[quote]lixy wrote:
However, today you’ll have a hard time finding an Iraqi who thinks that things are gonna get better.
Is this actual data here or your opinion? I’m no fan of this war, but my take based on your method, (Pulling it outta my ass.) would probably be about 50/50 with a lot depending on the location in Iraq of the Iraqi.
[quote]lIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Did he want weapon? Hell yes, and for good reason.
[/quote]
Oh, lifty. That sounds suspiciously like empathy and trying to justify saddam’s actions.
If it wasn’t you, I’d be angry. As it is, I’m just saddened.
JeffR
When my friends parents left Iraq they had nothing. They were lucky to get out.
I once asked my friend if he ever thought about going back to the old country to visit his family there. His response was “Fuck that! I would be immediately drafted into Saddams army. I don’t want to be stuck out in the desert waiting for B52’s to come over.”
I also worked with a Caldean who spent several years in a trench during the Iran Iraq war. One of the things they used to do to amuse themselves was they would set traps for the rats that they were living with. When they caught one, they had a giant syringe they filled with motor oil that they would inject the rat with then watch it writhe in agony as it died.
The good ole days of Saddam, huh.
New Question: Do you believe Saddam Hussein had more or less to do with 9/11 than our trading partners the Saudis? How about the Pakistanis?
If people honestly believe the Iraq war is revenge for 9/11, they’re fucking retarded.
Ok… most people are fucking retarded.
Holy shit. WTF do you people not get.
NO ONE SUPPORTS SADDAM.
We just don’t want the masses thinking he was any sort of threat to us; because he wasn’t.
What happened to the “You’re wasting soldiers lives on something that isn’t our business” call of Republicans when Bill was in office?
Sadam knew too much…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Saddam funded suicide bombers. He paid their families approx. $ 30,000 each. He held televised check writing ceremonies. Baghdad was haven to a number of known terrorists.
His relationship w/ AQ was not strong but he had strong relationships with others.[/quote]
Bullshit. Extemists viewed him as the secular, socialist infidel.
[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Saddam funded suicide bombers. He paid their families approx. $ 30,000 each. He held televised check writing ceremonies. Baghdad was haven to a number of known terrorists.
His relationship w/ AQ was not strong but he had strong relationships with others.
Bullshit. Extemists viewed him as the secular, socialist infidel.[/quote]
Bullshit yourself. He funded terrorists and he harbored Zarqawi.
[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Saddam funded suicide bombers. He paid their families approx. $ 30,000 each. He held televised check writing ceremonies. Baghdad was haven to a number of known terrorists.
His relationship w/ AQ was not strong but he had strong relationships with others.
Bullshit. Extemists viewed him as the secular, socialist infidel.[/quote]
But that never stopped them from cashing his checks faster than a French whore on a Saturday night.
I’m sorry if I look like I’m your enemy here in every thread I go onto diva but while we know today there was no personal 9/11 involvement consider the following:
Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion and Saddam was sympathetic, even doing Zarqawi favors every now and then.
The very first sign of involvement can be summed up in this link:
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=139
As for the rest of the evidence:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?ZoomFont=YES
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5280219/site/newsweek
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp
Let all this sink in for a moment, wasn’t Saddam very intolerant towards anyone who threatened his power, even to the slightest degree?
Apparently so. So when you let Zarqawi roam the country without repercussions, it no longer makes sense to say that Saddam never cut Al-Qaeda slack.
But there’s even more proof that he was a threat to his power:
Looks like Zarqawi wanted to take Saddam’s place in the war against Shiites. But there’s more:
Looks like Zarqawi really was in a position of power after all. Otherwise no one would fight to take his place.
It’s a true fact today there was no personal connection, but putting blame on the administration and much of the senate for thinking that way at the time doesn’t make much sense to me.
I must say Fitnessdiva, you and I are like polarized opposites when it comes to all things political.
[quote]FreedomFighterXL wrote:
Fitnessdiva wrote:Bullshit. Extemists viewed him as the secular, socialist infidel.
I’m sorry if I look like I’m your enemy here in every thread I go onto diva but while we know today there was no personal 9/11 involvement consider the following:
Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion and Saddam was sympathetic, even doing Zarqawi favors every now and then.
The very first sign of involvement can be summed up in this link:
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=139
As for the rest of the evidence:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?ZoomFont=YES
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp
Let all this sink in for a moment, wasn’t Saddam very intolerant towards anyone who threatened his power, even to the slightest degree?
Apparently so. So when you let Zarqawi roam the country without repercussions, it no longer makes sense to say that Saddam never cut Al-Qaeda slack.
But there’s even more proof that he was a threat to his power:
Looks like Zarqawi wanted to take Saddam’s place in the war against Shiites. But there’s more:
Looks like Zarqawi really was in a position of power after all. Otherwise no one would fight to take his place.
