The Anniverary of the Iraq War

[Back]

Here we are 5 years later. Was/Is it worth it comparing where we are now to where we were back then?

[Arkans]

No. The main for everyone to wash their hair has not been accomplished. How many Americans died for nothing?

- Arkans

[Stanley Burrell]

It's a non-combat operation!!!!!!!!!1111111111one.

No one really died/Leftist media agenda/Wag The Dog featuring Dustin Hoffman/etc.

Pink-bellied tree molesters.

[Parkbandit]

We won't know if it was/is worth it for years to come.

[NocturnalRob]

We won't know if it was/is worth it for years to come.

People that think it was wasn't worth it based on immediate results are the same people who think the current state of the economy is all Bush's fault and has nothing to do with the poor decision-making of previous presidents

[BigWorm]

Watched Bush's speech today and he's still trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq, which is just not true.

[Blud]

For those of you who think the war was/is a bad idea, pray tell...What would have been your decision had you been president of the United States from September 11, 2001 to present?

Let's just see how easy it is to be a backseat quarterback.

[Blud]

No. The main for everyone to wash their hair has not been accomplished. How many Americans died for nothing?

- Arkans

I suppose if you mean "nothing" is no terrorists attacks since, and not fighting terrorism on our own soil, then yeah...They died for nothing.

[TheEschaton]

Blud, do you honestly think going into Iraq was in some way connected to 9/11? Or that it even achieves the goal of "fighting terrorism"? If you do, then you're an idiot.

[Gan]

Blud, do you honestly think going into Iraq was in some way connected to 9/11? Or that it even achieves the goal of "fighting terrorism"? If you do, then you're an idiot.

Amazing that despite all the threads pointing to evidence to the contrary you still hold fast to that belief.

Amazing.

:deadhorse:

[Blud]

I don't know...How many terrorist attacks have we had since then? How many proven Al Qaeda camps were disrupted in Iraq? How many American Civilians have died directly related to a terrorist attack?

And you still didn't answer the question. What would you have done?

[TheEschaton]

Iraq was in no way connected to 9/11 or Al Qaeda before we invaded, at which point the latter decided to move in to cause some havoc. This is settled fact, Petreus has acknowledged it, most of our military has acknowledged it, the only person who hasn't is Il Presidente.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Iraq was in no way connected to 9/11 or Al Qaeda before we invaded, at which point the latter decided to move in to cause some havoc. This is settled fact, Petreus has acknowledged it, most of our military has acknowledged it, the only person who hasn't is Il Presidente.

-TheE-

If that lets you sleep at night, sure thing buddy.

[Gan]

I don't know...How many terrorist attacks have we had since then? How many proven Al Qaeda camps were disrupted in Iraq? How many American Civilians have died directly related to a terrorist attack?

And you still didn't answer the question. What would you have done?

In TheE's fantasy world, all conflicts are resolved with hugs.

:grouphug:

[TheEschaton]

Gee, how many terrorist attacks did we have between the 94 bombings and 9/11.....hmmmm, 7 years. These massive operations on American soil don't just spring up overnight.

The problem is, you think that "lack of attacks" is due to Bush's somehow proactive solution - however, they offer no evidence that they've stopped any major attacks, they just say "We're keeping you safe!" and offer a sly wink. Don't you think if they foiled a massive attack that would have killed thousands, it would be leaked and lead on every major news network within minutes? Especially considering the massive negative press they're getting now? Especially considering the GOP is looking at losing the WH? Especially considering that they're arrogant bastards? What's achieved from Al Qaeda and Dubya and Co. being the only people to know an attack has failed? Shouldn't Dubya rub it in their faces publically, to the world?

Oh yeah....there have been no such attacks, that's why he has nothing to rub in anyone's face.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Gee, how many terrorist attacks did we have between the 94 bombings and 9/11.....hmmmm, 7 years. These massive operations on American soil don't just spring up overnight.

The problem is, you think that "lack of attacks" is due to Bush's somehow proactive solution - however, they offer no evidence that they've stopped any major attacks, they just say "We're keeping you safe!" and offer a sly wink. Don't you think if they foiled a massive attack that would have killed thousands, it would be leaked and lead on every major news network within minutes? Especially considering the massive negative press they're getting now? Especially considering the GOP is looking at losing the WH? Especially considering that they're arrogant bastards? What's achieved from Al Qaeda and Dubya and Co. being the only people to know an attack has failed? Shouldn't Dubya rub it in their faces publically, to the world?

Oh yeah....there have been no such attacks, that's why he has nothing to rub in anyone's face.

-TheE-

LOL, the rhetoric is so thick in this post, you have to cut through it with a knife.

Dont you have a Hillary rally to go to?

