Aha Found It!

by **shockwave203** » Mon May 17, 2004 3:08 pm

Originally posted by Folic_Acid
If the coalition didn't go to remove Saddam and his WMD as a threat to the world, why DID we go in?

you know, I've asked myself that question many times. It's not because of the WMD. why? because Bush's initial reason for war was because Saddam had connections to Al-queda. Remember that? then after that wasn't proved, he was a 'supporter of terrorism'. when people still weren't sold, then we heard about these weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed ever so quickly. suddenly people are getting scared once they hear he has the capability to launch them and send them outside of Iraq.

And why isn't it enough justification to have a collection of artillery shells filled with incredibly deadly nerve gas, shells existing in definance of at least 16 different UN resolutions? Did we need a 17th resolution to provide enough justification for consequences of violation of the resolutions, or what?

go back and read Bush's list of all the weapons Saddam had in his state of the union address. it goes on and on and on and on forever. then when you find some old sarin that can't even pack a punch anymore because of bad storage, it's all justified? ok...so you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars and killing thousands of Iraqi's to get at some old mortars filled with sarin.

Like I said, I honestly don't know why the hell you're there. before September 11th, no one gave a shit about Saddam. then all of a sudden, after these 'supposed links to al-queda', everyone's calling for his head.

you didn't care before, why do you care now? the only thing that changed from before September the 11th is that you were fed lies about his connections with Osama and his vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction

by **SavageParrot** » Mon May 17, 2004 3:15 pm

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
I couldn't agree with you more Savageparrot.

Waah I've gone so far to the left on the political compass that I've rounded the point and wound up on the right!

Good to see we finally have some common ground.

by **Folic_Acid** » Mon May 17, 2004 3:35 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203
you know, I've asked myself that question many times. It's not because of the WMD. why? because Bush's initial reason for war was because Saddam had connections to Al-queda. Remember that? then after that wasn't proved, he was a 'supporter of terrorism'. when people still weren't sold, then we heard about these weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed ever so quickly. suddenly people are getting scared once they hear he has the capability to launch them and send them outside of Iraq.

The connections weren't proved? Here's what we knew prior to the war:

* Iraqi defectors had been saying for years that Saddam's regime trained "non-Iraqi Arab terrorists" at a camp in Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. U.N. inspectors had confirmed the camp's existence, including the presence of a Boeing 707. Defectors say the plane was used to train hijackers; the Iraqi regime said it was used in counterterrorism training. Sabah Khodada, a captain in the Iraqi Army, worked at Salman Pak. In October 2001, he told PBS's "Frontline" about what went on there. "Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism. . . . All this training is directly toward attacking American targets, and American interests."
But the Bush administration said little about Salman Pak as it demonstrated links between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to administration sources, some detainees who provided credible evidence of other links between Iraq and al Qaeda, including training in terrorism and WMD, insist they have no knowledge of Salman Pak. Khodada, the Iraqi army captain, also professed ignorance of whether the trainees were members of al Qaeda. "Nobody came and told us, 'This is al Qaeda people,'" he explained, "but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained."

* On February 13, 2003, the government of the Philippines asked Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, to leave the country. According to telephone records obtained by Philippine intelligence, Hussein had been in frequent contact with two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda affiliate in South Asia, immediately before and immediately after they detonated a bomb in Zamboanga City. That attack killed two Filipinos and an American Special Forces soldier and injured several others. Hussein left the Philippines for Iraq after he was "PNG'd"--declared persona non grata--by the Philippine government and has not been heard from since.

According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor, an Abu Sayyaf leader who planned the attack bragged on television a month after the bombing that Iraq had contacted him about conducting joint operations. Philippine intelligence officials were initially skeptical of his boasting, but after finding the telephone records they believed him.

* No fewer than five high-ranking Czech officials have publicly confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking. Media leaks here and in the Czech Republic have called into question whether Atta was in Prague on the key dates--between April 4 and April 11, 2001. And several high-ranking administration officials are "agnostic" as to whether the meeting took place. Still, the public position of the Czech government to this day is that it did.

