Saddam Captured

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by razorace

Plus, Bush never stated that Saddam had a part in Sept 11. That was a urban legend that some how got picked up by the anti-war people.

 

In every public address that Bush made in which he mentioned Saddam Hussein he also mentioned 9/11, often within the same paragraph. What that amounts to is a cold, calculated deception. The average American believed 8 months to a year ago that Hussein was responsible, at least in part, for 9/11.

 

The average American also believed that Hussein had nuclear weapons that could reach the United States at that time.

 

Originally posted by razorace

He did state that it was beleived that he had connections to Al-Queda and other terrorists. We know he had connections to terrorists because he was haborering terrorists (including one that had been in hiding since the early 80's).

 

Who? What's his name?

 

Originally posted by razorace

And don't think those sort of connections to Al-Queda aren't possible because Saddam's government was more secular. Remember that normal enemies can and do become allies when a bigger threat comes along.

 

"The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq"

 

-- Osama Bin Laden in a taped message just prior to the Invasion of Iraq.

[razorace]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

In every public address that Bush made in which he mentioned Saddam Hussein he also mentioned 9/11, often within the same paragraph. What that amounts to is a cold, calculated deception. The average American believed 8 months to a year ago that Hussein was responsible, at least in part, for 9/11.

 

The average American also believed that Hussein had nuclear weapons that could reach the United States at that time.

 

If the average American is stupid, is that Bush's fault? Most Americans never watch or listen to his speeches anyway.

 

Besides, what's wrong with mentioning 9/11? It was the trigger that put us in this "war on terror" in the first place. Now, if he was directly impling that Saddam was involved in 9/11, yeah, I can understand being upset about that. But just mentioning 9/11 during the terrorism part of a speech doesn't do that.

 

If you want to prove any sort of "cold, calculated deception" you're going to need to show transcripts.

 

Who? What's his name?

 

Abu Abbas

 

"The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq"

 

-- Osama Bin Laden in a taped message just prior to the Invasion of Iraq. [/b]

 

That doesn't prove much. The US in the 1940's was deeply against communism yet we gave them weapons and fought with them during WW2. Plus, that message was still encouraging people to go to Iraq to fight the Americans/UKs reguardless of the reason.

 

As for the mobile labs issue, did anyone else other than The Observer write about the officials thinking they weren't mobile biological labs? They mention a report but I can't find the actual report. Anyone know if the actual report was released?

 

The CIA still maintains that they were mobile labs and they were officially reported as such to Congress back in around augest/sept.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Well, first of all, President Bush did mention Hussein because the US does have evidence that Hussein was linked with Al-Qaeda. Ignore what Hussein is currently saying under the US' interrogation; he's most likely "broken" after having to live in a spiderhole, with a ditch as his excretion bathroom.

Next, the US really didn't start a war. It was an operation, called OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. We were saving Iraq from the devilish dictator Hussein; not only were we saving Iraq, we were assuring everyone (not just our own butts) that terrorism would not attack anyone. We eliminated Hussein, and now its time for Bin Laden (even though I personally think he's dead).

Don't you think Hussein is that evil, as he alone held almost all of Iraq's finances, he alone made laws against oil smuggling, yet the smug hypocrit did that himself, so that he made millions, along with having over five palaces around Iraq, while hundreds of Iraqis are homeless on the street. Answer your thoughts, enough?

And last of all, even though Hans Blix and the UN inspectors never found nuclear and other WMD's, that doesn't make the fact that no WMD's existed true. Just because no one finds anything doesn't mean it's not there. Think about that for a moment. I still believe that Hussein had (maybe not anymore in his possession) WMD's, even though he isn't fessing up to the US interrogator.

One more thing... to what SkinWalker was quoting Bin Laden... don't you people know of fakes? How do we know that that tape had Bin Laden? Hussein himself hired and paid five people to have plastic surgery to look exactly like him. Bin Laden's 500-member family is rich, so they have the money and technology to duplicate his voice.

[obi]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Well, first of all, President Bush did mention Hussein because the US does have evidence that Hussein was linked with Al-Qaeda. ........

 

Next, the US really didn't start a war. It was an operation, called OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. .........

 

First of all, most of the information that was handed to Mr. Powell at the UN hearing was falsafied. It's even admitted by the CIA and other organizations that the "Documents were not entirely true." Do I think Saddam was a bad man? Yes. Was he linked to Al-Qaeda? I doubt it.

