspect of the Caliphate is a separate but equal association. Just not equal in the same realm. Much like existed in Russia before Communism where the Czars and Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church were seen as equals. One ruled temporal Russia, the other ruled the spiritual realm.

[Koolblue13]

Yep, In Bin Laudin's statements he refers to Saddam and Iraq as Communists. Because Saddam was allied with the secular anti religious communists before the soviet union collapsed. Bin Laudin hated Saddam because he as you say was a secular leader. Saddam did not trust Bin Ladin for the same reasons.

Bin Laudin doesn't want a theocracy, he wants a return of the Caliphate, which was a hereditary monarchy. The religious aspect of the Caliphate is a separate but equal association. Just not equal in the same realm. Much like existed in Russia before Communism where the Czars and Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church were seen as equals. One ruled temporal Russia, the other ruled the spiritual realm.

I bet I know what it would have taken to unite those two. Which I guess means we were right in thinking they were in cahoots, it's just our time line thats a little off.

[airborneskins]

if they were randomly selected (and the poll would be **** if they didn't even try) then its legit. 90% of 1000 is a very significant statistic.

Yes I agree that 90% of 1000 is a high number, however, after reading and re-reading the link again, the only place that it shows the 90% is in the high lites of the article. Nowhere in the article does it actually show the 90%.

Personal feelings aside, I have to believe that 90% of the military does not feel that way.

[PeterMP]

Anyway 70% of the country believed that Saddam had links and played a hand in 911 before we Invaded Iraq. Colin Powell said as much in front of the United Nations speech as he outlined terrorists who he said Saddam supported.

That's now what he said at all. He said before 911 there were Al Queada operating in Iraq, but in portions that Saddam had no control over. Post-911, after the invasion of Afghanastan, and after the return of US pressure on Iraq that activity by Al Queada had increased in Iraq, including in areas that Saddam had control over such as Baghdad. Essentiall, pre-911 no ties. Post-911 there were ties and they were growing. Nobody has ever refuted what Powell said. In threatening Iraq and pushing Al Queda out of Afghanastan, we caused them to come together. A classic the enemy of my enemy is my friend situation.

[mikeyf316]

As a former soldier who served with many of the guys and girls who are over there now, let me tell you that this is complete bull****.

[Popeman38]

Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies condusted the survey. They went to unnamed places to poll 944 of the soldiers on the ground. There is no mention whether the respondants were prescreened other than to say that random sampling was used. They also will not release the questions used in the poll, which I find slightly incriminating. I have a feeling that the wording of the questions has a lot to do with the results being as they are. This is like Amnesty International polling the prisoners at Gitmo whether they are being treated fairly...

[JMS]

That's now what he said at all. He said before 911 there were Al Queada operating in Iraq, but in portions that Saddam had no control over. Post-911, after the invasion of Afghanastan, and after the return of US pressure on Iraq that activity by Al Queada had increased in Iraq, including in areas that Saddam had control over such as Baghdad. Essentiall, pre-911 no ties. Post-911 there were ties and they were growing. Nobody has ever refuted what Powell said. In threatening Iraq and pushing Al Queda out of Afghanastan, we caused them to come together. A classic the enemy of my enemy is my friend situation.

Powell definitely made the case both that Iraq was involved in Terrorism. That Iraq had ties to Al Quada, inferring 911. And that Iraq would likely provide their WMD to terrorists/Al Quada.

All of it was false. All of it was vetted by the CIA. All of it has since been shown to not only be false now, but known to be false when Powell said it. Powell stated as much only months after he gave the speech.

The facts are that Iraq was never proven to be active in International Terrorism. The only claim of Iraq ever having committed an act of international terrorism came almost a decade before we invaded Iraq. George Bush Sr. when visiting Kuwait after he left office. The Kuwaiti's claimed they stopped an assassination attempt planned by Saddam. No evidence of this claim was ever provided to the United States. No people involved in this plot were ever interviewed by the United States. US Intelligence currently doubts whether this ever took place and if the Kuwaiti's didn't make up the entire thing.

other false or misleading myths...

Saddam gassed his own people the Kurds ........ false

Saddam supported suicide bombers in Israel ..... misleading*

Saddam had ties with Al Quada ..................... false

Iraq was a terrorist state ....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, false

* Saddam gave money to the families of suicide bombers.. 20k. It is Israels policy to destroy the home and impoverish the families ( mothers, fathers, wives, children ) of suicide bombers. Impoverished Palestinians including Suicide bombers also receive money from the EU and USAID because in the United States we don't hold the families of criminals responsible for the actions of their relatives. There is no evidence of Iraq providing money to the families of suicide bombers before their deaths.

