I thought we wouldn't have to fight them over here? (merged) (1 Viewer)

[BullDawg]

Why would they need TNT, someone brought up McVeigh, he made is bomb from maerial bought from a feed store and Diesel.

We all know how effective that was.

TNT would be easier to get with all the construction work going on in Iraq. Regardless, the question I posed still stands...would one consider a country unstable if someone initiated a TNT based attack on Americans there?

 

[nolazach]

I wouldn't because TNT is a fairly common explosive. A TNT attack could happen here, it is used in every state, if a rouge employee stole some and used it I wouldn't consider us unstable. I think Iraq is unstable now though, seems like they needed a strong hand to keep them in line.

A TNT based attack could happen anywhere, but it seems more likely that they would use another form of IED.

 

[BullDawg]

I wouldn't because TNT is a fairly common explosive. A TNT attack could happen here, it is used in every state, if a rouge employee stole some and used it I wouldn't consider us unstable. I think Iraq is unstable now though, seems like they needed a strong hand to keep them in line.

A TNT based attack could happen anywhere, but it seems more likely that they would use another form of IED.

That's basically my point in a nutshell. Trying to directly associate a terrorist using TNT, with or without chlorine, with instability isn't a very solid argument IMHO.

I can point out many cases where terrorist attacks against Americans (civilians and/or military personnel) occurred in what we would consider stable countries.

 

[TheTippingPoint]

I just wish for once people in this country could admit that maybe, just MAYBE, the guy from "their party" isn't so great. It isn't the end of the world, and it doesn't mean the (godless liberals/evil neocons) win, it just means the guy hasn't done a good job. Why is it so hard?

Exactly.

People are too prideful to admit that they were wrong.

It is to the point that it should be less and less about being Democrat/Republic, and more about who is right and who is wrong.

Bush was wrong, has been wrong, and is wrong. He has lied to the public about everything that is terrorism related, and yet just because of Right Wing beliefs, that most Republicans still want to make excuses for him.

I just don't understand it.

He is wrong, and it has nothing to do with him being a Republican.

 

[champ76]

I would say Saddam's ties to AQ were similar to the ties between Clinton and the military, to Timothy McViegh.

That's just utterly foolish.

 

[champ76]

AQ was not present, there weren't contacts with Saddam, and there was no sheltering of AQ. You're just completely wrong here--you're only going by what the Bush administration said BEFORE the war, and contradicting a littany of government reports, agencies, and investigations. Why you insist on believing falsehoods I'll never know. Right--you want to justify staying in Iraq and going in the first place. I've given you sources from a whole host of government reports, investigations and the 9-11 commission.



Right. There may have been WMDs in 1998. But we're discussing 2002 and 2003. We're talking a full 4-5 years which passed between 1998 and when the case was made to the American people. One more time. None were found. None. And the administration only wanted to look at evidence before going in which indicated that Hussein HAD WMDs.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm




Again, you absolutely refuse to even consider the fact that YOU and the rest of the American people were fooled by an administration which didn't care about the evidence and decided to invade Iraq regardless of WMDs, or whether AQ was present or not. It was not a simple "misreading" of the evidence available, it was a complete ignoring of a particular group of evidence which belied what the adminstration wanted to The American people to believe.





What article are you talking about? The trouble with you is that you refuse to see the pretty overwhelming case I've made that you're completely wrong--by citing evidence from numerous government sources, even the Bush administration that:
A. AQ was not in Iraq--maybe they had some cells in northern Iraq. But Hussein had no connection, he didn't have anything to do with 9-11. AQ was no more present in Iraq before the war than in Norway.
B. The adminstration admitted there were no WMDs found, not even evidence of recent production.

But you keep repeating the same misinformation about how Hussein used chemical weapons in 1988, and how I'm somehow "manipulating" the words of someone who's obviously trying to save his own skin [Tenet] and might still be lying. You're even contradicting the Bush administration here. There were no WMDs found, but you keep insisting "they were there." Well, yeah, back in 1988, but not in 2003. There wasn't even evidence that Hussein had them recently.

AQ was present, there were contacts, and the very government reports you cite state that. Please READ them. I am not saying there was any operational agreement between the two. Second, as I've stated many times, the decisions made at the time did not have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and even though there was "varying reliability" on the source of the information, the common belief at the time was that more was going on than apparently was.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-n.htm

There is a big difference between "not wanting to look at evidence" and not wanting to once again underestimate Saddam's capabilities, which had proven to be true in the past. When given conflicting evidence and/ or evidence of questionable reliability, it would be a quite human response not to want to underestimate again, with consequences potentially far worse than what had just happened on 9/11.

Saddam had WMD in 1988 and apparently in 1998, when Clinton bombed him. Or was he lying to the American people? Suddenly, four years later, the administration is supposed to NOT believe they are there, even though they are being told by the chief spook it's a slam dunk that they are. Seems a bit harsh, doesn't it?

Oh, and as far as that AQ- Norway wisecrack, check this out:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/map/krekar.html

 

[RebSaint]

AQ was present, there were contacts, and the very government reports you cite state that. Please READ them. I am not saying there was any operational agreement between the two. Second, as I've stated many times, the decisions made at the time did not have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and even though there was "varying reliability" on the source of the information, the common belief at the time was that more was going on than apparently was.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-n.htm

"Three former Bush administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues have told National Journal that the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda to Iraq was tenuous, exaggerated, and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies."

From

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080803nj2.htm

"According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime." It quotes an FBI report from June 2004 in which former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said in an interview that "Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden."

Saddam himself is quoted in an FBI summary as acknowledging that the Iraqi government had met with bin Laden but denying that he had colluded with the al-Qaeda leader. Claiming that Iraq opposed only U.S. policies, Saddam said that "if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China," the report quotes the FBI document."

From

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-08-iraq-report_x.htm

So there was a meeting--but I've constantly used the terms "tenuous," "exaggerated." Seems there was one meeting in 1995. I think I made it clear earlier in the thread that it's illogical to think Hussein would have had any signficant contact or cooperation with Al Queda--experts in the Middle East have said so themselves. The administration argued there was harmonious cooperation between Hussein and AQ. Turned out to be not only wrong, but 100% wrong. Again, manipulation and exaggeration of the evidence. Inexcusable.

And

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/09/africa/web.0909intel.php

Pretty much says the same thing. You keep stating over and over again that this contact meant some form of cooperation, and that the intelligence community just errred. Intelligence existed which supported that Hussein wanted NOTHING to do with AQ or Bin Laden I don't deny that there WAS a connection. But to argue that there was cooparation, or a strong link between AQ and Hussein is just completely wrong. I don't know why you are still believing a lie.

There is a big difference between "not wanting to look at evidence" and not wanting to once again underestimate Saddam's capabilities, which had proven to be true in the past. When given conflicting evidence and/ or evidence of questionable reliability, it would be a quite human response not to want to underestimate again, with consequences potentially far worse than what had just happened on 9/11.

One. more. time. Intelligence which indicated that A. Hussein HAD no WMDs nor AQ connections was IGNORED. It wasn't a "human" response, it was a case of the administration NOT taking into account other information which existed in the intelligence community which belied their claims.

Again, I just simply don't believe that this mistake can be completely laid at the feet of the intelligence community. There was information there which the administration chose not to examine or completely ignore.

Saddam had WMD in 1988 and apparently in 1998, when Clinton bombed him. Or was he lying to the American people? Suddenly, four years later, the administration is supposed to NOT believe they are there, even though they are being told by the chief spook it's a slam dunk that they are. Seems a bit harsh, doesn't it?

I don't think Hussein had WMDs in 1998. Inspectors probably would have found them. I've read that most intel sources say he sold them all off in 1991/92 when sanctions hit him pretty hard. No it's not harsh, because the adminstration is not just supposed to listen to the head of the CIA-- again, I don't believe that the intelligence community screwed up this bad. I think it may have been Tenet telling the administration what they wanted to hear.



Oh, and as far as that AQ- Norway wisecrack, check this out:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...post: 431290"] So when do we invade Norway?

 

[dirdyhearn]

You may disagree on how to get out of this situation now, that is fine. We should take our time to debate and make a rational move. Rushing into things we hadn't reasoned out got us in to this mess.

But to still believe that the decision to go to war was a good one, that this war has been well managed, that our country and future generations are safer as a result of it, that we are spreading democracy, or preventing the terrorist movement from spreading... that is insanity.

If you honestly believe that, there is no hope for you. Logic, loads of evidence, and reality have failed you completely. All that is left is support of "your" party. It is that unwillingness to compromise, admit a mistake, or face reason that has this country so messed up.

Also, don't blame me, I voted for Hulk Hogan.

 

[champ76]

Also, don't blame me, I voted for Hulk Hogan.

'nuff said. :_rofl:

 

[Shawn]

That's just utterly foolish.

No, it's spot on.

Should I dumb it down for you to understand? Are you trying to draw some wierd conclusion that wasn't implied?

If a member of Al Queda was in Iraq; and if that member of Al Queda interacted or met with members of the Iraqi military--it doesn't suggest that there was any actual tie to Saddam, or to the Iraqi military. Even if this military figure trained a member of Al Queda in bombmaking--you can only take it at face value.

Clearly--and maybe this was too hard for you to grasp--Timothy McVeigh wasn't supported by Clinton or the military. He just happened to be in the military. That's it.

