Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

NattyLight

By NattyLight
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
You make some good points, but I still don't think any of it is a justification for war.

Are you against the war because it is going badly or because it was wrong?

Certainly, the case for military action in Iraq was better than that for military action in Grenada and Panama OTHER than we were more likely to be successful in those two cases rather than Iraq. The problem is that the Bush administration didn't realize that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Koolblue13

Koolblue13

Posted
Posted

I am against this war 100%. And I was from the get go. I sat and watched CNN during the shock and awe campaign thinking the begining of the end is near. I was against those as well. I don't think we should go to war unless attacked or an allie is attacked. I don't think we should go to war for the UN either. I also am on record as saying I feel this invasion was intended to fail and we were meant to occupy, not liberate. I was never afraid of Iraq and never will be. I think it's nieve to be afraid of them. Saddam did nothing to be murdered by us and we may eventually pay for it. This war is for power and oil, that ain't worth death. On 9/12 our pres had the chance to say to the american people "things are wrong and we as the greatest nation in the world are going to work together to fix it so nobdy else dies", but instead used it, if not allowed it, to go to war. Thats treason and this administration has the blood of thousands of americans on thier hands. I understand your military and I was too, but this war has been wrong from the start and everyday it seems a little more comes out about it. I don't know if your from princteon or not, but go to Bomans tower and all the other places around where we live and ask yourself if our founding fathers would have put us in this possition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rtbasye

rtbasye

Posted
Posted
:doh: :doh: My goodness, our soldiers can't be THAT ignorant, can they?

No "they" (includes me) arent that ignorant! I'd take a close look at the poll questions- i'd bet the questions were quite leading. Give us some credit here... maybe be a little skeptical at the poll instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted

( do you still think the US was justified in going into Iraq. )

Yes, and yes.

That is a necessarily short answer. To expand that answer at all is to demonstrate how out of touch it is. First off every reason that the US gave for invading Iraq prior to the war was false except one.

  • Not active in International terrorism
  • Not a sponsor or supporter to Al quada
  • No ties to Al Quada
  • Not giving WMD technology to terrorists
  • Not involved in spreading WMD technology to poria states
  • Was not currently Sheltering Al Quada and Osama Bin Ladin.

With regards to Iraq they are false. But every one of them is true with regards to Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Our "ally" in the war on terrorism. The man who we now sell weapons too.

  • Active in international terrorism before and after 911.
  • Was a sponsor of the Taliban and thus Al Quada prior to 911.
  • Had direct ties with both the Taliban and Al Quada before and after 911.
  • Has WMD.
  • Has worked to export their WMD(nuclear bombs) technology to N. Korea, Iran and Libyia.
  • Is currently sheltering Al Quada.

The one last justification for the invasion of Iraq which wasn't wrong was the human rights record of Saddam. Which is no justification at all. including Pakistan there are 20 other countries in the world which are equally deserving of a military invasion based on the Human rights justification.

  1. Sudan .........................Omar al-Bashir
  2. North Korea...................Kim Jong il
  3. Burma..........................Than Shwe
  4. Zimbabwe.....................Robert Mugabe
  5. Uzbekistan....................Islam Karimov
  6. China...........................Hu Jintao
  7. Saudi Arabia..................King Abdullah
  8. Turkmenistan.................Saparmurat Niyazov
  9. Iran.............................Seyed Ali Khamenei
  10. Equatorial Guinea...........Teodoro Obiang Nguema
  11. Libya...........................Muammar Al Qaddafi
  12. Swaziland.....................KingMswati III
  13. Belerus........................Aleksandr Lukashenko
  14. Cuba..........................Fidel Castro
  15. Eritria.........................Isaias Afwerki
  16. Syria..........................Bashar Al-Assad
  17. Ethiopia......................Mele Zenawi
  18. Cameroon....................Paul Biya
  19. Laos...........................Choummaly Sayasone

Fact is the incompetent invasion and occupation of Iraq has lead to significantly more human rights abuses, murders and flight than Saddam would have caused left on his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted
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;

Have you gone back and read that speach lately? I provided you with links and exurpts but you said you didn't read those. The entire speach was false.

Nobody believe that speech was "accurate". Only months after the speech came out Powell went on the record stating he had serious concerns his facts were false. The 911 commission, Baker commission, and a half dozen books have stated powell was wrong. Not only was he wrong, but what he said was known to be wrong at the time the speech was given.

