Originally Posted by Rylan
To further my point, its said that Iraq has had no credible link to al Qaeda which was something they tried to make us believe.
Wrong.
According to the 9-11 Commission:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy....With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request...(1997)There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin[/i]....
No credible link? They were not working together, but there were plenty of credible links... Please read the 9-11 Commission and a myriad of other sources for more accurate information.
Originally Posted by rylan
Third. Ok we did find gas left over... what it proves is that Iraq didn't or that we didn't destroy all the weapons we were supposed to in 1998. However, these biological weapons at this point were no longer harmful substances because the shelf life had expired years ealier. So I will acknowledge we did find some materials, however these things did not pose a risk.
First off; Sarin and Mustard Gas are Chemical, not Biological weapons.
Interesting... If they pose no risk then I wonder why this is the case?: "Two U.S. soldiers, members of a military bomb squad, were treated for exposure to sarin. Officials said there were no serious injuries. (
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...17-sarin_x.htm) and " The soldiers displayed "classic" symptoms of sarin exposure, most notably dilated pupils and nausea, officials said. The symptoms ran their course fairly quickly, however, and as of Tuesday the two had returned to duty."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
That was from a rigged IED using an old artillery shell. Artillery shells are binary. Two chemicals in two seperate chambers mix in flight making Sarin. Obviously the terrorists did not rig it to explode properly. "Intelligence officials stressed that the compounds did not mix effectively on Saturday." (same article) I wonder why the soldiers were treated for Sarin exposure if the Sarin was inert? Obviously someone who knows more about it than you or I thought it was dangerous, huh.
Also, the length of time Sarin and Mustard Gas shells can maintain effectiveness is totally dependent on how it is stored. As I pointed out, as the Sarin shell is a binary shell it can last for exteneded periods of time (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2 second page). The weapon only creates and discharges Sarin once the seperate chemicals are mixed as the shell heats up in flight.
Originally Posted by
rylan
We went to war because they said Iraq posted an immenant threat... which was not the case.. Our reason for war was political.
The President, in 2003, stated Saddam poised an imminent threat to the world. If you would like to argue that wasn't true, go right ahead. I, personally believe he was.
*He was attacking our pilots
*He was funding terrorists
*He was obstructing Inspectors
*He was violating the Treaty he signed after Desert Storm
*He was in contact with Al Qaeda
*Continued to possess WMDs
What do you need to see an imminent threat, Rylan, Panzers blitzing through the Ardennes?
