Author Topic: Justification of Iraq War  (Read 929 times)

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Justification of Iraq War
« Reply #30 on: June 19, 2004, 06:07:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Staga
Is US cutting down (now or in the near future) the debts of former USSR or Russia as we call that country today?


No idea... but Im interested why Putin came out now, too - odd timing.

Offline AWMac

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9251
Justification of Iraq War
« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2004, 07:37:17 AM »
Heh Putin with intelligence?  The same Putin that didn't know he lost a Submarine during training...wasn't he on vacation at the time... Putin is a fool... I'm surprised that Russia isn't playing old Ballards on the radio saying he died of a cold.

Commie watermelon will always be Commie chit!

:aok

Offline lada

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1810
Justification of Iraq War
« Reply #32 on: June 20, 2004, 07:40:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AWMac
Heh Putin with intelligence?  The same Putin that didn't know he lost a Submarine during training...wasn't he on vacation at the time... Putin is a fool... I'm surprised that Russia isn't playing old Ballards on the radio saying he died of a cold.

Commie watermelon will always be Commie chit!

:aok


well you doesnt have to visit doctors anymore... stupidity can not be cured

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
Justification of Iraq War
« Reply #33 on: June 20, 2004, 10:02:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AWMac
Heh Putin with intelligence?  The same Putin that didn't know he lost a Submarine during training...wasn't he on vacation at the time... Putin is a fool... I'm surprised that Russia isn't playing old Ballards on the radio saying he died of a cold.

Commie watermelon will always be Commie chit!

:aok


First of all I have to thank you :D

I am not comrade Putin's fan. What we got now - with puppet parliament elected by ignorant crowd, economical and political stagnation that looks almost like happy-70s with Brezhnev and Party - can result in a social explosion in next 2-3 years. There is not even a chance of military coup... You guys have no idea of what goes on here. Your media focus on things that are not important. It's all very sad :( The saddest thing is that in 2007 I'll probably vote for commies. They are the only organized opposition to the regime.

I don't know why Putin said that. I think it can be some kind of agreement, a little help to his friend George... I hate to see all this dirty political games, when whole nations, including mine and yours are sold out for pre-election ratings.

Offline AWMac

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9251
Justification of Iraq War
« Reply #34 on: June 20, 2004, 01:02:46 PM »
For once I agree with Boroda... Best of Luck to Both of our Countries.  

:)

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Justification of Iraq War
« Reply #35 on: June 20, 2004, 01:19:07 PM »
Clinton defends successor's push for war

Quote
Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.


Given the title of the thread and previous cat-fights between some of the posters in this thread, I thought this was an appropriate place to highlight a fomer President's view.

Depending, of course, on the meaning of "is".

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline YUCCA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 985
Justification of Iraq War
« Reply #36 on: June 20, 2004, 07:07:37 PM »
Clinton's keeping them happy so he can sell more books
:lol

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Justification of Iraq War
« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2004, 09:05:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gixer
Whats more amazing is how badly the most powerful gov (US) has acted on such poor intelligence which we all know has since proven to be false. And that we still have internet tards trying to defend the decision even when there are those in the admin trying to distance themselves as far as possible from it.

Anyone seen any WMD'S? Or are we still investigating a couple of trailers, and links to Niger?

Go Hilary!



...-Gixer


Dunno bout enyone else but I have yet to see anything "proving" the intellegence false

Absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Justification of Iraq War
« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2004, 09:08:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gixer

Go Hilary!



...-Gixer


Oh and BTW Even the dlinton administration claimed he had WMDs.

Bush took decisive action on it on it Clinton didint.
Bout the only difference betweent he two
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Justification of Iraq War
« Reply #39 on: June 20, 2004, 09:10:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gixer
Whats more amazing is how badly the most powerful gov (US) has acted on such poor intelligence which we all know has since proven to be false. And that we still have internet tards trying to defend the decision even when there are those in the admin trying to distance themselves as far as possible from it.

Anyone seen any WMD'S? Or are we still investigating a couple of trailers, and links to Niger?

Go Hilary!



...-Gixer


Oh and justr for the record It would have been ok with me if Bush had said "We are going into Iraq because its tuesday"
I'da been fine with it.
Was long overdue
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline RTSigma

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1318
Justification of Iraq War
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2004, 10:48:04 PM »
I'd pay for the whole Cold War fear rather than this "war for oil" chit.