CIA and Powell have both since come out and said "the tubes" were not for centrifuges but were for artillery just as the Iraqi's had stated. The statement Powell said before the UN that they were designed to precisely for artillery was false. They were listed at the same precision as American military artillery tubes.

JMS he never says Bin Laden and Saddam meet, he talks about "they" as in Iraq and Al Qaeda, but not the two individuals).

You are getting a new found attention to detail? Why don't you read the speech. Read the 911 report. Read the Baker report. Read Collin Powell's own critique of his speech. Nobody agrees with you, not even Powell in your claim his speech was "mostly correct". It was blatantly false. through and through... Where it wasn't outright fabrication it was misleading.

Al Qaeda source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaeda would no longer support activities against Baghdad.

FALSE, Zaquary was conducting operations in Iraq for years before our invasion.

Early Al Qaeda ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaeda, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaeda.

No such "ties" existed.

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.

False. We know of one meeting between Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda. In that meeting Al Qaeda requested shelter and support and Saddam rejected their request. Al Qaeda hated Saddam and overthrowing him was one of their goals. Saddam knew this and didn't trust Al Qaeda.

Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaeda's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaeda member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaeda after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaeda'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 Qaeda members on document forgery.

False. There is no evidence which suggests Saddam gave any assistance to Al Qaeda. Not money, Not Arms, not bases, and not training.

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.

The weapons inspectors left on the eve of the American invasion because neither the Iraqi's nor the United States could guarantee their safety.

As for everybody in the world believing Saddam had WMD. You know the US currently outpaces the next what 200 or 400 largest militarise combined in military spending right? Well we also outspend everybody in intelligence gathering. We also share our intelligence with our allies. If Britain, France and Germany believed Iraq had WMD it's because we told it to them. France stated that the only evidence that they had that Iraq had WMD was from the US, and that they didn't trust it because the US was so motivated towards invasion.

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).

? We destroyed his WMD, and his capacity to create them after the first gulf war. He gave us the records and the stock piles and allowed us to destroy them. We said he hadn't given us all of them, and we kept the embargo in place for a decade longer. You think he wasn't acting in his own best interest? I think for a country which outspends the rest of the world on intelligence gathering it's hard to believe we didn't know jack about what was really happening in Iraq. Knowing that we were regularly lying to the US people, to our allies, and to the United Nations; I think you are being incredible naive to believe we weren't lying about other things we knew too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
#98QBKiller

#98QBKiller

Posted
Posted
Actually it was Palestinians and Israeli's who were photographed and reported widely as having danced in the Street. Israeli's in the shadow of the world trade center who were photographing themselves dancing and mugging it up for the camera before they were picked up by the FBI and deported.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1

Israeli's like former PM Bebe Netanyahu who said in a press conference that 911 was a very good thing for Israel. Palestinian children who were dancing and celebrating as shop owners gave out candy before the PA put a stop to it.

I don't remember any Iraqi response.

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. I watched that speech from Saudi Arabia. I remember saying to myself, well that's a pretty strong case. If the Secretary of State says so, I guess you have to go with that. I also remember thinking if it turns out not to be true, I'm holding them, including Powell responsible. Cheney has said as recently as two months ago that Iraq could be tied directly to 911 and terrorism.

On the other side of the argument is President Bush, Dick Clark former anti terrorism Czar, the bi partisan 911 commission, The Baker commission, and now George Tenant former CIA director who have all stated no evidence existed of such a connection.

To be fair Bush has said there was before the invasion and only said he had seen no evidence of a connection after the invasion.

You were right, I searched and searched and eventually I found this video which I vividly remember and it turned out to be the Palestinians who were celebrating. Either way, I'll never forget how angry I was on 09/11 when I saw this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ0bWEnW_WU

Link to comment
Share on other sites
terpfan

terpfan

Posted
Posted

It's kind of depressing, but overall I dont care that much. Let them believe what ever it takes them to believe to do their jobs. Its hard for me to say anything bad about anyone who is willing to do something that I would never in a million years volunteer to do. It's the American public and even POLITICIANS that I have problems with...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted

Al Qaeda source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaeda would no longer support activities against Baghdad.

FALSE, Zaquary was conducting operations in Iraq for years before our invasion.

What operation? What building did they blow up? As stated by Powell, they were running training camps in Iraq, but that doesn't mean they were running "operations" against Iraq in Iraq or against Iraqi interest in other countries. Please note the 9-11 commission report agrees w/ Powell (see pg. 78 of http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf). Operations against the Kurds, yes, against Baghdad NO!

