Burgundy Burner Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Mike, the report is not meant to be a political statement. Yes, the media has it wrong, but this is not a right and left issue. It simply describes, based on Iraqi documents, how Saddam was planning to attack the U.S. and American interests. It also describes how he was planning to accomplish these goals. It also describes who he was willing to work with, including al-Qaeda. As a result, al-Qaeda was obviously interested, but both sides disagreed on an end game. They differed on who was going to rule the Middle East and Islam in general. In other words, they had an interest in working together, but only for so long and with different goals in mind. Nothing more, nothing less. At no time does this report have a reference to any al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to 2003. Maybe they were there, maybe not. For anyone to suggest one way or the other is simply based on speculation. For whatever reason, the Pentagon report did not venture into this realm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Mad Mike - all the misdirection in the world isn't going to save you here. You've been arguing for a long time about a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam and are slowly being buried by a mountain stating the opposite. The reason this is more important than all the argument you are now putting forth, that saddam supported other forms of terrorism, is that 9/11 played a major role in our path to war. 9/11 was the work of a single group, Al Qaeda.The irony is that our justification, that we would rather fight them there than in our own country, is the same thing Al Qaeda can say about the Iraq war. They would rather fight us there than where their leaders, the people behind the murder of near 3000 americans on 9/11, are currently housed. The link dis not exist. The WMD dis not exist. The nuclear program did not exist. There was no imminent threat. At worst we were mislead/manipulated into a war the current leaders of this country wanted prior to holding office. At best we were seriously wrong in our beliefs. Either way the Iraq war has been a disaster for the US, in terms of credibility needed to continue our fight against radical Islam. Even as we argue this Iran continues towards nuclear power while US words have calmed out of the realization that a war with Iran, or any true threat, is all but impossible given the current state of things. Once again, this is not a right and left issue. Take the time to read the report. It debunks everything you've said here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Un freaking believable... 90+ pages and that's the only thing you think is important. One statement that "there is no smoking gun". That's some deep thinking right there. You must be so proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Don't you guys get it? The U.S. Gov't could come out and say "We were 100% wrong on all accounts" and some people would still ignore it. Let it go. Talk a walk, and get some air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Un freaking believable... 90+ pages and that's the only thing you think is important. One statement that "there is no smoking gun". That's some deep thinking right there. You must be so proud. Who are you trying to kid MM? You've been ranting about a connection for a long time, and like it or not the fact that there is none is a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I DONT CARE IF IT WAS THE GIRL SCOUTS. THEY WERE TERRORIST AND THEY ATTACKED AND KILLED AMERICANS.WTF is so hard to understand here? What is so hard to understand is why we had to RUSH IN AND INVADE IRAQ RIGHT AWAY when we were already busy in Afganistan, and why the Administration MISREPRESENTED ITS REASONS FOR THE INVASION so that we look like lying hyper-aggressive fools to the entire world. Saddam may well have been the worst evil pig to ever walk the earth. So what? The Administration still lied to us, and rushed to invade when they didn't need to, and got us stuck in a swirling votex of :pooh: that continues to this day. And worst of all - THE ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A PLAN FOR CONTROLLING IRAQ ONCE WE CONQUERED THEM! Incompetent and dishonest, and it has cost thousands of our troops and trillions of dollars. The whole goddam thing is completely indefensible. I never cease to be amazed at your ability to not recognize the utter failure of this Administration in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 A little off topic, but I have a question about Iran. Isn't Iran a fairly well off country, with a decient economy and plenty of people in school? Doesn't the average Iranian support the US (maybe not the war, I just mean in general) and the problem is mostly with thier Gov't and the IRG. If so, why would we even consider a war with them? Wouldn't an educated society, living under an oppressive rule, but without really being held down, not be a situation where another country should be thinking about attacking them? It just doesn't add up to me. I can see where our situation in Iraq is different and the country will be better off by our occupation, but Iran is completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 What is so hard to understand is why we had to RUSH IN AND INVADE IRAQ RIGHT AWAY when we were already busy in Afganistan, and why the Administration MISREPRESENTED ITS REASONS FOR THE INVASION so that we look like lying hyper-aggressive fools to the entire world.Saddam may well have been the worst evil pig to ever walk the earth. So what? The Administration still lied to us, and rushed to invade when they didn't need to, and got us stuck in a swirling votex of :pooh: that continues to this day. And worst of all - THE ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A PLAN FOR CONTROLLING IRAQ ONCE WE CONQUERED THEM! Incompetent and dishonest, and it has cost thousands of our troops and trillions of dollars. The whole goddam thing is completely indefensible. I never cease to be amazed at your ability to not recognize the utter failure of this Administration in this area. And as brilliant as I honestly believe you are, I will never understand your willingness to ignore things like this... Saddam's decision to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 The title of a biased pile of dog dung passed off as journalism. The ACTUAL REPORT concluded... Mike, the bold, damning evidence you're shrieking about says that when the US was lined up on the border, preparing to invade his country, Saddam issued tough-sounding press releases. Some of the other items you're throwing around point out the stunning news that ten years before Desert Storm, Saddam trained terrorists. 