 

The US didn't start a war? It started Operation Iraqi Freedom? The Difference? None. People get shot and die in both. Besides, you say it's a "war on terror," but you don't call this a war, it's an operation? Make up your mind.

 

Anyway, I'm glad they cought Saddam. Hopefully this will almost kill remaining resistance.

[The_One]

I think a lot of you are missing the point here, and I gave up this useless argument long ago. I think we are all just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

One final thought though:

 

Saddam: Sold weapons and supported by the USA. He then turned this against America.

 

Osama: Trained by the CIA, and used this training in his war on America.

 

Which nation looks idiotic now?

 

I'm out, have fun...

[obi]

Originally posted by The_One

Osama:Trained by the CIA, and used this training in his war on America.

 

Really? I wasn't aware of this......

 

Got a linky?

[El Sitherino]

link 1

link 2

link 3

Next, the US really didn't start a war. It was an operation, called OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. .........

Are you dense? A war is called an operation. The Gulf War was known as Operation: Desert Storm. You really need to open your eyes to reality kid.

[razorace]

Originally posted by obi-wan13

First of all, most of the information that was handed to Mr. Powell at the UN hearing was falsafied. It's even admitted by the CIA and other organizations that the "Documents were not entirely true."

 

Woah, woah, woah. That's a huge charge. You got any physical evidence for that because if you do it's the biggest scandel since Watergate?

 

Remember there's a big difference between intel being wrong and actually falsifying stuff. By it's nature, intel is not always true. Sometimes your contacts are wrong, you're being feed bogus data, etc. But that's not the same as stating that the evidence was falsified (IE invented by the administration/intel agencies).

[razorace]

Originally posted by The_One

Saddam: Sold weapons and supported by the USA. He then turned this against America.

 

Osama: Trained by the CIA, and used this training in his war on America.

 

There's a reason for that stuff. Both were done because we were attempting to fight a "greater evil".

 

In Osama's case, we were helping them fight the Russians who were trying to take over Afganistan.

 

In Saddam's case, we were secretly supporting both Iraq and Iran during their war in the hopes that they would stalemate and wipe each other out.

 

Personally, I think our problem is that we aren't careful enough about making sure the people we're supporting aren't going to end up being very bad people.

[The_One]

Originally posted by razorace

Woah, woah, woah. That's a huge charge. You got any physical evidence for that because if you do it's the biggest scandel since Watergate?

 

Remember there's a big difference between intel being wrong and actually falsifying stuff. By it's nature, intel is not always true. Sometimes your contacts are wrong, you're being feed bogus data, etc. But that's not the same as stating that the evidence was falsified (IE invented by the administration/intel agencies).

 

Bah, I'm back...

 

You clearly haven't heard of the Hutton Inquiry have you? OK, that was in the UK, but our government falsified - sorry "sexed up" - documents prior to the war with Iraq. And they got away with it, or at least have so far - just until Hutton publishes his report in January, though I wouldn't hold out much hope.

 

There's a reason for that stuff. Both were done because we were attempting to fight a "greater evil".

 

In Osama's case, we were helping them fight the Russians who were trying to take over Afganistan.

 

In Saddam's case, we were secretly supporting both Iraq and Iran during their war in the hopes that they would stalemate and wipe each other out.

 

Doesn't that lead you to the conclusion that there was a reason other than "liberation" as to why the war on Iraq occured? Considering American foreign policy is very much centered around its own interests, do you think "liberation" is really a valid reason? And please don't give me that bull**** about how Saddam was a threat to anyone outside his own country. The reasons I specified in an earlier post seem far more plausible as to why we got involved - and certainly reflect "own interests".

 

Do you honestly think that the US administration is going to spend vast somes of tax payers money, unless they see some benefit themselves? The "liberation" of the Iraqi people (many Iraqis, of course, not happy about the Coalition invasion) does not serve American interests - obviously, there are other reasons (see other post).

 

If you cannot see this you are blind.

[obi]

@Razorace:

 

I heard it on the news A while back, about 2 months after Colin's presentation to the UN. I am not charging anything, merely repeating what I heard. I'll try to find a link though. Might be hard because it was news a few months ago. Be Right Back.

