Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:08 pm
Originally posted by RCglider
No, Rumsfeld did not state that.
From Fox news - September 2003
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks, Bush said at the start of a meeting with congressional lawmakers discussing new energy legislation.
The White House expressed consternation earlier in the day over reports that members of the administration have led the public to believe a link exists between Saddam and the attacks on the United States.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that in no way did Vice President Dick Cheney (search) suggest in interviews over the weekend that there was evidence of Saddam's participation in the attacks. Bush never came to that conclusion either, the spokesman said.
McClellan could offer no clear explanation as to why recent public opinion polls indicate that 70 percent of Americans think there is a tie between Iraq and the attacks.
**** Also,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97525,00.html
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (search) said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (search) on the United States.
***********************8
Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:10 pm
Careful now, you're starting to crack
Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:24 pm
I'm considering putting RCglider on my ignore list. Don't bash a country (he likes to bash canada, has done it more than once). people are having, surprisingly, for the most part an intelligent conversation on this matter. Don't make it deteriorate by making immature jabs.
anyway, over the past while I've had trouble figuring out whether I actually support the US' actions in Iraq, or if I don't. I realize that Saddam was an evil man, killed hundreds of thousands of people, tortured, gassed, brutalized, etc, but that's not the reason the US is there.
If the main cause for the war was to oust an evil dictator, there are better ways to do it than to invade an entire country, at a cost of thousands of civilian lives. The reason for invading the entire country was to search for the WMD, and yes, deny it if you want, WMD was the major cause for the war. That's why there were so many objections from other countries, because there was no PROOF Iraq had them, and the US could not supply rock solid proof.
I don't want to offend any americans, or anyone else for that matter, I think the world is a better place with wackos like Saddam out of power, and tihs war will result in a better Iraq, a safer world, etc, but, the way the war was started was wrong. The reasons for war kept shifting. it was that saddam had links to Osama, then he had links to al quida, then he supported terrorism, then he had WMD, then he was an evil dictator that must be ousted at all costs.
Don't get me wrong, more good will come out of this than bad I hope, but the war has never really been justified, because no WMD have ever been found.
This is such a hard topic to pick a side on for me. Saddam is gone, and that is good news. The war wasn't based on any proof that was solid, but did the ends justify the means? In this case I think they do. More good from bad will definantly come out of this, but I still can't get over the way the war was brought on. The UN didn't endorse it, the majority of countries didn't support it, I don't know, it's difficult to think about sometimes. Let's just say I'm glad the war happened, if that makes any sense at all.
anyway, over the past while I've had trouble figuring out whether I actually support the US' actions in Iraq, or if I don't. I realize that Saddam was an evil man, killed hundreds of thousands of people, tortured, gassed, brutalized, etc, but that's not the reason the US is there.
If the main cause for the war was to oust an evil dictator, there are better ways to do it than to invade an entire country, at a cost of thousands of civilian lives. The reason for invading the entire country was to search for the WMD, and yes, deny it if you want, WMD was the major cause for the war. That's why there were so many objections from other countries, because there was no PROOF Iraq had them, and the US could not supply rock solid proof.
I don't want to offend any americans, or anyone else for that matter, I think the world is a better place with wackos like Saddam out of power, and tihs war will result in a better Iraq, a safer world, etc, but, the way the war was started was wrong. The reasons for war kept shifting. it was that saddam had links to Osama, then he had links to al quida, then he supported terrorism, then he had WMD, then he was an evil dictator that must be ousted at all costs.
Don't get me wrong, more good will come out of this than bad I hope, but the war has never really been justified, because no WMD have ever been found.
This is such a hard topic to pick a side on for me. Saddam is gone, and that is good news. The war wasn't based on any proof that was solid, but did the ends justify the means? In this case I think they do. More good from bad will definantly come out of this, but I still can't get over the way the war was brought on. The UN didn't endorse it, the majority of countries didn't support it, I don't know, it's difficult to think about sometimes. Let's just say I'm glad the war happened, if that makes any sense at all.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:58 pm
Did none of you hear from the senior Iraqi field commander in England last week?
He stated unequivocally that his units had been supplied with CBR weaponry prior to the US invasion and that they did not use it because they knew the US was going to win and they did not want to face the consequences of using said weapons.
When asked if it would have taken the speculative 45 minutes to use these weapons he was scornful and implied that it would have been much quicker than that.
Horses mouth here or what?
