BF2S Forums 'No Saddam link to Iraq al-Qaeda'

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Matix5435 wrote:

Yeah, Saddam was bad and Iraq was bad, but Bush told us that he was going to find the person responsable for 9/11 and that they would be punished, but has he done shit yet? No. A few troops in Afghanistan and thats about it, instead he puts our troops into Iraq so he can 'liberate the people'. BS. He wants oil.

I dare you to try and quote where Bush said we went into IRAQ because SOMEONE in Iraq was responsible for 9/11.  I double fucking dare you.

he wants oil, lmfao, where is it at than???

Also I don't think liberals hate the country, some of you guys are ok, and some of you actually do hate the country.  But for the most part you guys are alright.  Nothing wrong with having differing POV's and opinions.  But we did not go in for oil, if we did, please prove it.

It takes time to find those truly responsible (Osama, others in AQ) It can't happen in a flash (5 years).  It takes more time, especially with the way they cover their tracks, etc.  It is not easy.  I think we have done some good over there but it is time to move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hus … d_al-Qaeda

Don't think there was a direct quote, but the smoke is all there.

OFCOURSE THEY WANT OIL, FFS. that the first thing u.s secured when they attacked iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, … 37,00.html

^---- that from jan 2003, just goes to show how prepared the u.s were.

Its does take time, but u.s being u.s , i would expect them to have found him by now.

mafia996630 wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Matix5435 wrote:

Yeah, Saddam was bad and Iraq was bad, but Bush told us that he was going to find the person responsable for 9/11 and that they would be punished, but has he done shit yet? No. A few troops in Afghanistan and thats about it, instead he puts our troops into Iraq so he can 'liberate the people'. BS. He wants oil.

I dare you to try and quote where Bush said we went into IRAQ because SOMEONE in Iraq was responsible for 9/11.  I double fucking dare you.

he wants oil, lmfao, where is it at than???

Also I don't think liberals hate the country, some of you guys are ok, and some of you actually do hate the country.  But for the most part you guys are alright.  Nothing wrong with having differing POV's and opinions.  But we did not go in for oil, if we did, please prove it.

It takes time to find those truly responsible (Osama, others in AQ) It can't happen in a flash (5 years).  It takes more time, especially with the way they cover their tracks, etc.  It is not easy.  I think we have done some good over there but it is time to move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hus … d_al-Qaeda

Don't think there was a direct quote, but the smoke is all there.

OFCOURSE THEY WANT OIL, FFS. that the first thing u.s secured when they attacked iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, … 37,00.html

^---- that from jan 2003, just goes to show how prepared the u.s were.

Its does take time, but u.s being u.s , i would expect them to have found him by now.

Bush has said, time and again, that the oil in Iraq is key to helping Iraq develop its own independant economy so that it can start paying for its own infrastructure.

G3|Genius wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

I dare you to try and quote where Bush said we went into IRAQ because SOMEONE in Iraq was responsible for 9/11.  I double fucking dare you.

he wants oil, lmfao, where is it at than???

Also I don't think liberals hate the country, some of you guys are ok, and some of you actually do hate the country.  But for the most part you guys are alright.  Nothing wrong with having differing POV's and opinions.  But we did not go in for oil, if we did, please prove it.

It takes time to find those truly responsible (Osama, others in AQ) It can't happen in a flash (5 years).  It takes more time, especially with the way they cover their tracks, etc.  It is not easy.  I think we have done some good over there but it is time to move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hus … d_al-Qaeda

Don't think there was a direct quote, but the smoke is all there.

OFCOURSE THEY WANT OIL, FFS. that the first thing u.s secured when they attacked iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, … 37,00.html

^---- that from jan 2003, just goes to show how prepared the u.s were.

Its does take time, but u.s being u.s , i would expect them to have found him by now.

Bush has said, time and again, that the oil in Iraq is key to helping Iraq develop its own independant economy so that it can start paying for its own infrastructure.

taking in mind that iraq is the world second largest oil supplier, you really think u.s did not benefit a whole lot ?

IRONCHEF wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Why do people from other countries give a crap what the US does?  If you have a problem with us, do something about, don't just sit there and cry.

I wish other countries would pound our country into humility for once so we could again focus on our own country and it's people.  Maybe Bush can accomplish this before he's gone.  I'd be happy to support a regime change in this country.