Early Al Qaeda ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaeda, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaeda.

False. We know of one meeting between Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda. In that meeting Al Qaeda requested shelter and support and Saddam rejected their request. Al Qaeda hated Saddam and overthrowing him was one of their goals. Saddam knew this and didn't trust Al Qaeda.

How was that meeting made? Do you think somebody in Al Qaeda just called up somebody in Iraq and said let's meet at a bar. Clearly, there were subsequent contacts to set up the meeting. Wouldn't this be considered ties? Powell repeatedly says things like 'Foriegn intelligence agencies tell us...' and 'Our contacts tell us...'. He never says anything like 'like the CIA witnessed a meeting between...'. He was clearly baseing most of this on what other countries were telling us.

Also the 9-11 commission report believed there were different contacts including the ones that created a "truce" between them and at other times. For example, see pg. 83.

Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaeda's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaeda member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaeda after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaeda'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 Qaeda members on document forgery.

False. There is no evidence which suggests Saddam gave any assistance to Al Qaeda. Not money, Not Arms, not bases, and not training.

Are you saying somebody didn't tell us that? Note, Powell never said it happened he said, "Saddam became more interested..." and Saddam was more willing...". He then says we've been told it actually happened. Isn't somebody telling us evidence? What about Zarqawi's stay POST 9/11? Is that not assistance? That was a main point in Powell's talk that you have completely ignored (I wonder why?).

If Britain, France and Germany believed Iraq had WMD it's because we told it to them. France stated that the only evidence that they had that Iraq had WMD was from the US, and that they didn't trust it because the US was so motivated towards invasion.

We destroyed his WMD, and his capacity to create them after the first gulf war. He gave us the records and the stock piles and allowed us to destroy them. We said he hadn't given us all of them, and we kept the embargo in place for a decade longer. You think he wasn't acting in his own best interest? I think for a country which outspends the rest of the world on intelligence gathering it's hard to believe we didn't know jack about what was really happening in Iraq. Knowing that we were regularly lying to the US people, to our allies, and to the United Nations; I think you are being incredible naive to believe we weren't lying about other things we knew too.

You say 'we' like the US had control over the situation. I would have thought that if he did destoryed them and gave us the documentation that UN weapons inspectors wouldn't have had any trouble confirming it, but that isn't the case. Maybe the Germans and the French believed and WE believed it because the UN weapon inspector we're saying that he was not complying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#UNSCOM_inspections_1991-1998

"Ritter also accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming", Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike.""

Ritter being a weapons inspector in the 90's.

Or because Blix, the weapons inspector before the Iraq war, said:

"Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light."

AND:

"On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and by mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

So two weapons insepectors had concluded that Iraq was not complying. Ritter being in the last weapons inspectors team in Iraq before Blix and Blix's team just before the war.

There's no way you can look at the evidence BEFORE the war and come to any conclusion logically other than it is very likely that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Completely forget US intelligence and look at the conclusions of the EXPERTS on the ground in Iraq looking for them. Iraq had not complied!! Look, if Blix would have come out and said, 'I have concluded that it unlikely that Iraq has WMD.' then things would have been different, but he never said anything like that.

I also note that you have not claimed that POST 9-11 that there were growing ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. For example, that Zarqawi spent time in Baghdad, that the Iraqis knew he was there as stated by Powell, and yet did nothing despite request from Jordan. Unfortunately, this fact refutes several things you have claimed (i.e. there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq and that Saddam did not support terrorist).

So to reveiw: The people that are employed by the UN (NOT BY THE US) because they are experts at things like WMD concluded the Iraq likely had WMD programs. Saddam was aiding known terrorist that were associated w/ Al Qeada and refusing request by other countries (in the case of Zarqawi, Jordan and AGAIN NOT THE US) to apprehend them. IMO that strongly suggest a relationship between an Al Qeada and Iraq (even if it was post-911).

Given these two things and the fact that 9-11 happened, a pre-emptive war in Iraq is less appalling then the wars against Panama and Grenada. The only difference is those operations went smoothly and the war in Iraq is/was a mismanaged mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted
What operation? What building did they blow up? As stated by Powell, they were running training camps in Iraq, but that doesn't mean they were running "operations" against Iraq in Iraq or against Iraqi interest in other countries. Please note the 9-11 commission report agrees w/ Powell (see pg. 78 of http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf). Operations against the Kurds, yes, against Baghdad NO!

On page 334.

Responding to a presidential tasking, Clark's office sent a memo to Rice on Septber 18, titled "Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks." Rice's cheif staffer on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusiong that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks.

