Kilmer17 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Last night Bush made the first public assertion that their was evidence of Iraq-Al Queda ties. I expect more over the next couple of weeks. Which brings up the question. If we have proof (documents, photos, witnesses. hard proof) that Saddam is/was funding, training, protecting, arming AL Queda, would you support the immediate (that means tomorrow) destruction of his regime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I know NPR last night had interviews from Kurdistan talking baout how there are training bases there for Al Queda. They also quoted a NYTimes peace saying much the same thing from a few weeks ago. I don't discount the probablity of a link. As for that being justification, I don't think we're short on justification as is. I just want to hear some plans for what we hope to accomplish. We can wipe the camps off the map without regime change. IN fact, if we have evidence, we probably should eliminate them. Regime change obligates us be there for awhile. I'm not sure if the costs are worth it or not. I don't know, and I don't pretend to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 While there is probably some cooperation/communication between the two, I doubt very very strongly that Iraq has ever provided Al Quaeda with any kind of real support. Osama's biggest beef with the Saudi regime was that they did not let him fight against the Iraqis, choosing instead to beseech the "Western Infidel crusaders." I won't complain if we go after Saddam to prevent him from developing WMD, but the supposed Al Quaeda link is pretty weak, and any "evidence" to support it is likely based more on individuals in Iraq slipping a few dollars or vague promises here and there, or Al Quaeda operatives fleeing Afghanistan finding refuge in villages along the border. (At the moment, Iranian support for Hekmatyar is having a far worse effect on the lives of American troops, for example.) If levels of support for Al Quaeda were the best gauge for the justification of war, Iraq would be well behind our "allies" Saudi Arabia and Egypt on any list of targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Al Queda is only one part of the equation...the larger panorama is the succor states like Iraq have been providing terrorists for the last 30 years...the agenda here is to stop terrorism...not Al Queda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I don't give a damn how much support Iraq has given to terrorist. Any support is too much. Saddam needs to be dealt with. The others can wait their turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Couldn't have said any better myself TEX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 For me the terrorism connection with Iraq is secondary to the WMD issue. Iraq even without terrorist connections is still an ever growing menace in the region with its WMD programs. The fact that they have would-be friends and allies in the terrorist world, or at least fellow terrorist haters of America, who might use Iraq's WMD's or WMD know-how against us only adds to that threat. Originally posted by gbear I know NPR last night had interviews from Kurdistan talking baout how there are training bases there for Al Queda. . . . We can wipe the camps off the map without regime change. I have to disagree with the notion that we can remove the Iraqi threat without regime change. Even if someone provided me with a magic wand that I could use to wave and eliminate all terrorists and WMD's and related programs in Iraq, that would only provide short-term security. What we know with this regime is that they will simply restart those programs. It's like removing weeds from your garden- if you don't get the roots, they'll grow back, and the regime is the root of these problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 It's really an interesting question. Traditionally, Iraq and Al Queda are not the closest friends. Ideologically they are polar opposites, so it seems odd that Bush is suggesting that they are in bed together. I think that those who point out that these terrorists have closer ties to our allies are correct, BUT I think the interesting point is whether or not those countries have access to WMD. I think that if the connection is there than it most likely is in the dispersement of WMD's developed in the Iraqi programs. If this is the case I think that the terrorist link becomes important. Without that, than I agree that this linkis mostly propaganda and largely irrelevant. It would not be the first time that ideologically opposed regimes allied themselves for a time. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 They may be polar opposites, but so were the US and USSR during WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Its not very hard. Basically every country over there has a link with terrorists or terrorism. Its poor leadership over there and strong men who brainwash the minds of a deperate people. We cant kill all the terrorists but we can eliminate the most dangerous ones and make amends with the Middle East by encouraging a Democratic Palestine State (Bush mentioned potentially by 2005) and continuing to encourage leaders over there to open their socities. Once the Palestine/Kashmir issues are resolved hopefully those people can focus on developing their economies and educating their people. But we as a nation need to wipe out the most dangerous ones and even if there is no direct Al Qaeda/Saddam link there still is something fishy going on between them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by DrunkenBoxer I think that if the connection is there than it most likely is in the dispersement of WMD's developed in the Iraqi programs. If this is the case I think that the terrorist link becomes important. Without that, than I agree that this linkis mostly propaganda and largely irrelevant. It would not be the first time that ideologically opposed regimes allied themselves for a time. -DB That Iraq has had biological, chemical and nuclear weapons is the main issue. Bush's assertion that he wanted proof that these capabilities had been destroyed or rendered inoperable is a last ditch effort to garner support. Most Americans still support an attack, however going for this last ditch effort will help to gauge how the rest of the middle east feels about our intentions. I am hoping we will see not to many countries opposing us there--at least their governement's that is...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 They are more than polar opposites. As riggo-toni said the reason Al Qaeda wants the U.S. influence out of the region is so that they can depose of guys like Saddam. But I'll be interested to see what the connection is, one way or another, Al Qaeda's immediate goal is to get a full blown jihad going, establishing fundamentalist government in Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. and I could see them siding with Iraq if it helped them towards this end. And of course, Iraq has the motivation to hurt the US and US interests so, it while ultimately their ideologies and the proximity of their spheres of influence mean that if they ever were to get past the US buffered opposition to their agendas, they would be in direct conflict, the fact that they share the same obstacle makes it a pragmatic possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Last night Bush made the first public assertion that their was evidence of Iraq-Al Queda ties. I expect more over the next couple of weeks. Which brings up the question. If we have proof (documents, photos, witnesses. hard proof) that Saddam is/was funding, training, protecting, arming AL Queda, would you support the immediate (that means tomorrow) destruction of his regime? If there is all of this proof, then why not expose it now...