Remember the old days before 9/11?

Sigma of VF-17 JOLLY ROGERS

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18765
another link
« Reply #41 on: June 21, 2004, 07:10:57 AM »
for the haters of this admin not to believe...

9/11 panel: New evidence on Iraq-Al-Qaida
By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Published 6/20/2004 5:27 PM


WASHINGTON, June 20 (UPI) -- The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has received new information indicating that a senior officer in an elite unit of the security services of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein may have been a member of al-Qaida involved in the planning of the suicide hijackings, panel members said Sunday.

John F. Lehman, a Reagan-era GOP defense official told NBC's "Meet the Press" that documents captured in Iraq "indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaida."

The Fedayeen were a special unit of volunteers given basic training in irregular warfare. The lieutenant colonel, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, has the same name as an Iraqi thought to have attended a planning meeting for the Sept. 11 attacks in January 2000, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The meeting was also attended by two of the hijackers, Khalid al Midhar and Nawaf al Hamzi and senior al-Qaida leaders.

Lehman said that commission staff members continued to work on the issue and experts cautioned that the connection might be nothing more than coincidence.

"Shakir is a pretty common name," said terrorism analyst and author Peter Bergen, "and even if the two names refer to the same person, there might be a number of other explanations. Perhaps al-Qaida had penetrated Saddam's security apparatus."

Analysts say the Fedayeen was not an intelligence unit, but an irregular militia recruited from clans loyal to the regime in the capital, in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit and in the surrounding Tigris valley area. Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank set up by the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, described them to United Press International last year as "thugs and bumpkins."

He said the Fedayeen were "at the low end of the food chain in the security apparatus, doing street level work for the regime."

Nevertheless, the revelation seems sure to stoke the controversy over the extent of links between al-Qaida and Saddam's regime, links that were cited by the Bush administration as a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

On Wednesday, the commission published a staff statement saying that contacts between the regime and al-Qaida "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship" and that, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Critics of the Bush administration seized on the comments as evidence that the White House had sought to mislead Americans about the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida.

President Bush's likely Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the president need to give "a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose it now turns out is not supported by the facts."

Both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, however, continued to stress that the links were extensive. Cheney hinted that the commission did not have all the facts, telling one interviewer that he "probably" had access to intelligence commission staff and members had not seen.

Sunday, Lehman acknowledged that, "the vice president was right when he said he may have things that we don't yet have. And we are now in the process of getting this latest intelligence."

Democratic panel member Richard Ben-Veniste agreed that the panel should study any more recent intelligence, "If there is additional information, we're happy to look at it, and we think we should get it."

Lehman added that the row illustrated the political minefield the commission was trying to tiptoe through in an election year when the focus of their inquiry is such an explosive issue. "We're under tremendous political pressures. Everything we come out with, one side or the other seizes on in this election year to try to make a political point on," he said.

He pointed out that the Clinton White House had made the same charges the current administration did about the danger that Iraq might pass chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaida. Those charges, he said, formed the basis for the missile strikes against alleged terrorist targets in Sudan in August 1998. "The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development," he said.

Commission Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, played down the differences between the commission's view and that of the administration. "When you begin to use words like 'relationship' and 'ties' and 'connections' and 'contacts,'" he told ABC's "This Week," "everybody has a little different view of what those words mean. But if you look at the core statements that we made ... I don't think there's a difference of opinion with regard to those statements.

"If there is, it has to be spelled out to me. "

Chairman Thomas Kean, meanwhile, stressed that the staff statement released Wednesday did not represent the settled view of the whole commission: "These staff reports have come along every now and then in connection with our public hearings. These staff reports are interim documents. The commission, for instance, does not get involved, the members, in the staff reports. When we do the report itself, that will be a product of the entire commission."

He added that there much more evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iran or Pakistan than Iraq, and pointed out that, "Our investigation is continuing. We're not finished yet."

The commission's two days of meetings last week marked their final public gatherings. They are to deliver a final report by July 26. Congress formed the commission to look into possible U.S. intelligence failures prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in which some 3,000 people were killed after the hijacking of four jetliners than crashing the aircraft into buildings in New York and Washington and in rural Pennsylvania.


