No Iraq-al Qaeda links found

2008-03-26 00:53:11

#51

GorillaTicTacs: Member; +231|6636|Kyiv, Ukraine

Turquoise wrote:
Here's what I don't get.. There seems to be a general consensus here that invasion was a bad idea.

So why the fuck does about half of this country want to stay in Iraq longer? Let's get the fuck out. We tried to fix it, but it's costing us too damn much.

Costing who so damned much? You think that $2 Trillion just went into a black hole never to return? It goes to people. These people turn around and buy more politicians. The bought politicians turn around and hand them more of your tax dollars. Fuck the taxpayer, fuck the soldiers. This isn't a new thing in the history of war since ancient times. The problem is that this cycle has no logical turning point with a never-ending "War on Terror", as well as excessive use of "for-profit" support for the war (like KBR, Blackwater, intel-gathering outsourcing). The other big voodoo trick to this is that the taxpayer really hasn't been stuck with the bill...yet. Bush is the first prez to cut taxes in a time of war, meaning we're doing this on a credit card, which we will owe the capital and interest to some other people, who will buy politicians, who will make sure as a nation we take forever to pay the debt, which will generate profits long after Iraq is forgotten.

Every good capitalist knows: remove the profit and it will go away.

As for "half the people", I don't think its quite that much, but there is a common economic/psychological rule called the "Sunk Cost Fallacy" which may explain things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

2008-03-26 02:19:10

#52

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6369|eXtreme to the maX

Be that as it may, none of the objectives we were given to plan against involved anything nefarious...it was all focused on taking out the leadership and isolating/securing the suspected WMD sites.

Invading a country for the purpose of removing the leadership is a war crime and therefore nefarious - look it up.
The WMD 'sites' were just a pretext - With no HARD evidence of WMD there was nothing to secure.

If everyone knew there was no WMD and it was all about oil, then why were oil fields a lower priority than the WMD sites?

Were they? I vaguely remember the oil ministry was thoroughly secured but the others were left to the looters - had there been any information about WMD it would have been lost.
The military bases were not thoroughly secured- notice all the IEDs made from 155mm shells? They could just as easily have been filled with Sarin and gone missing. The oil installations were grabbed pretty smartly however.

And I tire--rapidly--of people whose sum total of experience on the matter comes from the media.

I tire pretty quickly of people who think just because they have 'experience' any thought which floats into their head is gospel fact.
If the combined thousands of man-years experience the Pentagon has failed to see through Saddam's deception plan I'd say the value of 'experience' is overrated.

The name calling and bullshit is ridiculous. I weigh in on yet another "Bush lied people died" thread from Dilbert, and because I point out fact to counter the OP, I'm the idiot. Whatever.

Then cut it out - You started with 'inane' 'bitching' 'juvenile' 'childish' stuff.
The worst I called you was stupid - for making a statement so easily proven false - maybe you should pay attention whe your President is speaking.

s one thing to be intellectually honest and examine ALL points of view regarding something as contentious as this. It's another to accept ONLY the stories/opinions that support one's preconceived notions without question and then dismiss without consideration those that oppose your preconceived notions.

Uh-huh and how does that square with

Give it up. It's been 5 years, and no amount of bitching by you on a video game forum is going to un-invade Iraq.

We have all seen both sides of the argument, sorry but I don't follow the line peddled by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz - if that makes me biased I'll accept I'm biased.
New information is continuing to come to light, information you apparently don't want to hear.
Its useful to study recent history if only to avoid repeating it.

See you in Iran

Fuck Israel

2008-03-26 03:03:42

#53

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7034|PNW

Of course, Al Qaeda writes everything down.

2008-03-26 03:27:01

#54

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6674|'Murka

And Dilbert's post points me right back to the poll I had a while back: Academic or practical experience...which is more important?

Since the vast majority of the people who responded believe that practical experience is more important than academic experience (that would mean having BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT is more useful THAN HAVING JUST READ ABOUT IT)...I'll take Dilbert's rant with a grain of salt.

