|
neue regel
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: April 23, 2008, 04:45:37 AM » |
|
Are you backtracking now to the position that Saddam was a threat (nuclear, biological, chemical) but contained?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irwin
|
|
« Reply #61 on: April 23, 2008, 04:02:10 PM » |
|
Are you backtracking now to the position that Saddam was a threat (nuclear, biological, chemical) but contained?
Would you like to point out where backtracking went on? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
neue regel
|
|
« Reply #62 on: April 23, 2008, 04:28:45 PM » |
|
OK...simple question.
Was Saddam a threat to the US and the world during the 90s and early 2000s? What is your position?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +215/-216
Posts: 4,184
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #63 on: April 23, 2008, 04:43:34 PM » |
|
Well, if Suddam DID have direct ties to Al Quida (which even the Pentagon report says didn't exist) and we went in to Iraq to stop Al Quida's network of terrorism... it ain't going so well. In fact, a GAO report says Al Quida once again has the means to strike the U.S.. "The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas"... and that's just the title... The report can be found HERE - where you will find things like this: - "In particular, the unclassified versions of the 2007 NIE and 2008 Annual Threat Assessment state that al Qaeda has regenerated its attack capability and secured a safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA."- "The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA region."- "No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed..."- "The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the safe haven in the FATA, despite more than $10.5 billion in U.S. support to Pakistan since 2002."- "Pakistan provides al Qaeda with many of the same advantages it had when it was based across the border in Afghanistan. According to the assessment, the safe haven in the FATA serves as a staging area for al Qaeda’s attacks in support of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Further, it serves as a location for training new terrorist operatives for attacks in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and the United States. U.S. government officials in Washington and Pakistan also acknowledge that al Qaeda has established a safe haven near Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. For example, State’s April 2007 Country Reports on Terrorism states that Pakistan remains a major source of Islamic extremism and a safe haven for some top terrorist leaders, including those of al Qaeda."- "The NIE stated that, in the past 2 years, al Qaeda’s central leadership regenerated the core operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks against the United States. It also found that al Qaeda’s central leadership, based in the border area of Pakistan, is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the United States."... and that's only the half of it. So, even if we all pretend that Bush was justified in invading Iraq because of it's INderect ties to Al Quida... you have to realize that it's done nothing to make this nation safer. Nothing. In fact, it may have very well inspired an entire generation of young, militant Muslims. Heck'uv'a job, sir... I'm so sick I might very well throw up... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
neue regel
|
|
« Reply #64 on: April 23, 2008, 04:54:23 PM » |
|
So you are pushing for TOUGHER measures.
Me too. Total agreement. Let's slowing more out of Iraq and bust Pakistan in the chops.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +215/-216
Posts: 4,184
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #65 on: April 23, 2008, 05:03:31 PM » |
|
So you are pushing for TOUGHER measures. I don't know what I'm pushing for anymore. Bush has tied us in such a knot, I don't even want to think about what we have to do. One thing we have to STOP doing is trusting Pakistan. One thing we have to STOP doing is relying on Al Maliki and the Iraqi parliment to fix their country. One thing we have to STOP doing is pretending like we're going to be there forever no matter the cost. One thing we have to STOP doing is fighting proxy enemies. One thing we have to STOP doing is trusting in the leadership of our Commander and Chief. Beyond that... I don't have a clue what we should actually DO. Me too. Total agreement. Let's slowing more out of Iraq and bust Pakistan in the chops.
... is your answer to everything violence? Why don't we STOP trusting Musharaef? Why don't we actually HELP THEM have a safe and free election? Let's start small before we start invading everything, K? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Irwin
|
|
« Reply #66 on: April 23, 2008, 05:08:04 PM » |
|
OK...simple question.
Was Saddam a threat to the US and the world during the 90s and early 2000s? What is your position?
