Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
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
Maybe - But saying Saddam was a key ally of AQ was also plain wrong - the point of the OP. I don't agree with your 'sharing of ideologies' definition.

Saddam never attacked the US, as far as I know none of the organisations he sponsored attacked the US, he had no WMD and wasn't an ally of AQ.
The US can conduct the 'WOT' if it wants, but the Iraq invasion was baseless and illegal.
I'll bet Iran sponsors a good deal more terror against the US and its allies, why didn't Bush concoct a war against them?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6602|132 and Bush

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.
The moment the elected government started siding with the likes of Al Sadr it should have become even more obvious. If that's their destiny fine. I'd rather spend 50 bucks for a gallon of gas than commit myself to relying on a decayed civilization one more day. If they screw around and support terrorism against those of us living in the civilized world, nation building will be the last thing on our minds. Promise them a 24 hour sunrise.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6412|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

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
Maybe - But saying Saddam was a key ally of AQ was also plain wrong - the point of the OP. I don't agree with your 'sharing of ideologies' definition.

Saddam never attacked the US, as far as I know none of the organisations he sponsored attacked the US, he had no WMD and wasn't an ally of AQ.
The US can conduct the 'WOT' if it wants, but the Iraq invasion was baseless and illegal.
I'll bet Iran sponsors a good deal more terror against the US and its allies, why didn't Bush concoct a war against them?
Doesn't matter whether you agree or not. And I wasn't saying Iraq and AQ shared ideologies necessarily. I was saying that "ally" can fall anywhere along that spectrum.
“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
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
I'd rather spend 50 bucks for a gallon of gas than commit myself to relying on a decayed civilization one more day.
Do you mean like you rely on Saudi Arabia?
If they screw around and support terrorism against those of us living in the civilized world, nation building will be the last thing on our minds.
Yeah, you're definitely thinking of Saudi Arabia
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6544|Texas - Bigger than France

Dilbert_X wrote:

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
Maybe - But saying Saddam was a key ally of AQ was also plain wrong - the point of the OP. I don't agree with your 'sharing of ideologies' definition.

Saddam never attacked the US, as far as I know none of the organisations he sponsored attacked the US, he had no WMD and wasn't an ally of AQ.
The US can conduct the 'WOT' if it wants, but the Iraq invasion was baseless and illegal.
I'll bet Iran sponsors a good deal more terror against the US and its allies, why didn't Bush concoct a war against them?
baseless and illegal?  a bad decision maybe, but have we forgotten that the AQ link was one of many reasons?

Like I said earlier, the Iraq decision and the "OMFG he lied" issue are separate issues.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
There were only three reasons I remember
WMD
Link to AQ
Support for other terrorist organisations
The first two were baseless, were there any others?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6544|Texas - Bigger than France

Dilbert_X wrote:

There were only three reasons I remember
WMD
Link to AQ
Support for other terrorist organisations
The first two were baseless, were there any others?
Yes.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6412|'Murka

Pug wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

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
Maybe - But saying Saddam was a key ally of AQ was also plain wrong - the point of the OP. I don't agree with your 'sharing of ideologies' definition.

Saddam never attacked the US, as far as I know none of the organisations he sponsored attacked the US, he had no WMD and wasn't an ally of AQ.
The US can conduct the 'WOT' if it wants, but the Iraq invasion was baseless and illegal.
I'll bet Iran sponsors a good deal more terror against the US and its allies, why didn't Bush concoct a war against them?
baseless and illegal?  a bad decision maybe, but have we forgotten that the AQ link was one of many reasons?

Like I said earlier, the Iraq decision and the "OMFG he lied" issue are separate issues.
He has selective memory (forgets 17 UN resolutions, including authorization for force; forgets proven WMD deception op that worked against multiple countries; forgets payments to suicide bombers in Israel; there is a pattern here).

He thinks it's news to the American people that the Bush administration hasn't been our brightest hour, but neglects the fact that--as bad as it is--it was the least bad of the choices available at election time.

You just have to get used to it.
“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
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
None of the UN resolution authorised an invasion, and the US never sought one which did.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6645
why cant we just invade a country because we feel like it?
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6544|Texas - Bigger than France

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

why cant we just invade a country because we feel like it?
well we can, we just need to take a shower afterwards.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6544|Texas - Bigger than France

Dilbert_X wrote:

None of the UN resolution authorised an invasion, and the US never sought one which did.
I said Yes to your earlier question.  Did you bother thinking about that at all?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
I said Yes to your earlier question.  Did you bother thinking about that at all?
Not really, would be interesting to hear it.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6544|Texas - Bigger than France

Dilbert_X wrote:

I said Yes to your earlier question.  Did you bother thinking about that at all?
Not really, would be interesting to hear it.
I believe we were mislead about the AQ link.  However, that is one of perhaps two dozen reasons for being in Iraq.

With that said, I still don't think it was a "great" decision.

Perhaps you ought to research it yourself.  It might be helpful.

I don't think I'm going to be the guy that does that for you - my opinion is that you are an agitator.  So what's the use in explaining anything to you at all?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
Again not really.
I've put forward three supposed excuses for the Iraq invasion, as stated by the President of the USA.
If you think there are two dozen others please put them forward, 'yes' doesn't extend the discussion much.