Point by point rebuttal would be useless, as it's been done before. Using facts to counter opinion apparently isn't worth much in Dilbert's eyes. I'm out of this one.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-26 05:30:05

#55

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6369|eXtreme to the maX

Since the vast majority of the people who responded believe that practical experience is more important than academic experience (that would mean having BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT is more useful THAN HAVING JUST READ ABOUT IT)...I'll take Dilbert's rant with a grain of salt.

Since the Pentagon, with what - 100,000 collective man years of experience? - completely swallowed the deception plan of a tin pot dictator with 1970s technology your argument about experience is irrelevant.

Since you failed to notice your President announced to the world the Iraq invasion was about Saddams connections with Al Qaeda I'm going to say your experience is not a whole lot of use either.

There were no WMD, there was no link between Saddam and AQ.
How did I, with no 'experience' and only the media to go on, know this when you and the mighty Pentagon didn't?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-03-26 05:42:50)

Fuck Israel

2008-03-26 08:34:59

#56

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6674|'Murka

You know it 5 years after the fact, based on reports AFTER THE FACT.

So congratulations. You figured something out long AFTER THE FACT. You r smart.

If you're going to go down the "swallowed the deception plan of some tinpot dictator" go ahead and throw in the governments of the UK, France, Germany, and several others. Damn...you keep forgetting that part.

Did I not just point out that we all heard him and Cheney say that? Of course it was before the invasion, not given as rationale for the invasion...but you must have missed that part too.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-26 08:54:27

#57

PeoNinja: Ninja Fart - Silent but Deadly; +31|6461

o really?

2008-03-26 09:25:26

#58

ReTox: Member; +100|6762|State of RETOXification

I remember watching reports on the CBC before the invasion that Canada knew there were no links between Al-Qaeda and Hussein. I think that is one of the main reasons Canadians don't support the Iraq war... even if we do wish the best for those charged with the task.

I don't think I have ever heard a Canadian bash the US forces... Bush and his cronies is a different story. Is 4000 lives enough to warrant an eternity in hell according to Bush's religion?

2008-03-26 10:22:02

#59

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6805|Texas - Bigger than France

It's easy to confuse the two issues here:

1) The government should be as open as it can be without deceit.

2) There were/are many factors for committing to Iraq.

These topics are independent and should be treated as such.

2008-03-26 10:29:19

#60

topal63: . . .; +533|6981

There were no concrete links before or after the fact. Why? Because they (manufactured linkage; weak links) represent an intent and an agenda.

The CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, DoD, whatever... they don't exist in a vacuum. They follow orders. They are connected. It's called chain of command. If the top dogs have an agenda - that's that. You can rest assured they'll find many people in that chain of command and instruct them to compile reports to support that agenda. And, its converse is basically true. If there is information they want to marginalize or downplay - then they'll find the necessary individuals, in the chain of command, to compile reports that do so (or they'll simply ignore the info).

"No links" is a colloquial way a phrasing, or other way of phrasing, "nothing concrete" or "flimsy at best" or "blown out of proportion." Trying to argue that it's a point of logic that must fit an absolute literal definition is absurd argumentation to say the least. It's kind of like 7 degrees of separation denial-ism. If you can find even the weakest connection therefor the "no link" idea is untrue... O' brother.

2008-03-27 00:51:20

#61

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6369|eXtreme to the maX

You know it 5 years after the fact, based on reports AFTER THE FACT.

No I knew it BEFORE the fact, as did many others. You can believe that or not.
The Pentagon didn't know it before the fact however - when they should have if your theories on experience are valid.

Of course it was before the invasion, not given as rationale for the invasion...but you must have missed that part too.

It was given as rationale for the invasion, after the invasion.
'The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.' http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 01-15.html

I don't think the French and Germans swallowed it either, we've been through the 'Curveball' business repeatedly.

https://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/Dilbert_X/Yeehaw.gif

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-03-27 03:43:23)

Fuck Israel

2008-03-27 03:14:08

#62

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6674|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
You know it 5 years after the fact, based on reports AFTER THE FACT.
No I knew it BEFORE the fact, as did many others. You can believe that or not.
The Pentagon didn't know it before the fact however - when they should have if your theories on experience are valid.

