Pentagon: Saddam Hussein's Iraq had no links to Al Qaeda

The antis constantly posit their claims with qualifiers like "it's widely known" or "all credible sources", etc, etc. because it's all they can do. Even the Russians, who were on good terms with Iraq thought Saddam had WMD. If some of you antis look it up instead of simply repeating talking points, Saddam was supposed to dispose of his chemical weapons under UN supervision. He didn't.

And chemicals were probably not the major concern. Saddam had a long fascination with nukes. Nukes mean power and Saddam, if anything wanted power over the middle east. Remember Iran and Kuwait? I am halfway through the book "Raid on the Sun" by Rodger Claire were he documents Israel's bombing of Saddam's nuclear facility that denied Saddam his prize possession.
We are now supposed to believe Saddam thought better of it afterwards, thought the whole thing was a big mistake and had no nuclear ambitions. Saddam with nukes would have been a very bad thing for the whole world. Drink the cool aid but don't be shocked if we don't all partake.
 
Oh, I am sorry. I did not see your post. I already awared a prize to the first e-mail I received with the correct answer. I see now you should have been the one to get it. I gave the "winner" a choice of two "prizes." You can have the remaining if you like...an ankle holster (never worn) for a NAA mini.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that, but pointing out your mistake :p ;) wasn't my purpose. The purpose was to highlight the fact that one's true level of knowledge and experience is usually apparent to those in that field. One would do well to remember that pretty much every field is represented by at least one member.
 
These old arguments don't want to go away.

When it is all said and done, what has been accomplished that was worth up to $3,000,000,000,000 and the associated losses of life and health.

I think a better leader would have gone in a different direction.
 
I think a better leader would have gone in a different direction.
Click to expand...

I think that a good bottom line way to look at things.

I believe Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq was wrong...for several reasons. But now the supporters of the Iraq war have to work hard to come up with justifications. I still remember Colin Powell's advice to Bush. "If you break it, you own it". Looks like the cost of ownership so far is almost 4000 American troops dead, and about 29000 wounded, and the high billions of dollars that could have been spent at home. These sad numbers will still be there (and growing) when this thread dies out.
 
I believe Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq was wrong...for several reasons. But now the supporters of the Iraq war have to work hard to come up with justifications.
Click to expand...
In your dreams perhaps. The reality is just the opposite. It's the antis that have to pretend that the Senate didn't vote for it and that there's been no success. I guess that living in a fantasy world is a small price to pay for moral superiority.
 
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Senate didn't vote for it but as for the successes it's the pro-war stance that has to justify the losses we've faced both financially and in troops with the results of the war. It's the pro-war stance that has to prove that this has made America safer. It's the pro-war stance that has to prove the hundreds of billions of dollars were best served there instead of securing our homeland here.

No one is suggesting that have been no successes. Just about everyone recognizes that there have been improvements over the past couple of years but the point remains that the overall campaign has been a gross waste of money, time, resources and people. That the successes haven't come anywhere close to being worth the price.
 
According to Gallup the US public was 76% in favor of the Iraq invasion at the time it occurred. Look in the mirror. We elect our officials to be smarter than we are. Anybody here claim to be dumber than Bush?
 
I pride myself in being part of that other 24% :D I felt it was ridiculous to stop hunting for bin Laden and divert resources to Iraq.

And I don't think we elect officials to be smarter than us. I believe it's a crux of our political scene that the best Americans do not run for office. The best Americans own businesses, lead armies, become physicians and attorneys, discover secrets of the universe, innovate technologies, bring social injustices to light and do a variety of other things that benefit America as a whole.

But they rarely, rarely ever run for public office, imho.
 