....

Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and Al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime

quoted also in the 911 commission report pg 559 - According to Clarke, he responded that "al Qaeda did this, " When the President pressed Clarke to check if Saddam was involved and said that he wanted to learn of any shred of evidence, Clarke promised to look at the question again, but added that the NSC, and the intelligence community had looked in the past for linkages between al Qaeda and Iraq and never found any real linkages

How was that meeting made? Do you think somebody in Al Qaeda just called up somebody in Iraq and said let's meet at a bar. Clearly, there were subsequent contacts to set up the meeting. Wouldn't this be considered ties?

Bush's White House exchanged messages with the Taliban. Would you consider The United States had ties to the Taliban? We talk with many countries like Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Yet we claim no ties to those regimes. Fact is speaking does not mean ties. Ties means more than just speaking, it means agreements.

Powell repeatedly says things like 'Foriegn intelligence agencies tell us...' and 'Our contacts tell us...'. He never says anything like 'like the CIA witnessed a meeting between...'. He was clearly baseing most of this on what other countries were telling us.

As the US outspends the next 200 largest militaries combined currently in military budget. We also spend a likewise extravagant amount on intelligence. We planted the intelligence in foreign countries so we could quote that intelligence to our own people. Just like they planted stories of WMD in the NY Times. It was all bogus, and a country which spends 10's of billions of dollars a year on intelligence certainly knew better.

Also the 9-11 commission report believed there were different contacts including the ones that created a "truce" between them and at other times. For example, see pg. 83.

There was only one meeting. When Bin Ladin was getting pushed out of Africa he tried to broker an agreement with Saddam. Saddam didn't give him jack out of that meeting according to our own intelligence and your 911 document.

Are you saying somebody didn't tell us that? Note, Powell never said it happened he said, "Saddam became more interested..." and Saddam was more willing...". He then says we've been told it actually happened. Isn't somebody telling us evidence? What about Zarqawi's stay POST 9/11? Is that not assistance? That was a main point in Powell's talk that you have completely ignored (I wonder why?).

What? I didn't ignore it I directly quoted it. Fact is Zaqawi was active in American occupied Iraq for 3 years. Are you saying we were supporting him too? That's your logic. He existed there, so he must have had support.

Also its you who is ignoring the fact that prior to 911 Zaqawi was in northern Iraq or Kurdish section of Iraq which we were in control of. So were we supporting Zaqawi prior to 911? ridiculous.

You say 'we' like the US had control over the situation. I would have thought that if he did destroyed them and gave us the documentation that UN weapons inspectors wouldn't have had any trouble confirming it, but that isn't the case. Maybe the Germans and the French believed and WE believed it because the UN weapon inspector we're saying that he was not complying:

So two weapons inspectors had concluded that Iraq was not complying. Ritter being in the last weapons inspectors team in Iraq before Blix and Blix's team just before the war.

Ritter was gone from Iraq years before we invaded. Hans Blix was against the Invasion. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq on the eve of the American invasion doing their job and had to be removed because we were invading.

There's no way you can look at the evidence BEFORE the war and come to any conclusion logically other than it is very likely that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Completely forget US intelligence and look at the conclusions of the EXPERTS on the ground in Iraq looking for them. Iraq had not complied!! Look, if Blix would have come out and said, 'I have concluded that it unlikely that Iraq has WMD.' then things would have been different, but he never said anything like that.

There is no way you can look at all the examples of the Bush administration attempts to knowingly mislead the country into war and then try to make a case that they weren't knowingly trying to mislead the country.

I also note that you have not claimed that POST 9-11 that there were growing ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. For example, that Zarqawi spent time in Baghdad, that the Iraqis knew he was there as stated by Powell, and yet did nothing despite request from Jordan. Unfortunately, this fact refutes several things you have claimed (i.e. there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq and that Saddam did not support terrorist).

Zarqawi spent time in Baghdad and Iraq while we had 130,000 or more troops there and it took us three years to get him. And we were dropping bombs on civilian housing to do it. Holding Iraq under Saddam responsible for what we couldn't do ourselves is kinda stupid.

So to reveiw: The people that are employed by the UN (NOT BY THE US) because they are experts at things like WMD concluded the Iraq likely had WMD programs.

Cause we told them they did and we spend tens of billions of dollars to determine such information.. And we used to have a reputation as an honest broker.

