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

scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
No pull out until the job is finished. No timetable as this is a continuing war on terror. No turning back unitl we have stamped out or signficantly weakened the rats, roaches and fleas
I will give them credit (reluctantly) for having the drive and committment to carry on. They know we do not have the stomach for anything long-term. Time we prove them worng. Pull out and you rubber stamp their view. The enemy knows us better than we know ourselves
...we are so predictable.
Time we look back on history and learn our lessons.
JMO
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Just a partial listing of some of the boy scouts housed in Iraq...but remember this is not a war on terror...
Several expatriate terrorist groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by jcrim
I All they have to do is use the term terrorism to justify anything they want to do. Here are some facts:
1) No iraqi has ever been a part of a terrorist act against the US
.

How did I miss this........well for one example...there was a foiled plot by Iraq to assasinate Bush it back in the earlly 90's...so where are you getting your "facts'?
Perhaps this does not fit your definition of terrorism.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Hillary Clinton her own bad self made reference to Iraq/Al Queda link in a 2002 speech. Did Bush somehow fake the intelligence reports she was reading with her husband from 93 to 2001? There were several known meeting between Al Queda people and members of the Iraqi government.
The president of Russia has stated his intellegence agency had evidence Iraq was interested in making terrorist style attacks on US interests both inside and outside the country. This confirmed information our own intellegence had uncovered.
There is positive proof Iraq had WMD technology at a minimum because they used them in the past. Because of Iraq's actions with the weapons inspectors there was no reason to think Iraq had destroyed their weapons. We have in fact found small amounts of WMD's there but not the large stockpiles expected. Then again how much gas does it take to kill everyone in a su
ay station or airport?
In light of 911 and considering Iraq had been in contact with Al Queda in the past and was interested in making terrorist style attacks on the US would you want to assume that Iraq wouldn't hand off a few cannisters of gas to some of Bin Laden's buddies?
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
lovethesea said:
OK Scuba.......I vote you for Pres.....2008 :cheer:[/QUOTE
LOL...I'm too ugly
My biggest fear is we will cut and run and in a few years we will have another massive body count here in the US.
Being proactive is a concept many do not understand. Too many folks cannot visually see the future based on the decisions made today. Many decisions made today simply ignore the lessons from yesterday.
Click to expand...
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
Hillary Clinton her own bad self made reference to Iraq/Al Queda link in a 2002 speech. Did Bush somehow fake the intelligence reports she was reading with her husband from 93 to 2001? There were several known meeting between Al Queda people and members of the Iraqi government.
The president of Russia has stated his intellegence agency had evidence Iraq was interested in making terrorist style attacks on US interests both inside and outside the country. This confirmed information our own intellegence had uncovered.
There is positive proof Iraq had WMD technology at a minimum because they used them in the past. Because of Iraq's actions with the weapons inspectors there was no reason to think Iraq had destroyed their weapons. We have in fact found small amounts of WMD's there but not the large stockpiles expected. Then again how much gas does it take to kill everyone in a su
ay station or airport?
In light of 911 and considering Iraq had been in contact with Al Queda in the past and was interested in making terrorist style attacks on the US would you want to assume that Iraq wouldn't hand off a few cannisters of gas to some of Bin Laden's buddies?
Hillary Clinton: Iraq War Vote a Mistake
For the first time since she voted to authorize the Iraq war three years ago, 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is now saying that vote was a mistake - in an apparent move to pacify growing dissatisfaction with her position among the Democratic Party's left-wing base.
Can you spell HYPOCRITE?????
 
J

jcrim

Guest
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
How did I miss this........well for one example...there was a foiled plot by Iraq to assasinate Bush it back in the earlly 90's...so where are you getting your "facts'?
Perhaps this does not fit your definition of terrorism.

Just curious about where you're getting these facts? Actually I'm assuming they come from our national media or the politicians you're so vehemently defending. Iraq's a terrorist threat because they tell you it is, right? Just like the weapons of mass destruction were there because you were told that too. Again, go back several posts to my point that if this were a war on terror, there would be many better enemies than Iraq. I've already llsted a few.
Here's some more facts for you:
1) Bush's failed oil businesses have essentially been bailed out by the Saudis
2) After 9/11, Bush demanded that his national security advisors conclude that Iraq was responsible... this was not possible to his dismay
3) None of the players in 9/11, even those who were caught, were in Iraq nor were they of Iraqi descent
Everyone knows who attacked us on 9/11, yet Bush has assigned over 10 times more troops to get Saddam than Osama. How is this a war on terror? There is no secret as to who and where the terrorists are. If we are going to fight and lose American lives, why not fight those who actually have attacked us.
Bush's dad had the tanks outside Bagdad, ready to go in. He showed restraint... a little smarter than his cowboy son.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by lovethesea
your better than Hillary............. ack......... :scared:
She can make all the statements she wants...but again...these are HER WORDS.....
.......It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by jcrim
Just curious about where you're getting these facts? Actually I'm assuming they come from our national media or the politicians you're so vehemently defending. Iraq's a terrorist threat because they tell you it is, right? Just like the weapons of mass destruction were there because you were told that too. Again, go back several posts to my point that if this were a war on terror, there would be many better enemies than Iraq. I've already llsted a few.
Here's some more facts for you:
1) Bush's failed oil businesses have essentially been bailed out by the Saudis
2) After 9/11, Bush demanded that his national security advisors conclude that Iraq was responsible... this was not possible to his dismay
3) None of the players in 9/11, even those who were caught, were in Iraq nor were they of Iraqi descent
Everyone knows who attacked us on 9/11, yet Bush has assigned over 10 times more troops to get Saddam than Osama. How is this a war on terror? There is no secret as to who and where the terrorists are. If we are going to fight and lose American lives, why not fight those who actually have attacked us.
Bush's dad had the tanks outside Bagdad, ready to go in. He showed restraint... a little smarter than his cowboy son.
I simply state the facts..and point out when others are wrong. You stated Iraq was never sited in a terrorist act against this country...you were wrong. I am defending the war on terror. It is a US war...not a Republican or Democratic War.
Again, It is about being proactive......A look to the future to determine decisions made today.
You do not even have a clue as to why we left Sadam in power...it was simply to be a counter to Iran..we hoped they would keeep each other in "check".......plain and simple and it was a military mistake. You know...that proactive thing.
 