It’s a true fact today there was no personal connection, but putting blame on the administration and much of the senate for thinking that way at the time doesn’t make much sense to me. [/quote]
There is absolutely not one shred of any evidence whatsoever in any of the links you posted. As a matter of fact: "On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes that the Bush Administration “could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.”
Recognise that? It’s straight from your wiki link.
Words like ‘possibly’,‘allegedly’ and so on have no place in any article you read that purports to have proof of anything.
Brush up on your reading comprehension.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bullshit yourself. He funded terrorists and he harbored Zarqawi. [/quote]
He funded Palestinians who believed in the right to defend themselves by setting off bombs. Those folks have absolutely nothing to do with Al-Qaeda so quit trying to amalgamate Palestinians with Ben-Laden. More importantly, Hussein’s contribution to the “suicide-bombing” business is negligible compared to what the Saudis inject.
As for Zarqawi, I’ll urge you to read the CIA’s report of August 2004 on the matter. It blew an enormous hole in Powell’s assertion that Saddam harbored Zarqawi.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:There is absolutely not one shred of any evidence whatsoever in any of the links you posted. As a matter of fact: "On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes that the Bush Administration “could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.”
Recognise that? It’s straight from your wiki link.
Words like ‘possibly’,‘allegedly’ and so on have no place in any article you read that purports to have proof of anything.
Brush up on your reading comprehension.[/quote]
Maybe you should brush up on yours. Could you show me where I said that there WAS a direct Iraq-9/11 links? I think I said otherwise towards the end.
[quote]FreedomFighterXL wrote:
It’s a true fact today there was no personal connection, but putting blame on the administration and much of the senate for thinking that way at the time doesn’t make much sense to me. [/quote]
Who should we blame for the countless dead, maimed and orphaned? Making the decision to go to war is not something that should be done on a whim. It should be the absolute last resort when you know beyond a doubt that it’s inevitable. Saddam was no threat to the US and you know it. Everybody (but Americans) knew it all along. Millions took the streets of cities around the world to tell you about it but you were too busy to pay attention.
Anyway, the point here is that such aberrations should be avoided in the future. Had the senate and congress thoroughly checked the (non-)evidence, Iraq wouldn’t be in the present mess.
[quote]FreedomFighterXL wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:There is absolutely not one shred of any evidence whatsoever in any of the links you posted. As a matter of fact: "On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes that the Bush Administration “could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.”
Recognise that? It’s straight from your wiki link.
Words like ‘possibly’,‘allegedly’ and so on have no place in any article you read that purports to have proof of anything.
Brush up on your reading comprehension.
Maybe you should brush up on yours. Could you show me where I said that there WAS a direct Iraq-9/11 links? I think I said otherwise towards the end. [/quote]
The very first sign of involvement can be summed up in this link:
First Al Qaeda Strike Against Oil Target - Possibly in Collaboration with Iraq
Your very first link ,providing your first ‘sign of involvement’,yes?
And for the record ,no,you didn’t say there was a direct link Iraq/9/11 link.Did I say you had?Of course you weasel out of saying there was no link directly by saying ‘personal connection’
What you’re trying to say,with a blizzard of shit,is that there was an Al Quaeda/Iraq link,and that AQ operatives were allowed to do whatever they wanted in Iraq,and since they were there,it must have been with Hussein’s blessing.
By the same logic,since AQ operatives are in many western countries,it must be with the compliance of those respective govts.
Keep brushing.
The best part about the CIA report? People took it seriously even if the CIA was initially wrong on WMDs and the like.
The worst part? The conclusions it had drawn were not made until after we invaded when it was too late.
I would have to admit, the next commander-in-chief should put some emphasis on intelligence reform, in other words improve the way information is gathered.
[quote]FreedomFighterXL wrote:
Maybe you should brush up on yours. Could you show me where I said that there WAS a direct Iraq-9/11 links? I think I said otherwise towards the end. [/quote]
Yet in the first sentence of your link-rich post, you adopted the following phrasing:
“but while we know today there was no personal 9/11 involvement consider the following”
If that isn’t enough, here’s what you laid out latter:
“Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before the invasion and Saddam was sympathetic, even doing Zarqawi favors every now and then”
Al-Qaeda is everywhere. That’s what makes its strength. It’s a decentralized organization that functions with petty cash. It follows that they are likely to have branches everywhere. Zarqawi was in the North of Iraq and didn’t f under Saddam’s jurisdiction. Moreover, Hussein was never sympathetic to a non-nationalist group - EVER! In fact, not being sympathetic to Islamists is what a secular does.
Fuck Saddam either way. Quit acting like he was Mother Teresa. I dont give a shit if we killed his ass for oil, religon, for shits and giggles, for murder, for supporting terrorists, or just cuz he was a dick; He belongs on the too stupid to live list along with Osama Bin Laden, and Iran pres.
That’s the 33% who live on the streets under bridges and behind dumpsters and eat cat food and have not read a word of anything or seen a television in years.