Saddam was aiding known terrorist that were associated w/ Al Qeada and refusing request by other countries (in the case of Zarqawi, Jordan and AGAIN NOT THE US) to apprehend them. IMO that strongly suggest a relationship between an Al Qeada and Iraq (even if it was post-911).

Again. Saddam did not aid terrorists. Saddam's Iraq was not active in international terrorism. Zarqawi lived in the American occupied northern Kurdish region of Iraq prior to our invasion. The news that he was able to evade Saddam's Iraq as he did us for much longer before and after the invasion just shows how silly your claim is.

Given these two things and the fact that 9-11 happened, a pre-emptive war in Iraq is less appalling then the wars against Panama and Grenada. The only difference is those operations went smoothly and the war in Iraq is/was a mismanaged mess.

Your "two" points are wrong. The UN was not behind our Invasion. The UN security council did not back our invasion. The UN weapons inspectors were not for our invasion. Saddam did not shelter Zarqawi any more than America did first in American occupied Kurdish Iraq for a decade, and second in American occupied Iraq for almost three years before one of our many bombs dropped on civilian housing finally hit him.

Frankly the only justification for war with Iraq which proved accurate was his humans rights record. That's a stupid reason for going to war. As I said there are 20 current rulers around the world which have as bad or worse human rights records as Saddam. Some of those are most favored trade partners, clients for American weapon sales, and allies in the "war on terror".

We aren't that concerned with human rights or any of our stated "reasons" for going to war in Iraq, when it's not Iraq guilty of the offenses...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted


  • Given these two things and the fact that 9-11 happened, a pre-emptive war in Iraq is less appalling then the wars against Panama and Grenada. The only difference is those operations went smoothly and the war in Iraq is/was a mismanaged mess.

    Frankly the only justification for war with Iraq which proved accurate was his humans rights record. That's a stupid reason for going to war. As I said there are 20 current rulers around the world which have as bad or worse human rights records as Saddam. Some of those countries enjoy most favored trade partner status with the US, some are clients for American weapon sales, and some are allies in our "war on terror".

    And as I said before. If you thought the manufactured false assertions against Iraq were convincing arguments for war, even after they've turned out be be false. Then why didn't the administration invade Pakistan. Cause all of the false assertions about Iraq, were and are still true of our ally Pakistan.

    • Pakistan has WMD and has sold that technology to Libyia, North Korea, Iran and basically anybody who could pay them for it.
    • Pakistan has a horrable human rights record.
    • Pakistan is active in international terrorism before and after 911.
    • Pakistan had ties to the Taliban before and after 911.
    • Pakistan had ties to Al Quada before an after 911.
    • Pakistan has in the past given aid to both Al Quada and the Taliban.
    • Pakistan has in the past and currently are sheltering both the Al Quada and the Taliban.
    • According to Army inteligence Osoma bin Laudin likely currently resides in Pakistan.
    • The reason we aren't in Pakistan right now looking for Osama Bin Ladin is because Pakistan won't allow it.

    But Bush, and his neo conservative chicken hawks aren't banging the drums to invade Pakistan. That's because Bush isn't concerned with Terrorism, or WMD and especially not human rights records except when it's a means to an end and it gives him cover for a policy he's already decided upon.

    Fact is we still haven't been told the real reason for going to war in Iraq, not by this Administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted
On page 334.

Interestingly, none of the quotes you provided (or anything on pg. 334) show evidence of an actual operation against Baghdad by Al Qeada. Are you saying that Baghdad didn't help w/ 911? I agree, and Powell never said they did. That doesn't mean an alliance wasn't forming between Al Qeada and Iraq that would have been dangerous to the US POST 911.

Bush's White House exchanged messages with the Taliban. Would you consider The United States had ties to the Taliban? We talk with many countries like Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Yet we claim no ties to those regimes. Fact is speaking does not mean ties. Ties means more than just speaking, it means agreements.

Except that we don't have a nonagression pact w/ any of those contries unlike Saddam and Al Qeada, and we didn't invite Al Qeada into the US.

There was only one meeting. When Bin Ladin was getting pushed out of Africa he tried to broker an agreement with Saddam. Saddam didn't give him jack out of that meeting according to our own intelligence and your 911 document.

The 911 document disagrees that there was only one meeting. For example, it also talks about Saddam offering Bin Ladin to come to Iraq from Afghanstan and Bin Laded refused. Again, see pg. 83 of the link.

What? I didn't ignore it I directly quoted it. Fact is Zaqawi was active in American occupied Iraq for 3 years. Are you saying we were supporting him too? That's your logic. He existed there, so he must have had support.

