Anyone see the case against iraq on TV?

[cphilip]

Just so you know Jack...they may indeed be the same thing.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by cphilip
Just so you know Jack...they may indeed be the same thing.

I don't think that they can Clearly (Cap. for a reason) link Saddam to terrorist. Saddam stands for all that the terrorist are trying to get rid of. No matter what you think of Saddam, he has given his people a lot of rights that many countries in his region have not given. For one, woman can go to school, can learn, and go about uncovered without fear of being beaten. Saddam is too western for the fundamental terrorist. IMO any link that links Saddam to Bin Laden, would also link the US to Bin Laden too. (For the US did aide Bin Laden and Saddam in the past)

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by cphilip
Just so you know Jack...they may indeed be the same thing.

How many of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis?

There is no evidence connecting Iraq to any terrorist attack upon America. As Collegeboy pointed out, Saddam and Iraq are very secular in nature...very much opposed to what the religious fundamentalist terrorists stand for.
Think of it like this...just cause the KKK and the Salvation Army are Christian groups, doesnt mean they are gonna help each other out...

Besides what does Saddam gain from supporting terrorists?? Look at what the events of 9/11 is getting him...hes about to get his *** handed to him.

Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden is planning the next attack...


JDub

[joeyjoe367]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious

Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden is planning the next attack...

Either that, or the bones from his rotting corpse are getting a nice bleaching.

Terrorist Supporter or not, We need to do something about Iraq. Sitting around and letting inspectors fumble around in the dark is *not* getting us anywhere.

I forget who exactly made the analogy, but the inspectors *are* fumbling in the dark. According to the cease-fire agreement, Iraq is supposed to Turn on the lights show what they had, and prove that they've destroyed it.

No evidence whatsoever that they've done it.

Jack_dubious and CollegeBoy, I believe what Cphil is trying to say is that it *IS* a possibility that Iraq is a terrorist supporter. The evidence we have at this moment does not *CLEARLY* state that they are, but it is a possibility.

I don't believe uncle phil was trying to imply that they ARE terrorists, but that (once again) it continues to be a possibility.

[oldsoldier]

Not to beat a dead horse...but we have been entered into a war that will exist forever. By taking a weak stance now, allowing UN inspections to go on "indefinitely", UNTIL we find something, is futile. Iraq is a large country, with lots of places to hide things. However, we cannot stand back and let the country bully others around. Iraqi radio is stating that "Imperialist America" wants Iraq for its oil, stating they produce 90% of the worlds oil. Well, they produce 7%. The majority of the worlds oil comes from central and south america. So, our interest doesnt lie there. Also, they claim we want Iraq so as to have a "western influence in the Arab world". Well, that doesnt fly either. We are allies with Israel. And, most of the Muslim world frowns upon the western culture, so, us going over there, and beginning another "western nation" does nothing but start trouble. Our aim is to stop what has been going on over there for years. The brutal dictatorship of the Hussein regime. You can rationalize it however you want; he PERSONALLY executed 78 men in 2001 for being-ready for this?- Jewish. Thats all. Those anti American rallies you see? What you dont see is Saddams shock troops calling everyone within a 5 mile range to Saddam Square (there is one in every major town, by the way), and then, going house to house during a rally, and killing anyone they find at home. He rules through terror. Plain and simple. He has murdered to get where he is. True, in the beginning, he did a lot for his country. but, he got greedy. Then he became a terror.
And, yes, we did support him in the Iran/Iraq war. But, I dont think we gave him chemical weapons. I have never seen anything said about that. Mustard gas was used by both sides during that war, but we never supplied it. We DID give his troops training and hardware. At that time, he was still sane.
Ok, I shall end my tirade for now. I think France really dug a deep hole...it'll be interesting to see them get out of this one.

[shartley]

Originally posted by TheFlamingKoosh
Now know what needs to be done? With all of our Evidence from the satellite photos of hidden chem plants and such, just SEND THE INSPECTORS THERE!

[cphilip]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious


How many of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis?

There is no evidence connecting Iraq to any terrorist attack upon America. As Collegeboy pointed out, Saddam and Iraq are very secular in nature...very much opposed to what the religious fundamentalist terrorists stand for.
Think of it like this...just cause the KKK and the Salvation Army are Christian groups, doesnt mean they are gonna help each other out...

Besides what does Saddam gain from supporting terrorists?? Look at what the events of 9/11 is getting him...hes about to get his *** handed to him.

Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden is planning the next attack...