:lol:

[TheEschaton]

Gan, please point me to Iraq's connections to 9/11 and Al Qaeda. And before you respond with Ansar il Islam, please keep in mind they operated completely in the Kurdish north, and saying that the very fact that they were IN Iraq makes Iraq complicit in the terrorism that was directed AGAINST Saddam, is retarded. It's like saying America is complicit in the terrorism of the KKK, an idea you seem to denounce wildly in the thread about Rev. Wright.

So, without further ado, please commence.

-TheE-

[Stanley Burrell]

For those of you who think the war was/is a bad idea, pray tell...What would have been your decision had you been president of the United States from September 11, 2001 to present?

Let's just see how easy it is to be a backseat quarterback.

Barack Obama, but believe you me: I am not a bandwagoner of the Hillary Crowd. I've been marking her flip-flopped Iraq War support (support as in actually provide human lives as battery power to fuel this crap) since she decided to let her politics show.

I am probably eccentric and as close to individuality as you can get with my farfetched reasoning as to why I'm voting for him, which I'm not bothering to explain now -- It reaches far beyond any liberal rhetoric I tout on these forums.

[Kembal]

Uh, Gan, the Pentagon just recently released a report (like last week) saying that they have found no documents so far in the Iraqi archives showing that Saddam and Iraq were directly connected to Al-Qaida before 9/11. The report itself shows documents listing out the various terrorist organizations Saddam was connected to. Al-Qaida is not one of the ones listed.

Article from ABC about the report: http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/report-shows-no.html

The report itself: http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

Quoted from the report:


This study found no
"smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.

[Blud]

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army.

Full Story: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Related Article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

Article on the 9/11 Commssion's Report: http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp

I could go on and on posting articles, but you'll just do the same stating contrary.

The point is this. The decision to invade Iraq was based upon the best evidence available at the time the decision was reached (by BOTH SIDES of Congress) and the real answer as to whether or not it was the right thing to do can not be known right now, and maybe even years to come. But I will say this: I appreciate the sacrifice that our American Soldiers make everyday to help guarantee that my country is safer today than it was seven years ago.

To say they died for nothing is to spit on their graves and disgrace their sacrifice so that those of you who would say that can continue to HAVE the right to do so.

And I still submit that since the war on terror began, we are safer today than we were 7 years ago. Sometimes the best defense is a great offense.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Maybe you should look at the articles and intelligence reports from 5 years ago before you armchair quarterback what you would have done. It's easier now, but we have more information now as well.

[Blud]

Gan, please point me to Iraq's connections to 9/11 and Al Qaeda. And before you respond with Ansar il Islam, please keep in mind they operated completely in the Kurdish north, and saying that the very fact that they were IN Iraq makes Iraq complicit in the terrorism that was directed AGAINST Saddam, is retarded. It's like saying America is complicit in the terrorism of the KKK, an idea you seem to denounce wildly in the thread about Rev. Wright.

So, without further ado, please commence.

-TheE-

:rofl:

America WOULD be complicit in the terrorism of the KKK if we didn't put laws in place to protect our citizens from it and have tough penalties for hate crimes. I doubt you would find any law on Saddam's books that are comparable.

[Parkbandit]

Debating this with TheE is futile. He is a self proclaimed pacifist who believes that nothing is accomplished with armed confrontation.

I tend to disagree strongly.

[Kembal]

For those of you who think the war was/is a bad idea, pray tell...What would have been your decision had you been president of the United States from September 11, 2001 to present?

Let's just see how easy it is to be a backseat quarterback.

Invade Afghanistan with 1.5 to 2 times the forces we initially put in. Get an agreement from Pakistan that we could go into Pakistan to ring the Tora Bora mountains and thus cut off escape for Bin Laden and the rest of the Al-Qaida leadership at that pivotal moment in the Iraq war.

Leave a huge force in Afghanistan to stomp the Taliban out for good. Then in no uncertain terms tell Pakistan that they need to dump the covert support for Islamic fundamentalists, or India gets fully recognized as a nuclear power, the U.S. will start selling military arms to India, and the U.S. will back India for a permanent Security Council seat.

Set up massive energy conservation programs and go big into alternative energy research. Irrespective of the environmental benefits, the national security necessity is clear: the oil profits that go to Middle East nations from our oil consumption are sent to Islamic terrorist organizations. Long term, this link must be weakened substantially.

Do NOT back democratic elections in Palestine right away. Wait until Fatah cleans itself up first.

Keep making sure Iran and Iraq are pissed at each other. Keeps them both occupied. (And yes, of course, sanctions against both of them to continue, unless moderate reform occurs in either country.)

That's off the top of my head.