Of course it was before the invasion, not given as rationale for the invasion...but you must have missed that part too.
It was given as rationale for the invasion, after the invasion.
'The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.' http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 01-15.html

I don't think the French and Germans swallowed it either, we've been through the 'Curveball' business repeatedly.
Must go, will add cartoon later

File not Found. Shucks. I bet it backed up your claim with no room for interpretation.

You keep acting as if the AQ-Saddam linkage was the causus belli, when anyone who was around at the time knows that the PRIMARY reason was suspected WMD programs. Just keep shifting the burden of the argument around until you feel that you've convinced someone.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-03-27 03:18:47)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-27 03:41:41

#63

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6369|eXtreme to the maX

File not Found.

Here you go:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 01-15.html
Sorry, cut and paste in BF2S garbled it. You could have tried google, here's the link www.google.com

Shucks. I bet it backed up your claim with no room for interpretation.

Hey I dunno
'The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on.'
'The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more'
It seems simple enough to me. I guess someone forgot to tell Gee Duhbya the message had changed.

You keep acting as if the AQ-Saddam linkage was the causus belli, when anyone who was around at the time knows that the PRIMARY reason was suspected WMD programs.

We know:-
The primary reason was the supposed WMD, the secondary but connected reason was Saddams supposed links to AQ and the likelihood AQ would acquire the supposed WMD through the supposed links.
See your Commander in Chief's statements above - or does he not have enough experience, access to classified documents, wasn't there at the time etc etc to satisfy you his statements and analysis have any validity?

The WMD thing has been blown full of holes, not least because there weren't any, the Saddam-AQ link is melting away now.
Both were concocted, exaggerated - whatever - by the Bush govt.

So what the heck was the war about? Why exactly did 4,000 of your comrades need to die?
Having knowingly taken his country into an illegal war (and diverted resources from the hunt for AQ - where is OBL BTW?) shouldn't GWB be dangling upside down from a lamp-post about now?

https://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/Dilbert_X/NeverForget.gif

Rob Rogers is my new best friend http://www.robrogers.com/
PS Yay - we're back to the OP
PPS I reckon its FEOS in the top right quadrant

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-03-27 03:51:06)

Fuck Israel

2008-03-27 03:56:30

#64

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6674|'Murka

Comics as a way to back up your "argument" in D&ST...classic.

Even your cherry-picking of comments doesn't say there was an AQ-Saddam linkage. "Ally of Al Qaeda" is the closest you can get to that, and that can be interpreted many ways. Yours is that he's saying Saddam and Osama are sharing long kisses in warm showers. Another way to interpret is that Iraq and AQ had similar goals WRT the US and the West. You choose to interpret in a way that supports your argument. I choose to interpret in a way consistent with the reports provided to the government's leadership.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-27 04:04:31

#65

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6369|eXtreme to the maX

Comics as a way to back up your "argument" in D&ST...classic.

Its a way of demonstrating not everyone at the time swallowed the govt line. Check the dates on the cartoons.

Even your cherry-picking of comments doesn't say there was an AQ-Saddam linkage. "Ally of Al Qaeda" is the closest you can get to that, and that can be interpreted many ways.

It was interpreted in a way which led to the invasion of Iraq. I wonder what that signifies?
Does 'ally' mean here the same thing it means to us? eg When Bush descibes Britain as an 'ally'? Fight together against common enemies, share information, back each other up, respond militarily if the ally is attacked?
I didn't interpret linkage any particular way, I just pointed out the Pentagon now believes there was never any linkage at all.

Fuck Israel

2008-03-27 04:10:11

#66

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6674|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
Comics as a way to back up your "argument" in D&ST...classic.
Its a way of demonstrating not everyone at the time swallowed the govt line. Check the dates on the cartoons.

You may not realize this, but politicians are drug over the coals for everything, regardless of it's validity, in cartoons here. They hardly prove your point.

