9/11 used as an excuse, or reason to go into Iraq?

[Syringer]

?

 

[PCMarine]

It was a wakeup call that the US needed to pay serious attention to combating terrorism. However a lose connection is drawn between terrorism and Iraq so it's more a reason.

 

[Jugernot]

I support the way in Iraq, but I think 911 was just an excuse for W to get revenge for Saddam trying to kill his daddy.

 

[irl33thax0r]

Originally posted by: Jugernot
I support the way in Iraq, but I think 911 was just an excuse for W to get revenge for Saddam trying to kill his daddy.

I agree, I think G.W. is in this for personal reasons.

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: Jugernot
I support the way in Iraq, but I think 911 was just an excuse for W to get revenge for Saddam trying to kill his daddy.

And ironically the country housing those responsible for 911, Saudi Arabia, are still our good allies as well as a leading oil supplier.

Can anyone explain still how this war is not about oil?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: Jugernot
I support the way in Iraq, but I think 911 was just an excuse for W to get revenge for Saddam trying to kill his daddy.

And ironically the country housing those responsible for 911, Saudi Arabia, are still our good allies as well as a leading oil supplier.

Can anyone explain still how this war is not about oil?

Yes, it would cheaper drop sanctions and buy oil from iraq.
IT would far easier to invade venezuala, canada or drill in ANWR.

 

[StattlichPassat]

You guys are idiots.

 

[SoylentGreen]

I want to use this thread as an excuse to kick you in the head.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Reason.

Remember, Bush said we are going to wipe out ALL terrorism. That means not just the people responsible for 9/11. Saddam is a sponsor of terrorism, too, this is well-documented. Remember, he gives money (25k, I think?) to the family of each suicide bomber in Israel.
Whether you believe he has ties to Bin Laden is irrelevant, although I don't think there's any doubt.

We are going after ALL the terrorist and their backers. If you stop with Al Quaeda, we WILL have another 9/11....there may be one anyway, but if we start hunting terrorists and don't get them all, they will show up again.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Reason.

Whether you believe he has ties to Bin Laden is irrelevant, although I don't think there's any doubt.

What makes you think that? Anything other than Bush's assertions?

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Reason.

Remember, Bush said we are going to wipe out ALL terrorism. That means not just the people responsible for 9/11. Saddam is a sponsor of terrorism, too, this is well-documented.

So are we, and that is well-documented.

We support Israel, and don't directly condone their actions but we are still responsible for it, and through oil to terrorist countries.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Reason.

Whether you believe he has ties to Bin Laden is irrelevant, although I don't think there's any doubt.

What makes you think that? Anything other than Bush's assertions?

Let's see....I think there was an Al Quaeda higher-up that went to Iraq to get patched up after being wounded by us.

Then there's that matter of an Iraqi official meeting in Europe with someone from Al Quaeda, (wasn't is Mr. Atta?)

Where there's smoke, there's fire, and I don't think anyone is denying these reports.

Also, yes, Bush's word that they are connected is good enough for me. I pity those poor souls who automatically assume the government is lying to them, especially when the current government isn't the party they support.

Bottom line here is this: Saddam has a long, long history of lying. It's documented and not debatable. Anyone who says different is a complete idiot and I'm surprised they have enough brain power for even basic functions like keeping their heart beating and breathing.

Bush, whether you like him or not, has proven to be a pretty honorable man. He does, or is trying to do pretty much everything he said he would when campaigning.

It comes down to this: who do you believe more? Saddam when he says he doesn't have WMD's, or Bush when he says Saddam does?
If you believe Saddam, then as far as I'm concerned, you can go straight to hell.
Then again, that's just my opinion.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Reason.

Remember, Bush said we are going to wipe out ALL terrorism. That means not just the people responsible for 9/11. Saddam is a sponsor of terrorism, too, this is well-documented.

So are we, and that is well-documented.

We support Israel, and don't directly condone their actions but we are still responsible for it, and through oil to terrorist countries.

Bogus. Not even close to the same thing. Israel does nothing but RESPOND to terrorism......they don't have people all over the world blowing stuff up.
And yes, if we buy oil from certain Middle East countries, I suppose you could say we indirectly sponsor terrorism, although that's a stretch and it isn't directly sponsoring it.

Saddam DIRECTLY sponsors terrorism. He murders his own people. He starves them. He most certainly has WMD's, and if you believe different, you're an idiot.
He is a threat, and this war on terrorism is about removing the threats. That's THREATS, as in plural. He's just one of many. North Korea is next, and there might be another Middle Eastern country or two that gets a taste of what we think of terrorists if some things don't change.
I don't give a crap about what the US may or may not have done in the past.....that's the past. This is now, and Saddam has to go.

 

[Syringer]

I pity those poor souls who automatically assume the government is lying to them, especially when the current government isn't the party they support.

Yup, and Clinton really didn't "have relations with Monica".

And Nixon had never heard of Watergate.

And on and on and on..

