Saddam and 9/11 - Page 10

**Officer of Engineers** · 06-27-2008, 22:21 PM

And the youth remains stupid

**Shek** · 06-27-2008, 22:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlaneCrazy14

chill dude, im just giving my opinions; thats what this whole website is about: discussion and opinion.
wheres the thread with the 9 pages?
dont call me son, and treat me with some respect.

When your opinions are based upon easily identifiable incorrect information, you won't get any slack around here.

In case you haven't noticed, Iraq is on the mend. It's still fragile, but the US stuck through the toughest of times in terms of opinion and when the most of the pundits were crying disengage. It didn't abandon the mess that had been created.

Also, the US didn't kill millions, and in fact, the total killed is short of a million. Next, Ronald Reagan probably didn't even know his own name in March 2003, let alone have the mental capacity to pass judgement on the war. Additionally, it didn't bring lots of oil for the US. It took five years for Iraq to produce at more than pre-war levels, which means that it's just beginning to happen.

Unless you improve your posts pronto, you'll be gone.

**Shek** · 06-27-2008, 22:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlaneCrazy14

all of my posts are full of errors??? what the **** are u talking about?
what about the thread that asked what your favorite american fighter jets are?
and i replied: f-14, f-16, and f-35

where the hell is the error?

and i dont give a damn about your tolerance, shove it up your ass.

I just pointed out how you had a second post in this thread that was almost entirely wrong. You need to start reading and/or listening to something other than what you currently are, because what you're doing right now isn't working at all.

You should also learn how to pay attention and give respect to those who can teach you. You won't have the opportunity to get schooled here anymore.

tankie · 06-28-2008, 00:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlaneCrazy14

when the next u.s president is elected (my guess is obama), the troops will come out and iraq. millions of civilians dead. iraq is devasted in terms of government, civilians, economy, everything. history is gonna repeat itself. in retaliation, iraq will attack the u.s and another 9/11 will probably happen.

just like afghanistan, the u.s wont help any refugees and wont help iraq get back up on its feet. america came in, killed millions, got oil, and left. oh and by the way, the u.s did a great job of finding weapons of mass destruction. there was absolutely no justifiable reason of entering iraq. do u know how much money was spent in iraq, its unbelievable; thanks to that the national debt is now up to 9 trillion and rising rapidly. even the U.N denied the u.s from entering iraq. awful decisions made by an awful president.
before their deaths, ronald reagan and gerald ford both concluded that george bush was the president that by far made the worst decisions in his term, the war in iraq to be specific. the only thing that the u.s accomplished was getting lots of oil. the image of the u.s in the eyes of the rest of the world is despicable. dont get me wrong, the citizens of the u.s are great, the government and president however are not.

Moron . planecrazy , an apt name methinks , 13 posts = UNLUCKY for him

smilingassassin · 06-28-2008, 06:08 AM

Funny thing is, this guy is ripe for guys like Obama to recrute in his bid for the white house. Sad to think that its possible Obama has a chance to win the election on the backs of the like of this usefull idiot.

Johnny W · 07-02-2008, 15:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Or to take it a step further, it was underestimated.

I think most knowledgeable people didn't underestimate. Unfortunately, the people who had the presidents ear were not very knowledgeable.

I do wish Gates or someone like him had been Secdef from the beginning. He seems to be far more practical and willing to listen than Rumsfeld.

JAD_333 · 07-02-2008, 15:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny W

I think most knowledgeable people didn't underestimate.

Like who? Who knew sectarian divisions would be underestimated? It seems to me that call can only be made in restrospect.

Quote:

Unfortunately, the people who had the presidents ear were not very knowledgeable.

Who was? There were only 2 main lines of opposition: Powell's "if you go in, you own it" meaning you can win the initial battle, but then you'll be stuck with the job of rebuilding and governing. The other line was based on the legalities.

As it turned out Rumsfeld screwed up on the size of the force and occupation policy. Had he done those right, sectarian divisions could have been dealt with politically. So, sectarian divisions weren't much of an argument for not going it.

Quote:

do wish Gates or someone like him had been Secdef from the beginning. He seems to be far more practical and willing to listen than Rumsfeld.

Probably, but remember Cheney's ability to squash internal dissent was awesome at the time.

Johnny W · 07-02-2008, 16:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Like who? Who knew sectarian divisions would be underestimated? It seems to me that call can only be made in restrospect.