 

Edit- Found one.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-10-powell-usat_x.htm

 

I'll look for more.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by razorace

If the average American is stupid, is that Bush's fault? Most Americans never watch or listen to his speeches anyway.

 

Besides, what's wrong with mentioning 9/11? It was the trigger that put us in this "war on terror" in the first place. Now, if he was directly impling that Saddam was involved in 9/11, yeah, I can understand being upset about that. But just mentioning 9/11 during the terrorism part of a speech doesn't do that.\

link

As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "'we don't know".

 

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

link 2

 

In August 2002, Vice President Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

On March 30, a week and a half after the start of the invasion, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld boasted about the weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."

 

Nine months later, no chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction have been found.

There were the administration's attempts to tie Saddam to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. They worked so well that nearly 70 percent of Americans believed Saddam was "personally involved" in the attacks. On March 21, two days after announcing the invasion, Bush wrote a letter to congressional leaders in which he said: "The use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001."

 

and my favorite

 

 

By the fall, after Cheney revived a discredited claim that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent prior to the attacks, Bush was forced to admit, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September the 11th."

 

Bush scared Americans with fears of an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons. In his State of the Union address last January, Bush said: "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." That claim had been discredited months earlier by many US intelligence sources. Bush used it anyway.

 

another link

another

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.

[razorace]

Originally posted by The_One

You clearly haven't heard of the Hutton Inquiry have you? OK, that was in the UK, but our government falsified - sorry "sexed up" - documents prior to the war with Iraq. And they got away with it, or at least have so far - just until Hutton publishes his report in January, though I wouldn't hold out much hope.

 

Source?

 

Doesn't that lead you to the conclusion that there was a reason other than "liberation" as to why the war on Iraq occured? Considering American foreign policy is very much centered around its own interests, do you think "liberation" is really a valid reason? And please don't give me that bull**** about how Saddam was a threat to anyone outside his own country. The reasons I specified in an earlier post seem far more plausible as to why we got involved - and certainly reflect "own interests".

 

Saddam's government was a proven thread to his neighbor nations.

 

Do you honestly think that the US administration is going to spend vast somes of tax payers money, unless they see some benefit themselves? The "liberation" of the Iraqi people (many Iraqis, of course, not happy about the Coalition invasion) does not serve American interests - obviously, there are other reasons (see other post).

 

You make it sounds like American interests are a bad thing. Of course we did it because we felt it was in our best interests, that's basic economic theory. However, that's not a bad thing. Promoting freedom can, does, and has been in the best interests of the USA.

 

As for the accusation that we're doing it "for the oil", how are we suppose to get our "investment" back when we're paying market price for Iraqi oil? How does that change things from before the war? Sure, we're probably getting more in volume vs the former Food-for-Oil program, but the market value hasn't been affected much. So how could we have possible expected to make money off this deal?

 

All the independant polls taken are showing that a vast majority of the Iraqi people are glad that the US/UK invaded.

 

If you cannot see this you are blind.

 

Argumentum ad hominem

 

I heard it on the news A while back, about 2 months after Colin's presentation to the UN. I am not charging anything, merely repeating what I heard. I'll try to find a link though. Might be hard because it was news a few months ago. Be Right Back.

 

Ok, you're talking about the documents that claimed that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from Africa.

 

1. That wasn't part of the evidence presented to the UN. That was mentioned briefly (16 words) in the last State of the Union address. By any definition, that does not count as "most" even if it had been included in Powell's presentation to the UN since there was truckloads of intel that Powell presented.

 

2. After farther investigation, the CIA decided (not proved) that the document was probably not real because they weren't able to find any other collaberating evidence.

 

3. The UK government is still stating that they beleive the document is real based on additional intel that they have.

 

So basically, there's no actual evidence that directly states that the document is fake. In fact, the opposite is true, the UK government states that they have classified information that shows that it is true.

 

Even if it is fake, there's no evidence of who actually created it so there's nothing that indicates any malice on the part of the US government....unless you're the crazy conspiracy type, but then this forum probably isn't for you.

[obi]

I'm no person that strongly believes in conspiraces, but I'm not totally dumb either. Bush started this war based soley on WMD. There were none that could be found. Bush changes Tactics. Now all of a sudden, the war is on Saddam himself, and getting him out of power for heroic and moral reasons.