It's the pro-war stance that has to prove that this has made America safer. It's the pro-war stance that has to prove the hundreds of billions of dollars were best served there instead of securing our homeland here.
Click to expand...
No, that isn't how it works. You don't go to war then after the fact count the dollars, you spend what you need. As far as proof of effectiveness goes for the homeland, when were we attacked last?
No one is suggesting that have been no successes. Just about everyone recognizes that there have been improvements over the past couple of years but the point remains that the overall campaign has been a gross waste of money, time, resources and people. That the successes haven't come anywhere close to being worth the price.
Click to expand...
How do you determine that? What would the price have been for not doing it? What would the dollar and blood count be with just one nuke going off in Manhatten? In a perfect world we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, the UN member nations would have put the squeeze on Saddam. Instead they played circle jerk for over twelve years.

This Monday morning quarterbacking looks small and petty and with troops on the ground it's a shame.
 
I guess that living in a fantasy world is a small price to pay for moral superiority.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you would almost think I was some kind of liberal. However, I have voted Republican since circa 1958, so I don't quite fit the mold. I even voted for Bush his first term. I just don't like people that make dumb decisions. It's not high moral ground, it's just making smart decisions. Bush has hurt our Republican party by not making good decisions. Let's hope McCain does a better job.
 
Saying "Well, we havent been attacked here since we went into Iraq" Is quite possibly the poorest of poor excues for the war.

With our borders unsecured, It isnt going to take a whole middleastern country to cause trouble here... Just one loony has to jump the border with a bomb on his back. You cant say that all the money, lives, and manpower couldnt have been better used making America safer and stronger HERE instead of throwing it away in the sand.
 
No, that isn't how it works. You don't go to war then after the fact count the dollars, you spend what you need. As far as proof of effectiveness goes for the homeland, when were we attacked last?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is how it works especially when you're going to war as an offensive action. Spending what you need is utterly retarded if that amount bankrupts the country but more importantly it's up to the pro-war stance to prove that need.

And once again with an argument that holds about as much water as a colander.

My potato salad has also prevented attacks on the homeland. I can prove this by pointing to the fact that I didn't start making potato salad until after 9/11 and we haven't had an attack since.

Your argument does not follow the rules of logic. There is no evidence that the Iraq war has prevented an attack. None.

How do you determine that? What would the price have been for not doing it? What would the dollar and blood count be with just one nuke going off in Manhatten?
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have that Iraq was going to set off a nuke anywhere, let alone on American soil?

In fact, we've weakened our own forces and allowed Iran, an actual potential nuclear threat, to strengthen. So it's quite possible that we're at greater risk of that nuke in New York because of this, especially considering it's yet another act of aggression that allows terrorist organizations to recruit more people.
In a perfect world we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, the UN member nations would have put the squeeze on Saddam. Instead they played circle jerk for over twelve years.

This Monday morning quarterbacking looks small and petty and with troops on the ground it's a shame.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Yes, quite a shame to question that maybe their deaths have been in vain and we shouldn't have put them in harm's way to begin with. Don't take the ultra-patriot high horse with me, you have no business implying to support the troops any more than I do.
 
This Monday morning quarterbacking looks small and petty and with troops on the ground it's a shame.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. I thought the Iraq war was dumb (and said so on many web sites) way before we went in. Like many here I served in the military, and I think it's a shame alright, a shame that we have wasted our troops lives.

The Iraq war was a dumb decision, made by a dumb person. So, get over it and move on. Maybe we can be smarter next time.

Don't take the ultra-patriot high horse with me, you have no business implying to support the troops any more than I do.
Click to expand...

Agree. Having a President make dumb mistakes has nothing...nothing to due with supporting our troops, so don't even go there.

BTW, I think our troops have done a magnificent job, wish I could say the same thing about their Commander in Chief.
 
Last edited:
But they rarely, rarely ever run for public office, imho.
Click to expand...

Maybe so RW, but we wouldn't elect them anyway. Any leader that addresses the real issues which at this point are more fiscal than anything and makes the suggestions necessary to correct them cannot be elected. In the end it will be the downfall of this country. Cut your pork, not mine.
 
