Is there really a way out quickly?

Status
Not open for further replies.
hey had no 2nd Amendent right. once we invaded their country they were the enemy.what rights does an enemy have? maybe if they had been disarmed and secured on the big rush to get in Baghdad, the problems wouldn't be so great today. when you leave an armed enemy behind, you're just asking for trouble unless things have changed since i was in the Army.

Except that Iraqi civilians aren't the enemy. The only "enemy" there has been in Iraq was A) the Iraqi army, up until the point we toppled the government and disbanded it, and B) insurgents conducting anti-US or anti-government operations.

That's it. You're average Mohammad Al-Iraqi is not actually the "enemy." He's just a dude trying to live peacefully in his own country just like you or I. It isn't necessarily his fault that the US decided they needed to occupy his country.

I don't see how we can possibly afford Iraqis less freedoms in their own country than we afford ourselves in ours, at least not without increasing their resentment of us. Now, if their own government (rather than our occupying/invading forces) had decided to disarm them, then that would be different.

Then again, in that case I'd fail to see why we should spend US lives propping up a government that doesn't afford it's citizens the same basic rights we believe in.

Either way, disarming the populace of Iraq is grossly hypocritical.
 
Marko Kloos said:
When I was young, I always wondered how people could have willingly put on the brown shirts and kicked in their neighbors' doors to drag them off to the camps. Now I'm no longer puzzled.

When I was young and this nation was at war in Vietnam, I could not understand how some people would protest soldiers on college campuses and abuse them when they returned from duty, yet still live in the freedom and security these soldiers died and were injured providing. I know that it is a central freedom here in this nation but I still can't understand how respect is so absent among youth and radicalism gets so much traction in academic settings today...

You see, I am by no means advocating the "brown shirts" you cite nor am I advocating "kicking in... neighbors' doors" as you suggest. What I am saying, however, is that respect needs a comeback in society; respect of the president, respect of our Armed Forces, and respect of the nation at war.

I understand the freedom to dissent but I think it has gotten quite out of hand (again... just as what happened during Vietnam).

Regardless of whether you apply a conservative or liberal understanding of our Constition, we do not have a freeocracy in this nation where anything goes. Some level of respect and decorum must be paid to the Chief Executive, the Soldiers, the Administration, especially during war time.

Hope that clarifies my earlier post...
 
there is nothing respectable about war.

Bush and everyone that decided to go through with this war does not deserve my respect. They have not earned it.
 
You see, I am by no means advocating the "brown shirts" you cite nor am I advocating "kicking in... neighbors' doors" as you suggest. What I am saying, however, is that respect needs a comeback in society; respect of the president, respect of our Armed Forces, and respect of the nation at war.

Respect is earned. I don't think our President has. As for respect of our armed forces, I think it's already there...this isn't Vietnam, no matter how much the right-wing cowards want to hide behind "the troops." Those who oppose this war aren't spitting on soldiers and calling them baby killers. They're writing them cards, sending them care packages, all while fighting to have them brought home so no more have to die for what they consider to be no good reason.

As for respect of the nation at war, why is that required? We aren't fighting to liberate Europe from the Nazis here, or defending ourselves from the Japanese. Iraq in particular was a war of choice. Some of us think it was a bad one. Why should we then respect it?

Regardless of whether you apply a conservative or liberal understanding of our Constition, we do not have a freeocracy in this nation where anything goes. Some level of respect and decorum must be paid to the Chief Executive, the Soldiers, the Administration, especially during war time.

No, you are wrong. I can call our Chief Executive a half-retarded slack-jawed yokel if I want to, even during wartime. I can say the world would be a better place without him in it, and that it's possible it would be a better place even if a certain recount had been completed in Florida. I can say I think the man has done nothing but harm to this country, and in fact he has done more harm than any Arab with a boxcutter could dream of. That it may take decades to undo the damage he has wrought. You know why? Because I live in America. If you don't like it, why don't you go find yourself some tin-pot dictatorship to live in. They're real big on blind respect of authority, time of war or no. But they may make you leave your guns at the door, so watch out.

And while I do respect the soldiers (as I think a vast majority of Americans do), I'm in on way required to. And for the love of God, you and everybody like you need to learn to separate respect and support of soldiers with respect and support for the war and the president. I didn't respect the president (any more than required by UCMJ), or the war, when I was a soldier over there fighting it. Why the heck should I now?
 