 

What happened to the WMD case? Why the change of reason for war?

 

So many questions, so few answers.

[razorace]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "'we don't know".

 

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

 

And how is saying we doing "we don't know" when asked about it implying a connection?

 

As for the second part of the quote, he's talking about Iraq being in "the center" of the Arab world, which is where most of the world's terrorists come from and where ALL the 9/11 hijackers came from. He didn't state that they came from Iraq. It is vague however.

 

Stuff about quotes about WMDs in link 2

 

And how is that relivant to my statement about the government not stating that there were iraqi links to 9/11 other than the fact that the article likes to say "no ties to 9/11" a lot? You're changing the subject.

 

another link

 

"It's not surprising" when asked a question about the public thinking that Saddam is involved?! That's some hardcore finger pointing there. That's a pretty weak implication. It's pretty offhanded, taken out of context, and a comment about Saddam being suspected by the public (probably because he's a bad, bad man that has been a supporter of terrorists and a general troublemaker) rather than implying that he was actually involved. Again, it is vague. It looks like that is just something that Cheney does; That's hardly a "cold, calculated deception".

 

In addition, Bush went out of his way to clarify almost immediately afterwards.

 

another

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

 

And how does that prove anything? It's an opinion of the writer without any sort of evidence to back it up.

[razorace]

Originally posted by obi-wan13

I'm no person that strongly believes in conspiraces, but I'm not totally dumb either. Bush started this war based soley on WMD. There were none that could be found. Bush changes Tactics. Now all of a sudden, the war is on Saddam himself, and getting him out of power for heroic and moral reasons.

 

Gee, that's funny cause he and Colin mentioned other reasons in various presentations and speeches (including the State of the Union) before the war started. However, admittedly it was the main reason given.

 

What happened to the WMD case? Why the change of reason for war?

 

That's easy. They've changed tactics because the investigation is ongoing and because the anti-war people weren't accepting what they've discovered so far.

[toms]

originally posted by Bill Hicks

…I dunno. Once again, it was watching the ****'n news that threw really me off. It depressed everyone. It's just so scary watching the news, how they built it all out of proportion, like Iraq was ever our could ever possibly under any stretch of the imagination be a threat to us whatsoever.

 

But!

 

Watching the news you never would have got that idea.

 

Remember how it started they kept talking about the Elite Republican Guard in these hushed tones, like these guys are the boogey man or something.

 

--Yeah, we're doing well now but we have yet to face the Elite Republican Guard.

 

Like these guys were twelve feet tall desert warriors.

 

--Never lost a battle! We **** bullets!

 

Yeah, well, after two months of continuous carpet bombing and not ONE reaction at all from them, they became simply "the Republican Guard". Hahahaha.

Not nearly as elite as we may have led you to believe.

And after another month of bombing they went from the Elite Republican Guard to the Republican Guard to the Republicans made this **** up about there being guards out there.

 

Ah, we hope you enjoyed your fireworks show.

 

--It was so pretty, and it took our mind off of domestic issues.

 

The Persian Gulf Distraction.

 

People say uh-uh Bill, Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world.

 

Yeah, maybe, but you know what? After the first three largest armies there's a real big ****ing drop-off. The Hare Kirshnas are the fifth largest army in the world. And they've already got our airports. Okay? I think that's the real threat right now. Mr. Onionhead in Terminal C is scaring the **** out of me. Get him away from me.

 

It was an amazing thing though.

 

And the amazing thing obviously is the disparity in the casualties. Iraq, a hundred and fifty THOUSAND casualties. USA, seventy-nine. Iraq one hundred and fifty THOUSAND. USA, seventy nine...

 

Does that mean if we'd sent over 80 guys we still could have won that ****'n thing or what? One guy in a tickertape parade:

 

--I did it! Hey! You're welcome!

--Good work Tommy! How'd you do it?

 

the more things change, the more they stay the same...

[The_One]

Originally posted by razorace

Source?

 

Errr, you are kidding right? You haven't heard of the Hutton Inquiry?! How can you claim to have knowledge on this subject if you haven't even heard of this major inquiry in both UK, and international politics?

 

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/

 

Or just type "hutton inquiry" into Google and see what comes up...

 

 

Saddam's government was a proven thread to his neighbor nations.