Who was? There were only 2 main lines of opposition: Powell's "if you go in, you own it" meaning you can win the initial battle, but then you'll be stuck with the job of rebuilding and governing. The other line was based on the legalities.

As it turned out Rumsfeld screwed up on the size of the force and occupation policy. Had he done those right, sectarian divisions could have been dealt with politically. So, sectarian divisions weren't much of an argument for not going it.

Probably, but remember Cheney's ability to squash internal dissent was awesome at the time.

I think there were some midlevel analyst at CIA/DIA/CENTCOM who realized just how important the sectarian and tribal divisions were. I know that it was something we at NAVCENT discussed as far back as 94/95. The sectarian division could have been part of the reason Powell said "if we break it, we own it". IMO, one of the things meant by breaking was allowing sectarian violence to flare up, sectarian violence that Saddam had kept under control through brutal tactics.

I agree with you somewhat that the divisions were not necessarily a showstopper for going in, but had the folks at the top understood things better, planning for the long term in Iraq would have changed dramatically.

You are probably correct about Cheney, although internal dissent might have been harder to quash if Rumsfeld wasn't around.

JAD_333 · 07-02-2008, 16:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny W

I agree with you somewhat that the divisions were not necessarily a showstopper for going in, but had the folks at the top understood things better, planning for the long term in Iraq would have changed dramatically.

I agree a crystal ball would have changed planning, but we didn't know then that secartian divisions would play out as they did. Just knowing they exist doesn't translate into predicting how they will play out. If we had more boots on the ground and Bremmer had not disbanded the army and gone so deep in de-Baathifiying the ministries a balance might have been achieved from which the Sunni and Shia could have built a workable political system with us there to maintain balance.

If you're arguing from an afteraction POV, I agree with you. But as a reason to not go in, divisions were not a showstopper.

Quote:

You are probably correct about Cheney, although internal dissent might have been harder to quash if Rumsfeld wasn't around.

True. Gates and Powell might have been less at loggerheads and fashioned a more workable plan.

American Empire · 07-02-2008, 17:17 PM

Saddam Hussein and AQ were not allies like Bush wanted us to believe. They were in fact mortal enemies. After Kuwait was "Sodomized" Osama took to the streets of Saudi Arabia denoucing Saddam calling him a "bad muslim" and calling for jihad against him.

Too bad movie "The Kingdom" was made 4 years after the start of the Iraq War...

JAD_333 · 07-02-2008, 17:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American Empire

Saddam Hussein and AQ were not allies like Bush wanted us to believe.

Clinton was first to claim the link. Bush denied we had clear evidence that Saddam had ties to AQ, but evidence seeming to point to low level contacts between AQ and Iraq goes way back.

Washington Times - Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam

Quote:

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam

Originally published 11:29 p.m., June 24, 2004, updated 12:00 a.m., June 25, 2004

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.

The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.

Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.

In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.

To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.

He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, "'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"

View Poll Results: Did Saddam help or harbor Al Qaeda terrorist with 9/11
Yes	7	10.45%
No	60	89.55%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

06-27-2008, 22:21 PM	#136 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 17,059 Country:	And the youth remains stupid __________________ Chimo

06-28-2008, 06:08 AM	#140 (permalink)
smilingassassin *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-12-03 Location: Vancouver Canada Posts: 2,750 Country:	Funny thing is, this guy is ripe for guys like Obama to recrute in his bid for the white house. Sad to think that its possible Obama has a chance to win the election on the backs of the like of this usefull idiot. __________________ Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman. -- Larry Elder

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why We Are in Iraq	Leader	The War in Iraq	109	09-02-2008 14:13 PM
Al Qaeda Finances and Funding	Ray	Political Discussions	3	08-03-2005 12:00 PM
The Radical Right After 9/11.	lulldapull	The Western Alliance	32	11-23-2004 20:16 PM
More proof of the Saddam al Qaeda Connection	Leader	International Defense Topics	3	05-31-2004 21:22 PM

07-02-2008, 17:17 PM	#145 (permalink)
American Empire Banished Regular Join Date: 06-27-08 Posts: 104	Saddam Hussein and AQ were not allies like Bush wanted us to believe. They were in fact mortal enemies. After Kuwait was "Sodomized" Osama took to the streets of Saudi Arabia denoucing Saddam calling him a "bad muslim" and calling for jihad against him. Too bad movie "The Kingdom" was made 4 years after the start of the Iraq War...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)