[Blud]

Maybe you should look at the articles and intelligence reports from 5 years ago before you armchair quarterback what you would have done. It's easier now, but we have more information now as well.

Agreed. Precisely my point.

My question to all of you was what WOULD you have DONE...Not what would you DO knowing the information you know NOW.

[Blud]

Invade Afghanistan with 1.5 to 2 times the forces we initially put in.

Good, IMHO, but we didn't know the scale of what we were getting into with Afghanistan at the time either. I do agree that we should have sent more there though once we realized we needed more.


Get an agreement from Pakistan that we could go into Pakistan to ring the Tora Bora mountains and thus cut off escape for Bin Laden and the rest of the Al-Qaida leadership at that pivotal moment in the Iraq war.

Assuming you knew this would have been his escape route then.


Then in no uncertain terms tell Pakistan that they need to dump the covert support for Islamic fundamentalists, or India gets fully recognized as a nuclear power, the U.S. will start selling military arms to India, and the U.S. will back India for a permanent Security Council seat.

This demand indicates that you KNOW there is "covert" support, which means if it was covert, and we knew about it, Pakistan is not likely to just say, "OK, you caught us. We give up." Maybe the better solution is to give India "token" support in order to scare Pakistan into solving it's own problems with Islamic Fundamentalists instead of us telling them what to do?


Set up massive energy conservation programs and go big into alternative energy research. Irrespective of the environmental benefits, the national security necessity is clear: the oil profits that go to Middle East nations from our oil consumption are sent to Islamic terrorist organizations. Long term, this link must be weakened substantially.

Great idea...really. I just wonder where you're going to get the money? Won't we need that money to fight a war? I have an idea...Let's tap into our strategic oil reserves and open up the Alaskan oil fields for drilling. We won't export the oil, and when/if the world settles down, we'll go back to foriegn oil once we know who we can trust, and who we can't.

[TheEschaton]

Blud, you seem to misremember that most of the country and the world, including the U.N. offered significant evidence of why NOT to go into Iraq. It was only Congress, and the morally insignificant President whispering in their ear, that felt otherwise.


To say they died for nothing is to spit on their graves and disgrace their sacrifice so that those of you who would say that can continue to HAVE the right to do so.


This really pisses me off. I think it's more of a disgrace of their sacrifice to make them needlessly sacrifice for a war that did not need to be fought. It is not a disgrace to question the Administration that would send people into harm's way for no reason.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

America WOULD be complicit in the terrorism of the KKK if we didn't put laws in place to protect our citizens from it and have tough penalties for hate crimes. I doubt you would find any law on Saddam's books that are comparable.

Funny, this is the very sentiment that Rev. Wright expressed, and was denounced for in other threads by our resident conservatives.

-TheE-

[Blud]

This really pisses me off. I think it's more of a disgrace of their sacrifice to make them needlessly sacrifice for a war that did not need to be fought. It is not a disgrace to question the Administration that would send people into harm's way for no reason.

-TheE-

Again, they sacrificed their lives so that you could say that, and question their leaders.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Durgrimst]

I think it is funny that all these people that either are not in the military or have any family members talk about how bad the war is and about how we should pull the troops out. There are something like 1% of Americans in the military, and out of that 1%, half of those have not deployed in support of the "War on Terror." Basically my point is that this directly effects very few peoples lives.

My standpoint is that I am a Marine Infantryman and I fully support the war. I have the training and gear to keep me alive, and as long as there are Americans in the Middle East, my family is a lot safer in America. I don't care what country I get deployed too, we are the easy targets and the ones that get targeted. As long as we take the fight to them, it is much safer for my Mom to live her life.

cheesy quote:
Freedom isn't free

Someone has to fight, and if your not willing to do it, then just shut the hell up and enjoy all the freedoms that you get just by being an American.

[TheEschaton]

Well, that's just silly to believe. To think Americans are safer because we're in the Middle East, you would have to ignore the fact that we've inflamed the ire of the Middle East against us, given propoganda to our enemies, and have created generations of hatred. That is exactly our argument - having soldiers in the Middle East is NOT making us safer, it is making us less safe.

Freedom isn't free, it cost a buck oh five.

And don't ever question my patriotism because I don't want to kill another human being, which is, according to my religion, about the worst single thing you can do without justification.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Well, that's just silly to believe. To think Americans are safer because we're in the Middle East, you would have to ignore the fact that we've inflamed the ire of the Middle East against us, given propoganda to our enemies, and have created generations of hatred. That is exactly our argument - having soldiers in the Middle East is NOT making us safer, it is making us less safe.

-TheE-

So.. according to you.. after 9-11, we should have just said "Sorry to have angered you. We're sorry" and given them a hug.

Sweet dreams princess.