NO. Never. Not in the least. Not to the US. It doesn't matter what politician you quote says he was not. How is a contained threat a threat? Politicians of every party for years made political points by acting like he was a threat to us. Saddam was a joke. The UN sanctions were only related to WMD and the issue of continued inspections. At a certain point he decided, being ambigous about having WMD was the best strategy...against Iran. In 1980, he had a modern army and he thought the backward Iranian army would be a pushover. But the Iranians had masses of numbers, suicidal numbers, which they sent in swarms over the Iraqi military. Iraq was losing. The US could not allow this. It was decided that WMD would be the only way to stop the swarms. The Reagan Administrations arranged to sucure WMD through second and third parties. The WMD held off the Iranians. In 1988, the war ended in stalemate. From that point on, he wanted WMD as a deterrent to another war with Iran. WE beat his ass in Kuwait, but we didn't wipe out half-a-million Iraqi soldiers. HE wanted WMD because of IRAN. We weren't even on his radar. After the Gulf War, he was forced to give up his WMD. But he wanted to keep it unclear whether he had them or not because they were his only deterrent to Iran. There was no threat ever, except to Iran. We gave Iran a great gift. We wiped out their mortal enemy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #67 on: May 03, 2008, 04:16:19 AM » |
|
Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Gen. Wesely Clark, David Kay, the French and Germans are in on the "Big Lie" as well?
As time goes by it becomes increasing clear who the real liars are; the pathetic liberals in America.
Bill Clinton:
In fact, two of the three specific gripes in bin Laden’s 1998 “kill all Americans” fatwa dealt with Iraq and America’s “continuing aggression against the Iraqi people.”
Just a week before that fatwa, President Clinton had piqued bin Laden by warning of “the very kind of threat Iraq poses now—a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists.”
Opening Remarks of David Kay to the Senate Armed Services Committee Testimony:
DAVID KAY: .... Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.
The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.
Hillary Clinton:
"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.
This much is undisputed. The open questions are: What should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?"
Gen. Wesley Clark:
CLARK: Thank you, sir. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat .... I'm sure he has a rationale for what he's doing, but we don't always know it. He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extend and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we. Saddam might use these weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his other neighbors.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #68 on: May 03, 2008, 04:53:24 AM » |
|
Stephen Hayes's book, "The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America"
According to the Clinton Justice Department's spring 1998 indictment of bin Laden, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." (Page 114.)
In what the CIA nicknamed "Operation Dogmeat," two Iraqi students who lived in the Philippines tried to demolish U.S. Information Service headquarters in Manila. Iraqi diplomat Muwufak al Ani met with the bombers five times before the attack. His car even took them near their target on January 19, 1991. Their bomb exploded prematurely, killing Ahmed J. Ahmed, but his accomplice, Abdul Kadham Saad, survived and was whisked to a Manila hospital. Saad, carrying documents bearing two distinct identities, asked staffers to alert the Iraqi embassy, then recited its phone number. (Page 39.)
Around this time, according to former high-level CIA counterterrorist Stanley Bedlington, Hussein paired Iraqi intelligence operatives with members of the Arab Liberation Front to execute attacks. "The Iraqis had given them all passports," he said, "but they were all in numerical sequence." These tell-tale passport numbers helped friendly governments nab these terror teams. (Page 41.)
President George Herbert Walker Bush ignored information that Hussein "was offering state payment to terrorists," then-Senator Al Gore (D., Tennessee) declared on October 15, 1992. Gore also listed more than a dozen examples of Iraq-sponsored terrorism and said "an estimated 1,400 terrorists were operating openly out of Iraq." (Page 41.)
"In 1992, elements of al Qaeda came to Baghdad and met with Saddam Hussein," Abu Aman Amaleeki, a 20-year veteran of Iraqi intelligence, said on ABC's Nightline on September 26, 2002. Speaking from a Kurdish prison, he added: "And among them was Ayman al Zawahiri," bin Laden's chief deputy. "I was present when Ayman al Zawahiri visited Baghdad." (Page 43.)
Former Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Deputy Director Faruq Hijazi, reports a reliable foreign spy agency, supplied blank Yemeni passports to al Qaeda in 1992. (Page 66.)
Mohammed Salameh, a 1993 World Trade Center attacker, called Baghdad 46 times in the two months before bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin flew from Baghdad to New Jersey to join the plot. Salameh's June 1992 phone bill totaled $1,401, which prompted his disconnection for non-payment. After the blast — which killed six individuals and injured 1,042 — Yasin fled to Baghdad, where records and multiple press accounts show he received safe haven and Baathist cash. (Pages 11 and 50.)
Based on a 20-page IIS document discovered in Baghdad, the Defense Intelligence Agency reports that "Alleged conspirators employed by IIS are wanted in connection with the [June 25, 1996] Khobar Towers bombing and the assassination attempt in 1993 of former President Bush." (Page 180.)
