I've got a simple question...

[The Ressurrected One]

...and maybe it's been asked and answered but, anyway, here goes:

If there is no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, why are there al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq now?

Let's presume they weren't there before the invasion (which I don't believe for a minute). Let's presume there wasn't an active dialog between the Ba'athists and al Qaeda before the invasions (which, again, I don't believe for a minute). Let's even presume Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were mortal enemies (which, once again, I don't believe for a minute).

Why are al Qaeda now present in Iraq?

If they didn't have a dog in the fight why did they start streaming across the border to join with the Iraqi insurgents to fight the coalition? Why not, instead, use the opportunity to take their terrorism to other parts of the infidel world and let America and the coalition of the willing be distracted in Iraq and Afghanistan?

What is so important about Iraq to the terrorists?

Again, I'm willing to accept this question has already been covered but, I don't remember the answer...

[MannyIsGod]

:lol Basically, you want to drag people into a "debate" where the only option you believe and will listen to is the one you currently believe?

Yeah, everyone step up to bash your head against a wall! No thanks.

[Jekka]

:lol Basically, you want to drag people into a "debate" where the only option you believe and will listen to is the one you currently believe?

Yeah, everyone step up to bash your head against a wall! No thanks.

Now, now, Manny - maybe TRO can't help it that he's a condescending asshole.

[Marklar MM]

They hate the infidels, want to kill them, and want them off their home soil.

[FromWayDowntown]

How, exactly, is the Iraqi situation any different, from the standpoint of the question that you pose, than the situation that existed in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded in the late 70's?

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Islamic youth bent on repelling infidels, including a Saudi named Osama bin Laden and many of those who would become prominent members of al Queda, streamed into Afghanistan, bolstering the mujihadeen which eventually repelled the invasion. Nobody sat around then and tried to create some hindsight-rationale for the Soviet invasion by pointing to the sudden influx of foreign fighters into Afghanistan. Rather, the assumption was that the foreign fighters had gone to Afghanistan to fight infidels. (Funny, back then, the American President referred to them as Freedom Fighters; I guess one man's terrorist truly is another man's freedom fighter.)

Why doesn't the same explanation suffice in Iraq? I guess it can't if all of your arguments for a link between Iraq and al Queda have been essentially disproven, but you're still looking for some evidence to support the original justifications for the war.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

This coming from someone who hearts Gitmo...

[Clandestino]

This coming from someone who hearts Gitmo...

they have it soooo easy in gitmo.. imagine what there life would be like if they were in an egyptian or saudi prison??? or if we had just killed them on the battlefield instead of taken them hostage

[word]

How do you fight an organization who's 'members' are scattered all over the world ?

Invade an Arab/Muslim country, they'll show up. It's called killing two birds with one stone.

[word]

delete double post

[Cant_Be_Faded]

they have it soooo easy in gitmo.. imagine what there life would be like if they were in an egyptian or saudi prison??? or if we had just killed them on the battlefield instead of taken them hostage


as opposed to making piling up their naked bodies and having a female army soldier point at them and pose for pictures???

[JoeChalupa]

Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and I'm pretty confident about that.
There were no WMD's and I'm pretty confident about that too.

Why is it so hard for some to believe that the reasons for invading Iraq really had nothing to do with 9/11?

Sure you can rationalize it now and say it was the right thing to do but that is NOT what this administration sold to the American Public. At least that is not what I heard.

[The Ressurrected One]

Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and I'm pretty confident about that.
Terrorists were responsible for 9/11 and I'm pretty confident of about that.

The Ba'athist regime of Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein, was in bed with all sorts of terrorists; from those in "Palestine," to the murderous Nidal. The head of his Security Agency was "coincidentally" observed in the city where al Qaeda is reported to have held it's first planning session on 9/11. It is more likely he attended the meeting than not...to suggest otherwise belies an agenda that will not allow you to violate the article of faith that Bush lied.

There were no WMD's and I'm pretty confident about that too.
I think you're too confident about that. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There was plenty of reason to believe Saddam Hussein was pursuing WMD's and no reason to believe he didn't possess them.

Why is it so hard for some to believe that the reasons for invading Iraq really had nothing to do with 9/11?
Why is it so hard for some to believe that Saddam Hussein was neck deep in anti-Western activities and, given the chance, he would have loved to have seen and probably supported 9-11.

Invading Iraq has everything to do with the global war on terrorism. So does September 11, 2001. There's your fucking connection jar head!

Sure you can rationalize it now and say it was the right thing to do but that is NOT what this administration sold to the American Public. At least that is not what I heard.
This administration knew what the rest of the world remained blind to. That Iraq and Russia and Germany and France were in bed together to find a way to lift sanctions so they could go above board with their illicit oil deals; That the U.N. was complicit in this charade; that, in addition to having to combat those directly responsible for 9-11 in Afghanistan, we were getting ready to have to combat a renewed, released, sassy, and on-the-brink-of-having-WMD's Iraq.

You know what I think. I think you and many like you (and many much, much worse than you) have completely and totally invested themselves in the article of faith that says Bush is was and always will be wrong and that if you ever admit Iraq is in any way remotely related to the war on terrorism, your glass house falls apart.

[ChumpDumper]

Why is it so hard for some to believe that Saddam Hussein was neck deep in anti-Western activities and, given the chance, he would have loved to have seen and probably supported 9-11.Because we haven't heard anything about it. Don't we have this guy in custody? Are you going to tell us to wait longer so you can try to make the connection that simply doesn't exist?

Terrorists are now in Iraq because it's an Arab country and the terrorist movement is a pan-Arab one. Do you think they really need to be convinced that this is where the fight is?
Why not, instead, use the opportunity to take their terrorism to other parts of the infidel worldThey do that too -- hear the news today?