FEOS wrote:

payments to suicide bombers in Israel
Not sure thats justification for invasion - if thats one of the real reasons then thats interesting.
Still, the US has been funding, arming and protecting (via the UNSC) Israeli death squads for decades.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6544|Texas - Bigger than France

Dilbert_X wrote:

Again not really.
I've put forward three supposed excuses for the Iraq invasion, as stated by the President of the USA.
If you think there are two dozen others please put them forward, 'yes' doesn't extend the discussion much.
I said "yes" because you are either poorly informed or are ignoring the other factors.

I don't believe you "would like to hear them".  I think you know them already.

It's not up to me to educate you.  Try "rationale for Iraq war" or "resolution against Iraq" in google.

Or, maybe use the "search" button.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6412|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Again not really.
I've put forward three supposed excuses for the Iraq invasion, as stated by the President of the USA.
If you think there are two dozen others please put them forward, 'yes' doesn't extend the discussion much.

FEOS wrote:

payments to suicide bombers in Israel
Not sure thats justification for invasion - if thats one of the real reasons then thats interesting.
That would fall under "support to terrorist organizations".
“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
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
I don't believe you "would like to hear them".  I think you know them already.
Yes I would, lets hear them.
Apart from the ones I listed, I'm not aware of any put forward by Bush or anyone else.

That would fall under "support to terrorist organizations".
Thats funny, considering
- The support the US has given to terrorist organisations and brutal totalitarian regimes over the years
- The support the US gave to Saddam and Iraq over the years, and thereby to Iraq's chosen terrorist organisations

In any event 'support to terrorist organisations' is not a reasonable justification for invasion, its something for the UN to deal with.
If it were Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria should have been ahead of Iraq on the list. Instead Iraq will soon be the western province of Iran and the oil revenue will doubtless flow to them - nice work guys
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6544|Texas - Bigger than France
AAFCptKabbom
Member
+127|6660|WPB, FL. USA
"...any operational links..."  (direct link - in more simple terms)

Name any country that has direct links to AQ.  Yet they have people, funds, resources, etc.

It's more a matter of the 17 U.N. resolutions that were violated repeatedly, weapons inspectors being kicked out of Iraq, every major intel agency having some type of information related to Iraq's efforts to terrorize it's enemies (look what they did to the Kurds after they surrendered), post 9/11, etc. I don't recall that the only reason Saddam was spanked was becasue of direct links to AQ or known WMD - a lot more was going on.

BTW - Anyone notice the need to defend the Iraqi people now or are we just wanting to live in the past and let these people suffer longer because of our comfortable selfishness (something that can't be changed or altered). 

Please brain and don't complain
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6407|North Carolina
AAFC, your rationale would make sense if the U.N. actually supported invasion.  Enforcing resolutions that an organization doesn't want to seems rather stupid to me.

If anything, the Iraq War proved that the U.N. is irrelevant.  They can make resolutions, but most of the time, they have no teeth.

The dollar hegemony oil trade argument makes far more sense.

Oh... and that selfishness argument holds no weight, because our support for Saddam in the beginning was pretty damn selfish to begin with.  Our policies are almost always motivated by greed and selfishness.  Even staying in Iraq is primarily for the sake of greed.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-03-30 10:46:13)

usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6763

No Al-Q links in Bosnia either, yet clinton went there instead of going after bin laden.  But I guess that was ok.
Tushers
Noctwisaskfirtush
+224|6686|Some where huntin in Wisconsin

Dilbert_X wrote:

No links were found between Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorist network after a Pentagon-sponsored study looked at more than 600,000 Iraqi documents.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/451657.html
WASHINGTON -- An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Hussein's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered his enemies.
The new study of the Iraqi ruler's archives found no documents indicating a ''direct operational link'' between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.
He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn't due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday.

President Bush and his aides used Hussein's alleged relationship with al Qaeda, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had ''bulletproof'' evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Hussein's secular dictatorship.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Hussein and al Qaeda in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.
As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaeda to the ongoing violence in Iraq. ''The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims,'' he said.
The new study, entitled Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, was essentially completed last year and has been undergoing what one U.S. intelligence official described as a ''painful'' declassification review.

It was produced by a federally funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, under contract to the Norfolk, Va.-based U.S. Joint Forces Command.
Spokesmen for the Joint Forces Command declined to comment until the report is released. One of the report's authors, Kevin Woods, also declined to comment.
The issue of al Qaeda in Iraq already has played a role in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, mocked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, recently for saying he'd keep some U.S. troops in Iraq if al Qaeda established a base there.

''I have some news. Al Qaeda is in Iraq,'' McCain told supporters. Obama retorted that, ''There was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade.'' (In fact, al Qaeda in Iraq didn't emerge until 2004, a year after the invasion.)
The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of the Iraq invasion to advance their own familiar arguments.
While the documents reveal no Hussein-al Qaeda links, they do show that Hussein and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.
However, the U.S. intelligence official played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, ``I don't think there's any surprises there.''
So if there was not a single shred of evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda why did Bush, Cheney etc keep telling us there was?
like the evolution and big bang THEORY just a though nothing has been proven but thats simply what everyone says n beleaves (d) in

Last edited by Tushers (2008-03-30 11:40:46)

usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6763

Anyone seen the "study?"  Was it released like they said?
Magpie
international welder....Douchebag Dude, <3 ur mom
+257|6528|Milkystania, yurop
Lulz u invaded a sovereign state

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard