Interesting... it's still opinion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm
^^Bush even said there was no connection.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
^^Cheney fessed up too.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
^^Both parties agreed after looking at the evidence.
The only presence Al-queda had in Iraq was after the invasion by the US/UK. Before that there was about as much chance of the two of them getting together as permanently mixing oil and water... Hussein was a secular dictator that didn't want to share power (he murdered 1/3 of the Iraqi parliament in 1971... does that state it plainly enough? If not, he routinely had people "disappeared" until he was deposed because he thought they were scheming against him, and if not, it would frighten those that were enough), Bin Laden was a radical muslim that wanted Iraq's military, and nothing more (he wanted all dictatorships to Radical Islamic dictatorships... no room for anyone at the top but him and Allah).
It seems that Ms. Rosett is not living in anything approaching the grey ether of reality, but in a much more simplistic world of all black or all white.
I haven't read Hayes' writings, but, since he hasn't had the benefit of all the reports (because apparently there is enough that they're still not done going through them 2 years+ hence), and has been using what the article author says quite blatantly "some" of the reports, there is inhierently a biased and obfuscated view. Dismissing other documents as fictions, and some as facts... where's the truth lie?
Apparently, not in the evidence at hand.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
i agree with gam here. there realy isn't much proof to say saddam had ties to
al queda. it would have been nice tho. but givet his thread a week and we'll have about 10 people sware they saw something somewhere that proves he did.
saddam was an ass and the world will be better off without him. i wish there were a link that way all those opposed to the war would shut up but since theres no real proof
i can understand the critics.
look gam its snowing!!! we agree!!
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
don't miss understand what i'm saying.
i do not believe Saddam had anything to do with 9-119other than possible indirect financing)
however i think all of the evidence out there shows that saddam had conections with al -queda in lots of other areas
Saddam no connections to Al-Queda has been said a million times. Saddam had no weapons at all, Saddam never threatened the US, ever. Yet we attacked Iraq, and we will most likely be there is 2020 at the rate we are going.
- 2004 Cavalier - 124k, owned since new
Pret: other than a few minor communications, I can't see anything with weight.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
gam we still agree?!?!? wow look at all the snow!
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
That's not snow jack....
it's white and from china.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
hey wheres my straw?!?!?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Quote:
Saddam had no weapons at all, Saddam never threatened the US, ever.
do you truely believe either of these statments?
What he had was sanctioned, and there was no direct or imminent threat to US national security from any of the weapons he did have at the time.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
lol...please don't forget to use the classifier....he had AT THE TIME OF INVASION!!!
oh no gam we and we were doing so good! i didn't know serrin was sanctioned.
point is that he had nothing anyone can prove to do with bin laddin or any of the other worthless f--ks that make up al quearda. but he himself was the reason we invaded
iraq. he kept kicking inspectors out and wouldn't give them full access to all his facilities so what were the weapon inspectors supposed to think? gam i know what your point is and its a very good one that we had no absolute concreate proof that he
had wmd or that he was link to al quearda but you cant tell me that the world isn't a better place without him. i know thats not reason enough but then again i'm not the president sooo.
hey if you were good old george and some little mid east dick-tater had threatened to
kill your mom and dad because your dad stopped him from invadeing kuwait wouldnt
it piss you off a little? and then 911 happens, and theres even the slightest chance that these al quearda nut jobs may have trained or got help from the very same guy that said he was gonna kill your family. and you were born and raised in texas with that
noone messes with me attitude i can certainly see why we went in. can't you?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
and on a side note....does it even matter if saddam was connected to Al queda...we know for sure 100% that he sponsered and aided other known terrorist organizations(there are others besides AQ!)
true pret but does that mean we should go into ever country that supports or uses terrorists? cause boy oh boy were gonna be busy!
i dont support the reasons we went to war but having been in the army myself i do support the president and his decisions. no not blindly but you have absolutly no idea
what it does to moral to be fighting for your country and you have a$$es back home
all over t.v. saying to pull out now. its devastating to you especialy if you just lost a friend to some a$$ with a towel on his head, trust me after that pretty much want to kill them all.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Jack: what he had was declared and sanctioned because it was for defensive purposes. Iran still has a very big and heavy axe to grind, and the fact that about 80% of Iraq's tanks, aircraft and other defensive use weapons (I know, I know... they're dual porpoise), had been destroyed at UN behest, it had left them with little ability to enforce their own borders.