[Gan]

And don't ever question my patriotism because I don't want to kill another human being, which is, according to my religion, about the worst single thing you can do without justification.

-TheE-

While you're up there on high, dont forget that you support a candidate and a party that supports abortion. How many babies are aborted each year in the US? How does that compare with how many soldiers we've lost in the Iraq conflict?

Or are you saying that its ok to have an abortion, just not to fight in a war?

Great (perforated/abridged) moral compass you have there.

:lol:

[Blud]

So.. according to you.. after 9-11, we should have just said "Sorry to have angered you. We're sorry" and given them a hug.

Sweet dreams princess.

I thought we tried that when the WTC was bombed the first time and the S.S. Cole was attacked...

Oh wait! We didn't do anything. That's right.

I can't understand how 9-11 happened...

[TheEschaton]

how many of those "babies" have I accepted as being actual human beings? 0, since third semester abortions are already not accepted.

-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

how many of those "babies" have I accepted as being actual human beings? 0, since third semester abortions are already not accepted.

-TheE-

I don't count terrorists as being actual human beings either. I guess we are at an impasse.

[Daniel]

Generations?

Um..last time I checked the Sunni's in Sunni Triangle were now fighting with us, whereas a couple years ago they were our biggest enemy. That's not even *A* generation of ire.

[Gan]

how many of those "babies" have I accepted as being actual human beings? 0, since third semester abortions are already not accepted.

-TheE-

But the Catholic Church, where you root your moral compass from, dictates (per the Pope) that life begins with conception.

Or are you saying your moral compass is not derived from your religiousity?

Dont make me go dig up your Catholic doctrine posts where you posit otherwise...

[ClydeR]

Iraq was in no way connected to 9/11 or Al Qaeda before we invaded, at which point the latter decided to move in to cause some havoc. This is settled fact, Petreus has acknowledged it, most of our military has acknowledged it, the only person who hasn't is Il Presidente.

You are totally forgetting about Zarqawi. He was in a hospital in Baghdad even before we started Operation Iraqi Freedom. That hospital was run by Saddam's son, and there's no way Saddam didn't know he was there.

President Bush and Vice Presdient Cheney have already addressed the Saddam/terrorist connection in a detailed way. The President even answered questions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040615-4.html) about it for reporters back in 2004--


Q The Vice President, who I see standing over there, said yesterday that Saddam Hussein has long-established ties to al Qaeda. As you know, this is disputed within the U.S. intelligence community. Mr. President, would you add any qualifiers to that flat statement? And what do you think is the best evidence of it?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Zarqawi. Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda. He's the person who's still killing. He's the person -- and remember the email exchange between al Qaeda leadership and he, himself, about how to disrupt the progress toward freedom?

Saddam Hussein also had ties to terrorist organizations, as well.

In other words, he was affiliated with terrorism -- Abu Nidal, the paying of families of suiciders to go kill innocent people. I mean, he was no doubt a destabilizing force. And we did the absolute right thing in removing him from power. And the world is better off with him not in power.

I look forward to the debate, for people saying, oh, gosh, the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power. I think we'd have trouble finding takers, particularly those in Iraq, as well. They're now living in a free society. And I repeat, it's hard work to go from Saddam Hussein to a free society. But we'll get there. And we'll get there because people want to be free, that's why we'll get there. People long to live in freedom. And the United States -- and I will continue to make it clear that we will not abandon those who are building free societies -- whether it be in Afghanistan or whether it be in Iraq.

[TheEschaton]

Zarqawi wasn't an Al Qaedas operative until he declared himself Al Qaeda after the U.S. invaded Iraq.

[Parkbandit]

Zarqawi wasn't an Al Qaedas operative until he declared himself Al Qaeda after the U.S. invaded Iraq.


Yea, before the US invaded, Zarqawi was a law abiding citizen who wanted nothing but peace and love.

[Gan]

Zarqawi wasn't an Al Qaedas operative until he declared himself Al Qaeda after the U.S. invaded Iraq.

From 2 previous threads discussing this very link.


Oh, another choice quote from the January 2003 report by CIA on the ties with Al Qaida:

"This paper's conclusions - especially regarding the difficult and elusive question of the exact nature of Iraq's relations with al-Qaida - are based on currently available information that is at times contradictory and derived from sources of varying reliability."

We now know Chalabi was the source which was saying "There was a relationship!" and even I knew Chalabi shouldn't of been trusted well before 2003, so why did CIA include it? Because they were directed to be aggressive in the scope of their report.