Originally posted by shockwave203
go back and read Bush's list of all the weapons Saddam had in his state of the union address. it goes on and on and on and on forever. then when you find some old sarin that can't even pack a punch anymore because of bad storage, it's all justified? ok...so you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars and killing thousands of Iraqi's to get at some old mortars filled with sarin.

So, when the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441, it really didn't mean this?

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations [emphasis added]

So, we didn't REALLY mean "serious consequences for continued violations" of this and the previous resolutions from 1990 to the present? Uh... huh. Maybe the United Nations is used to not really meaning what it says, but that's not generally the policy of the U.S.

Originally posted by shockwave203
Like I said, I honestly don't know why the hell you're there. before September 11th, no one gave a shit about Saddam. then all of a sudden, after these 'supposed links to al-queda', everyone's calling for his head.

Let's not fall victim to a selective memory. It's possible that Canada didn't care about Saddam, but it certainly was on the mind of the US and the UN. As the record shows, the Security Council passed innumerable resolutions condemning Saddam's flagrant, willful, hostile, and repeated violations of UN resolutions regarding his WMD programs.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon May 17, 2004 3:38 pm

Actually shockwave all we heard since the end of Gulf War I WAS about WMD's! Or are we just going to ignore those first 16 resolutions? Its not like it suddenly popped up when convenient, it had been there for years.

And the only link between him and Al Queda that was disputable was the guy receiving funds for Al Quada from an Iraqi diplomat. And that was disputable not disproven. We know for a fact that Hussein's regime supported international terrorism.

before September 11th, no one gave a shit about Saddam.

I don't know where the hell you got that idea I seem to remember me and about 500,000 other guys giving a HUGE shit about him in 1990-91. Thats oh about TEN YEARS before 9/11/01. I also seem to remember us going and bombing the shit out of weapons facilities there thru-out the nineties.

Did you read the link I posted. The information in there refers to literally tons and tons of Chemical Weapons but no one wants to talk about it.

Now to me personally I could give a shit about WMD's There were valid reasons to go to war and in my book WMD was not even part of the equation. But as long as it is such an important issue to others you owe it to yourself and the people you want to discourse upon it with to read things like this.

[edit]

Hmm I see we are thinking along the same lines there Folic

by **SkiloDog2000** » Mon May 17, 2004 3:46 pm

thats good enough for me
bring in the AC-130U Spooky's

by **AnimalCracka** » Mon May 17, 2004 3:51 pm

Uhhhh.....Shock, I think you might have lost the debate..... :blow:

by **shockwave203** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:02 pm

if all of that copy and pasting from a website was true, do you remember Bush telling us any of it?

The burden of proof lies with Bush, since he's the guy who took action. Where has it been stated that Bush confirmed this information? This is the first time I've heard of it.

you'd think that if it were true, Bush would have done a better job of getting this information out to the public. so...has he?

So, when the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441, it really didn't mean this?

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations [emphasis added]

The UN is a useless organization. Saddam did violate countless resolution, yet UN did nothing.

let's get one thing clear. I am not defending Saddam. He was responsible for countless deaths, broke resolutions, etc. It's good that he's been removed.

but it irks me when people post crap like "hey, we found mortars with sarin in them! we have our justification!"

the fact of the matter is that some mortars don't justify all the crap that was said by Bush.

I support the fact that Saddam has been removed. I don't support the fact that everyone was lied to, in order to support Bush's actions. If GWB simply said "Saddam supported, and funded terrorism. Here is the proof" we would not have a problem. instead, it went more like this:

"Saddam has links to Osama binladen. oops, no he doesn't. Saddam has link to Al-queda. oops, no he doesn't. Saddam supports terrorism. oops, no he doesn't-actually, he only pays the families of suicide bombers. Hey, look at all Saddam's weapons. I don't have any proof, nor have I given you proof, but trust me, he has them. and guess what? they can be deployed in under 45 minutes! Let's get him!! oops, sorry, I'm unable to prove that to you as well. Ah, to hell with it. Saddam is evil, and we must remove him."

by **CrazyBri** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:08 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203

instead of lying about why the US is there, Bush should have just told the truth. If he said he's going there to remove Saddam because he's a mass murderer, then fine. but when we get into all "alqueda this", "WMD in 45 minutes that", you look like a desperate liar.