So, they had several canisters of Sarrin and mustard gas... something that was pushed for by several countries, and ratifed by the US in addition to the other members of sec.con.
They had no ability to produce more, so they were pretty much stuck with what they had.
My stand on the invasion is not changed, once you're in, you're IN. You do not pull out.
The sage idea was to not have gone in, in the first place.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
"what he had was declared and sanctioned because it was for defensive purposes."
no not decalred and not sanctioned!
numerous non WMD that he was banned from having were found.
and the potential to make WMD was found, not to mention we stil lhaven't found the ones we know he had that he was declaring. and when i say we i dont mean just america i mean the global intellegence communittee.
gam i believe saddam had several mobile chemical labs found. and mustard gas was outlawed in ww1! as for serrin gas i'm not sure if it was outlawed after ww2 or not but
i'd love to see the link that said he could keep chemical weapons for defensive purposes regardless of who had an axe or how big it was.
and pret i'm sorry but " global intellengence communittee " is a complete contridiction in terms. if the worlds intell was right we would have found stock piles of wmds everywhere but we haven't. yes i do belive they are there hidden but since i have no
proof of this then if i were to arguee it i would sound just like nick.
but were getting off topic saddam cant be proven to have any connection to al quearda
or bin loser.
gam could you please provide the link that says he could use mustard gas and serrin
for defence. thanks.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Pret: yes, declared, yes, known of, and yes, tracked.
The UN cannot strip a country of all ability to defend itself against incursion from a hostile country, Iran has got Nuclear WMD ability, what do you think they'd use to sucker punch Iraq with, hmmm?
And all WMDs were accounted for within 36 hours of the taking of all the known sites.
Jackalope: Mustard gas is illegal? Why is there a considerable store of about 36,000 fluid litres of the stuff at Ft. McMichaels in Colorado?
Sarrin gas was developed in the mid 60's, also, thousands of litres of it in that base in CO. as well.
I'll find the link allowing Iraq defensive WMD's, however, I'll have to do it when I get home. The sites that I know of with UN resolutions are not accessible here @ work, if there's any kind of script, I lose most fo the site.
(heck, I lose all the buttons on the left hand bar on J-body except for Login/logout.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
are you sure i thought serrin was used by the nazis and there very well may be stock piles of old mustard gas but it was outlaw by the geneva convention. there destroying it down here at aberdean proveing grounds. check into it (google) anyway i would still love to see the link the allowed saddam to use outlawed wmds. that would be a very good read. please try to find it for me. thanks
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
gam i never said they were stripped of everything. they were limited to bordering country capabilities though. and they had loads of long range missles that were no no's for them.
No, they never had anything other than aborted attempts at manufacturing a long range Ballistic missiles out of medium range single-stagers. That's in Duelfer and ISG reports to Congress.
Most of the longer range missiles (ie. El-Al/SCUD) and their erectors were scuttled by US forces in 1991-1993.
Of what was left, the range was purposely limited to less than 150 km (I'm most likely incorrect on that... it was set to be low enough to deny ballistic seige range on Israel).
jackalope:
It's from a blog, so take it as you will, but this is the <a href="http://blog.bearstrong.net/001458.html">digested version</a> of what was Contained in the ISG report:
Quote:
The Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) has uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles, and debriefings of Iraqi officialis in addition to some documentation suggests that Iraq did not retain such missiles after 1991.
While other WMD programs were strictly prohibited, the UN permitted Iraq to develop and possess delivery systems provided their range did not exceed 150 km. This freedom allowed Iraq to keep its scientists and technicians employed and to keep its infrastructure and manufacturing base largely intact by pursuing programs nominally in compliance with the UN limitations. This positioned Iraq for a potential breakout capability.
Basically, there wasn't anything implicitly saying he HAD to disarm completely (Pret
) but he had to remove his offensive capabilities.
- <a href="http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm">UN resolution 1441</a>
- <a href="http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm">UN Security Council Resolutions Concerning Iraq</a>
I would personally advise reading of the Whitehouse paper on the second link with a salt shaker handy... It's got a lot of pre-invasion pepper, the links below it are pertaining to the actual UN resolutions after resolution 660 which was the one deploring Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait and the spelling out of recourse available regarding the disengagement/removal by force of Iraqi forces.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas">Mustard Gas</a> Has been outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Interesting factoid: Was first used on Canadian forces in
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin">Sarin Gas</a> was infact invented in WWII (my bad, I might have been thining of VX or somesuch... Good on ya for pointing it out). It has been made illegal to produce or use.
The interesting thing is that while there are set limits and targets for destruction, none of the member countries have followed the terms of the agreements, with the exception of Germany which was banned from the manufacture or importation of Chemical/Biological weapons.
- 1925 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol">Geneva Protocol</a>
- 1997 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention">Chemical Weapons Convention</a>
I was incorrect about the conventions, but I find it sad if not laughable that all the member countries of the agreements above have been letting those little details about compliance slide.
(Before anyone says anything, no, Canada has ZERO CBRN weapons. We're the only country, in fact, that has advanced capability for all of them, yet posess none.)
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
this should be in the war forum lol
thanks gam and no biggy noones perfect. but Canada has no wmd's? realy? i have
no idea one way or another but it is interesting. i'm almost willing to bet those sneeky
guys in red uniforms on horse back have a stash hiddin somewhere. you know you can't trust those darn Canadians.
he he, kidding.
from the post it does't sound like they were allowed wmd's but only defensive weapons
and since wmd's cannot be used or controled enough to be defensive i can't see how
they were allowed at all. and since mustard and serrin gases were both clearly
outlaw in Geneva and it has been proven that saddam did in fact still have the means
to manufacture it when he wanted. and those mobile bio weapon labs recovered
weren't from the first time we hit them they were brand new shinny death labs on
wheels. why on wheels so he could keep them moving so the weapon inspectors couldn't find them. that in itself should have been enough proof of his intensions but
some weak minded pansy a$$ other countries didnt think it mattered to them so why should they do any thing at all about it. well look at spain, london, us, and the dalily
assult by these freak terrorists and i honestly can not understand why anyone would say its not there problem cause it is. i just hope that nothing like 911 or the bombings
in spain or london happen in your country. cause i'd be willing to bet if oh say it was the middle of a big hockey game or in the middle of your capital that these freaks set off
a couple big bombs or let loose with serrin gas you'd change your tune real damn quick. please dont get me wrong gam i hope to god your country never has to suffer thru what others are but thats why i'll debait you from now till forever about this cause i realy dont think you can fully comprehend what its like too see thousands of inocent
people from your country dieing or jumping out of a 80 story office window cause they dont want to burn to death. i was so heart broken and disgusted and mad all at the same time along with everyone else here that i would have supported nuking the intire middle east from africa all the way up. kill em' all!
people seem to have forgotten what hell that day was like well some of us haven't.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
I work with the sneaky guys in red uniforms... (it's called a Red Serge)
To my knowledge the Mobile Bio/Chem weapons factories/labs were never recovered, mainly because Iraq hasn't got a very extensive rail system, and what is there is pretty shabby to begin with. Also, working with weaponised versions of biological and chemical agents isn't something you'd want to do for an extended period in a rail-car.... somethings, you just do not want to shake too much ya know?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/
I was hired in the aftermath of 9/11/01 and I understand that no-one would wish what happened on anyone, hell, I have family in manhattan that were firefighters (okay.. they live in Queens..), and my folks took in 2 families of stranded travellers (from Kansas and Ohio IIRC, it's been a while since I talked to my folks about them). I know the people that work in national intel (actually, CSIS) are on the ground in Britain helping and learning... as well as FBI, New Scotland Yard and Her Majesty's Intelligence Service doing the same. The idea is prevention... at home, that means vigilance, abroad it means fixing a very broken and dysfunctional foreign policy.
My point is that while there are tenuous links with al-queda and Iraq, there isn't enough on their own to warrant invasion... if you use the WMD idea, there were no nukes, and, what there was of the chem/bio, was known about... By that notion, it would have been more productive to invade bosnia... or even Colorado!
I have no question that Saddam Hussein was one of the prime evils in our world, and I hope Iraq has a better future, but I can't reconcile that with means used to depose him. It is Machiavellian to think that the USA can mete out punishments without (at least most of) the rest of the world being in agreement. We all discipline radicals, or we revert to a neo-feudal system.
Mybe I'm too much of an idealogue, but I think we either stand together or we fall apart.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