-TheE-
We have already established the link between Iraq and Al Qaida. Based on Tenet's notes from his book.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=589556&postcount=28



Originally Posted by The Weekly Standard Article quoting Tenet's book



There was more than enough evidence to give us real concern about Iraq and al-Qa'ida; there was plenty of smoke, maybe even some fire: Ansar al-Islam [note: Tenet refers to Ansar al-Islam by its initials "AI" in several places]; Zarqawi; Kurmal; the arrests in Europe; the murder of American USAID officer Lawrence Foley, in Amman, at the hands of Zarqawi's associates; and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives in Baghdad.On Ansar al-Islam, Zarqawi, and Kurmal, Tenet elaborates further:
The intelligence told us that senior al-Qa'ida leaders and the Iraqis had discussed safe haven in Iraq. Most of the public discussion thus far has focused on Zarqawi's arrival in Baghdad under an assumed name in May of 2002, allegedly to receive medical treatment. Zarqawi, whom we termed a "senior associate and collaborator" of al-Qa'ida at the time, supervised camps in northern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam (AI).
We believed that up to two hundred al-Qa'ida fighters began to relocate there in camps after the Afghan campaign began in the fall of 2001. The camps enhanced Zarqawi's reach beyond the Middle East. One of the camps run by AI, known as Kurmal, engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that Zarqawi's men had tested these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their own associates. They laughed about how well it worked. Our efforts to track activities emanating from Kurmal resulted in the arrest of nearly one hundred Zarqawi operatives in Western Europe planning to use poisons in operations.
According to Tenet, al Qaeda's presence was not limited to northern Iraq:

What was even more worrisome was that by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They had found a comfortable and secure environment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northeastern Iraq.Other high-level al Qaeda terrorists set up shop in Baghdad as well. From Saddam's neo-Stalinist capital they planned attacks around the globe:
More al-Qa'ida operatives would follow, including Thirwat Shihata and Yussef Dardiri, two Egyptians assessed by a senior al-Qa'ida detainee to be among the Egyptian Islamic Jihad's best operational planners, who arrived by mid-May of 2002. At times we lost track of them, though their associates continued to operate in Baghdad as of October 2002. Their activity in sending recruits to train in Zarqawi's camps was compelling enough.
There was also concern that these two might be planning operations outside Iraq. Credible information told us that Shihata was willing to strike U.S., Israeli, and Egyptian targets sometime in the future. Shihata had been linked to terrorist operations in North Africa, and while in Afghanistan he had trained North Africans in the use of truck bombs. Smoke indeed. But how much fire, if any?
It strains credulity to imagine that all of this was going on without, at the very least, Saddam's tacit approval. Tenet says that the CIA did not think Saddam had "operational direction and control" over the two Egyptians, Zarqawi, or AI. But he explains, "from an intelligence point of view it would have been difficult to conclude that the Iraqi intelligence service was not aware of their activities." "Certainly," Tenet adds, "we believe that at least one senior AI operative maintained some sort of liaison relationship with the Iraqis."
There was more. Tenet says that his analysts found evidence of a relationship spanning more than a decade. He explains:
In the laborious exercise undertaken by analysts to understand the history of a potential Iraq-al Qa'ida relationship, they went back and documented the basis of a variety of sources--some good, some secondhand, some hearsay, many from other intelligence services. There were, over a decade, a number of possible high-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida, through high-level and third-party intermediaries. Our data told us that at various points there were discussions of cooperation, safe haven, training, and reciprocal nonaggression. As has been discussed in THE WEEKLY STANDARD on a number (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp) of (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/388astht.asp) occasions (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/887nvenc.asp), the CIA also uncovered evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating on chemical weapons projects in the Sudan. The Clinton administration cited the CIA's intelligence to justify the August 20, 1998, strike on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory. That strike was launched in retaliation for al Qaeda's August 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. The al-Shifa plant operated under an Iraqi oil-for-food contract and Tenet's CIA suspected it of being one of several front companies at which Iraq was transferring chemical weapons technology (including VX nerve gas) to al Qaeda.

Tenet explains the long history of collaboration between Iraq, Sudan, and al Qaeda:

During the mid-1990s, Sudanese Islamic Front Leader Hasan al-Turabi reportedly served as a conduit for Bin Ladin between Iraq and Iran. Turabi in this period was trying to become the centerpiece of the Sunni extremist world. He was hosting conferences and facilitating the travel of North Africans to Hezbollah training camps in the Bekaa Valley, in Lebanon. There was concern that common interests may have existed in this period between Iraq, Bin Ladin, and the Sudanese, particularly with regard to the production of chemical weapons. The reports we evaluated told us of high-level Iraqi intelligence service contacts with Bin Ladin himself, though we never knew the outcome of these contacts. [Emphasis added] http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/596texms.asp
And before you go screaming about a bias source, first refute the information contained therein. Since you've already screamed bias source in the past two conversations we've had about this.