1) So is that your idea of a reason why it was necessary for the US, in self defense to invade Iraq in '03? Because he trained terrorists in the 80's? 2) News flash. So did we. In fact, in the 80's we trained, get this, Ossamma bin Laden. Shocking, huh? Saddam never had a close, supportive relationship with Ossamma. But the US did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Mike, the best thing to do when someone starts cursing, yelling, using pathetic one-liners, and toss insults at you is to ignore them. When they do that, your point was made and they have no real rebuttal. My $0.02 :2cents: :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 A little off topic, but I have a question about Iran.Isn't Iran a fairly well off country, with a decient economy and plenty of people in school? Doesn't the average Iranian support the US (maybe not the war, I just mean in general) and the problem is mostly with thier Gov't and the IRG. If so, why would we even consider a war with them? Wouldn't an educated society, living under an oppressive rule, but without really being held down, not be a situation where another country should be thinking about attacking them? It just doesn't add up to me. I can see where our situation in Iraq is different and the country will be better off by our occupation, but Iran is completely different. We wouldn't consider war with them unless the situation was truly down the drain. You're right, they're a moderate thinking people and even though they haven't got much love for us, they have even less for their President. We're similar in that our peoples don't want war. We just have to be vigilant that Ahmadinejad doesn't try to start a military incident until his term is up. They'll vote him and his cronies out when it comes time. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 And as brilliant as I honestly believe you are, I will never understand your willingness to ignore things like this... How does that answer a single thing I said? Why did we have to invade RIGHT THEN? Why couldn't we be HONEST about why we were invading? Why didn't we PLAN for what to do after we defeated the Iraqi army? How can any of this be defended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 We wouldn't consider war with them unless the situation was truly down the drain. You're right, they're a moderate thinking people and even though they haven't got much love for us, they have even less for their President. We're similar in that our peoples don't want war. We just have to be vigilant that Ahmadinejad doesn't try to start a military incident until his term is up. They'll vote him and his cronies out when it comes time. ~Bang NO, we must invade RIGHT NOW! They have SUPPORTED TERRORISM! Lives are AT STAKE! Coms to think of it, all of those things are more true about Iran than they ever were about Iraq. Too bad we already screwed the pooch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Don't you guys get it?The U.S. Gov't could come out and say "We were 100% wrong on all accounts" and some people would still ignore it. Let it go. Talk a walk, and get some air. I'm taking this approach now. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 2) News flash. So did we. In fact, in the 80's we trained, get this, Ossamma bin Laden. Shocking, huh? Saddam never had a close, supportive relationship with Ossamma. But the US did. NO WE DIDN'T. Repeat this lie as many times as you like AND IT IS STILL A LIE! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html Two years after the Sept. 11 attacks, no memorial service, cable-news talkfest or university seminar seemed to have been complete without someone emerging from the woodwork to wonder darkly why the CIA ever financed Usama bin Laden "in the first place."Everyone from Washington Post reporters to Michael Moore (search) seems to buy some version of this. It is time to lay to rest the nagging doubt held by many Americans that our government was somehow responsible for fostering bin Laden. It's not true and it leaves the false impression that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks down on ourselves. While it is impossible to prove a negative, all available evidence suggests that bin Laden (search) was never funded, trained or armed by the CIA. Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk (search) in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.”In the course of researching my book on Bill Clinton and bin Laden, I interviewed Bill Peikney, who was CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986, and Milt Bearden, who was CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989. These two men oversaw the disbursement for all American funds to the anti-Soviet resistance. Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: “I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there.” There are many reasons to believe them. They knew where the money went. Both men have retired from the CIA; they have no motive to mouth an agency line. And no compelling evidence has emerged that the CIA ever paid bin Laden: no cancelled checks, no invoices, no government reports. Those who contend that bin Laden received U.S. funds usually make the following argument: America financed the Afghan rebels, bin Laden was among the rebels, therefore, in one way or another, America gave money to bin Laden. This ignores a key fact: There were two entirely separate rebellions against the Soviets, united only by a common communist enemy. One was financed by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and was composed of Islamic extremists who migrated from across the Muslim world. They called themselves “Arab Afghans (search).” Bin Laden was among them. When the Saudis agreed to match U.S. contributions dollar-for-dollar, the sheikhs insisted that their funds go exclusively to the “Arab Afghans,” possibly including bin Laden. Meanwhile, U.S. funds went exclusively to the other rebellion, which was composed of native Afghans. Mr. Bearden told me: “I challenge anyone to give any proof that we gave one dollar to any Arab Afghans, let alone bin Laden.” Even if the CIA wanted to pay “Arab Afghans” -- which agency officials insist they did not -- bin Laden would be a far from obvious choice. Bin Laden himself rarely left the safety of Pakistan’s northwestern cities and commanded few troops of his own. At the time, bin Laden was the Arab Afghan’s quartermaster, providing food and other supplies. If a CIA officer tried to give money to bin Laden, he probably would not have lived through the experience. The arch-terrorist was known for his violent anti-Americanism. Dana Rohrabacher, now a Republican congressman from California, told me about a trip he took with the mujahideen (search) in 1987. On that trek, his guide told him not to speak English for the next few hours because they were passing by bin Laden’s camp. “If he hears an American, he will kill you.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 I knew that was going to be quickly debunked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 We wouldn't consider war with them unless the situation was truly down the drain. You're right, they're a moderate thinking people and even though they haven't got much love for us, they have even less for their President. We're similar in that our peoples don't want war. We just have to be vigilant that Ahmadinejad doesn't try to start a military incident until his term is up. They'll vote him and his cronies out when it comes time. ~Bang I don't know if I would say the average Iranian doesn't have any love for us. I don't have much conversation with any Iranians, but it seems that way to me. I knew a few guys 18-35 when I was playing TW from there, mostly colegde students and they all seemed to like America, disagree with our Iraqi war, but think it was good for the region and dispise their gov't. They didn't seem to different than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 How does that answer a single thing I said?Why did we have to invade RIGHT THEN? Why couldn't we be HONEST about why we were invading? Why didn't we PLAN for what to do after we defeated the Iraqi army? How can any of this be defended? So it's OK that he was actively recruiting terrorists, training them, funding them, "hunting americans"? You think it would have been a good idea to leave him in power post 9/11? Do you believe the sanctions were working? That his bribes were not deteriorating UN support for what little the sanctions were doing? I really don't give a damn what reason we used. IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Was the post war planning piss poor? Hell yeah. I'm not going to argue that one. Lot's of things about this could have been done better. But no way in HELL do I want Saddam operating in a post 9/11 world. No freakin way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Mike, should we invade Venezula before they attack us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewAgeSkins Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Mike, should we invade Venezula before they attack us? What about N.Korea? Pakistan? Afghanistan (again!)? Everyone is out to get us, kill them! </paranoia> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 What about N.Korea? Pakistan? Afghanistan (again!)?Everyone is out to get us, kill them! </paranoia> Russia, China? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Mike, should we invade Venezula before they attack us? These documents PROVE that Iraq attacked us first. They PROVE that Iraq recruited, funded and trained international terrorists who attacked us. What about this is so f'ng difficult to understand? I'm outa here. It's friday and even with all of this my arguing I got all of my work done today. Time for a beer and a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 So it's OK that he was actively recruiting terrorists, training them, funding them, "hunting americans"? Never said anything of the sort. You think it would have been a good idea to leave him in power post 9/11? Do you believe the sanctions were working? That his bribes were not deteriorating UN support for what little the sanctions were doing? Did not see the urgency to invade. Wrong place wrong time. And my view has turned out to be correct. I really don't give a damn what reason we used. IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I give a huge damn about whether my government tells the truth, and I give a huge damn about whether we go about things in a way that makes the rest of the world angry at us. And it wasn't the right thing to do, not then and not with that flimsy justification. Was the post war planning piss poor? Hell yeah. I'm not going to argue that one. Lot's of things about this could have been done better. But no way in HELL do I want Saddam operating in a post 9/11 world. No freakin way. Iraq was the least of our worries right then, and we turned it into the biggest of our worries in the last 30 years, and now we are hamstrung in dealing with Iran, the real power in the region. Failure all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 See you later Mike. Have a good weekend. Good job of smokin' 'em - providing credible links to support your arguments was awesome to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 See you later Mike. Have a good weekend. Good job of smokin' 'em - providing credible links to support your arguments was awesome to watch. wow.... I think the appropriate response is "I can't tell you where you end and he begins." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.