JDub

I don't know if these terrorists are Osama links but none the less they may be but they are still terrorists...

There is now presented evidence that he trained them and is training them in making and using Biological weapons and that they are harboring them and openly supporting them for purposes of destabilization. There was even evidence of it in Afganistan that some of that technology had been transported and was already being done there. One such group is openly active in Bagdad itself. And this same group has direct links to activity in bombing attacks in England as layed out by Tony Blair Tuesday. Confident? He gains a lot! He gains continued support of the Muslim Extremest in destabilization of the region and the western cilvilization. He gains money and contacts to illicit weapons materials. Money is funneling in. You have no idea what he is apposed to. Show me your evidence that he would not and is not doing this! You have none. You have theories based upon an assuption you are dealing with a rational man. You are not. How can you even conclude this man would have scruples. He does not. And he would do whatever he thinks will benefit his plans. Even if it was counter to whatever YOU think he stands for he is doing it. He thinks he can lie about it will get away with it. He is harboring them and aiding them. You didn't read all of it from what it appears if you are saying there is NO EVIDENCE...there is now...

[battlegroup]

I can't stand the Hipocracy ! After Sept 11th America as a whole asked the Government "Why couldn't they have stopped this?" And demanded that the government do everything in it's power to prevent another terrorist attack against the U.S.
Now they are trying to do just that and so many people are saying "wait". The Government has the evidence, most of which it can't share because it will eliminate future evidence if the Iraqi's find out what we have and how we got it, and the government wants to act. Now people are saying "we need the smoking gun" What are we waiting for? A nuke in a major U.S. City? I know war is going to be ugly, but being in the U.S. Navy, I am willing to defend my country against any enemy country or terrorist, so that my children aren't living in fear! I know people will say that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11th. I don't think so either, but if any country in the world has a deep hatred for the U.S., it's Iraq and if the government says it has info/evidence of weapons of mass destruction, Iraq is the last country I want to have them. I wouldn't doubt for a second that there are some terrorist ties between Iraq and Al-queda.
I choose to Trust our government that they have the evidence they need and that they should do whatever they deem fit to stop any POSSIBLE attacks by anyone. I also like the fact that we are trying to do this with the support of the international community, but I for one don't want to wait for a unanimous agreement from the world for something to be done because I believe the only way that is going to happen is another major loss of innocent Amercan lives.
I left 6 days after Sept 11th and spent seven months off the coast of Iran and Pakistan for Operation Enduring Freedom. One of our jobs was to enforce UN sanctions against Iraq by boarding any Oil smugglers that came down the Iranian coast in Iranian territorial waters and when they made a break for open ocean we stopped them. Most of these smugglers were hired by the Iraqi government. I have seen first hand how Iraq has been ignoring UN sanctions and I don't feel any more are going to do any good. The no fly zone over Iraq is part of the UN sanctions against Iraq, and Iraq shoots at Air patrols over the no fly zone daily. They even stated that they can't guarantee the safety of the U2 flights the inspectors want over Iraq because they have no way of telling the difference between a U2 and the patrols over the No Fly Zone! Iraq has been pushing harder and harder and if we don't do something now, they will not only have weapons of mass destruction but when they get a big enough pile of them, they Will use them.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Just my $.02

[Jack_Dubious]

lol...i love how the fact when someone is our ally, they are sane. But the moment our intrests collide....they suddenly change into this ravening, schizophrenic lunatic, who can barely tie his own shoes..:P

Im not arguing about his character, or that he should be removed or not. But links between Iraq and terrorism are very poor. Are there terrorists hiding out in Iraq? Yeah ill give you that, there could be. But what about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan...I bet you'll find more terrorists there, and more support for them...

Like i said im not arguing for or against his removal in this thread. If you want to remove him for UN violations, weapons of mass destruction, the oppression of the Iraqis, a threat to Israel, or for good ole Imperial Might...then hey thats great!
But dont invade under the guise that this is more revenge for 9/11.

Without 9/11 there would be no public support for this operation...


JDub

[joeyjoe367]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious
lol...i love how the fact when someone is our ally, they are sane. But the moment our intrests collide....they suddenly change into this ravening, schizophrenic lunatic, who can barely tie his own shoes..:P

Im not arguing about his character, or that he should be removed or not. But links between Iraq and terrorism are very poor. Are there terrorists hiding out in Iraq? Yeah ill give you that, there could be. But what about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan...I bet you'll find more terrorists there, and more support for them...