My second purpose today is to provide you with additional information, to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well as Iraq's involvement in terrorism, which is also the subject of Resolution 1441 and other earlier resolutions.

I might add at this point that we are providing all relevant information we can to the inspection teams for them to do their work.

The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources. And some are those of other countries. Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to. I cannot tell you everything that we know. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling.

My friends, the information I have presented to you about these terrible weapons and about Iraq's continued flaunting of its obligations under Security Council Resolution 1441 links to a subject I now want to spend a little bit of time on. And that has to do with terrorism. <A onclick="javascript:popup('./powell-slides/38.html','420','510')" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html#38">Slide 38

Our concern is not just about these elicit weapons. It's the way that these elicit weapons can be connected to terrorists and terrorist organizations that have no compunction about using such devices against innocent people around the world.

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 Qaida 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 associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. <A onclick="javascript:popup('./powell-slides/39.html','420','510')" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html#39">Slide 39

POWELL: You see a picture of this camp.

The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal. <A onclick="javascript:popup('./powell-slides/40.html','420','510')" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html#40">Slide 40Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.

Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.

During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These Al Qaida affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months. Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaida. These denials are simply not credible. Last year an Al Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, ``good,'' that Baghdad could be transited quickly.

POWELL: After the attack, an associate of the assassin left Jordan to go to Iraq to obtain weapons and explosives for further operations. Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not credible. We know of Zarqawi's activities in Baghdad. I described them earlier.

And now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice, and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go.

We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and Al Qaida.

Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida.

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.

Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery.

On and on... All of it false.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

[roqnap1]

Yup 944 speak for the tens of thousands of troops that are there. :doh:

I HATE POLLS...

While I hate polls too....I have to say that this is a great sampling.

Only 1000 random people are necessary in NATIONWIDE polls to create a +/- 3% that most people respect.

So if 1000/300,000,000 = +/- 3%...944/150,000 must = +/-1% or better.

That is a quality sampling....IF it was indeed a random sampling and not one camp (or something like that).

[PeterMP]

Powell definitely made the case both that Iraq was involved in Terrorism. That Iraq had ties to Al Quada, infering 911. And that Iraq would likely provide their WMD to terrorists/Al Quada.

All of it was false. All of it was vetted by the CIA. All of it has since been shown to not only be false now, but known to be false when Powell said it. Powell stated as much only months after he gave the speach.

Come on JMS, read your own quoted information. I won't go through the whole thing, but let's just take this part:

"Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today. "

After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of them went to Iraq. That is AFTER 911.

[DixieFlatline]

other false or misleading myths...

Saddam gassed his own people the Kurds ... false

Please show me where this is false. Never heard anyone dispute this.

Saddam supported suicide bombers in Israel .... misleading

Must depend on what your definition of 'support' is

Saddam had ties with Al Quada .... false

Even the 9/11 commission said there were ties. They disagreed on whether or not they coordinated efforts.

Why didn't you highlight this passage?

"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida 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 associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq."

[Popeman38]

While I hate polls too....I have to say that this is a great sampling.

Only 1000 random people are necessary in NATIONWIDE polls to create a +/- 3% that most people respect.

So if 1000/300,000,000 = +/- 3%...944/150,000 must = +/-1% or better.

That is a quality sampling....IF it was indeed a random sampling and not one camp (or something like that).

Straight from Zogby: The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

[JMS]

Come on JMS, read your own quoted information. I won't go through the whole thing, but let's just take this part:

"Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today. "

After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of them went to Iraq. That is AFTER 911.

Ahhhh, well if you're not going to read the quotes or the speech let me spell it out for you with crayons... Powel mentioned Al Quada 33 times and Bin Laudin six times during his speach. He provided evidence ( wrong evidence) and stated Iraq was involved with Al Quada for decades. He further mentioned meetings between Saddam and Bin Laudin, which never took place. He said Saddam really started giving aid to Bin Ladin after his attacks on our embassy and the USS Cole, which was false. He said Saddam was a supporter of Al-Zarqawi wich was further false.

Powell definately linked Saddam with Al Quada, both before and after the attacks on 9-11. wrongly. That link is partially what justified the Iraq war. 70% of the people of the country believed such a link existed. They believed in that link the because the administration told them it was fact.