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 30, 2003 Author Share Posted January 30, 2003 I said "IF" there is proof. And if there is, Bush doesnt need to show the public if it's not in the best interest to expose it (risk to sources, opportunity to move it etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Originally posted by rellim If there is all of this proof, then why not expose it now...... What's the hurry? Our military's won't be in place for an attack until several weeks from now. All in good time, grasshopper, all in good time . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Originally posted by redman What's the hurry? Our military's won't be in place for an attack until several weeks from now. All in good time, grasshopper, all in good time . . . The hurry is that Bush want's to wage war immediately, however, he has not given proof. If you have it now, bring it out. Besides this is all bullsh*t. It a "I can have Nuclear weapons, but you can't." What kind of crap is that. America has used their Nuclear weaponry to kill innocent men, women and children, over and over again, committing more attrocities than you can wave a stick at. Getting rid of Saadam won't solve anything, there have been several US presidents that have been worse than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 There is no glossing over the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not sure what you mean by saying the US has used nuclear weapons to kill innocent men and women "over and over again" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 rellim...what have you been sniffin today? mental time of the month for you? gotta purge all the dead brain cells? i have been trying to be a good netizen lately....but you make JackC look good.........idiot........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 rellim...what have you been sniffin today? mental time of the month for you? gotta purge all the dead brain cells? i have been trying to be a good netizen lately....but you make JackC look good.........idiot........ Oh, I'm sorry, America has never killed anyone unjustly. Mai Lai was just an isolated incident, oh and so was bombing Vietnam with more bombs used in World War II. How about the CIA and US Government plots to murder certain presidents of foreign countries. How about supporting bloody dictators, while showing disdain for other dictators. Since I have a brain it's always a mental time of the month for me sonny boy. Try to get a clue of what your Government does, and has done in the past in stead of taking everthing at face value... So why don't you get back to me after you finish jerking off over the american flag... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 31, 2003 Author Share Posted January 31, 2003 YAWN Resolution 1441 states that Saddam bears the burden of proof. He must prove that he has destroyed his weapons. He has not done so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Murphaaay Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I said "IF" there is proof. And if there is, Bush doesnt need to show the public if it's not in the best interest to expose it (risk to sources, opportunity to move it etc). If people are sending their family members to Iraq to fight for something, then there better be proof. If there is not evidence, then what's stopping Bush from "saying there is evidence" and moving ahead with his plans without ever displaying the evidence. The public is the entity that truly suffers from war, from dealing with family and friends who are combatants. Bush doesn't suffer from any of it, he doesn't physically have to put is wrinkled flat a$$ on the line. A great number of things that are "not in the best interest to expose it" end up affecting the public in some manner. I guess for you, Ignorance is Bliss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 31, 2003 Author Share Posted January 31, 2003 Fact- Saddam had 5 tons of VX gas after the Gulf War. Thats unnaccounted for. Fact- Saddam agreed in the cease fire agreement to allow UN inspectors to have unfettered access to his country. He kicked them out. In the recent inspections, he has refused to allow them access to certain sites and scientists that were part of the resolution. Fact- We found 16 Chemical warheads that are banned by botht the ceasefire agreement and UN resolutions. Fact- Saddam continues to fire on UN planes in the no-fly zone, a violation of the cease fire. Bush laid out about 10 other violations in the SOTU. What more do you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 rellim....go to your room right now or we'll put some soap in your mouth. no place for children on this board. the fact that you are not part of the process and clueless sounds like a personal problem to me. you blessed with empathetic powers the rest of us don't have? know everything that is passing through the decisionmakers minds both intellectually and emotionally? tapped into the process are ya? gee whizz...you need to set up a web site and let the rest of us in on it! what is going on in the inner circles of gov't? what are the millitary plans? what is Saddam thinking? gotta plan for the next terrorist attack? ever been in on the strike planning process? know what the criteria are? understand all the feedback mechanisms do ya? got personal knowledge on how we work with our allies? been tracking on how the international human rights organizations been assessing the abuses in Iraq? seen the Iraqi torture chambers in Kuwait have ya? gotta a plan for Iraq do ya? cuz you can bet whether we attack or not another terroist attack is coming - it has been for the last 30 years! gee wilikers....just what is Saddam building all these WMDs for? intellectual curiosity? you're moral equivocation is simply breathtaking...... you're one of the few reasons, if not the only one, I can imagine in support of abortion........say good night you petulant little boy before we spank you. you're on the sidelines bro! don't you have some placards to put together? pls don't waste our time..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 rellim, do us all a favor and move to Iraq would you? A quick web search should get you a nice hotel next to one of Sadam's palaces. Make sure your room is good and close so you can get a good view when your poor misunderstood dictator is blown to hell by the evil American military. Who knows, maybe you can protest by acting as a human shield. And BTW the proof is that Sadam has USED those chemical weapons against Iran and its own people. No account of those weapons have been made. but maybe you want to wait till a nuke goes off in this country that Iraq supplies to Al Qaeda. Of course then you would probably demand Sadam's fingerprints from the bomb. And anyone wishing to help relim with his trip to Bagdad; I'm taking up a collection. Send your checks or money orders to: Morons for Sadam P.O. Box 123 Whiner, West Virginia 32768 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.