Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on October 31, 2004, 01:57:36 AM
-
It angers me when I hear people say "Sadam had no ties to Al Queada" In some ways this has been proven true (no operational ties) but in others it is entirely misleading. The main reason this bothers me is because that is a very narrow minded tunnled visioned way to look at him.
Is AQ the only terrorist network out there? Is that our ONLY goal, to rid the world of AQ? Is this not the "War on TERRORISM" not the "war on Al Queada"?
I've been saying this all along that Sadam had many ties to terrorism even if the 911 comission report doesnt want to mention it. So who knows in hindsite what he would have done.
I did however, stumble apon a really good website that explains in great detail (pictures included :D ) about Sadam's ties to terror!
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
-
I thaught this was an interesting read and very well put together/documented. Surprised no one wants to respond to it.
Especially the haters that want to call this an "unjustified/ilegal war"
-
I dont care what the Bloggers complain about it. This is a damn good Ad
Whatever it takes (http://www.georgewbush.com/Media/WhateverItTakes_256k.wmv)
-
This is and always has been common knowledge. I really don't understand why people insist any link to terrorism must involve OBL directly.
Ya know, Gunslinger..what will really bake their noodles (the anti Iraq war crowd) is when they discover Iraq is only the second performance of a world tour.
-
Originally posted by VOR
This is and always has been common knowledge. I really don't understand why people insist any link to terrorism must involve OBL directly.
Ya know, Gunslinger..what will really bake their noodles (the anti Iraq war crowd) is when they discover Iraq is only the second performance of a world tour.
im sure noone has a problem with chechnya...
-
Originally posted by VOR
This is and always has been common knowledge. I really don't understand why people insist any link to terrorism must involve OBL directly.
Ya know, Gunslinger..what will really bake their noodles (the anti Iraq war crowd) is when they discover Iraq is only the second performance of a world tour.
if we'd caught OBl and had not invaded Iraq with the intel which showed him to have wmd's, his willingness to use them and his known hatred for the US, the handsomehunkcrats this election would be crying that Bush is weak for NOT invading Iraq and that skerry will lead us to victory over that master mind of terror Saddam as he has "a plan".
it isn't what we have done right, it is how they spin everything ala the micheal moore-on mindset and his following - to the point they use his horse crap in election ads for skerry
sad, really - that such a huge portion of this great countries population is dumber than a fresh pile of dog dung ........... but it is also very funny too
:lol :lol :lol
LOL LOL LOL
LANDSLIDE BUSH!!!
:)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I thaught this was an interesting read and very well put together/documented. Surprised no one wants to respond to it.
Especially the haters that want to call this an "unjustified/ilegal war"
The *haters* most likely wont respond because it shows the war was justified. Granted, links to Al-Qaeda are minor but links to other terrorist organizations are not. This is a war on terror, not just a war on Al-Qaeda.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
im sure noone has a problem with chechnya...
One step at a time......
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The *haters* most likely wont respond because it shows the war was justified. Granted, links to Al-Qaeda are minor but links to other terrorist organizations are not. This is a war on terror, not just a war on Al-Qaeda.
Where are the WMD?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Where are the WMD?
Dunno. If you hear something through the grapevine, let us know. We've been looking everywhere for those pesky things!
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Where are the WMD?
WMD was NEVER the only reason the US invaded Iraq.
*edit* Why dont you try a google search for *Iraq, WMD, unaccounted for*.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
WMD was NEVER the only reason the US invaded Iraq.
It was the reason that justified the war.
-
"The United States is the most generous in granting immunity to itself and partial immunity to its servants, and the most laggard in adhering to international treaties (ratifying the Genocide Convention only in 1988 and signing the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights only in 1992). And the provisions of the Rome Statute, which would expose Kissinger to dire punishment if they had been law from as early as 1968, are not retroactive. The Nuremberg principles, however, were in that year announced by an international convention to have no statute of limitations. International customary law would allow any signatory country (again exempting the United States) to bring suit against Kissinger for crimes against humanity in Indochina.