Coarse you'd have to read the links to acknowledge these facts.

[Koolblue13]

So do some of you guys still think we were justified going to war with Iraq and killing Saddam under the information we were presented with by leaders of our government?

[Popeman38]

So do some of you guys still think we were justified going to war with Iraq and killing Saddam under the information we were presented with by leaders of our government?

Yes, and yes.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

So do some of you guys still think we were justified going to war with Iraq and killing Saddam under the information we were presented with by leaders of our government?

Come on dude you should know by now that some people will always and forever be drinking the kool-aid.

[Koolblue13]

Come on dude you should know by now that some people will always and forever be drinking the kool-aid.

I know, just continues to amaze me. On the other hand my "tin foil hat" does get a little heavy sometimes, but at least it has a Skins sticker on it.

[Popeman38]

Come on dude you should know by now that some people will always and forever be drinking the kool-aid.

So, what flavor kool-aid are you drinking?

[Koolblue13]

So, what flavor kool-aid are you drinking?

I'm drinking mixed berry. It's red white and blue.

[JMS]

Please show me where this is false. Never heard anyone dispute this. (Iraq gassed the Kurds)

The United States Army War College investigated this claim back in 1998 in an attempt to understand how Iran and Iraq used Chemical weapons. There results were published in the NY times. By Stephen C. Pelletiere Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm

Must depend on what your definition of 'support' is

As I said. Saddam gave no money to Palistinians suicide bombers. Saddam's Iraq, The EU, and The United States through USAID gave money to the impoverished familes of suicide bombers after Israel bull dozed their homes and made them homeless. Which is their policy. In America we don't hold the families of criminals responsible for the actions of their family member. If you're saying Saddam supported suicide bombers by giving money to their families, then the EU and US are also guilty... which is stupid.

Even the 9/11 commission said there were ties. They disagreed on whether or not they coordinated efforts.

Actually both the 9-11 commission and the Baker commision which were both non partisan both came to a consensus opinion endorsed by all the members which stated no ties. No coordinated effort. No operational suport. No weapons nor money provided. Nothing. Even the meetings which Powell sighted never took place.

Why didn't you highlight this passage?

Cause I thought the passage I did highlight was more damning. I did post that section.. I just thought where Powell said Saddam's links with Al Quada went back a decade was a better smoking guns... All false of coarse.

[roqnap1]

Straight from Zogby: The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

Interesting...I know from my media ethics and statistics courses the first part of what I said is accurate. The "1% or better" bit was just me speculating.

I wonder how they figure it's still +/- 3.3% with such a condensed sampling.

All the more reason not to trust polls I guess...

[PeterMP]

So do some of you guys still think we were justified going to war with Iraq and killing Saddam under the information we were presented with by leaders of our government?

Well, I was never particulaly happy w/ this war, but it had more to do w/ our ability to do the job than Iraq and Saddam. I was always worried about the Generals that were saying it would take several hundred thousand troops. I always thought before the war we should have taken steps that would have further destabilized Iraq, allowed us to identify and develop possible post-war leaders in Iraq, and start to prepare the Iraq population for a a post-Saddam Iraq BEFORE invading. To do that, a second UN resolution would have been useful, but the French promised to veto any reasonable second resolution.

I believe that the majority of Powell's speach was accurate (there were GROWING ties between Iraq and Al Qeada most of which were directly related to our invasion of Afghanastan and our stance on Iraq), and the parts that weren't where phrased in a manner to make it clear that there were issues (e.g. the tubes; JMS he never says Bin Ladden and Saddam meet, he talks about "they" as in Iraq and Al Qeada, but not the two individuals).

I believe the only reasonable thing to conclude prior to the war was that it was very likely that Saddam did have WMD that he was hiding (not nuclear though) because Blix, the UN weapon inspector, who didn't support the war believed that, and we KNEW he had them before, which is why he kicked the weapons inspectors out before. It was not logical that he would destroy the weapons, which is what the international community wanted and would have lifted the sanctions w/o keeping records or alerting the international community he was doing so (even though now that appears to be what did happen (I guess just another example of a dictator not acting in a logical manner that is in his own best interest).

I believe these things coupled w/ the fact that Saddam was generally a bad guy and an Arab democracy would help us that the idea of the war was not a bad one. The execution of the war right from the start (not committing enough troops right away and not having permission from Turkey to uses bases, etc) was poor and even w/ perfect execution, I'm not sure the military was (or is) large enough to carry it out successfully.