Scott McClellan's new book on his tenure at the White House.

[buschwhaked]

Well if you "guess that" then you have built a poor strawman, given that none of them have a history of attacking US interests, working with jihadists to do so, or using WMD against their neighbors. Perhaps you need to work on the question again before you spout wrong answers

Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Pakistan hasn't worked with Jihadists? Iran is directly responsible for the death of 6 members of my unit in Iraq, and the wounding of 27 others. Two killed are good friends of mine. Another is getting his skull put back in at Walter Reid currently. Ever heard of Sadr? What about the hostages in the 1970's? Syria actively funded and supplied the factions in Beruit during the Marine's stint there. Syria and N. Korea have colluded on nuclear weapons technology using a Pakistani nuclear scientist. North Korea has had and probably will have an active NUCLEAR weapons program. Oh, what about the Korean war? Pakistan's foreign minister warned Bin Laden about incoming American cruise missles. Pakistan has WMD's. Pakistan refuses to actively engage AQ in their western border region. Pakistan was the starting point for all of the 9/11 hijackers trek to Afghanistan.


Pay attention to what people say--there are loads of direct connections between Saddam's Iraq and terrorist groups, including AQ affiliates. NOBODY of consequence has said that there is an absolute link between Saddam and Bin Laden in regards to attacks against US persons or interests. Yet he did in fact work with Abu Sayyaf in the Philipines to attack US interests (multiple times); he provided shelter to Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal and the ANO, and Carlos the Jackal; Ramzi Yousef (the '93 WTC bombing leader and an AQ operative) came from Iraq and ran back to Iraq afterwards; etc. Oh but since he did not actually have an extended cooperative tete-a-tete with Bin Laden Himself then he must not be a threat!

And 19 of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, miss our target a little to the North? The hijackers were in the US for months prior to the attack. Is the US at fault for that as well? A bad guy residing in your country doesn't make your leader a 'sponsor' of terror. We're the most powerful country in the world and we can't control access through our borders. Many of those countries listed above have done more to sponsor terror than Saddam ever did. So back to my original question, should we just invade them all?


That argument doesn't hold water because it is nonsense. The US did not need explicit approval to act like you think. First of all, resolution 678 granted all member states the authority to use any force necessary to uphold the resolutions:

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Obviously the US is "a member state" and obviously the cease-fire agreement in resolution 678 is a "subsequent relevant resolution" which the US (under both Clinton and Bush) felt needed to be enforced.

Sure, enforce it all you want. But it had been relatively successfully 'enforeced' for 12 years prior to the invasion.

Second, Saddam's Iraq was provably in violation of the terms of the cease-fire, as demonstrated already, and as UNANIMOUSLY agreed to and stated as fact in resolution 1441:

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

So if the US is pre-authorized to use "all necessary means" to "enforce [...] subsequent resolutions" which 1441 explicitly stated was the case, then what kind of additional authority do you fantasize was necessary? Show me a resolution that limited the authority please?

The resolutions required Saddam allow inspectors from the UN and the IAEA to verify weapons disposal. In late 2002 Saddam did allow weapons inspectors back in. They didn't find any weapons. But Bush was SO convinced they were there, he invaded anyway. He manufactured an impossible situation for Saddam: if he doesn't have weapons then he's lying , if he does then he's in violation of the resolutions. Bush wanted a war no matter what. He got one.


So you agree they were in violation of the cease-fire, thanks

I highly doubt Saddam even realized he had those 122mm rkts left. Hell, the Air Force 'lost' some nuclear bombs for a few hours a while back. And having personal experience with the Iraqi way of governing, I doubt they knew which end was up. Besides, we've been there for five years, where are the WMD's Saddam was hiding?

 

[ZomBrady]

. . . I mean can you imagine where we all would be if he had been president during the Cuban missle crisis???? God help us.:scared:

X2!!!!

 

[ehall]

Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Pakistan hasn't worked with Jihadists? Iran is directly responsible for the death of 6 members of my unit in Iraq, and the wounding of 27 others. Two killed are good friends of mine. Another is getting his skull put back in at Walter Reid currently. Ever heard of Sadr? What about the hostages in the 1970's? Syria actively funded and supplied the factions in Beruit during the Marine's stint there. Syria and N. Korea have colluded on nuclear weapons technology using a Pakistani nuclear scientist. North Korea has had and probably will have an active NUCLEAR weapons program. Oh, what about the Korean war? Pakistan's foreign minister warned Bin Laden about incoming American cruise missles. Pakistan has WMD's. Pakistan refuses to actively engage AQ in their western border region. Pakistan was the starting point for all of the 9/11 hijackers trek to Afghanistan.