I clearly remember the emphasis that was placed on the WMD prior to the war. I agree with your first reply Shockwave because that's exactly how I remember it. I actually have a lot of that recorded and plan to take a look at it again. Yes I can see the Bush administration downplaying that aspect and focusing more on Saddam and how evil he is since they've had trouble locating WMD.

As frustrated as I was with hearing the president try to pull focus away from the WMD aspect of the war when they weren't being found, I could not see myself calling him a liar. If you're going to do that then you should trace the info back to the source. If he made his decisions based on intelligence failures that weren't considered failures at the time, then how can that translate to lying? What about other administration officials? Is Colin Powell a liar too?

I'm sure most of us can agree that Iraq was on the hit list well before 9/11. Regardless of how naughty Saddam was, I'm still wanting to see the major WMD (long range- as in threat to U.S.). Could they be in Syria or another country by now? Possibly. Will I be happy with that as an answer even if it's the truth? nope Am I messed up? yes

Ingus if I missed the info about long range WMD being found then please quote it in a reply. I skimmed through that site and couldn't locate any WMD that would be a threat to the United States.

Here's another issue related to the decision to go to war without the UN's consent that I haven't seen anybody discuss. From a strategic standpoint, do you really want to make it clear to a country that you're going to invade and then give them a few years to prepare defensively? Honestly, that's what could have happened if they waited for UN approval before invading. The coalition deathtoll would have definitely been higher if there were better defensive steps taken by Iraq. Would it have saved more lives than going in at a later time but with an improved exit strategy and police/occupying force ? maybe... maybe not

**edit** Colonel Ingus , you served in Desert Storm?

by **shockwave203** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:13 pm

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
We know for a fact that Hussein's regime supported international terrorism.

Bush has not supplied the facts.

I don't know where the hell you got that idea I seem to remember me and about 500,000 other guys giving a HUGE shit about him in 1990-91. Thats oh about TEN YEARS before 9/11/01. I also seem to remember us going and bombing the shit out of weapons facilities there thru-out the nineties.

that was because of Kuwait.

Did you read the link I posted. The information in there refers to literally tons and tons of Chemical Weapons but no one wants to talk about it.

Now to me personally I could give a shit about WMD's There were valid reasons to go to war and in my book WMD was not even part of the equation. But as long as it is such an important issue to others you owe it to yourself and the people you want to discourse upon it with to read things like this.

I owe it to people to read this? To hell with Bush owing it to the world to prove his accusations?

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:27 pm

Bush has not supplied the facts.

My mstake, I thought the fact that Saddam openly paid Palestinian suicide bombers bounties an admission. I didn't realize that G.W. had to release that information.

that was because of Kuwait.

My mistake again. It must have been another leader named Saddam Hussein in another country called Iraq that invaded Kuwait.

I owe it to people to read this? To hell with Bush owing it to the world to prove his accusations?

Actually I said:

But as long as it is such an important issue to others you owe it to yourself and the people you want to discourse upon it with to read things like this.

Am I misunderstanding you here? You want to talk about this but you wont accept information from anyone but Bush? The one you are calling a liar and you say the one who misinformed us? Its seems to me you are saying you wont believe this except from him. Thats odd. Rational discourse breaks down when one, or both, sides aren't willing to look at all the available information. I personally dislike Bush so i try to find all the information I can.

by **Folic_Acid** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:35 pm

Originally posted by shockwave203
Bush has not supplied the facts.