 

[champ76]

Pretty much says the same thing. You keep stating over and over again that this contact meant some form of cooperation, and that the intelligence community just errred. Intelligence existed which supported that Hussein wanted NOTHING to do with AQ or Bin Laden I don't deny that there WAS a connection. But to argue that there was cooparation, or a strong link between AQ and Hussein is just completely wrong. I don't know why you are still believing a lie.


I don't think Hussein had WMDs in 1998. Inspectors probably would have found them. I've read that most intel sources say he sold them all off in 1991/92 when sanctions hit him pretty hard. No it's not harsh, because the adminstration is not just supposed to listen to the head of the CIA-- again, I don't believe that the intelligence community screwed up this bad. I think it may have been Tenet telling the administration what they wanted to hear.

As the Gipper famously said, there you go again. Reb, point out one place where I argued there was cooperation. I said there was contact. I said members of AQ took shelter in Iraq. No where did I say they cooperated.

You may not think Saddam had WMD in 1998, but the rest of the world did, Clinton told us he did(did he lie?), and he bombed them. So he sold them you think. To whom? Where are they? Why didn't he say so?

 

[RebSaint]

As the Gipper famously said, there you go again. Reb, point out one place where I argued there was cooperation. I said there was contact. I said members of AQ took shelter in Iraq. No where did I say they cooperated.

You may not think Saddam had WMD in 1998, but the rest of the world did, Clinton told us he did(did he lie?), and he bombed them. So he sold them you think. To whom? Where are they? Why didn't he say so?

So there was contact. So they were on the ground. I've stated over and over again that the administration didn't just state AQ was on the ground. They implied cooperation, communication, and a relationship that was never there, and not going to develop.

The administration sold the American people a completely wrong set of information just so that they could invade Iraq. The administration all but argued that Hussein had contacts with AQ, but he might have had something to do with 9-11. All. Completely. False.

Who knows if Hussein had WMDs in 1998. Maybe the bombings worked, maybe they didn't. But one. more. time. We're talking about four full years--and without UN inspectors in Iraq, ALL attention just about from the intelligence community was on Iraq. There was plenty of intelligence which was available which contradicted what the administration told the American people regarding WMDs and AQ.

So you point out that intelligence reports I posted make note of meetings and an AQ presence. The administration mapulated. I'll say it one more time so you understand it. Manipulated that piece of intelligence to mean cooperation and active communication. Can you not see where you were misled?

 

[champ76]

No, it's spot on.

Should I dumb it down for you to understand? Are you trying to draw some wierd conclusion that wasn't implied?

If a member of Al Queda was in Iraq; and if that member of Al Queda interacted or met with members of the Iraqi military--it doesn't suggest that there was any actual tie to Saddam, or to the Iraqi military. Even if this military figure trained a member of Al Queda in bombmaking--you can only take it at face value.

Clearly--and maybe this was too hard for you to grasp--Timothy McVeigh wasn't supported by Clinton or the military. He just happened to be in the military. That's it.

Is it too hard to ask you to make a point without insulting the person with whom your are debating?

For your comparison to be valid, there has to be some similarity in the government and military in Iraq under Saddam, and the government and military in the US under Bill Clinton. I can't make the connection.

 

[nolazach]

Its a good comparison, If AQ met with some one in the Iraqi Military, but not Saddam, then how is Saddam to blame for AQ's meeting with the Iraqi military.

McVeigh was trained by the US military, had met officers and tons of soldiers. Are they are their leaders to blame for OKC? Is the President?

That is all he is saying. I would also suspect that our Military has a better chain of command and better information sharing than theirs.

 

[champ76]

So there was contact. So they were on the ground. I've stated over and over again that the administration didn't just state AQ was on the ground. They implied cooperation, communication, and a relationship that was never there, and not going to develop.

The administration sold the American people a completely wrong set of information just so that they could invade Iraq. The administration all but argued that Hussein had contacts with AQ, but he might have had something to do with 9-11. All. Completely. False.

Who knows if Hussein had WMDs in 1998. Maybe the bombings worked, maybe they didn't. But one. more. time. We're talking about four full years--and without UN inspectors in Iraq, ALL attention just about from the intelligence community was on Iraq. There was plenty of intelligence which was available which contradicted what the administration told the American people regarding WMDs and AQ.

So you point out that intelligence reports I posted make note of meetings and an AQ presence. The administration mapulated. I'll say it one more time so you understand it. Manipulated that piece of intelligence to mean cooperation and active communication. Can you not see where you were misled?

The 9/11 commission to which you frequently refer came to no conclusion that anyone was misled with regard to Iraq.

How can you "all but argue" something. Either they argued it, or they didn't. And they didn't.

Now, let me ask this. Let's say we found WMD's in Iraq. Not a huge amount, but enough to say we were mostly right in our intelligence assesments. Four years later, things are where we are now. Would there be any more support for finishing the fight? Would that make any difference in people's minds?