Also its you who is ignoring the fact that prior to 911 Zaqawi was in northern Iraq or Kurdish section of Iraq which we were in control of. So were we supporting Zaqawi prior to 911? ridiculous.

The difference was that the Jordanians were telling Saddam where Zaqawi was and Saddam ignored them. We were actively hunting him. Don't misrepresent things so badly. It just makes you look bad to the people that know the facts. The Jordanians wanted him because he was trying to over throw their goverment. They told Baghdad where he was, and Iraq ignored it and the Jordanians.

In northern Iraq, the Kurds were in control and there was fighting between the Kurds that we supported and Kurds and others that Zaqawi had integrated into his organization. Did we pass up oppurtunities to possibly kill him? Yes, but we also passed up oppurtunities to possibly kill Bin Laden prior to 911 (and really even after 911 when we didn't use our troops in Tora Bora) because of other considerations. The difference is that Zaqawi was in the Iraqi capitial, and they could have picked him up w/ nobody complaining AND they knew where was because the Jordanians told them.

Ritter was gone from Iraq years before we invaded. Hans Blix was against the Invasion. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq on the eve of the American invasion doing their job and had to be removed because we were invading.

Ritter is important because Ritter believed their were WMD AND the Iraqis denied it at the time. After Ritter, there were no other inspectors for years until Blix. The Iraqis told Blix they had destroyed things that Ritter believed were there, but they were not able to offer proof and not even any documentation. So at that point in time, you had to believe that Saddam had willingly destroyed the WMD programs that Ritter was trying to get him to destryo w/o telling the international community and w/o keeping records. Why would he destroy something voluntarily that he had resisted for so long to destroy? Why would he do it w/o telling the international community, when their destruction would have lifted the sactions? It doesn't make logical sense to this day.

Note, this is an important point. Ritter, a UN employee, believed their were WMD in Iraq because of his own investigations on the ground in Iraq AND what the Clinton (NOT BUSH) administration was telling him, BUT mostly based on the behaviour of and the things he was able to find in Iraq, AND the Iraqis later essentially admitted he was right so his intelligence was good. He was not allowed by the Iraqis to come back into the country. For years, the Iraqis had no WMD inspectors. When Blix came back in, they essentially said, 'Yes we had somethings when Ritter was inspecting, but we destroyed them ourselves after he had left and while we were not allowing him to oversee the very thing that he wanted us to do. But we can't offer any proof or even documents that show we destroyed these things.' NOBODY could look at that and logically believe that Iraq didn't have WMD and Blix, who didn't support the war, came to the conclusion that the Iraqis had WMD programs that they were hiding.

There is no way you can look at all the examples of the Bush administration attempts to knowingly mislead the country into war and then try to make a case that they weren't knowingly trying to mislead the country.

I'm defending the general facts, which you seem to be trying very hard to distort. Some of Cheney's statements in particular were misleading at best (e.g. a link between Saddam and 911).

Zarqawi spent time in Baghdad and Iraq while we had 130,000 or more troops there and it took us three years to get him. And we were dropping bombs on civilian housing to do it. Holding Iraq under Saddam responsible for what we couldn't do ourselves is kinda stupid.

Again, except that Jordanians told Saddam where he was staying.

Your "two" points are wrong. The UN was not behind our Invasion. The UN security council did not back our invasion. The UN weapons inspectors were not for our invasion

I didn't say any of these things. Geez, work on your reading comprehension. I've actually said Blix didn't support the war in previous posts. Blix did say that Iraq had not complied as described in resolution 1441. He did NOT say that it was unlikely that Saddam had WMD. He did NOT say that there were NOT growing ties between Saddan and Al Qeada.

Beyond all of this, it is clear that Saddam had violated different things in the Gulf war cease fire for years. The very violation of the Gulf War cease fire itself was really just cause to restart military activities against him. Add onto that he had manipulated the oil for food program for his own good, he was in violation of 1441 after the deadline to comply (which even Blix conceded), and that there is good evidence for growing ties between him and Al Qeada a war against Iraq was as justifiable as what we did in Grenada and Panama. The only difference is those actions were judged to be "successful", while in Iraq that has not been the case. If there was now a stable democracy in Iraq, even if we had some troops there (as per S. Korea), most people would be talking about the success of the Bush doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted
Now, I am curious. Why do you think we invaded Iraq?