More importantly, United States federal courts have been found able to exercise jurisdiction over crimes such as assassination, kidnapping, and terrorism, even when these are supposedly protected by the doctrine of state or sovereign immunity. Of a number of landmark cases, the most salient one is the finding of the DC Circuit Court in 1980, concerning the car-bomb murder, by Pinochet's agents, of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Mofffitt. The court held that "[w]hatever policy options may exist for a foreign country," the Pinochet regime "has no 'discretion' to perpetrate conduct designed to result in the assassination of an individual or individuals, action that is clearly contrary to the precepts of humanity as recognized in both national and international law." Reciprocally speaking, this would apply to an American official seeking to assassinate a Chilean. Assassination was illegal both as a private and a public act when Henry Kissinger was in power and when the attacks on General Schneider of Chile and President Makarios of Cyprus took place.
As the Hinchey report to Congress in 2000 now demonstrates that US government agents were knowingly party to acts of torture, murder, and "disappearance" by Pinochet's death squads, Chilean citizens will be able to bring suit in America under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which grants US federal courts "subject-matter jurisdiction" over a claim when a non-US citizen sues for a civil wrong committed in violation of a US treaty or other international law. Chilean relatives of the "disappeared" and of General Schneider have recently expressed a,1 interest in doing so, and I am advised by several international lawyers that Henry Kissinger would indeed be liable under such proceedings.
The Alien Tort Claims Act would also permit victims in other countries, such as Bangladesh or Cambodia, to seek damages from Kissinger, on the model of the recent lawsuit held in New York against Li Peng, among the Chinese Communist officials most accountable for the 1989 massacre in Tiananmen Square.
A significant body of legal theory can be brought to bear on the application of "customary law" to the bombardment of civilians in Indochina. The Genocide Convention was not ratified by the United States until 1988. In 1951, however, it was declared by the International Court of Justice to be customary international law. The work of the International Law Commission is in full agreement with this view. There would be argument over whether the numberless victims were a "protected group" under existing law, and also as to whether their treatment was sufficiently indiscriminate, but such argument would place heavy burdens on the defense as well as the prosecution.
An important recent development is the enforcement by third countries - notably Spain - of the international laws that bind all states. Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish judge who initiated the successful prosecution of General Pinochet, has also secured the detention in Mexico of the Argentine torturer Ricardo Miguel Cavallo, who is now held in prison awaiting extradition. The parliament of Belgium has recently empowered Belgian courts to exercise jurisdiction over war crimes and breaches of the Geneva Convention committed anywhere in the world by a citizen of any country. This practice, which is on the increase, has at minimum the effect of limiting the ability of certain people to travel or to avoid extradition. The Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark, and Germany have all recently employed the Geneva Conventions to prosecute war criminals for actions committed against non-nationals by non-nationals. The British House of Lords decision in the matter of Pinochet has also decisively negated the defense of "sovereign immunity" for acts committed by a government or by those following a government's orders. This has led in turn to Pinochet's prosecution in his own country.
There remains the question of American law. Kissinger himself admit that he knowingly broke the law in continuing to supply American weapons to Indonesia, which in turn used them to violate the neutrality of a neighboring territory and to perpetrate gross crimes against humanity. Kissinger also faces legal trouble over his part in the ethnic cleansing of the British colonial island of Diego Garcia in the early 1970s, when indigenous inhabitants were displaced to make room for a United States military base. Lawyers for the Chagos Islanders have already won a judgment in the British courts on this matter, which now moves to a hearing in the United States. The torts cited are "forced relocation, torture, and genocide."
In this altered climate, the United States faces an interesting dilemma. At any moment, one of its most famous citizens may be found liable for terrorist actions under the Alien Tort Claims Act, or may be subject to an international request for extradition, or may be arrested if he travels to a foreign country, or may be cited for crimes against humanity by a court in an allied nation. The non-adherence by the United States to certain treaties and its reluctance to extradite make it improbable that American authorities would cooperate with such actions, though this would gravely undermine the righteousness with which Washington addresses other nations on the subject of human rights. There is also the option of bringing Kissinger to justice in an American court with an American prosecutor. Again the contingency seems a fantastically remote one, but, again, the failure to do so would expose the country to a much more obvious charge of double standards than would have been apparent even two years ago.