In an October 27, 2003 memo, Defense Undersecretary Douglas J. Feith explained Hussein's bonus pay for terrorists: "Iraq increased support to Palestinian groups after major terrorist attacks and...the change in Iraqi relations with al Qaeda after the [1998 east African] embassy bombings followed this pattern." A top Philippine terrorist also said Iraq's payments to the al Qaeda-tied Abu Sayyaf grew after successful assaults. (Page 120.)
ABC News reported on January 14, 1999, that it "has learned that in December [1998] an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden."
Hijazi "went to Afghanistan in December with the knowledge of the Taliban and met with Osama bin Laden," former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro told National Public Radio's Mike Shuster on February 18, 1999. "It's known through a variety of intelligence reports that the U.S. has, but it's also known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place." (Page 124.)
On January 5, 2000, Malaysian intelligence photographed September 11 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar being escorted through Kuala Lumpur's airport by VIP facilitator Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi recommended to Malaysian Airlines by Baghdad's embassy there. The pair soon were photographed again at al Qaeda's three-day planning summit for the October 2000 U.S.S. Cole and 9/11 attacks. Three separate documents recently unearthed in Iraq identify an Ahmed Hikmat Shakir as a lieutenant colonel in Uday Hussein's elite Saddam Fedayeen. (Page 4)
Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani is the former Iraqi diplomat suspected of meeting September 11 ringleader Mohamed Atta in Prague on April 8, 2001, and possibly June 2, 2000, the day before Atta flew from Prague to Newark, New Jersey. Top secret Pentagon records cite a Czech intelligence report that al Ani "ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." During the summer of 2000, $99,455 was wired from financial institutions in the United Arab Emirates to Atta's Sun Trust bank account in Florida.(Page 129.)
After evacuating an al Qaeda training camp he ran in Afghanistan as U.S. troops approached, Ansar al-Islam founder Abu Musab al Zarqawi eventually had his leg amputated and replaced with a prosthesis around late May 2002. He was treated in Baghdad's Olympic Hospital, an elite facility whose director was the late Uday Hussein, son of the deposed tyrant. Zarqawi is implicated in ongoing attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and is believed to have sawed off American businessman Nick Berg's head. (Page 167.)
U.S troops inspecting an al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar al-Islam camp in Iraq discovered, Hayes reports, "several hundred passports belonging to suspected Ansar and al Qaeda fighters, dozens of them bearing visas issued by the Iraqi regime." A passport found on one dead terrorist listed his visit's purpose as "jihad." (Page 172.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #69 on: May 03, 2008, 11:04:12 AM » |
|
Well, if Suddam DID have direct ties to Al Quida (which even the Pentagon report says didn't exist) and we went in to Iraq to stop Al Quida's network of terrorism... it ain't going so well. In fact, a GAO report says Al Quida once again has the means to strike the U.S.. "The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas"... and that's just the title... The report can be found HERE - where you will find things like this: - "In particular, the unclassified versions of the 2007 NIE and 2008 Annual Threat Assessment state that al Qaeda has regenerated its attack capability and secured a safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA."- "The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA region."- "No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed..."- "The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the safe haven in the FATA, despite more than $10.5 billion in U.S. support to Pakistan since 2002."- "Pakistan provides al Qaeda with many of the same advantages it had when it was based across the border in Afghanistan. According to the assessment, the safe haven in the FATA serves as a staging area for al Qaeda’s attacks in support of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Further, it serves as a location for training new terrorist operatives for attacks in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and the United States. U.S. government officials in Washington and Pakistan also acknowledge that al Qaeda has established a safe haven near Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan. For example, State’s April 2007 Country Reports on Terrorism states that Pakistan remains a major source of Islamic extremism and a safe haven for some top terrorist leaders, including those of al Qaeda."- "The NIE stated that, in the past 2 years, al Qaeda’s central leadership regenerated the core operational capabilities needed to conduct attacks against the United States. It also found that al Qaeda’s central leadership, based in the border area of Pakistan, is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the United States."... and that's only the half of it. So, even if we all pretend that Bush was justified in invading Iraq because of it's INderect ties to Al Quida... you have to realize that it's done nothing to make this nation safer. Nothing. In fact, it may have very well inspired an entire generation of young, militant Muslims. Heck'uv'a job, sir... I'm so sick I might very well throw up... Great post!!! The truth hurts, it can even make a person physically sick, but the truth is the truth. We fund Pakistan, then Pakistan protects terrorists. So who is funding and protecting these scumbags? Why the US government with taxpayer dollars of course. Just like has been going on for decades. Can't have a war on terror without terrorists, so the US government makes sure we don't run out of terrorists. Welcome to the real world. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Irwin
|
|
« Reply #70 on: May 03, 2008, 12:37:47 PM » |
|
Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Gen. Wesely Clark, David Kay, the French and Germans are in on the "Big Lie" as well?
