And there dies another foul excuse
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/2875005

Saddam in bed with Al Quaeda (by definition his lethal archenemy, hehe: Saddam's regime was everything what Bin Laden hates) - was wrong a claim back then, still is wrong a statement today. But I am sure the usual suspects will nevertheless continue to hammer it into our heads how much the two were engaged with each other (and that Saddam was linked to 9/11 anyhow - another of these Iraq-related myths to sell a war of choice as a war of need.

Piece by piece the whole system of lies crumbles down with years passing by.

What would Sadaam's interest in attacking the US be?

Interesting that this is a "Pentagon-sponsored" study. Not the machinations of some "anti-american, liberal, pinko commie think tank" out to undermine the US Government.

And that, my dear Kapitan, is the question. Why indeed, would Saddam Hussein have WMDs in the first place to use against the US if he had no intentions, nor were his "terrorist" ties to groups who were acting outside the Middle East. One can argue he used chemicals against the Kurds, but that is a far cry from deploying them in a place like NYC.

Our "intelligence" was good enough, according to some, to find "WMDs" in Iraq, and yet, could have missed this?

He did send money to so called "martyrs" families in palestine, that's what I know. But I am not sure what were is motives in doing it.

But Al Qaida? Only dumbasses for who all muslims are the same believed in that.

At least we DO know that there is oil in Iraq. :yep:

Didn't Al Quaeda attempt to assassinate both Hussien and Kaddafi at one time or another?

They were both Secular Leaders...which Al Quaeda hates almost as much as they hate the USA.

Bravo US intelligence. So, how many official reason there is left that support the invasion of Iraq? :88)

I don't believe it was lies that got us into the state of war. But rather very faulty intelligence gathering on our part......

Half correct. It was faulty intelligence that the intel service was demanded by the political top to be produced. I remind in thos context of the "London missile memo". Intel was not asked to find out about the state of things, it was demanded to paint things like politics wanted it to appear like, it was not to describe a situation - it was to create an excuse. So it was faulty intelligence, as you say, but it was faulty intelligence that was ordered for. Let's not forget that this war was planned, wanted and outlined since the early 90s, and already back then put on paper and then waiting for a conservative president being unscrupellous enough to carry it out. A war of choice - not a war of needs.

The intel was out there. The decision makers choose to interpret it to their agenda.

This is nothing new. Intel is only one of the tools of the decision maker. What I find offensive is that when the decision maker is wrong, he points the finger at intel. Knowing that due to the job, intel is not in a position to publicly defend itself.

Intel, as always, has to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune while continuing to work hard.

Intel can accept never being thanked for their successes. All part of the job
but it is hard to accept the blame for something they did not do.

The average citizen can not, unfortunately, know all about intel. But they need to understand that Intel is being worked by excellent and smart men and women working their best in an environment where the deck is stacked against them.

A-Friggining-men! This' the best post I've seen in a loooong time here. :up:

....against those who would oppose us ;)

Saddam and Al-Queda did have much in common they were both from the sunni tribe. However the Sunni we called Saddam had in past years attacked other Sunni nations in an attempt to extend his power. We (the US) probably got involved as a favor to our supposed allies namely Kuwait and Suadi Arabia (both sunni majority) in order to protect them from further agression. But we needed an excuse to send our troops to fight someone elses battle. Americans had to made think that they too were threatened before we would agree to send our troops to remove the 'trouble maker' Saddam.

Saddam wouldn't dare start another major offensive against shiite nations it was stalemate especially since he was a minority sunni in his own country. I fiigure he wanted to be the leader of a greater sunni nation before taking on the shiite nations and to establish a unified islamic nation. Under his leadership of course :) I know Im rambling.

"But those who believe the U.S. presence is the catalyst only choose to believe a particular political agenda rather than historical facts known for centuries. Sadly neither side of the U.S. presence theory are correct. The belief that any strength of force moderated by the ideals of democracy and religious freedom tempered by separation of church and state can overcome this struggle is naive to the extreme."