 

I assume you mean "threat"? Anyway, he hasn't been a threat since the end of the first Gulf War.

 

 

You make it sounds like American interests are a bad thing. Of course we did it because we felt it was in our best interests, that's basic economic theory. However, that's not a bad thing. Promoting freedom can, does, and has been in the best interests of the USA.

 

Come on, "liberating" the Iraqi people was not in American interests. Having a power base in the Middle East certainly was.

 

As for the accusation that we're doing it "for the oil", how are we suppose to get our "investment" back when we're paying market price for Iraqi oil? How does that change things from before the war? Sure, we're probably getting more in volume vs the former Food-for-Oil program, but the market value hasn't been affected much. So how could we have possible expected to make money off this deal?

 

If you'd read one of my previous posts you would have noted that I don't think oil is one of the major factors for going to war. It is one of them, certainly, and the companies associated with Dick Cheney (with Oil investments in Iraq) seem to be doing very well at the moment - coincidence, eh?

 

All the independant polls taken are showing that a vast majority of the Iraqi people are glad that the US/UK invaded.

 

What polls have you been reading? Some of them are glad, but there's still a hell of a lot that are not.

 

Argumentum ad hominem

 

I'm simply stating that it is obvious that the Coalition did not suddenly decide to invade Iraq just to "liberate" them, or indeed because they were a threat. The evidence is all there in front of you, I just wish more people would see it...

[toms]

All the independant polls taken are showing that a vast majority of the Iraqi people are glad that the US/UK invaded.

 

the polls all show that they are glad that saddam is gone. They also show that about 35% of them think the US invaded to increase its power in the middle east, 35% think the US did it for oil and 20% think they did it to "undermine islam" or something. about 3% think they did it for any sort of benevolent reason, and most want to see the back of them almost as much as they wanted to see the back of saddam. So they may be glad to get rid of saddam, but they don't like the US/UK any more than most of the rest of the world do.

 

I'm just glad that the region and the world are now much more stable, safe places since the war on iraq. :D :D *cough*rubbish!*cough*

[The_One]

Don't you find it ironic that we've managed to destablise even further one of the most unstable regions on the planet?

 

Originally posted by razorace

In Saddam's case, we were secretly supporting both Iraq and Iran during their war in the hopes that they would stalemate and wipe each other out.

 

I meant to point out some of the inaccuracies in this statement earlier, but forgot.

 

In the Iran-Iraq war, America claimed to stay neutral, but then began to help Iraq as they deemed an Iranian victory would not serve their interests. They supplied them with many different forms of aid, including satellite photos so Saddam could gas the Iranian troops. In late 1984 the US restored formal relations with Iraq, just a year after the gassing of Iranian troops, but they had been helping Iraq for many years before. THE US SUPPORTED THE IRAQI REGIME AND NOT THE IRANIAN REGIME. If you want more information on this, just search the net.

 

When the US was helping Iraq, the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. It is also interesting to note that the US did not cut off ties with Saddam's regime when he gassed the Kurds - the Reagan administration refused to let Congress pass economic sanctions on Iraq.

 

The US was a big supporter of Iraq in the 80s, and this is most probably due to the desire to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

 

But somewhere it went wrong...

[The Count]

Originally posted by The_One

Don't you find it ironic that we've managed to destablise even further one of the most unstable regions on the planet?

 

 

 

I meant to point out some of the inaccuracies in this statement earlier, but forgot.

 

In the Iran-Iraq war, America claimed to stay neutral, but then began to help Iraq as they deemed an Iranian victory would not serve their interests. They supplied them with many different forms of aid, including satellite photos so Saddam could gas the Iranian troops. In late 1984 the US restored formal relations with Iraq, just a year after the gassing of Iranian troops, but they had been helping Iraq for many years before. THE US SUPPORTED THE IRAQI REGIME AND NOT THE IRANIAN REGIME. If you want more information on this, just search the net.

 

When the US was helping Iraq, the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. It is also interesting to note that the US did not cut off ties with Saddam's regime when he gassed the Kurds - the Reagan administration refused to let Congress pass economic sanctions on Iraq.

 

The US was a big supporter of Iraq in the 80s, and this is most probably due to the desire to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

 

But somewhere it went wrong...

 

The vast majority of this is true.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by razorace

And how is saying we doing "we don't know" when asked about it implying a connection?