Yeah ok, your house and your family first on the sacrifical alter ok??

lowing wrote:

the_hitman_kills wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support" - US Senate Report

Whaddaya know? The blatantly obvious to any reasonable logical thinker has been officially stated by the US Senate! Please do not use this lame excuse for war in Iraq AGAIN. /transmission over

ok...but they did find WMDs........oh wait, no they didn't.

oh wait, yes they did!!

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Ira … sified.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01528.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01528.html

You wasted time searching this??
They've already admitted they didn't find any WMD's.  Don't you have a tv?  Or your browser only lets you go to foxnews?

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Matix5435 wrote:

Yeah, Saddam was bad and Iraq was bad, but Bush told us that he was going to find the person responsable for 9/11 and that they would be punished, but has he done shit yet? No. A few troops in Afghanistan and thats about it, instead he puts our troops into Iraq so he can 'liberate the people'. BS. He wants oil.

I dare you to try and quote where Bush said we went into IRAQ because SOMEONE in Iraq was responsible for 9/11.  I double fucking dare you.

he wants oil, lmfao, where is it at than???

Also I don't think liberals hate the country, some of you guys are ok, and some of you actually do hate the country.  But for the most part you guys are alright.  Nothing wrong with having differing POV's and opinions.  But we did not go in for oil, if we did, please prove it.

It takes time to find those truly responsible (Osama, others in AQ) It can't happen in a flash (5 years).  It takes more time, especially with the way they cover their tracks, etc.  It is not easy.  I think we have done some good over there but it is time to move on.

maybe Bush didn't literally state it - he most certainly inferred it all the time.  However, I think you will find it was the Vice President Dick Cheney who told the American Public that there was a definate operational relationship between Saddam & al-Qaeda for instance sept2003 and I quote:

"a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s... al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained... the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organisation."

This section should be called... "America sucks, no other country does anything wrong except America and Americans."

usmarine2005 wrote:

This section should be called... "America sucks, no other country does anything wrong except America and Americans."

um..... yea. there goes logic.

Horseman 77 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

This section should be called... "America sucks, no other country does anything wrong except America and Americans."

It has a nice ring to it.

So you tipped your hand and showed us your tue colors.   No big suprizes really.

I will not genralize or sterotype, But your one liberal who seems to Hate your country.

The twisted part is you seem to realy enjoy it. Whats your backround?
Everyone I know from Michagan is pretty cool. One is a West Point Graduate. What happend to you out there? Do you blame others ( the President ) for your predicement?

I was under the impresion you were very young, I am not going to tell you to grow up or any nonsense like that. ( I know I haven't lol ) but still it seems like you should be moving closer to a " hard facts' reality" point of view, becuase the desisions you make in the next few years will shape your life. You wont be locked into any one path ever but you may make a lot of extra work for yourself if you insist in holding onto this sad view.

There insn't a lot of desire for such types. In the work force.

Unless you are going to be a shitty, hack type, Wanna be artist, make sure your mom and dad can pay your way.

Geeze horseman, can't take a joke? His comment was sarcastic, so I ran with it. I'm already at a factual world view. I'm very well off in the middle class (though a little pressed for cash at times). I know what I'm doing with my life, and more importantly, I've already figured out what it takes to be a great person. I'm also smart enough not to mix political views and work or school. And don't worry your pretty little head, I won't be an artist anytime soon.

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Why do people from other countries give a crap what the US does?  If you have a problem with us, do something about, don't just sit there and cry.

I don't have a problem with what the US does inside their own country. I do have a problem with what the US does outside their own country. Why? Because it affects me, my neighbours and countries that I don't believe should be bothered by some distant bunch of white folk (unless they truly deserve to be dealt with and the method employed is just and reasonable).

Sorry, catching up on some old reading.

What's the difference between these two statements:
1) I don't have a problem with what the US does inside their own country.  I do have a problem with what the US does outside their own country.  Because it affects me.

And

2) Saddam Hussein has proven to be threatening to destabilizing the Middle East.  The US has interest in what happens in the Middle East because it affects America.

Interesting article by Paul Reynolds -

In the five years since 9/11, a clear-cut and well-supported "war on terror" declared by President Bush has become confused and divisive.

Whereas Le Monde declared the day after 9/11: "We are all Americans now", a placard at a demonstration in London recently read: "We are all Hezbollah now".

American policy has had successes. The quick war in Afghanistan after 9/11 (now flaring up again in the south) toppled the Taleban and has denied al-Qaeda its training bases, which were important to it (base is what the word Qaeda means).