No, you are wrong. I can call our Chief Executive a half-retarded slack-jawed yokel if I want to, even during wartime.
Isn't there some rule against active duty servicemembers being openly critical of the CiC? :confused: Or is that just a TV myth? :o
 
Redworm said:
Bush and everyone that decided to go through with this war does not deserve my respect. They have not earned it.

Then what or who would you "respect"? I am genuinely curious...

  • Would you have more respect for a president that did nothing after 09/11/01 and we had several other terror attacks?
  • Would you have more respect for a president that institued a draft and made everyone eligible participate in the war?
  • Would you have more respect for a president if we pulled out of Iraq and it caused terror attacks here at home?
  • Would you have more respect for a president if your son or daughter was a victim of 09/11/01 or another incident of terror?
 
Isn't there some rule against active duty servicemembers being openly critical of the CiC? Or is that just a TV myth?

I'm pretty sure it's the law. He is theoretically in every servicemember's chain of command.

However, I'm not on active duty, and from everything I've ever read such provisions don't apply to guardsmen/reservists except during our training periods.

So I can call him a waste of human flesh 28 days a month if I feel like it.
 
# Would you have more respect for a president that did nothing after 09/11/01 and we had several other terror attacks?
I would have more respect for a president that actually did something after 9/11 that was related to 9/11. Sending troops into Afghanistan to hunt Osama, brilliant. Supported it 100%. Too bad he never finished that job and caught those "evil-doers".

Would you have more respect for a president that institued a draft and made everyone eligible participate in the war?
I do not like the draft and actually have less respect for Vietnam vets who complain about draft dodgers than the draft dodgers themselves. Draft dodging in World War 2 when the safety and security of the world was at stake was cowardice. Draft dodging during Vietnam because it was a retarded war that should have never taken place and the men over there were not defending the United States was not.

Would you have more respect for a president if we pulled out of Iraq and it caused terror attacks here at home?
I would have more respect for a president that didn't get us involved in Iraq in the first place because it had nothing to do with the terror attacks on 9/11.

Would you have more respect for a president if your son or daughter was a victim of 09/11/01 or another incident of terror?
What does losing someone on that day have to do with respecting a president that has done little about that day and instead started a virtually unrelated conflict in which yet another 3000 of our people died? About as much as it has to do with the price of rice in China.
 
I'm pretty sure it's the law. He is theoretically in every servicemember's chain of command.

However, I'm not on active duty, and from everything I've ever read such provisions don't apply to guardsmen/reservists except during our training periods.

So I can call him a waste of human flesh 28 days a month if I feel like it.
ah ok. would the UCMJ be the authority on this? I don't think I can read the entire thing but maybe someone can point me in the right direction to look :o
 
Redworm said:
I do not like the draft and actually have less respect for Vietnam vets who complain about draft dodgers than the draft dodgers themselves. Draft dodging in World War 2 when the safety and security of the world was at stake was cowardice. Draft dodging during Vietnam because it was a retarded war that should have never taken place and the men over there were not defending the United States was not.

So you determine the validity of war huh and make personal judgements whether or not it is convenient for you to support? Nice. What if everyone did that? Don't you have a personal obligation for the freedom you enjoy or are you mooching that based on someone else's service and duty?

A few weeks ago Brit Security and US Homeland Security officials broke up a terror attack plan that was to be carried out against several commerical aircraft in England headed to this country. The information and intelligence that was used to defeat that terror attack came from terrorists captured in Iraq.

You wish to revise or amend your statement?
 
So you determine the validity of war huh and make personal judgements whether or not it is convenient for you to support? Nice. What if everyone did that? Don't you have a personal obligation for the freedom you enjoy or are you mooching that based on someone else's service and duty?
Never said I determine a war's validity for everyone but I have a right to my opinion. Yes, I can make personal judgements whether or not a war is convenient for me to support it. That's my right as an American. That's what our troops fought for in World War 2. That is not what they fought for in Vietnam and that is not what they're fighting for today.

Personal obligation? Absolutely not. I shoudl have no more obligation to serve in the armed forces than you should have an obligation to support a welfare mom with nine kids. How am I mooching? I contribute to our economy by working and to the general advancement of human understanding by studying and (hopefully one day) researching in multiple sciences.