Dilbert_X wrote:
Even your cherry-picking of comments doesn't say there was an AQ-Saddam linkage. "Ally of Al Qaeda" is the closest you can get to that, and that can be interpreted many ways.
It was interpreted in a way which led to the invasion of Iraq. I wonder what that signifies?
Does 'ally' mean here the same thing it means to us? eg When Bush descibes Britain as an 'ally'? Fight together against common enemies, share information, back each other up, respond militarily if the ally is attacked?
I didn't interpret linkage any particular way, I just pointed out the Pentagon now believes there was never any linkage at all.

The Pentagon NEVER believed there was a strong linkage...certainly not a leadership-to-leadership linkage. I believe I said that already.

Ally can cover a pretty broad spectrum, everything from the close relationship the US and UK have to a simple sharing of ideologies.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-27 04:17:52

#67

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6369|eXtreme to the maX

The Pentagon NEVER believed there was a strong linkage...certainly not a leadership-to-leadership linkage. I believe I said that already.

Maybe the Pentagon didn't, the Bush admin wanted the public to believe it however.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … iraq_x.htm
'Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.

The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link.'

Why don't you tell me how 70% of Americans came to believe this?

Fuck Israel

2008-03-27 06:20:43

#68

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6674|'Murka

Could it be lazy media reporting? That's where the majority of the American people get their info.

Additionally, saying that the administration's position that Iraq is a central front on the WOT is somehow equivalent to saying there is a link between AQ and Saddam is just wrong. The two positions are not at all equivalent, except for those who do not understand the extent of the WOT...it's about far more than AQ.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-27 07:14:39

#69

venom6: Since day One.; +247|6821|Hungary

Everyone knows that this "war on terror is a total lie" why isnt it called "war for oil" or "war on colonization"
Are there McDonalds and Coca Cola in Iraq? If no there will be soon.

2008-03-27 07:15:32

#70

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6906

is there coca cola in hungary?

2008-03-27 07:22:44

#71

venom6: Since day One.; +247|6821|Hungary

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
is there coca cola in hungary?

Sure just as Pepsi

2008-03-27 07:24:49

#72

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6906

venom6 wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
is there coca cola in hungary?
Sure just as Pepsi

did we invade hungary?

2008-03-27 07:32:01

#73

venom6: Since day One.; +247|6821|Hungary

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
venom6 wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
is there coca cola in hungary?
Sure just as Pepsi
did we invade hungary?

Imperialism invade europe and after the iron curtain it was welcome in all the eastern block countries. Just as Hungary in 1989.
Globalization is what its called. But Iraq was in 2003 and i mean 5 years gone now and the US and the Iraqi forces try to make peace in the country.
But as i see a lot of people are against the US soldiers and they say they should go home. I also think the your soilders should not risk their lifes in other countries. Bring them back home and let Iraq do its own thing. I know people are fear from a civil war...but who cares?
There are conflicts in Africa or Asia (Tibet) why dont the EU and NATO and US go and help there where its neded?

2008-03-27 07:33:45

#74

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6906

venom6 wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
venom6 wrote:

Sure just as Pepsi
did we invade hungary?
Imperialism invade europe and after the iron curtain it was welcome in all the eastern block countries. Just as Hungary in 1989.
Globalization is what its called. But Iraq was in 2003 and i mean 5 years gone now and the US and the Iraqi forces try to make peace in the country.
But as i see a lot of people are against the US soldiers and they say they should go home. I also think the your soilders should not risk their lifes in other countries. Bring them back home and let Iraq do its own thing. I know people are fear from a civil war...but who cares?
There are conflicts in Africa or Asia (Tibet) why dont the EU and NATO and US go and help there where its neded?

not saying youre wrong.

youre not telling me something I dont already know. You said, because of the military invasion of Iraq, there will be coca cola and mcdonalds. Coca Cola has been in Iraq for quite a long time. They also have fast food places there too.

2008-03-27 07:41:39

#75

venom6: Since day One.; +247|6821|Hungary

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
youre not telling me something I dont already know. You said, because of the military invasion of Iraq, there will be coca cola and mcdonalds. Coca Cola has been in Iraq for quite a long time. They also have fast food places there too.

Then i knew it wrong, thanks for the correction.

BF2S Forums No Iraq-al Qaeda links found

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

venom6 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

venom6 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

venom6 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

venom6 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Board footer