Just because President Bush didn't state the facts personally does not mean that the facts were not stated, or didn't exist. Here's a reference from a letter from CIA director Tenet to then-Senate Intel. Committee Chairman Bob Graham:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd17.pdf

by **shockwave203** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:42 pm

My mstake, I thought the fact that Saddam openly paid Palestinian suicide bombers bounties an admission. I didn't realize that G.W. had to release that information.

yeah, your mistake indeed. you think everyone knows this? walk down a street and ask anyone about this. It's Bush's responsibility to make public EVERYTHING, and not assume people know it.

by the way, I'm still waiting for Bush's facts which prove he supports international terrorism.

My mistake again. It must have been another leader named Saddam Hussein in another country called Iraq that invaded Kuwait.

you missed the point completely. if Kuwait had not been invaded, would the US have been there? no. Would the US be in Iraq right now if the 9/11 attacks never happened? NO.

Am I misunderstanding you here? You want to talk about this but you wont accept information from anyone but Bush? The one you are calling a liar and you say the one who misinformed us? Its seems to me you are saying you wont believe this except from him. Thats odd. Rational discourse breaks down when one, or both, sides aren't willing to look at all the available information. I personally dislike Bush so i try to find all the information I can

no, you're not misunderstanding me. George Bush, commander in chief of the world's most powerful army, who has the resources of the world's top intelligence agency, cannot prove to the world his accusations, yet I'm suppose to read what some author writes on an internet webpage and hold that as the proof I'm looking for?

by **Colonel Savage** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:42 pm

Originally posted by Folic_Acid
If that's the case, what do you think the "truth" is? If the coalition didn't go to remove Saddam and his WMD as a threat to the world, why DID we go in?

Can't claim to be an expert, but I have a few ideas:

1)Revenge for 9/11 - It's difficult to bring American style justice to individuals with no known address. But a nation, now that's a target. Iraq is something you can point to on a map and say, "we're going after this."

2)Unfinished business - Bush Sr. had a chance to depose Saddam in 1991, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. But he didn't, despite an overwhelming amount of international support. And now daddy's cronies are back in power with Jr. at the helm, trying to fix what they left behind 12 years earlier.

3)Oil - Probably not the primary reason, despite what liberal pitbulls might tell you. But it's in the top five, guaranteed.

My question is, if all this stuff was found in Iraq, why on earth wouldn't the American government announce it to the world? You'd think that even the tiniest evidence of Saddam's chemical or biological weapons would give BushCo cause for celebration, followed by lots and lots of "We told you so!" Heck, I'd even expect old Georgie boy to interrupt TV to make the announcement - this is election winning material!

But the article seems to be suggesting (if I read it right) that the US is sweeping these discoveries under the rug - to which I say, "Huh?"

And since I can't resist taking a jab at people who hold the rest of the world to a higher standard than themselves, read this little Wired tidbit:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60662,00.html

by **shockwave203** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:44 pm

Originally posted by Folic_Acid
Just because President Bush didn't state the facts personally does not mean that the facts were not stated, or didn't exist. Here's a reference from a letter from CIA director Tenet to then-Senate Intel. Committee Chairman Bob Graham:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd17.pdf

yes, because we all know that CIA intelligence is 100% true and error free. after all, their intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD was completely accurate, right?

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon May 17, 2004 5:00 pm

Dude you are so off base on that its not funny. EVERY major media organization, Hell even Al Jazeera talked about Saddam paying 25,000$ bounties to Palestinian suicide bombers.

And I am not sure if you just didn't pay attention thru-out the 90's following the orginal Gulf War but WE NEVER LEFT! We didn't just suddenly establish a military presence over there to attack Iraq this time around. If anything this is closure to the first war.

What are you doing when you post a question on this website and someone comes back to you with information? Ever had a tech help question answered? Ever asked one. You believe what you read and see in the media about the bad things G.W. is doing but anything that could support him is not to be believed?

Dude not to get into a personal insult fest. But it seems your bitch here is about Bush and not about any facts or conclusions that can be drawn from different sources. If so thats cool but don't try to base the merit of your debate with us on it. There is other info out there. Feel free to hate Bush its fine with me But don't ignore the facts that are available to anyone willing to do the research.

Aha Found It!

Who is online