 

As for the second part of the quote, he's talking about Iraq being in "the center" of the Arab world, which is where most of the world's terrorists come from and where ALL the 9/11 hijackers came from. He didn't state that they came from Iraq.

wrong. He's not talking about the arab world, he's talking about Iraq. This was from a Press conference on Iraq.

Also he's not talking about the guys being from Iraq, he's saying there is a connection, which there isn't.

 

And also why do people say that a terrorist living in a country means that country's government is supporting them, the guys that commited 9/11 lived in America for many years before hijacking the planes.

[razorace]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

wrong. He's not talking about the arab world, he's talking about Iraq. This was from a Press conference on Iraq.

Also he's not talking about the guys being from Iraq, he's saying there is a connection, which there isn't.

 

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

 

Bagdad and the the surrounding area has been considered the geographic/cultural center of the arab world for a long time. He was saying that Iraq was the heart of the geographic base (IE the Middle East), not the entire geographical base. Had he stated that Bagdad was the heart of the geographic base (more more localized), then he'd be implying that all those terrorists were coming from Iraq. With his actual statement, it's just a very slim implication due to poor phrase that the anti-war protesters can pick out as if it's the Mother of All Finger Pointing.

 

and why do people say that a terrorist living in a country means that country's government is supporting them, the guys that commited 9/11 lived in America for many years before hijacking the planes.

 

People are referring to their country of origin, not where they are currently living. And you're right that the governments are not nessicarily directly supporting these terrorists. However, it's often the results of the decisions of such governments (encouraging religious fundimentalism, keeping the majority of the people poor by spending oil money on fancy cars and palaces, non-representitive governments, etc.) that make them "breeding grounds" for terrorists.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by razorace

If the average American is stupid, is that Bush's fault? Most Americans never watch or listen to his speeches anyway.

 

So are ignorant citizens less deserving of quality government than informed ones?

 

Originally posted by razorace

Besides, what's wrong with mentioning 9/11? It was the trigger that put us in this "war on terror" in the first place.

 

The War on Terror would be best fought against terrorists. We wasted time, money and lives against Hussein when we could have been fighting the War on Terror. Instead, the Bush admin put it on hold and attacked the nearest stooge: Iraq. Mentioning 9/11 when discussing military plans for Iraq was intended to justify these plans and gain public support.

 

Originally posted by razorace

Now, if he was directly impling that Saddam was involved in 9/11, yeah, I can understand being upset about that. But just mentioning 9/11 during the terrorism part of a speech doesn't do that.

 

You're either not understanding what I'm attempting to say, or you deliberately refuse to believe it. Bush and co. mentioned 9/11 and Al Qaeda during public addresses about Iraq/Saddam in order to create a correlation. In spite of the fact that the correlation only existed within those public addresses.

 

Originally posted by razorace

If you want to prove any sort of "cold, calculated deception" you're going to need to show transcripts.

 

I can do that. Again and again if need be: Bush Speech on October 7, 2002.

 

Here are a few excerpts:

 

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace,

 

And in the very next sentance:

 

The threat comes from Iraq

 

Fair enough... there was a threat, albeit very small. Nothing in Iraq's arsenal could reach US interests. But that's a moot point. Next item, same paragraph:

 

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

 

Suffice it to say, Saddam Hussein and the Bath party were bad people. We've always known it. The world has a surprising number of bad regimes. But in the very next paragraph, Bush begins with:

 

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

 

If this were not a calculated deception, we would be at war with N. Korea, Syria, India, Pakistan, and Israel as well as several former Soviet states. They each have WMD (verifiably and often admittidly) as well as despots, terrorists, unstable regimes, etc. Moreover, each is in violation of the United Nations.

 

Consider, also, what Bush said in the speech linked above about the supposed Saddam-Osama link: that there were "high-level contacts that go back a decade." In fact, intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and an infant Al Qaeda in the early 1990's, but found no good evidence of a continuing relationship. So Bush made what sounded like an assertion of an ongoing relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but phrased it cagily, suggesting that he knew full well that his case was shaky.

 

Originally posted by razorace

Abu Abbas

 

You did note that this terrorist was a Palestinian, right? Saddam has always had a special affinity for Palestinian terrorists (which much of the Muslim world considers to be "freedom fighters") since they offer overt resistance to Israel. If there is one country Saddam hated more than the U.S., it was Israel.

