Iraq and Al-Queda

[Regulus de Leo]

From the pentagon you say? That somehow gives this old chestnut credibility?

What is your point? Do you have evidence that shows that Saddam didn't support terrorist groups? If you bring it forth. It is well documented that Saddam did.

[GostHacked]

Yeah, I told you.

Even if Bush himself told you all that he lied, you will still think he did the right thing.

Kuzzad, no I knew it was a bad idea way before they went into Iraq.

DogonPorch

The Shaw came about for reasons other than the CIA.

But the CIA was the biggest reason.

Regulus de leo

What is your point? Do you have evidence that shows that Saddam didn't support terrorist groups? If you bring it forth. It is well documented that Saddam did.

Do you have evidence to support the opposite??

OK here is the problem. One report says no link between Saddam and Al-Queda, another official report saying there was none. Some other reports linking him to other people that may have been with Al-Queda, or Palestinian groups.

IF this report shows that there was no link, then we can maybe say that there are no truths in the other official reports regarding Saddam, Al-Queda. These guys are playing us like f*cking fools.

[bush_cheney2004]

IF this report shows that there was no link, then we can maybe say that there are no truths in the other official reports regarding Saddam, Al-Queda. These guys are playing us like f*cking fools.

Speak for yourself.....if you only rely on "reports" either way, then that is all you deserve.

[Topaz]

If you type in on the web, GW Bush or Bush, BinLaden, Clinton,CIA, Cheney etc you can spend many hours reading about the corruption of these people. In 1999, GW Bush met at his dad's home in Maine and the people who became his staff at the White House were there and that's when the plan to invade Iraq was made but how they could actually do it, didn't happen until after 9/11 that allowed them the opportunity. The Bush government knew of attacks coming to the US and by allowing it to happen, it gave them the reason to sent troops to Afghanistan and then into Iraq to take out Hussein and change government.Alot of people may think the government wouldn't do such a thing letting all those people die but just look what this government has done since 9/11. Its the most corrupt gov't so far and broken more laws then any before it! Al Queda and Hussein would never work together because their religion is so different.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you type in on the web, GW Bush or Bush, BinLaden, Clinton,CIA, Cheney etc you can spend many hours reading about the corruption of these people. In 1999, GW Bush met at his dad's home in Maine and the people who became his staff at the White House were there and that's when the plan to invade Iraq was made but how they could actually do it, didn't happen until after 9/11 that allowed them the opportunity.

The is false...the plan to invade Iraq has existed for many years if only as contingency. The opportunity has existed (and executed) several times long before 9/11. It was US Public Law to overthrow Saddam Hussein since late 1998....president Clinton promptly bombed them for "WMD issues".

The Bush government knew of attacks coming to the US and by allowing it to happen, it gave them the reason to sent troops to Afghanistan and then into Iraq to take out Hussein and change government.Alot of people may think the government wouldn't do such a thing letting all those people die but just look what this government has done since 9/11.

The US was attacked several times before 9/11, including the same WTC complex in 1993. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know more attacks were in the works.

Its the most corrupt gov't so far and broken more laws then any before it! Al Queda and Hussein would never work together because their religion is so different.

Actually, the Canadian government ranks much higher in corruption, it's just that nobody else really cares.

[jazzer]

What is your point? Do you have evidence that shows that Saddam didn't support terrorist groups? If you bring it forth. It is well documented that Saddam did.

I don't trust the pentagon or GW Bush's administration to be conveyors of reliable or unfalsified information.

[Regulus de Leo]

I don't trust the pentagon or GW Bush's administration to be conveyors of reliable or unfalsified information.

Apart from the fact that every major intelligence agency in the world agreed Saddam sponsored terrorism you need not take their word, Saddam openly paid Palestinian families for martyrs and boasted about it. He terrorized his own populace, and he held children hostage in Kuwait and diplayed them on international television for his own propaganda purposes. Saddam's reaction to the 9/11 attacks was to say "the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity." (a position curiously akin to that of left wing radicals).

But you choose to believe he didn't support terrorism. A patently unreasonable position.

[bush_cheney2004]

....But you choose to believe he didn't support terrorism. A patently unreasonable position.

Baffling indeed....it is as if they need to rehabilitate Saddam with revisionist history, even as they accuse PMs and a president of doing the same for the sake of war. The US/UK were at war with Iraq long before any lies about Al Qaeda.

[bush_cheney2004]

It seems that Pentagon reports are rock solid depending on the political point of view. The most famous of which were "The Pentagon Papers".

Edited March 16, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Regulus de Leo]

Baffling indeed....it is as if they need to rehabilitate Saddam with revisionist history, even as they accuse PMs and a president of doing the same for the sake of war. The US/UK were at war with Iraq long before any lies about Al Qaeda.

Why do they ask the question "Was Iraq Better off With Saddam?" but they never ask the question as to whether Zimbabwe or South Africa was "better off under Apartheid?"

[jazzer]

But you choose to believe he didn't support terrorism. A patently unreasonable position.