Those are all good points but AGAIN none of those countries meet all of the criteria that Iraq DID MEET. Iran is bad, and yes they ARE jihadists who attack US interests but they DO NOT HAVE A HISTORY of supplying WMD to those agents. No doubt they will do so, which is why they are at the top of the shit list and will have to be dealt with firmly and finally at some point soon but they still do not yet rise to the level that Saddam actually met. That is why your strawman falls down before you get to knock it over--Iran is not Iraq, not yet. The other countries are important concerns but are not even at the same level. The argument that "oh we did X so we have to Y and Z too" is absurd, especially when they are nothing alike, don't you agree

And 19 of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia

And was SA a state sponsor??? Quite being so ******* childish.

The resolutions required Saddam allow inspectors from the UN and the IAEA to verify weapons disposal. In late 2002 Saddam did allow weapons inspectors back in. They didn't find any weapons.

Dude, HANS BLIX TRIPPED OVER THE PROHIBITED WEAPONS

 

[ZomBrady]

Those are all good points but AGAIN none of those countries meet all of the criteria that Iraq DID MEET. Iran is bad, and yes they ARE jihadists who attack US interests but they DO NOT HAVE A HISTORY of supplying WMD to those agents. No doubt they will do so, which is why they are at the top of the shit list and will have to be dealt with firmly and finally at some point soon but they still do not yet rise to the level that Saddam actually met. That is why your strawman falls down before you get to knock it over--Iran is not Iraq, not yet. The other countries are important concerns but are not even at the same level. The argument that "oh we did X so we have to Y and Z too" is absurd, especially when they are nothing alike, don't you agree


And was SA a state sponsor??? Quite being so f*****g childish.


Dude, HANS BLIX TRIPPED OVER THE PROHIBITED WEAPONS

Dude, YOU TRIPPED AND FELL INTO THE KoolAid POOL! jk

Some of your points are valid, BUT those points were after thoughts for the Administration. Iraq ties to state sponsored terrorism are ludicrous at best and out right lies at worst for the justification for invading Iraq.

PS, watch the naughty words. They may up set 'someone', and we'll all be punished.

 

[buschwhaked]

Those are all good points but AGAIN none of those countries meet all of the criteria that Iraq DID MEET. Iran is bad, and yes they ARE jihadists who attack US interests but they DO NOT HAVE A HISTORY of supplying WMD to those agents. No doubt they will do so, which is why they are at the top of the shit list and will have to be dealt with firmly and finally at some point soon but they still do not yet rise to the level that Saddam actually met. That is why your strawman falls down before you get to knock it over--Iran is not Iraq, not yet. The other countries are important concerns but are not even at the same level. The argument that "oh we did X so we have to Y and Z too" is absurd, especially when they are nothing alike, don't you agree


And was SA a state sponsor??? Quite being so ******* childish.


Dude, HANS BLIX TRIPPED OVER THE PROHIBITED WEAPONS

Who did Iraq supply WMD to? Terrorists? Nope.

Pakistan, who actually has proven ties to both AQ and the Taliban, has, through A.Q. Khan their cheif nuclear scientist, supplied WMD technology to Libya, Iran, and N. Korea. North Korea has supplied nuclear weapons technology to Syria, a state sponsor of terror and key supporter of Hamas. Thankfully, the Israeli's blew it up. North Korea brutally represses it's people. North Korea, has the ability to directly threaten America and American interests in the Pacific. Kim Jong Il is an a*hole too. Do they meet the criteria?

Saudi Arabian Prince's have been directly tied to charities which financially support AQ. These people receive their pay from the Saudi Arabian gov't. QED, they are a state sponsor of terror.

He tripped over the weapons and subsequently confiscated them. He never found anymore. See my previous post about Iraqi's ability to organize and govern themselves.

So this doesn't go on forever, let's just agree to disagree. You make some excellent points and have really forced me to reexamine some of my thinking. I spent 15 months in Baghdad during the surge and I'm proud to have served. Bottom line, I personally think it was a mistake to have invaded, and now that the surge is over there is nothing more militarily we can accomplish there and should safely withdraw. My country asked me to go, and no matter what I thought about the war, I took an oath and I am proud to have fullfilled it to the best of my ability. We performed flawlessly and accomplished every task that was asked of us during the surge. Iraq is a better place than when we left it, but now it is up to the Iraqi's to step up and take over.

 

[ehall]

Some of your points are valid, BUT those points were after thoughts for the Administration. Iraq ties to state sponsored terrorism are ludicrous at best and out right lies at worst for the justification for invading Iraq.