And that whole stink you saw in the media a few months back about the intel concerning Iraq buying African plutonium was from the British sources. There wasn't even a question concerning the validity of it. The stink you saw here was wether or not to ascribe a high degree of credibility to the intel. The British are scratching their heads over this and wondering what the hell is going on with those goofy Americans. British Intel is good and always has been good and they stated that this intel was valid.
But I am not here to defend the WMD assertion.
In a way I agree with HaVoC. I don't want to start a flame war or degenerate the conversation so please take the following with a grain of salt. I don't believe there is anyone in this world worth the life of one single American serviceman.
You cannot gift someone with freedom. Freedom has to be earned and sometimes you pay the ultimate price. That is the paradoxal nature of freedom. There is a famous saying about how you can never enslave a free man, you can only kill him.
This war was totally about the war on terrorism. One of the major reasons Al Queda was able to gain so much support in Saudi Arabia was because of the presence of American troops in the region of world that contains some of the most holy sites of Islam.
Why were American troops in Saudi Arabia?
Answer that question and you will know why we needed to invade Iraq.
He stated unequivocally that his units had been supplied with CBR weaponry prior to the US invasion and that they did not use it because they knew the US was going to win and they did not want to face the consequences of using said weapons.
When asked if it would have taken the speculative 45 minutes to use these weapons he was scornful and implied that it would have been much quicker than that.
Horses mouth here or what?
And that whole stink you saw in the media a few months back about the intel concerning Iraq buying African plutonium was from the British sources. There wasn't even a question concerning the validity of it. The stink you saw here was wether or not to ascribe a high degree of credibility to the intel. The British are scratching their heads over this and wondering what the hell is going on with those goofy Americans. British Intel is good and always has been good and they stated that this intel was valid.
But I am not here to defend the WMD assertion.
In a way I agree with HaVoC. I don't want to start a flame war or degenerate the conversation so please take the following with a grain of salt. I don't believe there is anyone in this world worth the life of one single American serviceman.
You cannot gift someone with freedom. Freedom has to be earned and sometimes you pay the ultimate price. That is the paradoxal nature of freedom. There is a famous saying about how you can never enslave a free man, you can only kill him.
This war was totally about the war on terrorism. One of the major reasons Al Queda was able to gain so much support in Saudi Arabia was because of the presence of American troops in the region of world that contains some of the most holy sites of Islam.
Why were American troops in Saudi Arabia?
Answer that question and you will know why we needed to invade Iraq.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:12 pm
Originally posted by shockwave203
[b]anyway, over the past while I've had trouble figuring out whether I actually support the US' actions in Iraq, or if I don't. I realize that Saddam was an evil man, killed hundreds of thousands of people, tortured, gassed, brutalized, etc, but that's not the reason the US is there.
If the main cause for the war was to oust an evil dictator, there are better ways to do it than to invade an entire country, at a cost of thousands of civilian lives. The reason for invading the entire country was to search for the WMD, and yes, deny it if you want, WMD was the major cause for the war. That's why there were so many objections from other countries, because there was no PROOF Iraq had them, and the US could not supply rock solid proof.
I don't want to offend any americans, or anyone else for that matter, I think the world is a better place with wackos like Saddam out of power, and tihs war will result in a better Iraq, a safer world, etc, but, the way the war was started was wrong. The reasons for war kept shifting. it was that saddam had links to Osama, then he had links to al quida, then he supported terrorism, then he had WMD, then he was an evil dictator that must be ousted at all costs.
Don't get me wrong, more good will come out of this than bad I hope, but the war has never really been justified, because no WMD have ever been found.
This is such a hard topic to pick a side on for me. Saddam is gone, and that is good news. The war wasn't based on any proof that was solid, but did the ends justify the means? In this case I think they do. More good from bad will definantly come out of this, but I still can't get over the way the war was brought on. The UN didn't endorse it, the majority of countries didn't support it, I don't know, it's difficult to think about sometimes. Let's just say I'm glad the war happened, if that makes any sense at all. [/B]
Shock, I'm very impressed with the intellectual honesty in your post. While my own views on the issue of Iraq should be plain from my previous posts on the subject, I always try to keep an open mind, and allow for the fact that I may be wrong in this case (as I often am in other cases). I applaud you for considering the merits of both sides of this issue (and yes, both sides have good points) before formulating your own opinion. Well done!
Anyway, allow me to weigh in here. As has been said in the past, the justification for the war in Iraq was that Iraq, as a possessor of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and as an avowed enemy of the west, particularly the United States, presented a clear threat to the security of the west, especially the United States, as it was conceiveable (and likely) that the similar goals of both Saddam and other terrorists could come together in a unified force to present a much larger threat. Basically, Iraq would be the warehouse of WMDs for terrorists to use on the US and the West.
