Democrats on WMD's in Iraq
03-27-2004, 12:31 AM
#32
Registered User
No one denies that Saddam had WMDs back in the 80's when the Kurds were gassed but evidence now shows that the UN inspectors did the job they set out to do and he didn't have any that posed a threat to the US in 2003.
Chief US inspector Kaye, the CIA and other intelligence agencies are now all agreeing that no WMDs left Iraq and that none will be found in Iraq.
Simple fact is they just weren't there.
Chief US inspector Kaye, the CIA and other intelligence agencies are now all agreeing that no WMDs left Iraq and that none will be found in Iraq.
Simple fact is they just weren't there.
03-27-2004, 12:29 PM
#33
Iraq was a secular state that was trying to keep the religious fundamentalists at bay. It appears that Iraq had no intention of working with and especially providing weapons to terrorists, as they realized that being a secular state that they would probably and up as targets. See below.
In summary then, since no WMD have been found, since even Bush admits that there are no links between Iraq and 9/11, since Iraq wasn't sponsering international terrorists, it appears that the invasion of Iraq has done nothing to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks on the US. In fact, it appears that the terrorist who did commit the attacks on the US on 9/11 have continued to operate from bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and an obvious expectation is that they are operating in other parts of the world. Unlike the invasion of Afghanaistan where the world could see and acknowledge the US was protecting itself, and others, by invading Iraq the US has played directly into the propaganda of Osama Bin Laden and has created yet more terrorists.
********************
16 Nov 2003, 18:21 UTC
A U.S. military expert says weapons inspectors in Iraq have found no evidence that former President Saddam Hussein tried to transfer chemical or biological weapons technology to terrorists.
Senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Anthony Cordesman, made the statement in a new report after meeting with top U.S. officials in Iraq and members of the Central Intelligence Agency who are leading the search for weapons of mass destruction.
The Washington Post said Sunday that the report claims the loyalist Fedayeen militia was the only terrorist group that might have received weapons technology from the Iraqi government.
**********************
In summary then, since no WMD have been found, since even Bush admits that there are no links between Iraq and 9/11, since Iraq wasn't sponsering international terrorists, it appears that the invasion of Iraq has done nothing to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks on the US. In fact, it appears that the terrorist who did commit the attacks on the US on 9/11 have continued to operate from bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and an obvious expectation is that they are operating in other parts of the world. Unlike the invasion of Afghanaistan where the world could see and acknowledge the US was protecting itself, and others, by invading Iraq the US has played directly into the propaganda of Osama Bin Laden and has created yet more terrorists.
********************
16 Nov 2003, 18:21 UTC
A U.S. military expert says weapons inspectors in Iraq have found no evidence that former President Saddam Hussein tried to transfer chemical or biological weapons technology to terrorists.
Senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Anthony Cordesman, made the statement in a new report after meeting with top U.S. officials in Iraq and members of the Central Intelligence Agency who are leading the search for weapons of mass destruction.
The Washington Post said Sunday that the report claims the loyalist Fedayeen militia was the only terrorist group that might have received weapons technology from the Iraqi government.
**********************
03-27-2004, 05:02 PM
#34
Registered User
Could you please tell me where you got the idea that the ONLY reason we went to Iraq was because of WMD's? It was never from George Bush. That was NEVER the primary reason. Can you say 9 1 1 !
Oh, and never mind about the terrorist training camps in Iraq. Sadam couldn't have possibly have known they were there.
By the way, do you think Libya would have allowed inspections if we just left them alone. Would have just fessed up anyway.
And Clarke, now that's a guy you can really believe. Especially after getting paid to say what he did. A real patriot! Waited 3 years to say anything? I think lies. Too bad all of your information comes from CNN.
Oh, and never mind about the terrorist training camps in Iraq. Sadam couldn't have possibly have known they were there.
By the way, do you think Libya would have allowed inspections if we just left them alone. Would have just fessed up anyway.
And Clarke, now that's a guy you can really believe. Especially after getting paid to say what he did. A real patriot! Waited 3 years to say anything? I think lies. Too bad all of your information comes from CNN.
03-27-2004, 05:13 PM
#35
Administrator / Scooter Bum
Of course there's nothing to find............
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp
He had several years to bury it in the desert.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp
He had several years to bury it in the desert.
03-27-2004, 07:34 PM
#36
You need to read the whole thread. As previously posted, Bush has had to state that there are no links between Iraq and 9/11, see below. Powell has had to say the same thing. Did talk radio carry the news that Bush and Powell have admitted that there is no link between Iraq and 9/11 ?
WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday [Sept 18, 2003] there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.
The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said.
WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday [Sept 18, 2003] there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans.
The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.
Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said.
03-27-2004, 10:16 PM
#37
Registered User
Excuse me, I did read the whole thread. I never stated that Saddam was directly responsible for 911. The fact still remains that there were terrorist camps in Iraq. They could have been used to train terrorists that have attacked the US in other places as well as here.
03-27-2004, 10:29 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kansas City & Maysville, MO
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by 1sttruck
Iraq was a secular state that was trying to keep the religious fundamentalists at bay.
Iraq was a secular state that was trying to keep the religious fundamentalists at bay.
And Iraq didn't sponsor international terrorists? Ever heard of Hamas?
03-28-2004, 02:48 AM
#39
Registered User
Originally posted by fschiola
Too bad all of your information comes from CNN.
Too bad all of your information comes from CNN.
GWB has personally said several times that Iraq had no connection with 9/11 or al Queda.
Fox just conveniently fails to report it.
03-29-2004, 07:20 AM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Maine
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets take a poll,
If the WMD's are ever found and Saddam has no links to 9-11 and he hates Bin Landin and Haliburton makes a fortune and the French and Germans hate us till the end of time, How many of you like me don't give a rat's ***? I sure don't!
If the WMD's are ever found and Saddam has no links to 9-11 and he hates Bin Landin and Haliburton makes a fortune and the French and Germans hate us till the end of time, How many of you like me don't give a rat's ***? I sure don't!
03-29-2004, 09:31 AM
#41
fschiola, you're the one that stated that 9/11 was the reason to invade Iraq, but even Bush and Powell have had to admit there is no link between Iraq and 9/11. The CIA and FBI have said the same thing all along, and Clarke, O'neill, and others have merely pointed out that it was Bush and team that made the case otherwise.
Two basic items that are needed to fight international terrorists are good intelligence, and special operations personnel. In the military the Army Special Forces are probably best suited for extended operations of this type, and the CIA has always worked in this capacity. A problem that the US has is a shortage of 'Arabic' speaking personnel, but Bush had Arabic speaking CIA and Special Forces personnel pulled out of Afghanistan for the invasion of Iraq. There is no question that there was a link between Afghanistan and 9/11.
International intelligence is needed to fight international terrorists, but again Bush has ignored this problem by invading Iraq, in violation of international law in the eyes of many. I know that many Bush supporters not only don't care about the UN and others in the world, they hate the UN and other potential allies, but others in this country aren't going to want to suffer another terrorist attack merely because of political dogma. As a side note Poland will evidently be pulling it's troops out of Iraq early, as they state that they were mislead on WMD.
Two basic items that are needed to fight international terrorists are good intelligence, and special operations personnel. In the military the Army Special Forces are probably best suited for extended operations of this type, and the CIA has always worked in this capacity. A problem that the US has is a shortage of 'Arabic' speaking personnel, but Bush had Arabic speaking CIA and Special Forces personnel pulled out of Afghanistan for the invasion of Iraq. There is no question that there was a link between Afghanistan and 9/11.
International intelligence is needed to fight international terrorists, but again Bush has ignored this problem by invading Iraq, in violation of international law in the eyes of many. I know that many Bush supporters not only don't care about the UN and others in the world, they hate the UN and other potential allies, but others in this country aren't going to want to suffer another terrorist attack merely because of political dogma. As a side note Poland will evidently be pulling it's troops out of Iraq early, as they state that they were mislead on WMD.
03-29-2004, 08:40 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Sky Country
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As a side note Poland will evidently be pulling it's troops out of Iraq early, as they state that they were mislead on WMD."
Yup- those four guys will surely be missed
Yup- those four guys will surely be missed
03-30-2004, 12:53 AM
#44
crobtex asked: 1sttruck, please explain you statement: "Iraq was a secular state that was trying to keep the religious fundamentalists at bay."
Some may not like the reference, but the BBC seemed to do a good job on an aspect of the topic, see the link below. Other articles on the topic are more strident, suggesting that by removing Saddam we've opened the gates for more religious fundamentalists to gain hold.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1950517.stm
Some may not like the reference, but the BBC seemed to do a good job on an aspect of the topic, see the link below. Other articles on the topic are more strident, suggesting that by removing Saddam we've opened the gates for more religious fundamentalists to gain hold.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1950517.stm
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post