Like i said im not arguing for or against his removal in this thread. If you want to remove him for UN violations, weapons of mass destruction, the oppression of the Iraqis, a threat to Israel, or for good ole Imperial Might...then hey thats great!
But dont invade under the guise that this is more revenge for 9/11.

Without 9/11 there would be no public support for this operation...


JDub

I think we should be able to invade Iraq *without* using the guise of "revenge for 9/11" It's not really. Fact is, He's got stuff he's not supposed to have, and has agreed to hand over or destroy. He's not. It makes him dangerous to the US and it's interests.

The fact that it's a possibility that Terrorist have ties to Iraq is just icing on the cake, IMHO.

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by joeyjoe367


I think we should be able to invade Iraq *without* using the guise of "revenge for 9/11" It's not really. Fact is, He's got stuff he's not supposed to have, and has agreed to hand over or destroy. He's not. It makes him dangerous to the US and it's interests.

Yes. What I meant is that 9/11 shouldnt be used as propaganda for the invasion of Iraq.


JDub

[Koosh]

Originally posted by shartley

Yeah... I never actually read the first UN resolution, so I was unaware of all the things in it...

This is the second time UN Inspectors were sent into Iraq. This is the second time they have been prevented from doing their jobs, and that Iraq has violated the UN Mandates.

Let me just try to counterpoint a few things in here... knowing your track record, I don't know why I bother Yes I know, I am ignoring a few things in your post... hopefully I'll get to them a little later :)

Ok. The first time the Inspectors were in Iraq, they were doing their job great. Iraq had violated a no-fly zone (or something like that) and the US told the inspetors to get out because we were going to start bombing. Since 1998 when the US told them to leave, there were no inspectors there. I'm not sure how long it takes to rebuild a WMD program, but I'm guessing in 4 years you can get a good start.

So if we commit more inspectors and give them more time, what will happen? I'm guessing one of two things. Either they will find EVERYTHING the US has said they are hiding (looks like the US knows about it already, but for one reason or another doesn't give it), or they will make it impossible for research on these weapons to continue.

Now for those who say that the US already has evidence, why should the inspectors need more... well... I say that any evidence provided by the Inspectors will undoubtedly have greater sway in the UN then evidence the US produces... just my opinion on that. We would be able to sway countries like France and Russia.... wait wait, I know what your saying now "why do we NEED to sway those countries." We don't. Hell, we could make Iraq a glass bottom floor whenever we feel like it, but if we go over UN's authority and resolutions, how does that make us better then Iraq?

If Iraq has to continually hide the weapons from visits, I don't think they will be able to get work done on them, plus it might be pretty stupid of them to even try to conduct research while the inspectors are in the country.

[battlegroup]

I'm not saying it's revenge for 9/11! I'm saying that there was a huge public outcry for the government to prevent any future attacks and act on the best interest of the United States, but when they go to do so half the population says "where's the proof?"

Iraq may not be a terrorist state but them having weapons of mass destruction and a severe hatred for the U.S. is not in the best interest of the United States!

Iraq violating UN sanctions that are designed to prevent them from attacking neighboring countries is not in the best interest of the United States!

Iraq using it's own citizens as test subjects for Chemical/Biological weapons is not in the best interest of humanity!

Continuing to delay and allowing Iraq to continue to produce weapons of mass destruction that inspectors may never find, is not in the best interest of the United States or the countries within Iraq's weapons envelope.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious
lol...i love how the fact when someone is our ally, they are sane. But the moment our intrests collide....they suddenly change into this ravening, schizophrenic lunatic, who can barely tie his own shoes..:P

Im not arguing about his character, or that he should be removed or not. But links between Iraq and terrorism are very poor. Are there terrorists hiding out in Iraq? Yeah ill give you that, there could be. But what about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Pakistan...I bet you'll find more terrorists there, and more support for them...

Like i said im not arguing for or against his removal in this thread. If you want to remove him for UN violations, weapons of mass destruction, the oppression of the Iraqis, a threat to Israel, or for good ole Imperial Might...then hey thats great!
But dont invade under the guise that this is more revenge for 9/11.

Without 9/11 there would be no public support for this operation...


JDub

[Koosh]

Originally posted by battlegroup
I'm not saying it's revenge for 9/11! I'm saying that there was a huge public outcry for the government to prevent any future attacks and act on the best interest of the United States, but when they go to do so half the population says "where's the proof?"

If we attack ANY nation without showing significant proof, we become the terrorists... (not saying we don't have proof on Iraq... just that there are peaceful ways to resolve some things...)