The burden therefore rests with the American legal community and with the American human-rights lobbies and non-governmental organizations. They can either persist in averting their gaze from the egregious impunity enjoyed by a notorious war criminal and lawbreaker, or they can become seized by the exalted standards to which they continually hold everyone else. The current state of suspended animation, however, cannot last. If the courts and lawyers of this country will not do their duty, we shall watch as the victims and survivors of this man pursue justice and vindication in their own dignified and painstaking way, and at their own expense, and we shall be put to shame."
Christopher Hitchens
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Where are the WMD?
Wouldnt 500 tons of anything qualify as a stockpile. Well how about 500 metric tons of Uranium. Enough to make 142 atomic weapons.
But by your lack of omission you agree then that Saddam had real ties to terrorism?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
It was the reason that justified the war.
It was only one reason that justified the war, supporting terrorism was another.
-
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...
-
Without the complicity and agreement of the world that he HAD WMD, we would not have gone to war, you mean.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
Wasnt all 11 terrorists from 9/11 from Saudi Arabia?
-
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?
-
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......
-
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.
-
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.
-
Damn WMLute don't hold back tell us how you really feel :aok
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Wouldnt 500 tons of anything qualify as a stockpile.
yes it would, and since there is more crap than that stockpiled in texas i conclude that this whole thread is full of it. sadam used to be the us friend. but now a lot of folks see him as the new noriaga. gunslinger you should do a little more reading and find out how thin of ice you are really on to make that conclusion. but untill then you on a 30 day ignore. please use this time to figure out how to be a better fisherman. for those who are blind:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_176_1067005076.jpg)
-
Sorry to dissapoint you bigsky but,
2 things
1. There are no UN sanctions on Texas nore the USA
2. This is not a troll but a challenge for a debate. If it were a troll I would have left the bait out there and just watch the fish bite. trollers usually don't chime in and debate their trolls.
untill then you on a 30 day ignore
oops didn't see this line. Guess I'm waisting my breath.
-
That'll show ya Gunslinger. Behave yourself or you might get another 30 day ignore. Or worse..your meal card will get stamped "no dessert". ;)
-
Originally posted by VOR
That'll show ya Gunslinger. Behave yourself or you might get another 30 day ignore. Or worse..your meal card will get stamped "no dessert". ;)
could always go on patrol in the sunni triangle instead of being in the rear with the gear. that would really show me wouldn't it.
-
Originally posted by bigsky
yes it would, and since there is more crap than that stockpiled in texas i conclude that this whole thread is full of it. sadam used to be the us friend. but now a lot of folks see him as the new noriaga. gunslinger you should do a little more reading and find out how thin of ice you are really on to make that conclusion. but untill then you on a 30 day ignore. please use this time to figure out how to be a better fisherman. for those who are blind:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_176_1067005076.jpg)
America isnt under UN sanctions to get rid of WMD either.
US support for Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war was a lesser of 2 evils thing imo. Just how far did we go to support the Iraqis? I dont see Stinger missiles, TOW missiles, M-16 assault rifles, M-60 or M-1 tanks etc etc in the Iraqi inventory.
-
Originally posted by bigsky
could always go on patrol in the sunni triangle instead of being in the rear with the gear. that would really show me wouldn't it.
If, by this comment you mean that only people who have been there are entitled to an opinion or an opportunity for fact-finding, you're mistaken and...a hypocrite, perhaps?
-
Originally posted by bigsky
could always go on patrol in the sunni triangle instead of being in the rear with the gear. that would really show me wouldn't it.
it's not like I havnt volunteered to go. Nore does it mean I wouldn't go If I got orders tomorrow But then again these little things like "facts" back up what I am saying.....I've done my time and I definatly have NOTHING to prove to you.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
America isnt under UN sanctions to get rid of WMD either.
US support for Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war was a lesser of 2 evils thing imo. Just how far did we go to support the Iraqis? I dont see Stinger missiles, TOW missiles, M-16 assault rifles, M-60 or M-1 tanks etc etc in the Iraqi inventory.
just off the top of my head two things;
spy satallite intel on all iran troop movements
not letting israel cream them when they wanted to.
btw iran got the tow missles for the hostages.
and how was that a lesser of two evils? iran hasnt had a dictator who killed large numbers of his own people since the shah. you guys really need to read more, less mtv.