J

jcrim

Guest
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
I simply state the facts..and point out when others are wrong. You stated Iraq was never sited in a terrorist act against this country...you were wrong.
And I simply asked where you got this info... still wondering :thinking:
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
You also stated we found ZERO terrorists camps in Iraq..once again wrong..and I have already addressed the possibility that the remaining WMD's were moved to another country prior to invasion. This is admitted speculation supported by some reports.....with the camps not being found dead wrong.
No camps were found...REALLY???
 
J

jcrim

Guest
You made a significant factual assertion about an Iraqi terrorist threat. Why can't you back it up?
Maybe because it was similar to this...
Lie, as President: The Bush administration told an outrageous lie that the president was a target of terrorists -- and Americans deserve an explanation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason - Salon on-line Magazine
Oct. 5, 2001
Falsehoods uttered at the White House press podium always matter, if only because they injure the reputation of the Presidency, but some are more important than others. Under the present administration, which vowed to restore "honor and integrity" to Washington, the credibility of the people who speak for George W. Bush has decayed, week by week, beginning with their promotion last winter of bogus accusations against their predecessors.
That ugly episode, however, wasn't nearly as troubling as what now appears to have been the promulgation by the nation's highest officials of a false story about the events of Sept. 11.
For two weeks following the terror attack, White House officials, including Vice President ---- Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Presidential Assistant Karl Rove and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, repeatedly insisted that a "credible threat" -- involving code-word confirmation -- had convinced the Secret Service that terrorists were trying to hit Air Force One and the White House. Only when those assertions were shot down by CBS News and the Associated Press did the spinners back down, claiming that it had all been a "misunderstanding" by staffers, with little elaboration.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Former President George Bush visited Kuwait between April 14 and April 16, 1993, to commemorate the allied victory in the Persian Gulf War. Accompanying Bush were his wife, two of his sons, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, former Chief of Staff John Sununu, and former Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady.
In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. The Kuwaitis recovered the Landcruiser, which contained between 80 and 90 kilograms of plastic explosives connected to a detonator ( the Bush device or Bush explosive device ). The Kuwaitis also recovered ten cube-shaped plastic explosive devices with detonators (the cube-bombs ) from the Landcruiser. Some of the suspects reportedly confessed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS ) was behind the assassination attempt..............
..........On June 2, 1993, representatives of the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and others in the Department of Justice (DOJ) discussed the results of their investigations with representatives of the Clinton Administration. Three weeks later, the DOJ and CIA reported their conclusions. The DOJ and CIA reported that it was highly likely that the Iraqi Government originated the plot and more than likely that Bush was the target. Additionally, based on past Iraqi methods and other sources of intelligence, the CIA independently reported that there was a strong case that Saddam Hussein directed the plot against Bush.
Here's your backup regarding terrorist acts
 
J

jcrim

Guest
Interesting... a couple questions I have... What nationality were the arrested terrorists? Aside from the government's speculation that this was Iraq (because they don't have a great history of honesty), was there any objective connection found between those arrested and Iraq?
Anyway, we could debate forever. I actually find your arguments intelligent and competent but I think we'll agree to disagree. It's getting late. Maybe we'll argue a little more tomorrow.

BTW you still haven't explained why we haven't truly gone after those who attacked us.
 
scubadoo

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by jcrim
You made a significant factual assertion about an Iraqi terrorist threat. Why can't you back it up?
Maybe because it was similar to this...
Lie, as President: The Bush administration told an outrageous lie that the president was a target of terrorists -- and Americans deserve an explanation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason - Salon on-line Magazine
Oct. 5, 2001
Falsehoods uttered at the White House press podium always matter, if only because they injure the reputation of the Presidency, but some are more important than others. Under the present administration, which vowed to restore "honor and integrity" to Washington, the credibility of the people who speak for George W. Bush has decayed, week by week, beginning with their promotion last winter of bogus accusations against their predecessors.
That ugly episode, however, wasn't nearly as troubling as what now appears to have been the promulgation by the nation's highest officials of a false story about the events of Sept. 11.
For two weeks following the terror attack, White House officials, including Vice President ---- Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Presidential Assistant Karl Rove and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, repeatedly insisted that a "credible threat" -- involving code-word confirmation -- had convinced the Secret Service that terrorists were trying to hit Air Force One and the White House. Only when those assertions were shot down by CBS News and the Associated Press did the spinners back down, claiming that it had all been a "misunderstanding" by staffers, with little elaboration.

You are quoting this objective person?

Undoubtedly the worst editorial decision Salon ever made was giving Joe Conason a daily column, allowing a partisan ferret to slime his political opponents and spread disinformation across the Internet in an effort to prevent any serious discussion of issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top