"The Mother of All Connections"

[Travelsong]

Okay so...Saddam and his regime are likely tied to occasionally funding or supporting terrorist activities.

How does this provide a sound basis for attacking Iraq in the name of 'hunting down, capturing, or killing' terrorists?

 

[church mouse guy]

It disproves the oft-repeated statement that there was no connection whatsoever. We could have attacked Iran or Syria but I think Iraq was a good place to start. Syria may be next. Iran will have to be attacked if they continue to build an atomic bomb.

 

[Daisy]

Let's see here, one Iraqi soldier gets recruited into al Qaida and that makes Saddam Hussein responsible 'cause he was so all-seeing and all-powerful that he was personally responsible for everything that happened within his borders. That, in turn, gives the US, the UK & Oz the moral imperative to destroy the country and kill countless, literally per military policy, innocent civilians as collateral damage. Of course, most of them are Moslems, not to mention foreigners, so how innocent can they be, really.

Ok, why not? As the 800-lb gorilla, we can do pretty much as we want. If you don't care for our justifications, you obviously don't support the soldiers who are dying for your sake and you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You should be either shot, hanged or held incommunicado for the duration. Freedom of speech should not extend to criticizing the president and the military....because our enemies would like that, they would take comfort in that.

The good citizens of Iraq shouldn't mind the death and destruction because they got to vote for unnamed candidates off a list determined by the destroyers of their country. Those elected have appointed a government so heavily salted with Shiite clerics that it appears the shari'ia will be written into the new constitution. Under the Ba'athists, equal rights for women were only nominal anyway, so what is the big deal if that goes away? The US does just fine without them.

 

[church mouse guy]

Ha, ha, Daisy. It was the Clintons who told us that Iraq had WMDs and the Clintons maintained that position all during the build-up to the war.

In fact, Clinton even bombed the HQ of the Iraqi secret service. So the Clintons believed that Iraq was a hotbed of terror unless Clinton is the 800 lb thing?

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
It disproves the oft-repeated statement that there was no connection whatsoever. We could have attacked Iran or Syria but I think Iraq was a good place to start. Syria may be next. Iran will have to be attacked if they continue to build an atomic bomb.

There is and was no direct connection between 9/11 and Saddam. There's just no smoking gun.

 

[church mouse guy]

That is not exactly the point, Travelsong. There is a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations.

Here is what The Weekly Standard published:

"We know about this relationship not from Bush administration assertions but from internal Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) documents recovered in Iraq after the war--documents that have been authenticated by a U.S. intelligence community long hostile to the very idea that any such relationship exists.

"We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=1

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Ha, ha, Daisy. It was the Clintons who told us that Iraq had WMDs and the Clintons maintained that position all during the build-up to the war.

In fact, Clinton even bombed the HQ of the Iraqi secret service. So the Clintons believed that Iraq was a hotbed of terror unless Clinton is the 800 lb thing?

What have "the Clintons" to do with deciding that al Qaida operated out of Iraq?

Sen. Clinton did vote in favor of giving President Bush war powers to invade Iraq; so as far as that goes, she is as responsible as the other senators.

 

[church mouse guy]

Daisy, you make it sound as if there was no justification for the war. Bill said that there were WMDs and you point out that Hill voted for the war. The war has now revealed that there was cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda. So the reasons for the war went beyond just trying to make you New Yorkers safer. And we know that Saddam wanted to build an atomic bomb and was trying to buy yellowcake uranium in Africa.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
"We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset."

Just as we know that prior to 1991 Saddam was a U.S. asset. Many of the hundreds of thousands of deaths we now blame his regime for were directly supported and sponsored by our very own government.

Brief history lesson

Seeing as how the various terrorist organizations are not represented by any particular country doesn't the Iraq invasion seem rather arbitrary? It isn't as though this war has exactly been a smashing success against Al Qaeda and Co. now has it?

How long until we can collectively agree that this war has not made the united States and the west a safer place?

 

[church mouse guy]

I have seen that video before. The Middle East is unstable. The left has been saying that there were no ties. If you have not been saying that, Travelsong, then this is not aimed at you. We now know that there were ties and that Iraq was a host for terrorists. That along with his failure to comply with the UN, his attempts to buy yellowcake uranium to build an atomic bomb, and even Bill Clinton's belief that he had WMDs made him the next target. It worked out okay because he is a butcher and it has put pressure on Syria and Iran. It is a long war.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
I have seen that video before. The Middle East is unstable. The left has been saying that there were no ties. If you have not been saying that, Travelsong, then this is not aimed at you. We now know that there were ties and that Iraq was a host for terrorists. That along with his failure to comply with the UN, his attempts to buy yellowcake uranium to build an atomic bomb, and even Bill Clinton's belief that he had WMDs made him the next target. It worked out okay because he is a butcher and it has put pressure on Syria and Iran. It is a long war.

It is a long war which has not combated terrorism in the least. Why? Because Saddam's ties to international terrorism were at best negligible.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
Daisy, you make it sound as if there was no justification for the war.

Insufficient, imho, yes.

Bill said that there were WMDs and you point out that Hill voted for the war.

Obviously Bill was mistaken. Sen. Clinton voted not to go to war, but to give the President the discretion to do so. Perhaps, she wrongly supposed that he wouldn't do it on a lie or insufficient evidence.

The war has now revealed that there was cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda.

I haven't seen it. Was there more cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda than there was between the US and al Qaeda?

So the reasons for the war went beyond just trying to make you New Yorkers safer.

I doubt the reason had anything whatsoever to do with making us New Yorkers safer.

And we know that Saddam wanted to build an atomic bomb and was trying to buy yellowcake uranium in Africa.

Yeah, right - 45 mins away from the mushroom cloud!

We know that Saddam was totally incapable of building an atomic bomb and did not buy any yellowcake and did not have the means to refine it had he been able to. In other words, containment, oversight and interantional cooperation was actually working!

 

[church mouse guy]

There is a time for war and a time for peace. This is a time for war. Iraq has been a proper war in all respects in spite of the leftists doubts. This has been shown by the attacks against Spain, London, Egypt, India, etc--the list is very long.

I think that the main expenditure of blood and money is going to come from the USA, England, and Australia among English-speaking nations as well as other dear friends throughout the world who refuse to be victims of Islamic terror.

Saddam called the Gulf War the mother of all battles. His connections to the terror network of Islam have proven to be the mother of all connections. Saddam should be executed.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
There is a time for war and a time for peace. This is a time for war. Iraq has been a proper war in all respects in spite of the leftists doubts. This has been shown by the attacks against Spain, London, Egypt, India, etc--the list is very long.

Sorry I don't see the connection.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by JamesBell:
Because enemy combatants shouldn't be tried until hostilities cease.

Maybe that rxplains why we've NEVER put anyone on trial for supporting the 9/11 attack. Look how the UK has quickly followed up on leads to those involved in the attack in London. Doesn't anyone find it a little strange that 9/11 just went away without any judicial action? I suppose since this war is going to go on ad infinitum we'll never try anyone, just hold there without legal support or even accuse them of anything.

 

[Travelsong]

Hey, whatever serves as the pretext for blowing towel heads sky high and pushing our freedom loving, capitalist dogma on the rest of the world works for me.