[Warriorbird]

It's like you (and William Krisol's Weekly Standard) want to have it both ways. Is Tenet reliable or not?

Both of you seem to have argued both ways. Which is it? If you feel this is correct you might want to address his other conclusions.

[Gan]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about TheE's taking parts of Tenet's testimony/book as valid points and then the other parts as not valid.

[TheEschaton]

Lucky for you, I was never the Director of Central Intelligence.

Oh, and your quote says it all:

It strains credulity to imagine that all of this was going on without, at the very least, Saddam's tacit approval. Tenet says that the CIA did not think Saddam had "operational direction and control" over the two Egyptians, Zarqawi, or AI. But he explains, "from an intelligence point of view it would have been difficult to conclude that the Iraqi intelligence service was not aware of their activities." "Certainly," Tenet adds, "we believe that at least one senior AI operative maintained some sort of liaison relationship with the Iraqis."

As I've said before, this is like the KKK and various terrorist militias operating in the U.S. unfettered. Are we said that, A) because we're aware of them, and B) haven't wiped them out, we're somehow implicit in supporting them? Except the difference was Saddam was crippled by sanctions and the disarmament of his arsenal by the UNSCOM inspections of the 90s, and couldn't have gained military control of the AI-infested Kurdish north even if he wanted.

Edit: Oh, btw PB, I didn't claim Zarqawi was a nice guy. He was a radical terrorist before the U.S. came in to Iraq. However, he was NOT Al Qaeda affiliated, so justiifying Iraq's invasion to eliminate a man who wasn't even a member of the organization that attacked the WTC, until we attacked him and he needed some way to get support, is somewhat idiotic.

-TheE-

[Apathy]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/henry.bush.legacy/index.html#cnnSTCText

But with the president reiterating again Wednesday that he is determined to keep U.S. troops in Iraq until there is victory, it's likely there will be some level of American presence in Baghdad for many years to come, regardless of who wins the White House.

http://www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/blogs/council/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/6_22_bush_mission_banner1.jpg

Heh.

Parkbandit is right, though. We won't really know the repercussions of this war for another 15 years.

I do not support our troops being civil war police officers, though.

[Warriorbird]

The US Army is the best in the world... at fighting wars and not at fighting politics which this essentially is and has been since "mission accomplished."

[Parkbandit]

Edit: Oh, btw PB, I didn't claim Zarqawi was a nice guy. He was a radical terrorist before the U.S. came in to Iraq. However, he was NOT Al Qaeda affiliated, so justiifying Iraq's invasion to eliminate a man who wasn't even a member of the organization that attacked the WTC, until we attacked him and he needed some way to get support, is somewhat idiotic.

-TheE-

War on Terror /= only targetting Al Qaeda. Bush stated it pretty clearly.. that the US will not just wait for someone to attack us.. we will go after those that wish us harm. Saddam made the mistake of pretending to have WMD and that he would use them whenever he wished... thinking that would keep Iran at bay. Unfortunately for Saddam, that lie cost him his power, his family and his life.

[TheEschaton]

Too bad "eliminating terrorism in Iraq" wasn't the proffered reason Bush gave for invading Iraq. After all, AI had existed for a long time - even longer than the Taliban, I believe. I believe he accused Saddam of having and building WMDs, the capability for which we gave him in the 80s, and took away in the 90s.

Oh, and Saddam didn't pretend to have anything. He, in fact, submitted a 1600 page report detailing how he had nothing, a report which we called bullshit and which was later found to be true.

-TheE-

[Kembal]

Good, IMHO, but we didn't know the scale of what we were getting into with Afghanistan at the time either. I do agree that we should have sent more there though once we realized we needed more.

Considering the Soviets couldn't break Afghanistan and it's the same group that fought them that would be fighting us, I would've done it just on that alone.


Assuming you knew this would have been his escape route then.

I took your challenge on the basis of the idea of what was happening at that time, so I'm just looking at information available then. At Tora Bora, when we had Bin Laden surrounded, we knew it bordered Pakistan. If we had not been invading Iraq, we would have had the troops available (see the 1.5 to 2 times the force point above) to throw a ring around Tora Bora.


This demand indicates that you KNOW there is "covert" support, which means if it was covert, and we knew about it, Pakistan is not likely to just say, "OK, you caught us. We give up." Maybe the better solution is to give India "token" support in order to scare Pakistan into solving it's own problems with Islamic Fundamentalists instead of us telling them what to do?