Al-Qaeda has lost much of its leadership. It has not toppled governments as it had hoped. Western forces have not left the Middle East, and in particular the government of Saudi Arabia, guardian of Mecca, which is probably Osama Bin Laden's ultimate target, stands.

Yet Western and other publics are left in fear, and rightly so. Al-Qaeda is no invention. Its impact - or that of its sympathisers - was seen not only in New York and Washington but in Bali, Madrid, London, Morocco, Istanbul and elsewhere.


The power of fear

Fear is a powerful motivating factor. Fear after 9/11 led to the Bush doctrine of the pre-emptive strike.

But this doctrine has not been endorsed by all.

Doubts, divisions and defections have developed among American allies. For many around the world, sympathy for the United States has changed into suspicion and, for some, even into hatred. The prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the treatment of prisoners, secret prisons and rendition flights all added to this feeling.

The changes just announced by President Bush - acknowledging and emptying the secret camps and other moves - might answer some criticism but not all and their overall effect remains to be seen.

Pessimism about Western tactics

Professor Michael Clarke of King's College, London, is gloomy in the short term at least.

"If I was Osama Bin Laden sitting in my cave, I would think I was winning," he said.

"I would consider that I am still at large, I have a global movement, I strike a chord with young Muslims everywhere, I am an inspiration not a planner and I have lured the US into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq of my choosing and of my way of fighting."

He added: "Nor is the West countering the easy narrative offered by the jihadis. They are, and I agree with the Bush language on this, Islamic fascists, but we are not engaging enough in the war of ideas and are instead dwelling on their actions. They can counter that by dwelling on ours, in a game of moral equivalence."

Iraq hangs like a shadow

The shadow of Iraq hangs over American policy and the world's view of it.

The problem is that many governments and peoples do not see Iraq as part of the answer to terror. They see it as part of the cause. They therefore want to distance themselves from American policy.

Not that al-Qaeda's terrorism was prompted by the Iraq invasion. The 11 September attacks preceded Iraq and recently, German trains were the target of an attempted attack even though Germany opposed the invasion.

But Iraq has probably been the greatest single factor in producing the confusion that is now evident. Washington declares that Iraq must be won or the war on terror will be lost. Opponents say it has made things worse, though many opponents add that now it must be won.


A difficulty for the Bush administration is that it argued differently when the invasion was announced. Then, it was about weapons of mass destruction.


Terrorism floated only in the background as a nightmare in which a rogue state might give some terrorist nuclear weapons.

Now, Iraq has been declared the frontline which has to be held or it will move to the streets of America.

Language changes to reflect policy shifts

The extent to which Iraq has influenced events can be seen by looking at the language used by President Bush before and after the invasion.

On 31 August this year he told the American Legion in Salt Lake City: "This war will be long... but it's a war we must wage, and a war we will win...The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st Century."


For many around the world, sympathy for the United States has changed into suspicion and, for some, even into hatred



His use of the future tense in "We will win" contrasts with what he said before the invasion. On 26 February 2003, he declared in a speech in Washington: "We have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al-Qaeda. Across the world, we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning."

The change of tense shows how far any expectation of victory has been put off.



No settled narrative


It is perhaps not unlike the debate over South Vietnam. That war, too, was declared necessary for victory in the other long war, the Cold War. In those days, it was said that if South Vietnam went, the whole of South East Asia would go too, in a fall of the dominoes.

And nor has Washington been effective in solving another motivating factor for the jihadis - the Israel-Palestine conflict. Its portrayal of Israel as a victim in the war on terror sits uneasily with, say, the Europeans, who generally see the dispute as territorial not ideological and therefore amenable to a compromise.

There is therefore no agreed and clear narrative for the "war on terror".

Optimism about Western values

Professor Clarke is more optimistic in the long term.

"It will get worse before it gets better but I expect western policy to win eventually because it offers a superior political, moral and economic model. However we have not made things easy for ourselves by mistakes, first in Afghanistan by allowing Taleban and al-Qaeda leaders to escape and then on a grand scale in make a strategic mistake by invading Iraq.

"This is probably going to take a generation to resolve, until the angry young jihadis turn into tired old men, as the Marxist-Leninists did."

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

the_hitman_kills wrote:

ok...but they did find WMDs........oh wait, no they didn't.

oh wait, yes they did!!

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Ira … sified.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01528.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01528.html

You wasted time searching this??
They've already admitted they didn't find any WMD's.  Don't you have a tv?  Or your browser only lets you go to foxnews?

Show me the link that says they admit they found zero WMD's. Cuz I showed you links where they said they did find them