Much has obviously been made of the current lack of discovery of WMD caches, and the conjecture that no WMDs, in fact, exist at all has repeatedly been made. The reasoning here is this: Since no WMDs have been found yet, Iraq must therefore have no WMDs at all. There are many reasons why this line of reasoning is illogical and wouldn't stand up, not the least of which is that it's jumping to a conclusion that cannot logically be made from the given facts - just because you don't see something does not mean that it does not exist.
In fact, evidence from the years since 1991 would indicate that WMDs do exist. Without going into particular detail, we obviously know that:
- Saddam had WMDs prior to the 1990s
- Saddam had an active program during the 1990s engaged in WMD research
- Much of the known Iraqi WMD material was never accounted for during multiple UN searches and reports during the 1990s
- Various circumstantial evidence (eg. electronic intercepts implying a campaign of deception regarding WMD) continued to imply possession and research of WMDs
- Anecdotal and other accounts specified WMD programs, caches, research, etc. still in existence
All that combines to point toward a conclusion that Iraq did possess WMDs and still does. Sadly, intelligence is rarely an exact science, providing incontrovertable proof of one particular situation or fact (and, given the nature of some, even incontrovertable isn't enough to satisfy). Rather, the best intelligence can usually do is a "reasonable guess" or inference that a particular situation or fact is true. Based on the reasoned estimates of knowledge on hand, the president determined that Iraq presented a growing threat.
Obviously, the search for WMD continues. Anecdotal and other evidence still points to the probability that Iraq possesses WMDs. Indeed, even Time magazine recently published a story in which a Time reporter (embedded with some insurgents, no less) witnessed what he believed to be a showing of a chemical mortar shell (this story is in the cover story of December 15 issue of Time).
So, it's both premature and unwarranted to call the pre-war intelligence and war justifications a "lie," when, in fact, they have not been either proven or disproven. It is inarguable that much good has come from the war - a dictator deposed, a country rebuilt, and a people freed from tyranny.
To conclude, I offer a philosophical question - what is a legitimate reason to go to war, if overthrowing tyrants and securing peace and freedom are not acceptable reasons?
Merry Christmas all!
As always, only my $.02
-F
Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:22 pm
Originally posted by Folic_Acid
I always try to keep an open mind, and allow for the fact that I may be wrong in this case (as I often am in other cases). -F
Totally agree, that's why I'm just listening. I post when necessary when it comes to this subject, and believe me things would go much smoothly as we discuss this issue if we keep from taking personal jabs and adding actual intellectual commentary (backed by proof as many of you have done); then someone could actually learn something if their biases do not overtake their ability to reason and debate intellectually.
In other words: DON"T bullshit and send this thread to waste like the other one on this subject:).
***This is directed to two or three who have started messing this thread up.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:47 pm
This is a good subject, and you bring it up with class and civility Havoc
Yeah, I totally agree. It was a breath of fresh air to have a civil discussion for once. Too bad it didn't make it to page two before the usual disrespectful assholes shat on it. I'm tired of these threads evolving into one self righteous asshole telling another self righteous asshole that he is self righteous.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:56 pm
Originally posted by LeVar Burton
I'm tired of these threads evolving into one self righteous asshole telling another self righteous asshole that he is self righteous.
AMEN TO THAT! I don't post much on these types of threads, I generally read them.....but it's really sad to see such a very important and serious topic as this degenerate into name calling........RC, you make some good points, but your entire post became irrelevant the moment you began bashing Canada (especially since you know MANY of our members are canadian, you could've shown them a BIT more respect. It's not like the U.S. is perfect, and free from ridicule....). Then, Jimmy of course jumps in to add his usual b/s, which consists of antagonizing people for no real good reason (although you may have a valid point, I think you could've said it a little more tactfully......try to be better than the person, not as bad).
my 2 cents......
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:01 pm
There were references above concerning the chemical weapons I stated were suppplied by the US to the Iraqi's in the 80's when we decided to support Iraq in there fight with Iran. At the time we felt that was the side to stand with to try and stabalize the region. Stability is good for capitalism.
I might be wrong but I considered it common knowledge that we supplied many weapons including gas and also that Rumsfeld himself visited Saddam in Baghdad.
I think one of the issues the World contends with when it comes to the US, is that our foreign policy changes every four years. Places like Iraq have been nothing but pawns that suit each of the larger nations agenda's at any given time.