The only reason Iraq was held together for the last part of the 20th century was the fact that Saddam Hussein was not limited by any liberal moderation of his actions -- he simply tortured and killed anyone who did not go along with his particular version of the Baath party. And the kind of torture we are talking about here is not the pacifist's definition of "making someone feel uncomfortable". Indeed those who survived Saddam's (more likely his son Qusay's) torture, would look upon the liberalist definition of torture as laughable, saying in effect, "Feeling just a little uncomfortable would have been a god-send.""

Which means we are stuck in the middle of a messy tribal war with little chance of leaving the area in peace.

I think the problem here is in understanding the mentality that Al Qeida represented and probably still represents all screwed up muslim finaticals, regardless if they are affiliated or not. It is a face to a problem, nothing more.

The assassination attempt on Bush's life is an example of undermining the US. Paying families martyrs is another attempt to undermine the US. Taking over nations that are friends of the US is another. How many you want? ANd what happened to the stockpiles of gas Saddam had? All hidden since no evidence was also found that it was destroyed. How about the centrifuge parts buried in Iraqi scientist front yards? Crap, they even found MiG's buried in the sand in the middle of no where, so nuke parts would be easy to hide by comparison.

All this tells me is a big fat - nodda. Its more propoganda.

-S

@Subman1, have you ever tried looking at things from a neutral POV? That's sometimes necessary to see how "weak" some proofs might be.

You talk about all those hidden MIGs and all that, how you know it has anything to do with Saddam??? Because the same ppl who showed the world the satellite images of an "WMD plant" that didnt event have anything to do with WMDs told you that? Again, I have no intententions to disrespect you nor your country, only what I'm saying is that it sometimes needs an outsider's view to see the right side of things. Again, no pun intended, I dont want this thread to go to another flame war as they usually do.

Since 1991 the most powerful country on the planet had been bombing Iraq - often with the expressed objective of eliminating suspected WMD storage/production facilities. It should not be surprising that these may have in fact been completely destroyed in the late '90s.

There is a difference between having a reason to believe something and wanting to believe something. And ALL evidence points to the FACT that at the time of the invasion, and probably years before, no WMDs were to be found in Iraq.

PD

Well said, this is my point. US and it's allies attacked Iraq with no solid proof, ok you all know how I feel about it. But now, the western countries are pointing their guns to Iran. For what? Because their leader hates the western ppl? Come on ppl, who would be that stupid to really believe that Iran would attack anywhere? They just cant do that, it would result in an armed answer from the western world. Nukes? They'd maybe have the time to blow up one or two western cities, before they would be nuked. Now, what's the point in them doing that? We are talking about some million dead westerns against many more on Iran's side. If they think we western are so fricking bad ppl, what it would help them to kill, let's say 2mil of us in cost of 10mil of their countrymen in retaliation strikes?

I don't think it was spare parts. I think they were buried by Iraqi Air Force people who knew the 2003 invasion really would culminate in the US going "all the way". And rather then have their aircraft destroyed in the air or on the ground (even hiding them among the civillian population wasn't safe anymore with concrete filled LGBs), they decided to put them somewhere where they might be able to use them later on.

PD

Now that is up for debate. I believe the Isrealies more than I ever believe our US media. WHy do you think Syria was bombed?

http://www.nysun.com/article/24480

Here are ex Iraqies saying the same thing:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=36463


And Dave Gaubatz will disgree with you till he is dead and in his grave:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=502

http://www.davegaubatz.com/

-S

WMDs found in Iraq: http://www.reuters.com/article/peopl...54496320080310 :)

More of PD's opinions to follow:
Iran certainly is pursuing nuclear weapons. I don't think they intend to use them or hand them out to terrorist types. They just want to be treated like a real player and have something that they feel would ensure their security against US bully'ism. You have to look at it from their perspective. They see North Korea get a bomb, and what do they get? Serious negotiations with major world powers. And with US taking up what may be permanent strategic positions on their western and eastern borders, they know they'll have to deal with us in the long run. And they want to do it through a position of strength. Hence the naval bravado (capturing Brits, scaring the hell out of a USN warship) and nuclear weapon/ballistic missile tech seeking.

Unfortunately for them (and the rest of the world), I don't think the Iranians understand just how seriously this administration is contemplating bully-through-airpower tactics and worse in response to their, "Look at us! We're big boys too!" moves.

PD