Oh and for the record my DEP contract states that I'll be leaving for Parris Island late next year. Maybe then people will stop thinking that I don't support our troops because I don't support the C-average fool that sent them to die. :rolleyes:
A few weeks ago Brit Security and US Homeland Security officials broke up a terror attack plan that was to be carried out against several commerical aircraft in England headed to this country. The information and intelligence that was used to defeat that terror attack came from terrorists captured in Iraq.
More information? Link? I remember that being big news but I don't remember anything that conclusively connected Saddam or his government to 9/11.

You wish to revise or amend your statement?
Why would I? :confused:
 
So you determine the validity of war huh and make personal judgements whether or not it is convenient for you to support? Nice. What if everyone did that? Don't you have a personal obligation for the freedom you enjoy or are you mooching that based on someone else's service and duty?

You're making the assumption that the war somebody is being drafted for, whether it is the draft in Vietnam or the theoretical draft of troops for Iraq, is actually necessary for the continuation of the freedom he's enjoying. An assumption that not everybody shares.

Hence the reason he differentiated between WWII and Vietnam.

A few weeks ago Brit Security and US Homeland Security officials broke up a terror attack plan that was to be carried out against several commerical aircraft in England headed to this country. The information and intelligence that was used to defeat that terror attack came from terrorists captured in Iraq.

Of course, there is also the possibility that if not for our occupation of Iraq, those terrorists would not have been planning the attack in the first place...thus nullifying the need for the intel from a terrorist captured in Iraq.

Amazing how complicated a place the world can be, despite your best efforts to simplify it.

ah ok. would the UCMJ be the authority on this? I don't think I can read the entire thing but maybe someone can point me in the right direction to look

Here is where you would start for UCMJ in general. Subchapter I, article 2 outlines who it applies to. Subchapter X, article 88 covers statements against the president, but seems to only apply to commissioned officers. There may actually be nothing covering enlisted men, but I wouldn't count on it.

EDIT: Fixed link to take you to the top of UCMJ, not Subchapter I. Oops!
EDIT: I'm guessing article 134 (General Article) could probably be used to punish an enlisted person speaking out against the president, provided it could be shown to undermine order and discipline. Which it likely would be.
 
Suggestion.

Perhaps, our mistake is that we thought everything can be solved by
invading and dropping all the bombs . We have the most weapons
and therefore bomb everybody to kingdomcome. The mistake is once we
occupy a country, we have no other choice but rebuild it. Otherwise we look
like an idiot! It is so obvious, we killed more Iraqis directly or indirectly than
reasonably intended.
We are also good in Capitalism, Why not partition the country and divide
the wealth proportionately, let them govern whatever segment they control,
just keep the US military in two or three big bases, to guard against foreign
and factional fighting, Then, true to Capitalism, start putting A Wal-Mart,
HOme Depot, Walgreen, MCDonalds, Perkins, JC Penneys, Barnes&Noble
Bank of America, in all big cities of Iraqs. While you are it, try to sell
them everything from fruits, potatos, veggies and eveything we don't
use here? They may not like our politics, but they like other things we
enjoy?
 
im not gonna get into the direct politics of things, but what would you do if a foreign government came into your country and said allah is god, and we want you to switch to some form of imperilism. Also what would you do if they tried to start taking our guns away? im pretty sure more then a few folks would get riled up and start shooting randomly and their armed forces. These are what-ifs but idk iraq is something i just don't think about all that much, other then the soldiers. I know that we are the superpower, or supposed super power so alot of what ifs pertaining to what they can do to our country besides terrorism are out of the question. I haven't heard the terror alert on the news in quite some time, and even if i did i would laugh cause its never been below yellow since the damn thing was started.
 
So much for the 2nd Amendment being a God given right, huh?

Although your comment sounds sweet on it's introduction, it is far from a salient point or a contribution to the discussion.

Now, if their own government (rather than our occupying/invading forces) had decided to disarm them, then that would be different.

The Iraqi adopted Constitution does not declare such a right. Read it for yourself.

As such, weapons confiscation as a result of martial law necessitated by violence directed at the government or population violates nothing under Iraqi law.

And before you get your thongs in a bunch here and claim that I am a hypocrite; I have long advocated providing them with a copy of our Constitution for them to borrow from.