But my point still stands. No WMD's as of yet. No direct threat that warrants an all out take over of a soverign state.
I might be wrong but I considered it common knowledge that we supplied many weapons including gas and also that Rumsfeld himself visited Saddam in Baghdad.
I think one of the issues the World contends with when it comes to the US, is that our foreign policy changes every four years. Places like Iraq have been nothing but pawns that suit each of the larger nations agenda's at any given time.
But my point still stands. No WMD's as of yet. No direct threat that warrants an all out take over of a soverign state.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:07 pm
Also I would like to say that some have made comments concerning the possession of WMD's by Iraq from varied reports. I feel it's hard for us commoners to ever get the truth. However, couldn't this issue have been contained? Did this require an all out war at our cost?
It's just odd that all we hear about now is freeing the Iraqi people and the fact that Saddam is a bad man. Yes he is. But why should our sons and daughters die to free them?
I think they discuss freeing the Iraqi people because it's all they have to discuss. I also feel it's done to stabalize the region, which is good for business and nothing else.
I feel we've put ourselves out on a very thin limb and as stated before, placed a very large bullseye on our backs. All at the cost of American lives.
I have an article I am trying to find that I will post. It's quite interesting.
It's just odd that all we hear about now is freeing the Iraqi people and the fact that Saddam is a bad man. Yes he is. But why should our sons and daughters die to free them?
I think they discuss freeing the Iraqi people because it's all they have to discuss. I also feel it's done to stabalize the region, which is good for business and nothing else.
I feel we've put ourselves out on a very thin limb and as stated before, placed a very large bullseye on our backs. All at the cost of American lives.
I have an article I am trying to find that I will post. It's quite interesting.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:11 pm
Also, lol, I am not a Bush hater. I did support the war to eliminate the WMD's. But I've seen no solid eveidence of it. Where are the mobil chemical weapons labs? Where is the nuclear program, other than on paper?
If they existed and were found wouldn't CNN and the others be all over it. I still feel deep down in my heart that it was done from a global economic standpoint. A peacefull Middle East that does as it's told and achieved at all costs.
If they existed and were found wouldn't CNN and the others be all over it. I still feel deep down in my heart that it was done from a global economic standpoint. A peacefull Middle East that does as it's told and achieved at all costs.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:13 pm
Originally posted by Bullhead
[B] Then, Jimmy of course jumps in to add his usual b/s, which consists of antagonizing people for no real good reason
Where the hell did I antagonize anyone???
I am the one that said it would go bad, as politics and religion always do on forums, and that a picture that would antagonize one side had already been posted. Then a cheap shot was taken on my account.
You must be smelling something gawd awful to have your head crammed that far up your ass.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:15 pm
Originally posted by -HaVoC-
It's just odd that all we hear about now is freeing the Iraqi people and the fact that Saddam is a bad man. Yes he is. But why should our sons and daughters die to free them?
Are freedom and liberty not justification enough to fight? Since we've got freedom, we don't care about anyone else?
Perhaps some have placed a bullseye on the back of the US and her coalition partners, but we are certainly not "unilateral" or "alone" in our beliefs or actions, as some would claim. France, Belgium, Germany, Russia, and Canada, while still our allies, are certainly not "the world."
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:18 pm
Originally posted by JimmyTango
Where the hell did I antagonize anyone???
....
You must be smelling something gawd awful to have your head crammed that far up your ass.
Jimmy - THIS is antagonizing. It adds nothing but anger and contempt to an otherwise civil discussion.
Stop.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:21 pm
Ok let me chime in here...
Am I proud to be an American? Yes of course. Now sure Bush and his cabinet may have turned this war into a jumble by allegations and speculations and perhaps going to IRAQ and sparing lives of our brothers and sisters is a harsh thing to do, BUT, please keep this in mind:
1: the men and women who join the Army have to expect things like this to happen. Joining the Army is not just for education, it's a duty
2: Perhaps we should not be so hasty on preparing to attack another country when we could have been more secure and safe by PREVENTING this whole mess from the very beggining. Security and information was not what it should have been
Am I proud to be an American? Yes of course. Now sure Bush and his cabinet may have turned this war into a jumble by allegations and speculations and perhaps going to IRAQ and sparing lives of our brothers and sisters is a harsh thing to do, BUT, please keep this in mind:
1: the men and women who join the Army have to expect things like this to happen. Joining the Army is not just for education, it's a duty
2: Perhaps we should not be so hasty on preparing to attack another country when we could have been more secure and safe by PREVENTING this whole mess from the very beggining. Security and information was not what it should have been