  • I don't think it was human rights. As I said, human rights abusers are rampant across the world.
  • I don't think it was because we thought democracies don't fight other democracies. Anybody with a history book knows that's not true. Has never been true.
  • I don't think it's because we want a democracy in Iraq. We are much more accustomed and successful with dictatorships.
  • I don't think it was because of WMD. If Iraq actually had nukes it would have only complicated likely scrapped the invasion. Biological and chemicals ( which we classify as WMD are not much of a concern for us. Iraq has had them before, so has every other country in the world. They are militarily insignificant. They were in WWI before they were outlawed by Geneva, they were in the Iran Iraq war the last time they were used.
  • I don't think it was because of links to terrorism. As I said and everybody else has said, Saddam's Iraq was not a terrorist state. They didn't conduct international terrorism operations nor did they support surrogate terrorists who did.

I think these were all just convent snow jobs to feed the public. Justifications they thought the American public could support. Especially if they mixed them all together to cover up the weakness or inaccuracy of each individual reason.

I don't think oil was a major reason, but I do think it was one of the nice to haves as the coalition to move the country into this war was formed.

I think there were several reasons why we went to war in Iraq. As far as I can tell the only Universal reason which was on every body's list was money. This wasn't the only item on any body's list, it's just the only item on every body's list. I don't think money was even the most important item to all of the cabal.

Don't get me wrong not money for the cabal's personal spending, but the political power contained in controlling how some of 1-2 trillion dollars would be spent. The ability to create billionaires, or millionaires on a massive scale and the political power that would bestow.

I think Bush went to war because he came into office with the agenda. We know this because we have several sources which tell us the Iraq war was the #2 agenda item on his first national security meeting with his cabinet. #1 was to back away from the Israeli, Palestinian peace process over the objections of Colin Powell. Bush said, "sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better". then they moved on to discuss the Iraq war. This was months before 9/11. That's according to Paul Oneal Bush's first Secretary of Treasury who published the agenda for the meeting as well as his notes of the meeting.

http://www.rense.com/general47/before.htm

Why did Bush come into office wanting to go to war in Iraq. Five reasons... in no particular order.

  1. Saddam had allegedly tried to kill his daddy in Kuwait after Bush Sr had left office. Bush family was pissed about that.
  2. Bush Sr. left office under a cloud. Many people think he left the job unfinished in Iraq. Bush Jr, wanted to clean up his daddy's mess.
  3. Bush believed his ad visors predictions that it would be clean war. We would be treated as liberators. We could have a long term operational base in Iraq. It would be nice to have 100,000 troops next to Iran. After we do Iraq, we can do Iran too, even cheaper....
  4. Bush won his first Presidency on the thinnest of margins. Bush knew the Iraq war would cost hundreds of billions even trillions. I think Bush realistically thought that controlling all that money, dishing it out to "friends" in no bid contracts as was done; would solidify his Presidency and give him significant power in Congress. His well paid friends would multiply as his critics who would not land contracts would disappear. Which is exactly what happened.
  5. Bush is basically an idiot, who is most persuaded by people who tell him what he wants to hear. He wanted the war in Iraq and surrounded himself by people who told him it was a great idea. I think Bush didn't think it was that bad a trade off.

    2. Saddam was a bad guy.
    3. Saddam was on the top of the to do list for personal reasons.
    4. It would be that big a thing to take him out.
    5. It was politically expedient. All that money to hand out.
    6. Everybody is telling me it's in the best long term interest of the country anyway.

( By idiot I don't mean in the classical sense that he drewls on himself and has to have folks feed and bath him. What I mean is that he is intellectually not curious. That he is not interested in cluttering up his brain with two sides of the issue. That he is insecure, and surrounds himself with people who won't disagree with him. Further that he compartmentalizes, discredits, and ignores folks who do disagree with him. That it is his primary responsibility to get the facts right, and that he is primarily responsible for assembling a team where getting the facts right wasn't one of the top several concerns. Which is idiotic and is why Bush will go down in history as the president who made the greatest strategic blunder in the history of the country. )

Why did Cheney advocated war.

