Sadam and Terrorism

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Elfie
It was only one reason that justified the war, supporting terrorism was another.

Without the WMD propaganda you never would have gotten your war.

Therefore the WMD-issue justified the war.

And no WMD´s have been found...

[Lizking]

Without the complicity and agreement of the world that he HAD WMD, we would not have gone to war, you mean.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Maniac
It was the reason that justified the war.

It wasn't THE reason but rather ONE of many.  Not to mention at all that regiem change in Iraq has been US policy since 1998

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338).

Representative Benjamin Gilman (Republican of New York) introduced H.R. 4655 September 29, 1998.  President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law October 31, 1998.

So that little matter of US Law PLUS violation of UN resolutions AND the threat of him possesing WMDs AND his ties to terrorism???

Sounds justified to me!

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Lizking
Without the complicity and agreement of the world that he HAD WMD, we would not have gone to war, you mean.

'

The world had inspectors there, trying to determine if he had em or not, and at the time of the war break out they were VERY sceptical about it.

All the sites that Bush presented for them came out empty.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Maniac
Without the WMD propaganda you never would have gotten your war.

Therefore the WMD-issue justified the war.

And no WMD´s have been found...

We went to war in Afghanistan without the presence of WMD. Saddams ties to terrorists were enough. If Saddam had no intentions of making Nuclear weapons what was he doing with 500 tons of weapons grade uranium?

This thread is about Sadaams ties to terrorist organizations, not WMD. Make another thread if you want to discuss that imo

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Maniac
Without the WMD propaganda you never would have gotten your war.

Therefore the WMD-issue justified the war.

And no WMD´s have been found...

AGAIN this just goes to show how tunnle visioned people can be.  To think that Saddam is ONLY a threat if he has massive stockpiles RIGHT NOW!

You wouldn't approve of the invasion even IF stockpiles had been found (WICH THEY WERE AS I MENTIONED ABOVE)

If WWII teaches us anything its that you take out a tyrant before he becomes a threat.....not after.  

As far as propaganda goes almost 98% of the ENTIRE world that knew anything about Iraq thought the SAME THING!

Originally posted by Maniac
'

The world had inspectors there, trying to determine if he had em or not, and at the time of the war break out they were VERY sceptical about it.

All the sites that Bush presented for them came out empty.

so sceptical in fact that they found morter shells used for chemical dipersment and missle programs that were in direct violation of UN resolution.  Meanwhile as the inspectors are walking in the front door the evidence is walking out the back.  How long would you have given him?

But the main issue here is his ties to terrorism.....you think that's OK?

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
AGAIN this just goes to show how tunnle visioned people can be.  To think that Saddam is ONLY a threat if he has massive stockpiles RIGHT NOW!

That was what was told to the people. The WMD issue was the reason you could invade.

Without the "He has WMD´s right now" statments you never would have gone to war.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Maniac
That was what was told to the people. The WMD issue was the reason you could invade.

Without the "He has WMD´s right now" statments you never would have gone to war.

Originally posted by Gunslinger

It wasn't THE reason but rather ONE of many. Not to mention at all that regiem change in Iraq has been US policy since 1998


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338).

Representative Benjamin Gilman (Republican of New York) introduced H.R. 4655 September 29, 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law October 31, 1998.

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



So that little matter of US Law PLUS violation of UN resolutions AND the threat of him possesing WMDs AND his ties to terrorism???

Sounds justified to me!

[Elfie]

How soon people forget......WMD was NOT the only reason we were given for invading Iraq. It was a big reason, but terrorism was another big reason.

You keep bringing up WMD in a thread about terrorism but conveniently ignore the 500 tons of weapons grade uranium.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Elfie
How soon people forget......WMD was NOT the only reason we were given for invading Iraq. It was a big reason, but terrorism was another big reason.

You keep bringing up WMD in a thread about terrorism but conveniently ignore the 500 tons of weapons grade uranium.

Elfie it would not even be enough for most if he had huge stockpiles of sarin gass and such.

We forget the double standard rule:  A republican president cannot engage in armed conflict because he is a republican and we all know they are evil.  For that reason we must side with the oponents to action even WHEN we know they oposed action because they were conspiring with the enemy in ilegal and corrupt dealings.

Iraq DID conspire with terrorists.....this is the war on terror.  I would find it interesting for ANYONE to dispute that!

[Maniac]

Wasnt all 11 terrorists from 9/11 from Saudi Arabia?

[VOR]

Originally posted by Maniac
Wasnt all 11 terrorists from 9/11 from Saudi Arabia?

I think so. Certainly not all terrorists are. If it was simply a matter of dealing with those 11, the problem solved itself anyway. There must be something more to the notion of combating terrorism worldwide, n'est pas?

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Maniac
Wasnt all 11 terrorists from 9/11 from Saudi Arabia?

im sure noone has a problem with chechnya...

Wasnt all 11 terrorists from 9/11 from Saudi Arabia?

If I'm not mistaken there were 19 total.

And, Again.....

One step at a time......

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Maniac
Wasnt all 11 terrorists from 9/11 from Saudi Arabia?

Well it shows you how much you know about the subject you are trying to argue.  There was 19 total....not 11 and most of them were saudis.  But the fact that they are ALL in this little thing called a TERRORIST CELL CALLED AL QUEDA!


The house of Suad will probably be delt with in time.  But to me it really seems that you are COMPLETLY dancing around the subject as most people do when their Ideals don't match up with fact.

[WMLute]

Anybody else notice that "some" liberal tree huggers on this board can't debate worth a hoot?  

"where were the WMD's?"

then you give them an onslaught of info re. all of the stockpiles and various wmd related items and then they go....

"but you didn't find any actualy WMD's"

like for some reason these idiots (not specifically calling anyone on this bbs and idiot.  more a general statement) are unable to connect the dots, or understand that 1 + X = 2  (i.e. WMD related programs + stockpiles of WMD related stuff = WMD's, either hidden, moved or potential)

and they go around and around with the same contrite mindless drivel.  we say "Saddam is linked to world terrorism and we are currently at war with with world terrorism, hence the invasion of Iraq"

"whaaa you didn't find WMD's"

??????   You would think that these people would get a clue!  They sadly don't understand that we don't give a crud re. their opinion.  It's typical though.  The weak tend to ankle bite the strong.  It's a long standing tradition for wimps to bad mouth the strong.  BUT when they are in danger, guess who these same wussies call for help?

"whaaaa your allies turned their backs on you"

hmmm.... roughly 40 countries in worlds had our back, and the big 3 (i.e. France, Germ, Russ) were makin' billions illegally thru a corrupt UN Program, and heck NO They didn't wanna stop riding THAT pony.  They were getting rich.  And/Or they were supplying Iraq with illegal BANNED items, and knew they'd get caught stabbing us in the back if we invaded.  (of course we already knew, and are USED To them biting our ankles.  it's what the weak do)  Don't get me started re. the U.N.  I'm 100% in favor of the U.S. withdrawing from the U.N.   The heck with them.  Let France have it.  HUGE waste of my tax dollars.

but i digress.   bottom line is that WMD's were only ONE of the reasons we invaded Iraq.  The REST of the world might have focused on that ONE reason to justify the invasion, but it was but one point out of many.   MOST idiots (again general statment) only focus on one point, and refuse to aknowledge any other.  It's their "i'm a moron" defence mechanism.  The U.S. is at war with terrorism.  Deal with it, helps us out, or stay out of our way.