As time goes by it becomes increasing clear who the real liars are; the pathetic liberals in America.
Bill Clinton:
In fact, two of the three specific gripes in bin Laden’s 1998 “kill all Americans” fatwa dealt with Iraq and America’s “continuing aggression against the Iraqi people.”
Just a week before that fatwa, President Clinton had piqued bin Laden by warning of “the very kind of threat Iraq poses now—a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists.”
Opening Remarks of David Kay to the Senate Armed Services Committee Testimony:
DAVID KAY: .... Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.
I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.
The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.
Hillary Clinton:
"In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.
This much is undisputed. The open questions are: What should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?"
Gen. Wesley Clark:
CLARK: Thank you, sir. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat .... I'm sure he has a rationale for what he's doing, but we don't always know it. He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extend and he is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we. Saddam might use these weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his other neighbors.
Quote all the politicians you like. "It doesn't matter what politician you quote says he was not. How is a contained threat a threat? Politicians of every party for years made political points by acting like he was a threat to us. Saddam was a joke. The UN sanctions were only related to WMD and the issue of continued inspections. At a certain point he decided, being ambigous about having WMD was the best strategy...against Iran." We gave the weapons, we took the weapons. The only threat was to Iran...a threat we could use right now... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #71 on: May 04, 2008, 05:11:03 AM » |
|
You people still don't get it.
What happened to the "Bush Lied" BS we have heard for five long years?
It has been demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that in fact Bush did not lie about WMD's or Saddams ties to al-Qaeda.
We know who the liars are now; American liberals! They just can't bring themselves to admit it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #72 on: May 04, 2008, 08:13:34 AM » |
|
You people still don't get it.
What happened to the "Bush Lied" BS we have heard for five long years?
It has been demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that in fact Bush did not lie about WMD's or Saddams ties to al-Qaeda.
We know who the liars are now; American liberals! They just can't bring themselves to admit it.
Spoken like a true brainwashed moron. Well done. Maybe someday you will wake the fuck up and realize that everything you know is wrong. Maybe someday you will be able to recognize the truth when you see it. "You see, if you amount to anything in Washington these days, it is because you have been plucked or handpicked from an Ivy League school - Harvard, Yale, Kennedy School of Government - you've shown an aptitude to be a good Ivy League type, and so you're plucked so-to-speak, and you are assigned success. You are assigned a certain role in government somewhere, and then your success is monitored and tracked, and you go where the pluckers and the hand pickers can put you." -Radio Talk show Host Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 7th, 1995 Maybe someday you will realize what THINKING people already know....... That both parties are controlled by the same groups. Maybe someday, but obviously not today. baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #73 on: May 04, 2008, 03:48:53 PM » |
|
It has been demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that in fact Bush did not lie about WMD's or Saddams ties to al-Qaeda. That is a lie Ron Mars. Ron Mars you are a liar. The debate is over--or it should be. According to the report released today by the Senate intelligence committee, the intelligence community--led by the CIA--"overstated" and "mischaracterized" the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced hastily and haphazardly in October 2002, the intelligence community concluded that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed chemical and biological weapons, was "reconstituting" its nuclear weapons program, was supporting an "active" and "advanced" biological weapons program, and was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle "probably intended to deliver" biological weapons. All of these critical findings, the committee report says, "either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting." It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."
The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/ |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 04, 2008, 05:03:16 PM by freethinker »
|
Logged
|
Yes we can ...and now we will...
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #74 on: May 04, 2008, 09:02:55 PM » |
|
What happened to the "Bush Lied" BS we have heard for five long years? Bush has lied for five years ...that fact is not BS, and nothing has changed. Everyone has accepted this fact , with the exception of you Ron Mars. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Yes we can ...and now we will...
|
|
|
|