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Syringer

I pity those poor souls who automatically assume the government is lying to them, especially when the current government isn't the party they support.

Yup, and Clinton really didn't "have relations with Monica".

And Nixon had never heard of Watergate.

And on and on and on..

That was then. That was Clinton. Bush ain't Clinton or Nixon, thankfully. He has shown himself to be nothing but honorable so far, and neither you nor I have any reason to doubt him yet. And the people saying Clinton was lying were just A BIT more credible than Saddam, don't you think?
Plus, you still have that old, "either you believe Bush or you believe Saddam" thing, and there really isn't any middle ground. If you say you don't believe Bush, than you might as well say you believe Saddam, it's the exact same thing.

 

[saltedeggman]

Bush has some unfinished business his father left him

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Reason.

Whether you believe he has ties to Bin Laden is irrelevant, although I don't think there's any doubt.

What makes you think that? Anything other than Bush's assertions?

Let's see....I think there was an Al Quaeda higher-up that went to Iraq to get patched up after being wounded by us.

Then there's that matter of an Iraqi official meeting in Europe with someone from Al Quaeda, (wasn't is Mr. Atta?)

Where there's smoke, there's fire, and I don't think anyone is denying these reports.

Also, yes, Bush's word that they are connected is good enough for me. I pity those poor souls who automatically assume the government is lying to them, especially when the current government isn't the party they support.

Bottom line here is this: Saddam has a long, long history of lying. It's documented and not debatable. Anyone who says different is a complete idiot and I'm surprised they have enough brain power for even basic functions like keeping their heart beating and breathing.

Bush, whether you like him or not, has proven to be a pretty honorable man. He does, or is trying to do pretty much everything he said he would when campaigning.

It comes down to this: who do you believe more? Saddam when he says he doesn't have WMD's, or Bush when he says Saddam does?
If you believe Saddam, then as far as I'm concerned, you can go straight to hell.
Then again, that's just my opinion.

Although each administration is different, history has proven that the US government does fabricate or exaggerate situations as a pretext to go to war. Although I firmly believe that Saddam has WMD, I highly doubt it is anywhere near the limit and or capability that WBush has described in his speeches.

Also, 3 isolated incidents within Iraq involving Al-Qaeda does not signify a tie. Saddam by no means has full control of his country, nor can stop any borderline fundamentalist officer within the Iraqi government from meeting with anyone. I wouldnt be surprised if Iraq is a safe haven for Al-Qaeda terrorists, but then again, there are over 60+ countries that have safe havens for Al-Qaeda terrorists across the world, including multiple havens in the United States. It is not possible to screen everyone as a terrorist, and its even harder if you're in the Middle East for obvious reasons. If you remember history, Saddam is fully against religious fundamentalists, like Al-Qaeda, because Iraq is a secular government, and its not like Bin Laden hasnt called Saddam the great Satan, either.

Also, for your oil conspiracy folks:
Haliburton (former VP Cheney oil company) gets a defense contract to build Iraqi oil fields after a possible war. IMO, its rather coincidental, but you still have to cover all grounds. The timing is *very* poor for this type of contract, but I still dont think its about the oil. Its more like covering all your bases in a just in-case situation.

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Bogus. Not even close to the same thing. Israel does nothing but RESPOND to terrorism......they don't have people all over the world blowing stuff up.

And the Palestinians do?

And yes, if we buy oil from certain Middle East countries, I suppose you could say we indirectly sponsor terrorism, although that's a stretch and it isn't directly sponsoring it.

If it weren't for us and our car loving nation, do you really think those countries' economies would be able to support terrorism as they do today?

Saddam DIRECTLY sponsors terrorism. He murders his own people.

Saddam murders people who he believes are threats to his country. Hey, guess what, we do too!

He most certainly has WMD's, and if you believe different, you're an idiot.

Show me undeniable proof that this is the case. Although that's kind of a rhetorical statement, because I don't expect you to.

He is a threat, and this war on terrorism is about removing the threats. That's THREATS, as in plural. He's just one of many. North Korea is next, and there might be another Middle Eastern country or two that gets a taste of what we think of terrorists if some things don't change.

In a few seconds we can wipe out any country off the face of the earth. Our military is practically unbeatable. We have war mongerers in the top office. Bush and the U.S. are currently the biggest threats in the world.

I don't expect you to take an impartial view on this, but if you want one, look at what the people of Europe believe..and they also believe we are much bigger threats than Saddam.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Syringer

I pity those poor souls who automatically assume the government is lying to them, especially when the current government isn't the party they support.

Yup, and Clinton really didn't "have relations with Monica".

And Nixon had never heard of Watergate.

And on and on and on..

That was then. That was Clinton. Bush ain't Clinton or Nixon, thankfully. He has shown himself to be nothing but honorable so far, and neither you nor I have any reason to doubt him yet. And the people saying Clinton was lying were just A BIT more credible than Saddam, don't you think?
Plus, you still have that old, "either you believe Bush or you believe Saddam" thing, and there really isn't any middle ground. If you say you don't believe Bush, than you might as well say you believe Saddam, it's the exact same thing.