  1. I think Cheney is much smarter than Bush. I think he's a realist. I think Cheney's philosophical sees nothing wrong with wars of aggression. He went to war in Iraq not because of anything Iraq had done, but just because partially he thought it was in America's long term interest to do so, and that's good enough for Cheney.
  2. I think Cheney was Sec defense in the first gulf war and was always pissed that Powell and Schwarzkopf got the majority of the credit for the first gulf war planning and successes. I think this was a Chance for Cheney to be more personally involved in war planning; and show exactly what he could have done if given a free hand in the first gulf war.
  3. I think a sweetener for Cheney was that he knew this would cost several hundred Billion dollars and that he could hand out large contracts to his cronies enhanced his ego and his status among among the government contractors.
  4. I think tearing up and rewriting Iraqi oil contracts were likewise on his mind. But Iraq exports 10 billion a year in oil. America spends two billion a weak in Iraq. Oil was always a nice to have. The real money to be made in Iraq was always American taxpayer money. $500 billion so far in hard currency after the next round of funding is passed. Another 1 - 1.5 trillion in back end costs as we replace equipment, retrain our troops, and pay for the medical expenses of our casualties.

Why Wolfowitz, Libby Richard Pearl and Bill Crystol advocated war.

  1. Iraq was a big Israel concern. They wanted to take care of Iran first; but they figured if we took care of Iraq; Iran would/could be next.
  2. They also had their eye on all the money and lucrative contracts this war would allow them to hand out. The politcal capitol all that money represents would allow them and their allies almost cart blanch control of government for a time and that was very attractive.
  3. It was an ego trip. These guys were always low level guys, who always had responsible men above them to curb their actions. Men like Casper Weinberger, James Baker, and George Shultz. These guys were incredible flattered by the fact that they had such power. The only price was they had to tell the President what he wanted to hear and had to tell the American public what it needed to hear. They lied to both of us. These guys aren't idiots and their statements leading up to the war were so outragous dishonesty is the only reason which makes sense.

(a.) The war would cost 10 billion and Iraq could pay for it themselves.:doh:

(b.) Iraq had ties to terrorism.:doh:

(c.) A democratic Iraq would make the entire middle east bloom. :doh:

(d.) Iraq was involved Al Quada, and or 9/11. :doh:

(e.) In the new post 9/11 world we can no longer tolerate Iraq. :doh:

The crime is none of the reasons which were persuasive to the war organizers would be suitable persuasive to the American public.

Any idiot born into the right family and who has a little luck can win a tight Presidential election against a severly weakenned oponent. ( Bill Clinton sex scandal ). It's much tougher to come up through the beurocratic ranks. These guys knew what they were doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted
Surprised you could find a article that coherent on Rense :laugh:

http://www.rense.com/

There are many sources which have covered the fact that Bush both came into office wanting to go to war with IRaq as well as planned the invasion before 9-11. As I said, Paul Oneal published the agenda for his first national security meeting before 911 where Iraq war was the second item to be discussed...

If you don't like rense here are some other sources.

(1) SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER: Bush admits he targeted Saddam from the start

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/156352_bushsummit13.html

(2) CNN : Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

(3) CBS News : Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq? ( before 911 )

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

(4) USA Today: Iraq planning came before 9/11

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm

5) Forbes Magazine: Bush planned Iraqi invasion pre-Sept. 11

http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2004/01/10/rtr1205827.html

6) BBC: Bush plotted Iraq war from the start.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3387941.stm

7) Time Magazine: Confession of a White House insider..

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040119-574809,00.html

8) The New York Times: Paul O'Neill and the IRaq war.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E6DC1130F936A25752C0A9629C8B63

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted
Rense is a joke, agreed, but it is not like this analysis is that controversial. It could have been written by Colin Powell himself.

I said it was coherent didn't I?

I readily concede Iraq was a target long before 9/11...and for good reason.

However sprinkling a measure of truth in with baseless speculation does not make it truth,just easier to swallow. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted
I said it was coherent didn't I?

I readily concede Iraq was a target long before 9/11...and for good reason.

What good reason? The most compelling reason still on the table for justifying the invasion is Saddam's human rights record. Which isn't a very good reason at all knowing we have permanent Most Favored nation trading status with China, who's human rights record is equally poor. knowing Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and about 17 other countries around the world likewise have as bad or worse human rights records as Saddam had, and we're not invading them.

The case for continuing the war is much more compelling. If we fail in Iraq; the entire region could go up and involve Israel. But even that isn't a very compelling reason. Fact is we've been loosing this war for four years. We need a new plan. Continuing the current coarse just ensures more failure and a stronger enemy in the near future.

However sprinkling a measure of truth in with baseless speculation does not make it truth,just easier to swallow. ;)

In the Iraqi war justification; Bush didn't even use a sprinkling of truth. As I said, not even Colin Powell believes he was given accurate facts for his speach before the UN. Powell has said as much in interviews since. George Tenent said as much a few weeks ago and in his book just released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...