News flash: the war in Iraq is NOT a war against terror

jacknjill

Active Member
no im not saying that, thats why i put in that my parents are veterans. to show that its not that i hate the soldiers or something. i care about them. im just saying that its not some huge crime that they actually had to go and fight for us. i mean yeah, everyone would rather that they were home safe with us, but its not always possible.
when you fight in a war, you should expect that a lot of soldiers are going to be killed. but you should be thankful that the death toll of this war is NO WHERE near the death toll's of WWI and WW2. i know i am. and i hope that they will be able to come home soon
 

mythrenody

Member
LMAO,Wow,This is just one of those stupid debates that never ends. So is this gonna be locked or what?
But ya,entertaining. And i agree with Jack and Jill that the death toll isn't far less than previous wars and thankfull for that 'cause my brother had to go over and came back safe!
 

lovethesea

Active Member
Originally Posted by jcrim
So should we not care when these young men are killed? It just really bothers me.

we all care, just as the many generations before us cared about the loss of troops anywhere in the world. Not just the US troops. Eached country mourned the loss of their own.
 
J

jcrim

Guest
Originally Posted by lovethesea
we all care, just as the many generations before us cared about the loss of troops anywhere in the world. Not just the US troops. Eached country mourned the loss of their own.
Yes but in this case, what are we fighting for? To go back to the beginning of this discussion, we are being lied to about the purpose of this war. This is an unnecessary waste of lives.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
We have been told by Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, that Saddam Hussein welcomed young al Qaeda members "with open arms" before the war, that they "entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," and that the regime "strictly and directly" controlled their activities. We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war. We have been told by Ayad Allawi, former Iraqi prime minister and a longtime CIA source, that other Iraqi Intelligence documents indicate bin Laden's top deputy was in Iraq for a jihadist conference in September 1999.
All of this is new--information obtained since the fall of the Hussein regime. And yet critics of the Iraq war and many in the media refuse to see it.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by jcrim
Yes but in this case, what are we fighting for? To go back to the beginning of this discussion, we are being lied to about the purpose of this war. This is an unnecessary waste of lives.
We are engaged in a war on terror. The idea is to weaken and/or destroy the enemy before they strike again here on US soil.
It is all about being proactive...I understand some may not agree with this while others simply do not have the cognitive skill to understand. Some will simply use this to further some political agenda.
When we are at war, it is in the national interest and safety of our troops to support them. If we do not, we are aiding the enemy and encouraging them to fight on.
JMO
 

space_geek

Active Member
Here's what I dont understand about all this. Why is it that President Bush is always saying, "oh, the iraqi government is progressing nicely, blah, blah blah." and then he turns around and says, "oh, but their military isnt ready for our troops to leave yet." But he seems to think the rest of the government is just fine. I dont mean to sound naive, but in my opinion, he is killing the troops. We should have been OUT when we got Saddam. We need to let Iraq become its own country, not the 51st state of the u.s. We need to let Iraq handle its own problems, its fully capable. Just out of curiousity, is Iraq considered a constitutional democracy or a parliamentary democracy? They have both.
Just my 2 cents.
 
J

jcrim

Guest
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
We are engaged in a war on terror. The idea is to weaken and/or destroy the enemy before they strike again here on US soil.
It is all about being proactive...I understand some may not agree with this while others simply do not have the cognitive skill to understand. Some will simply use this to further some political agenda.
When we are at war, it is in the national interest and safety of our troops to support them. If we do not, we are aiding the enemy and encouraging them to fight on.
JMO
Proactive? There is no allegation that Iraq has ANY Al-Queda training sites. As previously stated, there has NEVER been a terrorist threat from Iraq. Be skeptical of our national media trying to tie Iraq to terrorism based on very loose connections. The fact is that if terror is truly the agenda here, there would be much better enemies. How about Saudi Arabia? Most terrorists are of Saudi descent. Naah, Bush has too many financial ties to Saudi. How about Afghanistan where terrorist training camps are located? How about Pakistan, the country where Bin Laden currently resides? Even Kuwait has produced terrorists. Nope... if Bush truly believes this war is to prevent terror then he is attacking the wrong nation.
BTW, the best way to support our troops is to demand their safe and immediate return home. JMO.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
• Uber-terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the man whom the CIA believes murdered Berg and is the mastermind behind much of today's savage terrorism in Iraq and surrounding countries, is a case in point. He previously ran an Islamist terrorist-training camp in Afghanistan. Zarqawi was wounded during America's Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001 and fled to Iraq when U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban. He received medical care for a serious leg injury and convalesced for more than two months in Baathist Baghdad. At minimum, Hussein's regime provided Zarqawi with safe harbor and free passage in and out of Iraq.
Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist camp in northeastern Iraq (with chemical weapons labs) and later arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan. While some analysts believe that Zarqawi is a rival rather than an associate of Osama bin Laden, he did have links to bin Laden and allowed his camp in Iraq to be used as a refuge for al Qaeda terrorists fleeing Afghanistan.
Zarqawi is not the only terrorist with ties to Hussein. In his report in the Hudson Institute's American Outlook magazine, Deroy Murdock explains how "Baathist Iraq was a general store for terrorists, complete with cash, training, lodging and medical attention."
• Among the killers hiding in Iraq was Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. His Abu Nidal Organization killed or maimed more than 1,200 people in 20 countries, including the airborne bombing of a TWA airliner in 1974 and the attack on a TWA ticket counter at Rome's Leonardo Da Vinci airport in 1986. Nidal had taken refuge in Iraq since 1999. He reportedly "killed himself" with four bullets to the head in Baghdad in August 2002.
 