Regardless, weapons confiscation is not going to remove weapons entirely. If we are unable to protect our own borders from illegal immigrants, drugs and contraband, we are not going to be able to do so in Iraq. Especially with border states that are intent upon our failure.

However, it would reduce the violence considerably. Couple that with a more concerted effort to monitor the borders while forcing Iran and Syria to play ball under threat of something like cruise missile strikes and carpet bombing directed at key infrastructure would help a lot.

What happened with all of the firearms in post-war Europe? Japan? Were the occupation forces (United States, France, England and Russia) evil for insisting these nations populations be disarmed in the wake of defeat until stable governments could be established?

It isn't like these things haven't been done before. ;)

but what would you do if a foreign government came into your country and said allah is god, and we want you to switch to some form of imperilism.

I wasn't aware that we were forcing the Iraqi people to convert to Christianity and a capitalist based economy. Another 'non-point'.
 
Last edited:
I would have more respect for a president that didn't get us involved in Iraq in the first place because it had nothing to do with the terror attacks on 9/11.

Of course, there is also the possibility that if not for our occupation of Iraq, those terrorists would not have been planning the attack in the first place...thus nullifying the need for the intel from a terrorist captured in Iraq.

Amazing how complicated a place the world can be, despite your best efforts to simplify it.

Actually, it's amazing to see people regurgitate undeducated drivel when the facts are out there. If you look for them, that is. :D

President Bush made these statements prior to the invasion of Iraq:

"Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes."

"Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups, and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction, is a grave danger to the civilized world, and will be confronted."

Pretty hard to disagree with such impeccable logic.

There certainly is enough evidence to indicate the Iraq, particularly Saddam Hussein, supported terrorism, harbored it, financed it and even encouraged it. Not all of the groups he had ties with targeted the US or it’s interests, but he certainly has a history with some shady types.

What about the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)? Responsible for the deaths of over 300 people? Abu Nidal (Sabri al-Banna), died in Iraq, where up until the day of his suspicious “suicide” in August of 1992, managed to have Iraqi authorities refuse to hand him over despite the US and other nations repeated requests. Ultimately, Abu Nidal died “mysteriously” while Iraqi officials, fearing that they might appear to be sponsoring terrorism, attempted to “detain” him. Well, then why did they wait 4-8 days to report his death, which they ultimately claimed was a suicide? Some folks believe that Saddam had Abu Nidal killed because he was also assisting terrorist organizations that Saddam felt were not in Iraq’s interests and that he had threatened to reveal to what extent Iraq was involved in international terrorism. In any case, ol’ Nidal was living in Baghdad while wanted for terrorism abroad. Pretty hard to deny that, since it was the Iraqi Authority that provided photographs of his corpse.

“As is known to both friends and enemies, Iraq's record on the issue of terrorism and disrupting security, whether pan-Arab or foreign, is clean. Iraq is not involved with these practices," claimed the Iraqi chief of intelligence, who also informed reporters that Abu Nidal was expelled from Baghdad in 1983 after the regime "learned that [he] was engaged in activities that harm the Iraqi national security and the Arab national security." He omitted to mention that from 1974 to 1983 the ANO waged an intensive terrorist war against its perceived enemies from its headquarters in Baghdad. These enemies included Syria (Abu Nidal twice attempted to assassinate Abdul Halim Khaddam, the Syrian foreign minister at the time; Fatah, several of whose representatives in Europe were murdered; Jewish interests, such as synagogues in Vienna, Rome, and Brussels, a Jewish school in Antwerp, and a Jewish restaurant in Paris; Jordan several of whose diplomats were killed; and Israel. Abu Nidal's attempt on the life of the Israeli ambassador in London, whom ANO assassins wounded was the event that triggered the war in Lebanon and ultimately cost the lives of over 200 U.S. Marines in a truck bombing of their barracks.

Expelled in 1983 after operating out of there since 1974, but suddenly back in 1992 for the grand finale?

Pretty hard to deny links to terrorists when they are operating right out of your country.

What about Islamic Hamas? You know, those are the folks responsible for all those “suicide bombers” in Israel? Saddam is on the record as offering $25,000 to the family of every Palestinian who died blowing up Israelis.

Then there is the direct financial assistance he provided to not only Hamas, but also to Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Arab Liberation Front (ALF). The ALF is a proxy organization entirely created and funded by Saddam, intended to conduct terrorist activities against declared “enemies” of Saddam.