 

Originally posted by razorace

As for the mobile labs issue, did anyone else other than The Observer write about the officials thinking they weren't mobile biological labs? They mention a report but I can't find the actual report. Anyone know if the actual report was released?

 

Do you really think that if it was confirmed these were bioweapons labs that this wouldn't have received considerable mention by the Bush admin, which has been criticized time and again for failing to show any evidence of WMDs after nearly a year?

[razorace]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

So are ignorant citizens less deserving of quality government than informed ones?

 

What does that question have to do with anything we're talking about? You just trying to bait me into a trap with that loaded question.

 

The War on Terror would be best fought against terrorists. We wasted time, money and lives against Hussein when we could have been fighting the War on Terror. Instead, the Bush admin put it on hold and attacked the nearest stooge: Iraq. Mentioning 9/11 when discussing military plans for Iraq was intended to justify these plans and gain public support.

 

I agree that the mentioning of 9/11 when discussing Iraq was intentioned to gain public support for the planned actions. However, we did not put the "war on terror" on hold for the invasion of iraq. The intel agencies and the military have continued to work on battling terrorism during the this whole Iraq thing. Remember that the military and CIA/FBI are always multiple "balls in the air" at once.

 

I also agree that the money and manpower could have been better spent elsewhere, however, the administration and Congress thought otherwise. *shrug*

 

Finally, a method of battling terrorism or crime in general is to confront and punish the support network of such attacks, not just the criminals themselves (afterall, Osama wasn't involved in anything other than the support and planning stages of 9/11). We also know for a fact that Saddam was publically supporting suicide bombers with payments to the bomber's families.

 

You're either not understanding what I'm attempting to say, or you deliberately refuse to believe it. Bush and co. mentioned 9/11 and Al Qaeda during public addresses about Iraq/Saddam in order to create a correlation. In spite of the fact that the correlation only existed within those public addresses.

 

Have you considered that they might mention 9/11 a lot because it's the chief motivator behind the war on terror?

 

If this were not a calculated deception, we would be at war with N. Korea, Syria, India, Pakistan, and Israel as well as several former Soviet states. They each have WMD (verifiably and often admittidly) as well as despots, terrorists, unstable regimes, etc. Moreover, each is in violation of the United Nations.

 

It's pretty obvious that the statements were meant to be taken figuratively to make a point. There's also the "threat" that the moon might suddenly crash into Earth and "bring sudden terror and suffering to America" but it doesn't mean that we're going to declare war on the moon. In addition, he makes no comment in terms of timeframe or what he defines "confront" as.

 

In fact, intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and an infant Al Qaeda in the early 1990's, but found no good evidence of a continuing relationship.

 

Clarify "good" evidence, do you mean that there's no evidence at all, or just not as strong as the original evidence showing a connection back in the early 90's?

 

You did note that this terrorist was a Palestinian, right? Saddam has always had a special affinity for Palestinian terrorists (which much of the Muslim world considers to be "freedom fighters") since they offer overt resistance to Israel. If there is one country Saddam hated more than the U.S., it was Israel.

 

Sure, he's Palestinian, but what does that have to do with anything? A terrorist is a terrorist. You can't just say, "Oh, he's a Palestinian so he's not really a terrorist."

 

Do you really think that if it was confirmed these were bioweapons labs that this wouldn't have received considerable mention by the Bush admin, which has been criticized time and again for failing to show any evidence of WMDs after nearly a year?

 

They did make a big deal out of the mobile labs in the presentation they made to Congress on the progress in the search for WMDs. However, everyone that's on the anti-war track just brushed it off because the labs (like most things in life) had potential non-violent uses.

 

Of the evidence that has been shown so far, we've seen that Saddam had been hiding components specifically required to create new biological and nuclear weapons (uraninum refinery parts, virus cultures, etc). We just haven't found actual weapons grade WMDs yet.

 

Errr, you are kidding right? You haven't heard of the Hutton Inquiry?! How can you claim to have knowledge on this subject if you haven't even heard of this major inquiry in both UK, and international politics?

 

I'm aware of the UK's inquiry but I'm not aware of the results having been leaked to the press. That's what I was requesting the source link for.