lovethesea

Active Member
if you ask most of those men and women, they would say they want to complete
this. Several become offended when asked the question. They believe we are questioning their ability to do their job. When Iraq tells us to leave is when we should start to slowly pull troops out.
We know a family that fled Saddam years ago, and hasn't been able to go back to their families. They have never once questioned what we are doing there, just a most
Iraqi's aren't either. Don't let the media fool you either Jcrim.....they are only showing the negative side, because thats the story that people need to chew on. Have you seen any story of the positive sides?
There are many, just ask anyone that comes back, they do have positive stories to tell and are discouraged when they find out, that we don't know them.
 

reefer747

Member
Originally Posted by lovethesea
if you ask most of those men and women, they would say they want to complete
this. Several become offended when asked the question. They believe we are questioning their ability to do their job. When Iraq tells us to leave is when we should start to slowly pull troops out.
We know a family that fled Saddam years ago, and hasn't been able to go back to their families. They have never once questioned what we are doing there, just a most
Iraqi's aren't either. Don't let the media fool you either Jcrim.....they are only showing the negative side, because thats the story that people need to chew on. Have you seen any story of the positive sides?
There are many, just ask anyone that comes back, they do have positive stories to tell and are discouraged when they find out, that we don't know them.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel there is anything positive about a war. What kinds of positive stories are they going to tell? People don't chew on negative words about the war, people watch and listen in digust and horror, which keeps them glued to the TV.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
You canot be engaged in war and not suffer loss of life. We can only tackle one terrorist nation at a time.
Please site the number of attacks here on US soil since we began the war on terror. make no mistke...they deparately want to hit us again here at home.
To quit now admits defeat to the terrorists and provides them motivation to continue. . Go back and review history BEFORE we began our war on terror. The support was there. It has now weakend for various reasons...most political.
What is the ultimate goal regarding the war on terror? Prevent attacks such as 9/11. Perhaps if we would have taken such a stand after the initial attack in the early 90's on the WTC's we would not have lost all those lives on 9/11.
Those of us that do not learn from history shall live to see history repeat itself.
 
J

jcrim

Guest
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist camp in northeastern Iraq (with chemical weapons labs) and later arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.
Is this one of the chemical weapons labs that we NEVER FOUND during this war? Or are you talking about the terrorist camp that we NEVER FOUND?
 

reefer747

Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
Those of us that do not learn from history shall live to see history repeat itself.
That one line really says a lot. It really made me pause and think. Very well put ScubaDoo.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by jcrim
Is this one of the chemical weapons labs that we NEVER FOUND during this war? Or are you talking about the terrorist camp that we NEVER FOUND?
WOMD were moved to Syria before we invaded.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.
Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year. He said the search for WMD in Iraq -- the main reason President Bush went to war to oust Saddam Hussein -- has been exhausted without finding such weapons. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s.
But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war," Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA's Web site Monday night.
He cited some evidence of a transfer. "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined," he said. "There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation."
But Mr. Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because "the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve."
Arguing against a WMD transfer to Syria, Mr. Duelfer said, was the fact that all senior Iraqi detainees involved in Saddam's weapons programs and security "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria."
"Nevertheless," the inspector said, "given the insular and compartmented nature of the regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation."
He said that even if all leads are pursued someday, the ISG may never be able to finally determine whether WMDs were taken across the border. "Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," his report stated. "However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."
Speculation on WMDs in Syria was fueled by the fact that satellite images picked up long lines of trucks waiting to cross the border into Syria before the coalition launched the invasion. Mr. Duelfer previously had reported that Syria was a major conduit for materials entering Iraq that were banned by the United Nations.
Saddam placed such importance on illicit trade with Syria that he dispatched Iraqi Intelligence Service agents to various border crossings to supervise border agents, and, in some cases, to shoo them away, senior officials told The Washington Times last year.
Today, U.S. officials charge that Syria continues to harbor Saddam loyalists who are directing and financing the insurgency in Iraq. The Iraq-Syria relationship between two Ba'athist socialist regimes has further encouraged speculation of weapons transfers.
Several senior U.S. officials have said since the invasion that they thought WMD went to Syria.
Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command during the war, said in his book, "Inside CentCom," that intelligence reports pointed to WMD movement into Syria.
In October, John A. Shaw, then the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told The Times that Russian special forces and intelligence troops worked with Saddam's intelligence service to move weapons and material to Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran.
"The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," he said.
 

lovethesea

Active Member
people walking free in their streets, not fearing the wrath of a dictator. Schools and business running as they see fit. Women actually holding a place in society, not just Saddams intell. To know that they can come and go as they please.
Believe me, the storeis that our friends can tell, are horrific. Their families that could not get out years ago, are now glad to be a part of their history. Freedom to vote without fear of being killed if you didn't vote for Saddam. Some of them don't look at this as a war, but more of getting rid of a dictator that was harvesting hatred, terrorism, and mass murder and theivery.
 
Top