BF2S Forums No Iraq-al Qaeda links found

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

why cant we just invade a country because we feel like it?

thats when we invade more countries to bring it back that way. you always add, never take away.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-03-30 15:36:14)

Anyone seen the "study?"  Was it released like they said?

Read page 1 of the thread.

usmarine wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Anyone seen the "study?"  Was it released like they said?

Read page 1 of the thread.

k?  I still see no full report anywhere.

wwjd

well apparently I am not seeing the link where the full study can be read.  so most of you are basing your comments off of something you have never read?

usmarine wrote:

well apparently I am not seeing the link where the full study can be read.  so most of you are basing your comments off of something you have never read?

anyone?  dilbert?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Ta da! I win at Google.
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarch … 32008.html

See, now was that so bad?

These documents do not prove 100% that the stuff they did with the other terrorist groups, did not get into the hand of al-q.

Such as this...

"State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state
power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor
progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing
of terrorists. Examples include the regime's development, construction,
certification, and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999
and 2000."

or this, which al-q has been in Palestine for a long time according to some...

"Saddam's regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist
groups when they believed such groups could help advance
Iraq's long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections
to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos.
One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of
suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank."

"When attacking Western interests, the competitive terror cartel
came into play, particularly in the late 1990s. Captured documents reveal that the
regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al
Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's longterm
vision."

Last edited by usmarine (2008-04-03 10:55:14)

Ok, somebody clear this up for me.

Bay of Pigs.  Us supports Cubans to overthrow Castro = US involvement

Iraq by default supports Al-Q = No link


What?  Seriously.

Dilbert_X wrote:

There were links to terrorist groups, links to groups with similar aims to AQ but none directly to AQ.
No 'smoking gun' though.

Bay of Pigs.  Us supports Cubans to overthrow Castro = US involvement

It was a bit more than that, like supplying combat aircraft via the CIA. The comparison doesn't really bear out.
Saddam didn't support AQ directly, and was not involved in 9/11.

So according to you, supporting terrorists is not a valid reason for the Iraq war because they aren't AQ?

Braddock wrote:

Pug wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

There were links to terrorist groups, links to groups with similar aims to AQ but none directly to AQ.
No 'smoking gun' though.


It was a bit more than that, like supplying combat aircraft via the CIA. The comparison doesn't really bear out.
Saddam didn't support AQ directly, and was not involved in 9/11.

So according to you, supporting terrorists is not a valid reason for the Iraq war because they aren't AQ?

So when are the US planning on invading Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Iran then? There's just as much, and in some cases more, terrorist aiding and abetting going on in these countries.

I thought we were just talking about Iraq?  Planning on giving your kid the "just because your friends jump off the cliff doesn't mean you should" speech later in life?

1) Did the government lie?
2) Is there a valid reason for being in Iraq?
3) Was it a good decision?

They are three separate issues in my opinion.

Braddock wrote:

Pug wrote:

1) Did the government lie?
2) Is there a valid reason for being in Iraq?
3) Was it a good decision?

They are three separate issues in my opinion.

1) The Government either lied about WMD and AQ links or were so wide of the mark in terms of intelligence that it's just plain scary.
2) Not really given that the WMD never existed (despite Colin Powell's Powerpoint presentation) and the AQ situation has gotten worse as a result of the invasion.
3) Dick Cheney knew it wasn't a good decision and yet they went ahead and did it anyway.

You need to work on #2.  You and Dilbert are ignoring quite a bit on #2.  It's like there's no history.

Ps. not arguing btw.

ps. dick cheney?  the vp sends troops abroad?

So according to you, supporting terrorists is not a valid reason for the Iraq war because they aren't AQ?

According to Bush, a central reason for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam was a 'key ally' of AQ.
This is not the case. Go argue with your President
Yes he had links to terrorists, as does every middle eastern leader

1) Did the government lie? Yes
2) Is there a valid reason for being in Iraq? No
3) Was it a good decision? No

ps. dick cheney?  the vp sends troops abroad?

No, the VP instructs the President, the President does what hes told.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-04 07:21:37)