[JoeChalupa]

Terrorists were responsible for 9/11 and I'm pretty confident of about that.

The Ba'athist regime of Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein, was in bed with all sorts of terrorists; from those in "Palestine," to the murderous Nidal. The head of his Security Agency was "coincidentally" observed in the city where al Qaeda is reported to have held it's first planning session on 9/11. It is more likely he attended the meeting than not...to suggest otherwise belies an agenda that will not allow you to violate the article of faith that Bush lied.

I think you're too confident about that. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There was plenty of reason to believe Saddam Hussein was pursuing WMD's and no reason to believe he didn't possess them.

Why is it so hard for some to believe that Saddam Hussein was neck deep in anti-Western activities and, given the chance, he would have loved to have seen and probably supported 9-11.

Invading Iraq has everything to do with the global war on terrorism. So does September 11, 2001. There's your fucking connection jar head!

This administration knew what the rest of the world remained blind to. That Iraq and Russia and Germany and France were in bed together to find a way to lift sanctions so they could go above board with their illicit oil deals; That the U.N. was complicit in this charade; that, in addition to having to combat those directly responsible for 9-11 in Afghanistan, we were getting ready to have to combat a renewed, released, sassy, and on-the-brink-of-having-WMD's Iraq.

You know what I think. I think you and many like you (and many much, much worse than you) have completely and totally invested themselves in the article of faith that says Bush is was and always will be wrong and that if you ever admit Iraq is in any way remotely related to the war on terrorism, your glass house falls apart.

It's apparently clear that you and many like you (and I hope there are none worse than you) have completely and totally invested yourselves in the article of faith that you call "Bush". You simply refuse to look at the FACTS.

And this Jarhead does KNOW that Iraq is related to the war on terrorism but that is NOT the reason Bush gave DAMNIT!!

And yeah, maybe Saddam would have loved to have seen and probably supported 9-11 but he DIDN'T. Big difference.

Oh I give up.

[The Ressurrected One]

And this Jarhead does KNOW that Iraq is related to the war on terrorism but that is NOT the reason Bush gave DAMNIT!!
So? And, just for the record, WMD's weren't the only reason given. Let's start with the repeated violations of the '91 cease-fire agreement in which Hussein agreed to return our missing soldiers, to return Kuwait's plundered treasure, and to abide by all U.N.S.C. resolutions. Let's move on to his systematic obstruction of over a dozen such resolutions and the obstruction of U.N. inspectors for over a decade. Then, we'll talk about how he daily fired on our military in the no-fly zone (something else he agreed to in the cease-fire). Now, let's talk about the stated U.S. policy of effecting regime change in Iraq -- first given voice by Bill Clinton.

Finally, we can talk about WMD's and the fact that he was tenaciously holding onto what capability he had so that as soon as sanctions were lifted he could resume the production of WMD's.

This prick needed to be dethroned. To have done otherwise would have insured that he would be a bigger problem later on...after his buddies in France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. had covered for him and bailed him out of a jam.

I'm sorry, I heard more reasons than just WMD when the President first started talking about hostilities in Iraq. I can't help that you weren't listening then or over the past 12 years. That's your fault, not the Presidents.

And yeah, maybe Saddam would have loved to have seen and probably supported 9-11 but he DIDN'T. Big difference.
You don't know that at all.


Oh I give up.
Quitter.

[ChumpDumper]

Let's start with the repeated violations of the '91 cease-fire agreement in which Hussein agreed to return our missing soldiers, to return Kuwait's plundered treasure, and to abide by all U.N.S.C. resolutions. Let's move on to his systematic obstruction of over a dozen such resolutions and the obstruction of U.N. inspectors for over a decade. Then, we'll talk about how he daily fired on our military in the no-fly zone (something else he agreed to in the cease-fire). Now, let's talk about the stated U.S. policy of effecting regime change in Iraq -- first given voice by Bill Clinton.None of that would've gotten the public and Congress behind the war. It was the fear of all those big bad WMDs piled high as an elephant's eye all over that country. The administration knew what it had to do to sell the war and by golly they did it. They did a good enough snow job that some gullible folk still claim it's all true.

[JoeChalupa]

So? And, just for the record, WMD's weren't the only reason given. Let's start with the repeated violations of the '91 cease-fire agreement in which Hussein agreed to return our missing soldiers, to return Kuwait's plundered treasure, and to abide by all U.N.S.C. resolutions. Let's move on to his systematic obstruction of over a dozen such resolutions and the obstruction of U.N. inspectors for over a decade. Then, we'll talk about how he daily fired on our military in the no-fly zone (something else he agreed to in the cease-fire). Now, let's talk about the stated U.S. policy of effecting regime change in Iraq -- first given voice by Bill Clinton.

Finally, we can talk about WMD's and the fact that he was tenaciously holding onto what capability he had so that as soon as sanctions were lifted he could resume the production of WMD's.

This prick needed to be dethroned. To have done otherwise would have insured that he would be a bigger problem later on...after his buddies in France, Germany, Russia, and the U.N. had covered for him and bailed him out of a jam.

I'm sorry, I heard more reasons than just WMD when the President first started talking about hostilities in Iraq. I can't help that you weren't listening then or over the past 12 years. That's your fault, not the Presidents.

You don't know that at all.


Quitter.

You don't know that at all either.

Quitter? A Marine never quits but you wouldn't know anything about that would you?

Listen, I know you will not ever change your mind and I can understand that because I'm probably just as stuborn as you are.

And you KNOW that the threat of WMD was THE main reason Bush used and if you won't admit that then there is nothing more to say.

[MannyIsGod]

Suckers, you gave Yonivore exactly what he wanted.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

but he HEARTS gitmo!

[JoeChalupa]

Suckers, you gave Yonivore exactly what he wanted.

The truth? Damn right.