Bush says Saddam has enough WMD, composing of nuclear, chemical, and biological to threaten the security of the United States. Saddam says he has NONE at all. Im sorry,but there is a middle ground.

I believe Saddam poses some chemical and biological, but no nuclear, and certainly not enough to threaten the security of the United States (but ppl define that differently). I dont believe bush, and I dont believe Saddam. Very simple. This is not a Yes/No question.

 

[Pacfanweb]

I really don't care what Europeans believe. All of history is about Europe being conquered and in turn liberated by one country or another.
Many of these wars were lost by people who believed the same thing about others that they do about the US today. The difference is, we aren't conquerors. We are liberators. We are not going to live in fear of terrorism. We are going to do something about it.
Furthermore, I don't think that the majority of Europeans believe that about the US.

France and Germany about 2 of Iraq's biggest trade partners.....THAT is why they don't want to go to war until THEY think it's necessary....if you want to believe something about governments lying, THAT is where you need to start looking. Just follow the money.
Seems like I heard France is responsible for about 25% of Iraq's foreign trade.

Oh, and we don't murder our own people like Saddam. I'm sure the government's hands aren't totally clean as far as the past is concerned, but you can't compare what Saddam has done to his own people to ANYTHING the US has EVER done.

As far as undeniable proof that Saddam has WMD's, I think you're going to see it pretty soon. Then you'll know that Bush was telling the truth all along, like he has so far.
I, nor you, have no reason to doubt him yet. If W says Saddam has them, I say, go get him.

Now if Clinton had said that, it would be a different story. If Nixon had said that, again, different story.

 

[Pacfanweb]

That was then. That was Clinton. Bush ain't Clinton or Nixon, thankfully. He has shown himself to be nothing but honorable so far, and neither you nor I have any reason to doubt him yet. And the people saying Clinton was lying were just A BIT more credible than Saddam, don't you think?
Plus, you still have that old, "either you believe Bush or you believe Saddam" thing, and there really isn't any middle ground. If you say you don't believe Bush, than you might as well say you believe Saddam, it's the exact same thing.

Bush says Saddam has enough WMD, composing of nuclear, chemical, and biological to threaten the security of the United States. Saddam says he has NONE at all. Im sorry,but there is a middle ground.

I believe Saddam poses some chemical and biological, but no nuclear, and certainly not enough to threaten the security of the United States (but ppl define that differently). I dont believe bush, and I dont believe Saddam. Very simple. This is not a Yes/No question.[/quote]

It most certainly is. I don't care if Saddam has ONE freaking gas or biological bomb. That's one too many.
Of course, I am exaggerating a bit, but you get the point.

I don't recall Bush saying that Saddam actually has any nuclear weapons, just that he is trying to get them. So again, there is no middle ground at all.
You either think Saddam had WMD's, or you don't. If you do, then you believe Bush, simple as that.

 

[KickItTwice]

911 is a reason to go into Iraq. Saddam eagerly supports terrorism and is involved with most terrorist activity. If Sadam had the power, he would have all the americans put to death immediately. If you are an american, Sadam Hussein is not your friend. If you are an american and you believe anything Sadam Hussein says, than you are one retarted fool. Sadam is a threat to america's security. Any american defending Sadam Hussein is a traitor to his fellow americans.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
I really don't care what Europeans believe. All of history is about Europe being conquered and in turn liberated by one country or another.
Many of these wars were lost by people who believed the same thing about others that they do about the US today. The difference is, we aren't conquerors. We are liberators. We are not going to live in fear of terrorism. We are going to do something about it.
Furthermore, I don't think that the majority of Europeans believe that about the US.

France and Germany about 2 of Iraq's biggest trade partners.....THAT is why they don't want to go to war until THEY think it's necessary....if you want to believe something about governments lying, THAT is where you need to start looking. Just follow the money.
Seems like I heard France is responsible for about 25% of Iraq's foreign trade.

Oh, and we don't murder our own people like Saddam. I'm sure the government's hands aren't totally clean as far as the past is concerned, but you can't compare what Saddam has done to his own people to ANYTHING the US has EVER done.

As far as undeniable proof that Saddam has WMD's, I think you're going to see it pretty soon. Then you'll know that Bush was telling the truth all along, like he has so far.
I, nor you, have no reason to doubt him yet. If W says Saddam has them, I say, go get him.

Now if Clinton had said that, it would be a different story. If Nixon had said that, again, different story.

Just wondering, hypothetically...

If the United States invades Iraq... 2 possibilities about WMD comes about. Either Iraq has them, or doesnt (aside from quantity and type). What if the US finds no WMD in Iraq (or just 2 rusty missiles that cant even fly, or some warheads left to rot in the middle of nowhere) ? What then?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
I don't care if Saddam has ONE freaking gas or biological bomb. That's one too many.

That's one cliche too many.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Excuse.