The Bush administration has often made mention of a fellow named Zarqawi (Usama Bin Laden’s second in command), who fled to Iraq after being wounded fighting in Afghanistan as a result of those wounds. He was wounded fighting against US forces there in May of 2002. Colin Powell alleges that Zarqawi spent a few months in Iraq recuperating after his surgery, where he continued to plan further terrorist attacks. And lets face it. Saddam wasn’t the kind of guy that didn’t know what was going in his own country. But who is Zarqawi?

Well, Zarqawi isn’t a nice guy. He led the murder of Lawrence Foley (US Agency for International Development) in Amman, Jordan, then is supposed to have fled to Iraq to “obtain weapons and explosives for further operations” to be used against foreign embassies, officials and particularly, American and Israeli targets and citizens. In addition, a key Zarqawi deputy called Foley's assassins on a satellite phone to congratulate them while he was driving out of Iraq toward Turkey, a mistake that led to his capture and confirmation that an Al-Qaeda cell was operating out of Iraq. All of this is according to Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who also claimed Zarqawi managed to set up and operate an Al-Qaeda cell right out of Baghdad. Pretty hard to deny Iraq didn’t have terrorists in country, when they keep turning up there, either captured or dead.

But I’ll discuss that later.

What about Abu Abbas (Mahmoud Abbas), secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)? A little history you might look up yourself if you cared to:

"In 1998, within the framework of the Oslo agreements, Israel permitted Abbas to return to the Gaza Strip. Fearing an extradition request by the United States, he chose the confines of Baghdad instead."

"In October 2000, with the outbreak of the current Palestinian intifada, Abbas announced live on state-run Iraqi television that the PLF would resume confrontations with Israel; this, following the "call made by President Saddam Hussein to open the door for volunteering [which] is an order to fight for us." Iraq recruited and trained PLF activists in Iraqi camps and equipped them with weapons, which they then used to carry out terrorist attacks in Haifa (April 2001) and the West Bank (July 2001). In July 2001, Mohammed Kandil, a Palestinian from the West Bank, was arrested upon the discovery that he was recruited by Iraqi intelligence in order to build a terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank. Apparently, his operational plans included infiltrating Ben Gurion International Airport with a car bomb."

U.S. Special Operations Forces captured Abbas in southern Baghdad April 15, 2003. Abbas is best known for his role in the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship, which resulted in the murder of American Leon Klinghoffer. Abbas directed four fellow terrorists in the takeover of the Italian vessel carrying more than 400 passengers and crewmembers off the coast of Egypt. They demanded the release of 50 Palestinians held by Israel.

"Iraq has also revived its proxy organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), with the specific mission of encouraging suicide operations against Israel from the West Bank and Gaza. One of ALF's leaders, al-Hajj Rateb al-Amleh, is responsible for providing material support to the families of Palestinian suicide terrorists. This support has included public events at which the presentation of $25,000 Iraqi checks payable to the families of "martyrs" is used to glorify Saddam Hussein and encourage solidarity between the Iraqi regime and the Palestinian people against their common "Zionist" and "imperialist" enemies."
 
"Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, had strong links to Iraq as well as to bin Laden's terrorist network. He flew to the United States using an Iraqi passport and appears to have acquired a false identity with the help of Iraqi authorities. Another suspect in the 1993 bombing, Abdul Rahman Yasin, later returned to Iraq and is believed to be living in Baghdad. Yasin is on the FBI’s “most wanted terrorists“ list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."

Yasin was the only 1993 World Trade Center bombing suspect that evaded prison initially. You might remember the events in which the US attempted to get Iraq to turn Yasin over to US officials, but the Iraqis insisted the US sign papers declaring Yasin had, in fact, been in an Iraqi prison since arriving in Baghdad. Well, he wasn't, but that's what Saddam wanted the world to believe.

Iraqi authorities, bowing to US pressure, granted permission for CBS reporter Lesley Stahl to interview the only participant in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing not in prison. Stahl also interviewed Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, who claimed that Yasin had been in prison in Iraq since 1994. Aziz asserted that Iraq had offered to hand Yasin over to the United States in 1994 and later in October 2001, in order to prove that Iraq was not involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The U.S. refused, Aziz stated. A U.S. intelligence official was quoted by CBS as saying that the Iraqis failed in their attempt to have the Americans sign a document confirming Yasin's whereabouts since 1993; apparently, U.S. officials did not agree with the Iraqi version of the facts. And for good reason.