-
First, I dont watch mtv second Iran had a militant extremist Islamic gov't at that time.
And, this thread isnt about the Iran-Iraq war. Please stay on topic :)
-
6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.
:aok
-
Originally posted by bigsky
6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.
:aok
If you cannot debate the topic and put up FACTS why post here?
1- Posts are to be made in the relevant forum. Users are asked to read the forum descriptions before posting.
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
This thread is about Saddam and Terrorism. No one is "moderating" you we are just point out that you havn't said ONE thing in this thread that relates to the topic. Of course I'm on 30 day's of ignore!
-
Politely asking you to stay on topic causes you to copy/paste from the forum rules?? :rofl
Again, this debate is about Sadaams links to terrorists. It is NOT about the Iran-Iraq war.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Maniac
It was the reason that justified the war.
Im glad the only reason I need to be given to go into Iraq was "Just Because"
I saw Saddam as a threat even if he didn't currently have them. He's had them before and I have had no doubt if given the opportunity he would not hesitate to get them again.
Thing with is Saddam has already shown is just psychopathic enough to not hesitate to use them first and not just to achieve the military goal of defeating an army in the field.
HE was in my mind a now or later situation.
Either we had to deal with him definitively now or inevitably and at a much higher cost later
I knew sanctions would never last forever so
The only other option was containment and the current situation with North Korea is all the evidence I need to see what can happen with containment and a dictator hell-bent on obtaining nuclear weaponry and the means to deliver them to more and more distant targets.
It seems like in the case of Korea time and time again we are determined to not let a country get nuclear weapons and like Korea we fail and that country ends up with them anyway. So for me it wasn't a matter of If, but when he would acquire a nuclear capability.
Which is a thought that didn't appeal to me particularly in the case of Iraq when you stop and consider that his heirs apparent if anything seemed to be worse not better.
So the future there wasn't exactly bright and shiny either.
So as far as I see it. It was now or later whether we wanted to or not we were going to have to deal with it.
As for the WMD's that were claimed to have been there.
I somehow get the feeling that story is a long way from over and somewhere in the future as more and more information comes out we are all going to be in for an eyebrow raising surprise.
There's just too much weird about it.
there are other reasons I have but thats all Ill mention for the moment
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Wasnt all 11 terrorists from 9/11 from Saudi Arabia?
thats cause they dont suffer from the disease of "political correctness" that has infected the rest of the western world.
Be sure you give AlQuieda a call to complain about their lack of diversity on 9/11 LOL
But seriously it doesnt really surprise me that the majority of the group that actually conducted the attacks were from the same country
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Politely asking you to stay on topic causes you to copy/paste from the forum rules?? :rofl
Again, this debate is about Sadaams links to terrorists. It is NOT about the Iran-Iraq war.
:aok
umm... your the one who broached that topic. and the iran-iraq war is loosely related to the topic on hand. but by the whole arab thing related and where are the 15 out of 17 911 terrorists from?
hmmm iraq?
-
Originally posted by bigsky
umm... your the one who broached that topic. and the iran-iraq war is loosely related to the topic on hand. but by the whole arab thing related and where are the 15 out of 17 911 terrorists from?
hmmm iraq?
OK again off topic. But if you must that has allready been braught up. Show me some evidence that the Saudi Govt had something to do w/ 9/11 or terrorism in general.
The two things that ALL the Hijackers had in comon was that they were ALL terrorists and they were ALL members of Al Queda!
-
sadam used to be the us friend.
That is a direct reference to the Iran-Iraq war. How could it be otherwise since (to my knowledge) that is the only time frame that the US gov't backed him.
I think that pic you posted applies very well to you :D
There were 19 terrorists on 9-11, not 17. In fact there was suppossed to be 20 total. One was detained somehow, dont recall exactly.
-
Interesting that more of those posters left of center haven't dropped by to weigh their two cents here. Too many facts possibly?