Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

[lasersailor184]

Clinton was responsible for the boom.  His economic policy was so irresponsible and new that people went crazy and the economy took off.

However, it was doomed to fail sometime.  It started slipping in his last year in office.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Clinton was responsible for the boom.  His economic policy was so irresponsible and new that people went crazy and the economy took off.

However, it was doomed to fail sometime.  It started slipping in his last year in office.

wrong = it was in place prior to his victory in 92 .. mickey mouse could have rode the wave

but you are correct that his hands off approach didn't help anything but the POP in the end

[lasersailor184]

Err, what I meant was that the way he handled it was so new that the economy kept up the boom because of it.

[demaw1]

Well guess I ll let you all in on a secret I have hinted at before but no one took the bait.

 But first may I comment on the binladden Iraq connection ?

 bin laddin was active in most western countries,some way or another right? Okay ,he was active in all arab terror from cheering on to actual particapation...Right ?
 And yet most of you claim he had nothing to do with Iraq,or saddam, or terriost in Iraq or was bribing someone or anything.Never wrote a letter to saddam nothing. Does this mean Putin was lying to Bush when he called Bush and told him of activity between laddin and saddam? If so ,is Russia now our enemy again?..After 9/11 do we just wait and see if something else happens to us with saddams finger prints on it? Still what about the phone call from putin?

[Eagler]

"The world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein " - Bush

good article here:
http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/butlerreport/

[Nash]

Say what ya want re Republican vs Democrat.....

What does it say about a person when he refers to George Bush as  a "great man?"

[Eagler]

nm
LOL

[Nash]

LANDSLIDE!

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT IS DUMB!!!!

Of course they didn't.  That does not mean Sadam was not or would not be a future threat.

So if in 2002 there was a threat but they weren't linked to AQ we should just let them be?????

This clintonesque type of thinking is what causes an even like 9/11 and all the other attacks.

The argument that Sadam was a future threat is far weaker and dumber.

For one Bush administration themselves (Powell and Rice) came out earlier in 01 saying that Sadam wasn't a global threat that he wasnt even a regional threat due to no fly zones and sanctions. So why the immediate change in policy?

Secondly the Iraq war was sold on the fact that he was an Immediate danger to the world not a future threat.

If Iraq was invaded because it's was a future threat then what about the current threats Iran and N Korea? Surely they were a bigger priority. Plus Afghanistan things are hardly in order there.

And Saudi Arabia, why has nothing ever been said about that country, let alone any action taken. Seems they have far more ties to OBL then Iraq ever had.




...-Gixer

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by crowMAW
So how long before we invade Saudi, Jordan, and Libya?  To name a few, they also are known to give generously to families of dead Palestinian terrorists.

I'll assume that instead of invading Pakistan, an actual developer and holder of WMD, and a supporter of terrorists/Indian insurgents (plus a supporter of the Taliban) it was easier to shift the fight past the Saudi's (who also have actual "ties to Al-Qaeda") to Iraq because Saddam gave money to palestinians and had some roland missiles....oh sorry I forgot...Saddam was also a very very very bad man...

 Tronsky

[Torque]

Er... yeah like Bush is gonna bite the hand that fed him.

[Saintaw]

Yes, let's all fear the "Terrorists organasations".

By god, I must have seen more braincells in my breakfast this morning...

[DoctorYO]

This clintonesque type of thinking is what causes an even like 9/11 and all the other attacks.

Blame Reagan...  Blame Carter, Ford, Nixon.. the whole damn bunch then..

Why?  How long has the threat of hijacking been around..  at least the 50's and 60's..

9/11 happened for one reason, greed...  You would think that after all those planes were being jacked to cuba, columbia etc.. the FAA and the airlines would make reinforced pilot doors a priority..  well did it happen in some 30-40 years span.. hell no.. and look what happens..  note the clause in the 9/11 victums fund that waives the right to sue the govt for incompetence.. Thats in there for a reason..  anyone who thinks its not freaking negligence on the FAA (govt) and the Airline special intrest voting down reinforced cockpits you are living in a dream world..

How many Israel Airlines have been jacked since they put in doors a long time ago.. how bout 0...

Some people in these boards need some catalyst thought training...

Allow nutjobs into the nerve center of a aircraft and what do you get..  9/11

At best when not in the cockpit they can down the aircraft with some device..  Not hijack it.. not crash it into a building..

How bout this how many 9/11 jackers were Saudi..  just about all of them...  Why isn't house of saud glassed by now...  If the United states sent 10 americans to another country killed 3000 of them; what response do you think that foriegn country would take..  Most likely declaration of war..  instead we hit Saddam who was contained by 2 no fly zones sanctioned and sabre rattled on a daily basis..

Iraq before Gulf War 1 was the most educated and prosperous nations in the region.. (granted saddam was a tyrant, but do your history on the region a tyrant or tyranny is the only thing that keeps this part of the world together due to infighting for the last 1500 years..)  After Gulf war 1 iraq was decimated by sanctions..

Saying he wasn't contained is freaking stupid..

Put a open declaration before UN council..  We will nuke you if you allow any fission material into the hands of terrorists..  We consider it a act of war and will act accordingly..  Considering that we are the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in conflict I think that would get the worlds attention to how serious the situation.. case closed..

We got more nuclear/bio weapons.. they dont..
we got more conventional forces with logistics to put them anywhere in the world..  They dont..  not even china has our logistical prowlness..

How someone could say that ******* (saddam) was a direct threat you need to go back for some retraining..  Saddam had his own problems.. Freaking nutjob son..  And a majority population that hated him..  (Shia/persians)

Persia did a number on us with Chalibi..  They got us to destroy their main enemy, while undermining us as liberators and more as occupiers in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.  We accelerated this with Abu Guarib.. And now we got 1917 all over again..  Heads on a stick and all..

Now back in the states we've been turning the guns in..  (patriot act, patriot 2 etc..) Pissing off our allies.. (gitmo brits, aussies etc.. cat stevens wtf..) The only good thing about this war on terror is we re established a solid ally in pakistan. but that partnership is going to last only as long as musharaf does.. (he a coup leader, kind of like saddam when we supported him and built him up vs persia....)

enough rant, its unfortunate that people don't read their history nor show any inkling of catalyst thought..


DoctorYo

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Jasta
Now, the reason Iraq is important to the war on terror is because Saddam has MANY ties with Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists.

Rumsfeld: No 'Hard Evidence' of Iraq-Al Qaeda Link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Monday he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda..."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041004/pl_nm/iraq_usa_rumsfeld_dc

[Torque]

Cheney flip flopped on that issue as well.