You seem to have a comprehension problem. I said I don't trust the pentagon. Saddam may or may not have supported terrorism, but there are too many conflicting sources to know for a certainty. And quite frankly, most international intelligence agencies bought into the WMD hoax and so suffer from credibility issues as well.

[jazzer]

The US/UK were at war with Iraq long before any lies about Al Qaeda.

Funny how the 911 commission didn't link Saddam and Al Qaeda isn't it?

[bush_cheney2004]

Funny how the 911 commission didn't link Saddam and Al Qaeda isn't it?

Irrelevant.....the US/UK were at war with Saddam long before 9/11. Hell, the 9/11 Commission didn't even figure out that it was an "inside job" with remote controlled aircraft.

[jazzer]

Hell, the 9/11 Commission didn't even figure out that it was an "inside job" with remote controlled aircraft.

Not surprised you'd belittle your namesake's committee. Isn't that the American way?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not surprised you'd belittle your namesake's committee. Isn't that the American way?

It wasn't a committee....it was a commission...formed by Congressional legislation and signed into law by President Bush. I don't think the usual clowns would tolerate a commission authorized only by Bush.

The American way is certainly popular on this board!

Edited March 17, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[rover1]

It has been my understanding that no connexion between El Queda and Saddam has been shown. Some here have said that this is not the case. I would appreciate any references or information on this point.

[bush_cheney2004]

It has been my understanding that no connexion between El Queda and Saddam has been shown. Some here have said that this is not the case. I would appreciate any references or information on this point.

What constitutes a "connection"? The training camp story was trotted out several times, like here in the Weekly Standard:

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...0kmbzd.asp?pg=2

[jazzer]

It has been my understanding that no connexion between El Queda and Saddam has been shown. Some here have said that this is not the case. I would appreciate any references or information on this point.

I wouldn't trust anything the "U.S. government officials" have to say. Remember the mushroom cloud? Try other independent sources.

Edited March 17, 2008 by jazzer

[GostHacked]

Speak for yourself.....if you only rely on "reports" either way, then that is all you deserve.

If that is all you are given, this is what they think we deserve.

OH and if the Iraq invasion was based on 'reports' .................

[DogOnPorch]

You seem to have a comprehension problem. I said I don't trust the pentagon. Saddam may or may not have supported terrorism, but there are too many conflicting sources to know for a certainty. And quite frankly, most international intelligence agencies bought into the WMD hoax and so suffer from credibility issues as well.

We have to be careful re: WMD Hoax...

It's the old falacy: Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Saddam did have chemical weapons...and he had the abilty to put them on any city in the Middle-East. If you recall the first Gulf War, Israel was under attack by SCUDs and the big fear was that Saddam had nerve gas warheads installed rather than conventional high-explosives.

Iraqi missiles under Saddam: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/index.html

True...not much was found. However, Saddam had an entire ministry under one of his sons responsible for simply hiding things. The example I use is that if you handed me a pile of money and resources and was told to hide fifty 18-wheelers in the wilderness of BC...that's the last you'd ever see of them. That is if I buried them and didn't just drive them across the border to Syria....errr...I mean Washington or Alaska.

----------------------------------------

Smoke gets in your eyes...

---The Platters

[bush_cheney2004]

If that is all you are given, this is what they think we deserve.

OH and if the Iraq invasion was based on 'reports' .................

The "reports" were just more "rope-a-dope", including those from the likes of Hans Blix and the IAEA. The policy for Iraq was determined long before that. Saddam's compliance with mandated inspections only happened after 200,000 troops went on a camping trip in Kuwait.

[jazzer]

The example I use is that if you handed me a pile of money and resources and was told to hide fifty 18-wheelers in the wilderness of BC...that's the last you'd ever see of them. That is if I buried them and didn't just drive them across the border to Syria....errr...I mean Washington or Alaska.

----------------------------------------

Smoke gets in your eyes...

---The Platters

I think that would be just about impossible given the satellite technology available. And if the US didn't train their eyes on Iraq pre war it would have been pretty stupid.

[Regulus de Leo]

I think that would be just about impossible given the satellite technology available. And if the US didn't train their eyes on Iraq pre war it would have been pretty stupid.

I think I'd do some research on satellite technology. It is easily foiled.

[DogOnPorch]

I think that would be just about impossible given the satellite technology available. And if the US didn't train their eyes on Iraq pre war it would have been pretty stupid.

Sorry, that's incorrect. Satellites...spy ones in particular (in LEO) make one orbit in 90 minutes give or take a few minutes. So once it goes over you have well over an hour to conduct affairs before covering-up again. The Americans tried to reduce this time by having multiple overflights one after another, but still gaps existed where anything could have happened. Iraq...just so you know...was well capable of tracking objects in space as well as developing their own rocket technology.

--------------------------------------------------

I'm a rocket man burning out my fuse out there all alone...

---Elton John

Edited March 19, 2008 by DogOnPorch