Maybe so RW, but we wouldn't elect them anyway. Any leader that addresses the real issues which at this point are more fiscal than anything and makes the suggestions necessary to correct them cannot be elected. In the end it will be the downfall of this country.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree. :o

I prefer chicken, myself.
 
Saddams alleged links to Al Qaeda were an important part of the campaign to convince America of a need to go to war. Second in importance only to the WMD mushroom cloud over Everytown, USA.

Remember Cheney's grave description of Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intel meeting in, where was it, Prague I think. And well after the Iraq war started, over 80% of Fox News viewers thought Saddam was involved in 9/11.

So the two major justifications for war have been proven false - WMD's and links to Al Qaeda. A pretty major screwup on the part of this admin, to say the very least. You can bring up quotes by Dems from 10-15 years ago but the fact remains... this admin pulled the trigger and is therefore responsible for a needless war.

How to make it right, at this point in time, is to give to the Iraqi people exactly what all the chickenhawks are now using as justification of the war... democracy.

Put the decision to a referendum by the Iraqi people... US Forces occupy your country - should we stay or should we go?

If they say go, we pull out immediately.
 
Last edited:
This has been a good thread so far lots of different opinions.

Lets look at some of the ideas put forth of who benifited from the Iraq invasion.

I've said repeatedly that the securing of Israel was a prime motivating factor.

Others have put forth the idea that the Saudis benifited by the elimination of Saddam and /or that the oil companies and the arms industry did, by the billions they have made.

Well it looks like to me all of the above have benifited.

What have the taxpaying American citizens received?

A near worthless dollar, 110+ Dollar a barrel oil and $3.50+ gasoline, sky rocketing debt, 3900+ war dead, 40,000 wounded, and the monetary bill for the war of $500,000,000,000 to $1 trillion.

71% of the American public disapprove of the war.

Heres something else interesting for those of you who call those opposed 'leftists'.

19% of the public identifes itself as 'liberal', so its not only liberals who disapprove of this needless war.

It was a war of choice plain and simple, a war that has benifited few and cost this country dearly, in lives and money. It has not made us 'safer' it has made Israel and the Saudis safer, they should have footed the bill and sent the troops. It has made the arms industry and the oil industry richer and the average American taxpayer poorer.

We can argue about the reasons the choice was made, but most of us agree that the choice was wrong.
 
Wa?

From Bruxley

All reports coming from Iraq show Iraq is not 'shattered' but rather coming together. Petraeus is due to testify as to the actual status soon.
Click to expand...

This from a recent report from Baghdad.
In Baghdad last week, there wasn’t enough oil to keep the lights on for more than a few hours
Click to expand...

This is the country that the US has "Liberated" Basic infrastructure ruined from bombing, daily violence on a scale unthinkable to a suburban American, military occupation by a foreign force. The list goes on. In fact I avoid news of Iraq when I can. I find the whole thing to be a tragic mess. In that my country has been involved in creating this mess I feel a certain level of responsibility too.

I don't blame Bruxley for thinking that the US invasion and subsequent occupation has been a good thing for Iraq. He lives in a walled city called America. The TV media keeps the news upbeat and doesn't promote the failures and atrocities. At least I can read, and I do read a great deal of what some would call the "liberal" press. But that's me. My Mother taught me to have an inquiring mind and so I ask questions and seek answers. Thanks to the internet I have an almost limitless source of fact and opinion from which to draw my conclusions.

UN weapons inspectors cleared Iraq of possessing WMD's well before the invasion. This "war" is all about controlling a big slice of energy resources. It has absolutely nothing to do with democratising, liberating or providing freedom for the people of Iraq. Bush's speech today mentioned the Hussein regime and its killing of women and children. These would be similar women and children to those gunned down by Marines in Haditha. Once agiain I ask the question.

"who has benefited?"

This will take you to the truth of why the operation was mounted in the first place.
 
The war in Iraq has continued for the last couple of years because the Democrats keep voting to fund it. That included Hillary and Obama. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top