Oh...I'm of Indian descent. It's been pretty common knowledge in India for some time that Pakistan has been funding/supporting Islamic terrorism (see Kashmir). The U.S. most certainly knew about it, considering we trained their intelligence agents (the ISI) and asked them to create such links and groups so that way we could fund the effort against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Giving India token support would only intensify Pakistan's efforts to fund such terrorism. It's low grade warfare against India. (Pakistan has actually increased its efforts in this regard in the wake of the nuclear deal that U.S. has pending with India.) An explicit threat to Pakistan might wake them up.


Great idea...really. I just wonder where you're going to get the money? Won't we need that money to fight a war? I have an idea...Let's tap into our strategic oil reserves and open up the Alaskan oil fields for drilling. We won't export the oil, and when/if the world settles down, we'll go back to foriegn oil once we know who we can trust, and who we can't.

Well, assume only half of the amount we use for fighting in Iraq right now will be used in my hypothetical increased force level for Afghanistan. (even that is absurdly high as a dollar amount for that, but it's a simple assumption) That still leaves a lot left over to spend on energy programs as I described above.

I have no problem tapping into the SPR on a judicious basis. The Alaskan oil fields I hesitate at, because it might contradict the message the conservation efforts need to convince the American people to buy into them. (Yes, the environmental costs bother me too, but since we're looking at a straight national security perspective, I'll reduce it out of my analysis.)

[Durgrimst]

Well, that's just silly to believe. To think Americans are safer because we're in the Middle East, you would have to ignore the fact that we've inflamed the ire of the Middle East against us, given propoganda to our enemies, and have created generations of hatred. That is exactly our argument - having soldiers in the Middle East is NOT making us safer, it is making us less safe.

Freedom isn't free, it cost a buck oh five.

And don't ever question my patriotism because I don't want to kill another human being, which is, according to my religion, about the worst single thing you can do without justification.

-TheE-

The Middle East has hated America for years. That is why there have been terrorist incidents in the past. And ignoring the problem won't make it go away. That is how 9-11 happened.

On the killing note, every religion has religious fanatics, just watch the news about Jerusalem. And when a person blows you up or points a gun at you, defending yourself is justified. The Rules of Engagement are very strict, and not to be taken lightly.

[Daniel]

Are you talking about the Palestinians being killed or the Israelis?

[Jesuit]

The Middle East has hated America for years. That is why there have been terrorist incidents in the past. And ignoring the problem won't make it go away. That is how 9-11 happened.

On the killing note, every religion has religious fanatics, just watch the news about Jerusalem. And when a person blows you up or points a gun at you, defending yourself is justified. The Rules of Engagement are very strict, and not to be taken lightly.

Come on don't you get what TheE is trying to say. Bush made people who hate us not like us anymore. Doesn't that make perfect sense?

[TheEschaton]

Funny, as someone pointed out already, the 2006 NIE said our efforts in Iraq have created a greater threat of terrorism than ever before. Damn those liberal commies in the intelligence agencies!

-TheE-

[Blud]

Funny, as someone pointed out already, the 2006 NIE said our efforts in Iraq have created a greater threat of terrorism than ever before. Damn those liberal commies in the intelligence agencies!

-TheE-

That may be the case, but two points:

1. They started it.
2. At least we're not fighting the war on our soil.


Freedom isn't free, it cost a buck oh five.

-TheE-

And I still have a hard time believing you wrote this in response to a post by a member of the armed forces. What you essentially said is that all of those lives that you claim were wasted were worth a $1.05.

Nice job.

[CrystalTears]

Please don't get TheE started on how he feels about the military and/or troops. I don't have the stomach for it again.

[Gan]

Dont make TheE break out his MORAL COMPASS again!


Noooooooooooooooooooooo!

http://www.greenberg-art.com/.Illustrations/.Serious/qq1sgMoral%20Compass%20illo.gif

?

[Parkbandit]

:rofl:

Nice compass

[TheEschaton]

That may be the case, but two points:

1. They started it.
2. At least we're not fighting the war on our soil.



And I still have a hard time believing you wrote this in response to a post by a member of the armed forces. What you essentially said is that all of those lives that you claim were wasted were worth a $1.05.

Nice job.

Jesus, the "Freedom costs a buck oh five" is straight from Team America, dude. Calm the fuck out.

Oh, and saying "They started it" is irrelevant to the point made which said "Fighting this war makes Americans safer," when it in fact, does not.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Oh, and saying "They started it" is irrelevant to the point made which said "Fighting this war makes Americans safer," when it in fact, does not.

-TheE-

How does one know this "fact"? In order for you to actually know it, you must be a time traveller, able to change the past to see the consequences of our inaction.

I'm pretty sure you do not possess this ability in the real world.. and thus your 'fact' is nothing more than your opinion.

[CrystalTears]

His fantasy world has time machines and magic portals. Dur.