The US knew that Yasin was conducting terrorist activities within Iraq after his arrival and the Iraqis knew it, also. But they wanted the US to sign documents declaring Iraq had detained him and prevented just such goings on before turning him over, because they KNEW Yasin would talk. And in doing so, he would have spilled the beans about Iraq's complicity in international terrorism. Would you have signed documents providing (essentially) an alibi for a known international terrorist for all those years he was in Iraq? Based on Aziz's word that he was in prison? If you would have, I've got some ocean front property here that you might be interested in...

There were also two unidentified Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000 and were not turned over to authorities. They apparently found safe haven in Baghdad at the end of their journey and haven’t been heard from since.

Hmm. All this bad guy traffic and a forbidden weapons program. But, enough about terrorists for a moment. What about that weapons program?

"When the first inspectors were in Iraq from 1992 to 1998, it took until 1995 to learn Iraq had an offensive biological weapons program. That only came to light because Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected. Hussein Kamal had been in charge of the Iraqi biological warfare program since 1988. He told inspectors about the program and where to look.
He detailed a large research and development effort looking at a range of biological weapons from anthrax to ricin to possibly smallpox. He also detailed a number of industrial plants around Iraq where large-scale production occurred. Finally, he revealed the extent of the Iraqi program to "weaponize" these materials and research into other dispersion methods.
Inspectors located some of this infrastructure. But Saddam Hussein continued to hide and lie and deceive the inspectors up until he kicked them out in 1998. When the inspectors left, Iraq had declared 8,500 liters of anthrax. Inspectors believed the Iraqi government actually had 15,000 to 24,000 liters. The Iraqis declared they had 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin, the inspectors maintained they actually had 26,000. According to U.N. officials, Iraq has yet to prove even these declared amounts of biological agents have been destroyed.
During the Persian Gulf War, Hussein threatened to use his chemical arsenal against the coalition arrayed against him. The United States said if he did he should expect an instant, overwhelming allied response. Hussein apparently backed down -- while some people may suspect he loosed chemicals on coalition forces, no proof has been found.
Following the war, U.N. inspectors went into Iraq and found stockpiles of chemical weapons. The Iraqis had large caches of mustard gas, which causes casualties by blistering or burning exposed skin, eyes, lungs and mucus membranes within hours of exposure. It is a persistent agent that can remain a hazard for days.
Iraq also had large amounts of sarin and tabun. When absorbed through the skin or inhaled, these nerve agents cause convulsions and unconsciousness. Tabun is a persistent agent and can remain potent for days. While not persistent, sarin is more dangerous inhaled.
The inspectors also found large amounts of VX nerve agent, which is more toxic and persistent than sarin or tabun.
The Iraqis had the chemical agents in aerial bombs, 122 mm rockets, artillery shells and Scud ballistic missiles."

So, these WMD’s just keep disappearing, there is no accounting, and the world community was prepared to let Saddam just thumb his nose at the inspectors for how many more years? While links to his condoning or even sponsoring international terrorism were being discovered and known terrorists were moving in and out of Iraq?

And then there were Usama Bin Laden’s own statements declaring Iraq was Al-Qaeda’s ally against the United States and that Al-Qaeda had access to WMD’s, up to and including nuclear weapons. Although most intelligence experts declared the latter claim a bit hopeful on Usama’s part, few disputed Usama’s desire to support Saddam Hussein in his efforts in thwarting the international community, in particular, the United States, in their efforts to reign in Saddams WMD programs.

What about Iraqi’s and their own attempts at terrorism? Have they attempted anything heinous against the United States? Perhaps you remember this:

"During the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq trained several hundred operatives for planned terrorist attacks on U.S. targets, including bombings of American facilities in Southeast Asia. But these efforts weren’t particularly successful: although Iraqi operatives pulled off small-scale shootings and grenade attacks in the Middle East, they bungled efforts to use explosives. Outside intelligence and law enforcement agencies thwarted more significant plots, including a 1993 attempt to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush during a visit to Kuwait."
 