What a witch hunt - this "commission" is as laughable as the 9/11 one ...
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline Momus--

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: Justification of Iraq War
« Reply #42 on: June 21, 2004, 08:06:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SunTracker
Russian President Putin said his intelligence agency informed Bush that Iraq was planning terror attacks on the U.S. (both on and off mainland U.S.).  

This warning came after the Sept 11 attacks.

Just saw this on CNN news.  Will try to find an internet article.


LOL. And Bush and the Neo-Con spin machine just sat on this story throughout the whole pre-invasion period when they were desperately trying to jutify the war? Sure they did :rolleyes:

Sounds to me like Putin trying to curry favour; wonder what the quid-pro-quo will be?

Offline Sabre

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3112
      • Rich Owen
Bi-partisan does not mean non-partisan
« Reply #43 on: June 21, 2004, 11:19:14 AM »
The following is material read into the Senate record during the debate on the Congressional Resolution to authorize military action to disarm Iraq.  I light of it, I cannot understand the current media drumbeat regarding the 9/11 Commissions report about there being no evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qa’ida.  I have not read the Commission’s report (anyone have a link?), so I don’t know if the media is taking things out of context (like that has never happened before).  Bipartisan does not mean non-partisan, as was obvious if you watched the questioning of Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld (to name just two).  Neither do I recall anyone in the Administration stating unequivocally that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks; only that there was evidence of contact between Iraq and al-Qa’ida, and of Iraq’s state-sponsorship of terrorism.  The following discussion and testimony seems to bear those claims out.  So, what gives with the Commissions report?

Quote
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Washington, DC, October 7, 2002.
Hon. BOB GRAHAM, Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your letter of 4 October 2002, we have made unclassified material available to further the Senate’s forthcoming open debate on a Joint Resolution concerning Iraq.

As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance between your need for unfettered debate and our need to protect sources and methods. We have also been mindful of a shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our intelligence capabilities and shortcoming, or with insight into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The salience of such concerns is only heightened by the possibility for hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.

These are some of the reasons why we did not include our classified judgments on Saddam’s decisionmaking regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in our recent unclassified paper on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. Viewing your request with those concerns in mind, however, we can declassify the following from the paragraphs you requested.

Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States.

Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq’s unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or CBW.

Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.

Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify the following dialogue.

Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn’t feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?

Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack—let me put a time frame on it—in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.

Senator LEVIN: Now if he did initiate an attack you’ve . . . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . .But what about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what’s the likelihood in response to our attack that he would use chemical or biological weapons?

Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.

In the above dialogue, the witness’s qualifications —‘‘in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now’’—were intended to underscore that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds. Moreover, if Saddam used WMD, it would disprove his repeated denials that he has such weapons.

Regarding Senator Bayh’s question of Iraqi links to al-Qa’ida, Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa’ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa’ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa’ida, suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action. (bold added for emphasis)

Sincerely,
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN
(For George J. Tenet, Director).

STATEMENT BY DCI GEORGE TENET, October 8, 2002

There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam’s growing threat and the view as expressed by the President in his speech. Although we think the chances of Saddam initiating a WMD attack at this moment are low—in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses WMD—there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the United States or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build. His past use of WMD against civilian and military targets shows that he produces those weapons to use not just to deter.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before I give my reasons for my vote on this resolution, I would like to point out some ironies and inconsistencies in some positions of some of my colleagues.

It is not unusual for Senators to be inconsistent in positions taken, but in recent weeks we have had some colleagues blaming the administration for not responding to the pre-9/11 warnings of possible terrorist attacks on the United States. I am talking about the warnings of whether or not the CIA and the FBI had information about that and whether or not the President had access to that information. The insinuation is that maybe the President knew more than what he did and, why didn’t he do something about 9/11?

It seems to me the same colleagues are now refusing to support the President’s call to disarm Saddam Hussein. The President is trying to preempt Saddam Hussein from unleashing on Americans his weapons of mass destruction. Yet my colleagues who are inconsistent in this way apparently want the President to wait until we are attacked again. I ask, if you were expecting preemption before September 11, 2001, why wouldn’t you expect the President to preempt an attack on the United States today?
Sabre
"The urge to save humanity almost always masks a desire to rule it."