[TheEschaton]

And the opinion of the National Intelligence Estimate.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

And the opinion of the National Intelligence Estimate.

This opinion?

What did the NIE on Iraq's WMD say?

That Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program," "has chemical and biological weapons," and that "all key aspects--R&D [research and development], production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War." It also said that Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents." The key judgments section--or executive summary--of the 90-page NIE has been declassified; most of the rest of the report remains classified. An unclassified version (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie_first%20release.pdf)--similar to the classified version but lacking many of its caveats and details--was released to the public in October 2002.

[TheEschaton]

No, the 2006 NIE, not the 2002 one.

[Stanley Burrell]

No, the 2006 NIE, not the 2002 one.

DAMAGE CONTROL!!!!

[Parkbandit]

And the opinion of the National Intelligence Estimate.

So when you used the phrase "Fact is", you really meant "My opinion is"

That's what we thought.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

No, the 2006 NIE, not the 2002 one.

You must mean this one then...

Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.
• If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the ISF would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution; neighboring countries—invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally—might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; AQI would attempt to use parts of the country—particularly al-Anbar province—to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion.

I realize it's not from the 2006 one, but since you are picking and choosing, I chose the 2007... Seems to me it implies our forces there are pretty key.

[Parkbandit]

No, the 2006 NIE, not the 2002 one.

:rofl:

Because we were stupid to listen to the 2002 NIE.. but we're stupid not to listen to the 2006.

:rofl:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/FalgrinRoflcopter.jpg

[Clove]

You must mean this one then...

...

I realize it's not from the 2006 one, but since you are picking and choosing, I chose the 2007... Seems to me it implies our forces there are pretty key.

Don't quote -E-'s own sources; it disrupts his delusional constructions.

[TheEschaton]

You're addressing a different point, SHM. I don't disagree that withdrawing our troops would cause chaos.

The point the 2006 NIE made was that terrorism and the threat of terrorism has, in fact, increased due to our occupation.

-TheE-

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You're addressing a different point, SHM. I don't disagree that withdrawing our troops would cause chaos.

The point the 2006 NIE made was that terrorism and the threat of terrorism has, in fact, increased due to our occupation.

-TheE-

Actually it doesn't say that.

Key Judgments
United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al-Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.

Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1)
Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western
domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the
Iraq .jihad;. (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and
political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US
sentiment among most Muslims.all of which jihadists exploit.

I'm not sure where you are interpreting that at all. Is it in another report other than the 2002, 2006 or 2007 NIE reports?

[Clove]

My guess is that the -E- is inferring it from factor 1 (and possibly 3 and 4). Because if we weren't occupying Iraq, Muslim nations wouldn't fear Western domination anymore

[TheEschaton]

It wouldn't go away, but it would be less, Clove. Y'all are being obtuse.

[Clove]

It wouldn't go away, but it would be less, Clove. Y'all are being obtuse.

You think it would matter, do you? Even though this fear, hatred and frustration has existed for decades (if not centuries).

I suppose I am being obtuse- because we weren't occupying Iraq or Afghanistan in 2001 and tension seemed intense enough to launch direct terrorist attacks against the United States; but they got it out of their system right- and then we fucked it all up by invading Iraq and Afghanistan...

:thinking:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It wouldn't go away, but it would be less, Clove. Y'all are being obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm just not reading into the report. None of them say our occupation of Iraq is contributing to increased terrorism.

You have the same report I'm reading, where does it say that. Where does it even infer that?

[Parkbandit]

It wouldn't go away, but it would be less, Clove. Y'all are being obtuse.


:rofl: I'll give you this.. at least you aren't deleting all your stupid posts after being completely made a fool of. And you aren't saying you are going to retire your login, only to come back in a bunch of new names. Way to stick by your stupid gun!

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/stupid_gun.jpg

[Blud]

But if you say you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, hath your house been burnt? Hath your propertly been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have? But if you have, and can still shake hands with the murderers, then you are unworthy the name of husband, father, friend, or lover; and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.

~Thomas Paine, from "Common Sense"

[Back]

Lets look at the facts.

3992 American forces dead. 4300 total coalition forces dead.
29395 American forces wounded. (No easily found statisitics on coalition forces or Iraqis)
8037 Iraqi forces dead since recording started in Feb 05. 82k-90k Iraqi civilians dead.
52 dead in London on 7/7.
191 dead in Madrid on M-11.
64 in Egypt resort bombings.
Price of oil in Sep. 2003: $25 a barrel. Price of oil today: $101.84 at today’s close.
Average price of a gallon of gas. 2003: $1.44 | 2008: $3.28
National Debt. 2003: $6.4 trillion | 2008: $9.3 trillion

[Back]

Oh yeah, Bin Ladin still on the loose.