A little more background:

ACCESSION NUMBER:291422 FILE ID:TXT101 DATE:06/28/93 TITLE:U.S. MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQI TERRORISM (06/28/93) TEXT:*93062801.TXT U.S. MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQI TERRORISM (Text: U.S. government fact sheet) (660) (The U.S. government presented to the U.N. Security Council June 27 the following background fact sheet entitled "United States June 26, 1993 Military Action Against Iraqi Terrorism.") On April 14, 1993, while former President George Bush was beginning a three-day visit to Kuwait City, Kuwaiti authorities thwarted a terrorist plot, seizing a powerful car bomb and other explosives and arresting 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals. In the succeeding two months, U.S. investigative teams from the FBI and the intelligence community have conducted a thorough investigation of this operation. Based upon that review, the Department of Justice and the Central Intelligence Agency have concluded that Iraq planned, equipped, and ran the terrorist operation that threatened the life of President Bush in Kuwait City in April. Further, it is the firm judgment of our intelligence community, from all sources of evidence available to it, that this assassination plot was directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). The evidence that forms the basis for these conclusions includes the following: A. FORENSICS 1. A car bomb, hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser, was smuggled across the Iraq-Kuwait border by the suspects during the night of April 13, 1993. This bomb, and the other explosives that were seized, have been directly examined by FBI forensic experts. In the judgment of these experts, key components, including the remote-control firing device, the plastic explosives, the blasting cap, the integrated circuitry, and the wiring were built by the same person or persons who built bombs previously recovered from the Iraqis. Certain aspects of these devices have been found only in devices linked to Iraq and not in devices used by any other terrorist groups. 2. According to the forensic experts, other explosives seized in this plot, including "cube bombs," contained components built by the same person or persons who built similar devices recovered in the past from the Iraqis. 3. The car bomb itself possessed devastating power. It was a sophisticated device, involving a complicated manufacturing process, and was well-hidden in the vehicle. It contained approximately 80 kilograms of explosives. It was constructed to allow detonation by remote control, by a timer or manually. The forensic experts have concluded that this bomb had the power to kill people within a radius of 400 yards. B. THE SUSPECTS 1. The FBI conducted extensive interviews of the 16 suspects now on trial in Kuwait. The two main suspects -- Ra'ad al-Asadi and Wali al-Ghazali -- are Iraqi nationals. They told the FBI that they had been recruited and received orders in Basra, Iraq, from individuals they believed to be associated with the Iraqi intelligence Service. 2. These suspects told the FBI that their Iraqi recruiters provided them with the car bomb and other explosives in Basra on April 10, 1993. 3. One of the suspects, al-Ghazali, told the FBI that he was recruited for 1he specific purpose of assassinating President Bush in Kuwait City. 4. The other main suspect, al-Asadi, told the FBI that his task was to guide al-Ghazali and the car bomb to Kuwait University (where President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait were scheduled to appear) and to plant smaller explosives elsewhere in Kuwait. C. INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS 1. During and immediately after the Persian Gulf War, Saddam -- through his controlled media -- indicated that President Bush would be held personally responsible for the war and would be hunted down and punished, even after he left office. Various classified intelligence sources support the conclusion that the Iraqi government ordered this attack against President Bush. 2. From all the evidence available to it, the CIA is highly confident that the Iraqi government, at the highest levels, directed its intelligence service to assassinate former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait on April 14-16, 1993.

I guess an attempt on the former President of the United States life isn’t enough for you characters. :mad:

Well, suffice it to say, that in and of itself, despite the weapons programs and other terrorist activities, would be enough for most people. So, when Bush, Jr. speaks of terrorism, he is speaking about it with just a bit more knowledge than many of his detractors can seem to muster.

No, Iraq was not directly responsible for the attacks of 9/11. But Iraq was believed to possess WMD’s despite agreeing to destroy them all and comply with inspections and was recognized to have known international terrorists and groups operating within it’s borders.

Toppling Saddam’s regime was blow against terrorism, whether you recognize it or not.
 
The Iraqi adopted Constitution does not declare such a right. Read it for yourself.

As such, weapons confiscation as a result of martial law necessitated by violence directed at the government or population violates nothing under Iraqi law.

Rights are not bestowed or taken away by governments. If they were, they would be called priviledges. A government can violate rights and even make it legal to do so... it does not mean the people don't have the rights anymore, it just means their rights are being violated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top