ROFL where did you get that from? I seem to have what is apparently the UNIQUE ABILITY TO READ congressional and UN resolutions, such as the congressional authorization of force:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

... or perhaps you meant Bush, who laid out his justifications in a speech to the IAE in 2002:

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

oh well, those are just documented points of record, nothing that can stand up to your opinion

 

[ehall]

Who did Iraq supply WMD to? Terrorists? Nope.

Saddam used them himself, what more evidence of willingness do you need

Pakistan, who actually has proven ties to both AQ and the Taliban, has, through A.Q. Khan their cheif nuclear scientist, supplied WMD technology to Libya, Iran, and N. Korea.

None of them have used them or provided them to terrorist groups. Moreover, Bush policies led to Libya and NoKo abandoning their programs, and Pakistan has shutdown Khan's network, yet you keep propping up the strawman that since pressure and diplomacy did not work for Saddam then we have to go invade those other countries where it did work. Absurd.

North Korea has supplied nuclear weapons technology to Syria, a state sponsor of terror and key supporter of Hamas. Thankfully, the Israeli's blew it up. North Korea brutally represses it's people. North Korea, has the ability to directly threaten America and American interests in the Pacific. Kim Jong Il is an a*hole too. Do they meet the criteria?

NoKo is a bad actor, no doubt about it, but they are not the same as Iraq. For one thing they have not demonstrated a willingness to use WMD, nor have they demonstrated a willingness to attack US interests and citizenry around the world, nor have they demonstrated any direct ties to terrorist groups who would do either of those things. Saddam did all of those and much more.

However I will say that NoKo shares one important attribute with Iraq, which is that they continue to exist in a state of war with the US, and as such we can go after them whenever we wish without needing any kind of special approval.

Saudi Arabian Prince's have been directly tied to charities which financially support AQ. These people receive their pay from the Saudi Arabian gov't. QED, they are a state sponsor of terror.

No dumbass, a "state sponsor" is a country that provides direct assistance to known terrorists. That is what Saddam did. The government of Saudi Arabia does not, to our knowledge.

He tripped over the weapons and subsequently confiscated them.

Which was all that was needed to prove that Saddam was in continual violation of the cease-fire agreement. It's true that some parties (like France) wanted to give Saddam YET ANOTHER CHANCE to not get caught but that was irrelevant. And has already been pointed out, post-invasion inspections did uncover ongoing research and development activities which were also prohibited and which were as much of a threat as any kind of weaponized results. Do you really think AQ wanted missile systems? or did they want the knowledge and production capability?

As for your service, I thank you for that. My brother is in the Marines so I have a dog in the fight. I supported Clinton's efforts at containing Saddam and I support this administration's efforts as well. I am happy when we don't have to use military force but the simple reality is that after 9/11 "putting up with Saddam" was no longer an option.

 

[ZomBrady]

. . . but the simple reality is that after 9/11 "putting up with Saddam" was no longer an option.

So what exactly did Saddam have do with 9/11?

Get a grip, that retard of a president got us involved in a quagmire in Iraq without finishing the job in Afghanistan.

Additionally, your proof that you offer up in the resolution presented to the US by the president is exactly what I question. At this point I don't believe 99% of what this Administration put forth. We supplied the UN that intelligence. We made our case to go to war. They bought, so did we(the public). I would like to know how accurate that information was. I have a vested interest in that knowledge having lost a nephew over in the Sandbox and have a very close friend finishing his flight school this year. So maybe I'm a little bitter, maybe I'm a little jaded.

And please stop getting so fricking worked up, it's the interweb, and this is a retard fight. Stop being a 'tard and keep it civil.

 

[ECKSJAY]

Get a grip, that retard of a president got us involved in a quagmire in Iraq without finishing the job in Afghanistan.

Nail on the head, thar.

Additionally, your proof that you offer up in the resolution presented to the US by the president is exactly what I question. At this point I don't believe 99% of what this Administration put forth. We supplied the UN that intelligence. We made our case to go to war. They bought, so did we. I would like to know how accurate that information was. I have a vested interest in that knowledge having lost a nephew over in the Sandbox and have a very close friend finishing his flight school this year. So maybe I'm a little bitter, maybe I'm a little jaded.

Tossed a Curveball, that's what. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

 

[JNickel101]

J-Nickel, found any WMD's globe trotting with the AF lately? BTW, Gore doesn't have a "solution" for Global Warming.

You and I both know the AF has the best Intel

And Gore doesnt have a solution, because, yet again, it isn't caused by anything we do here on Earth.

 

[GSequoia]

Everybody.

It is possible to have a discussion, even on the Internet, without name calling and getting red in the face.

Please help keep this thread from getting deleted, okay?

 

[JNickel101]

Clear cutting national forests is not the same a prunning them.

I don't have a hollywood mansion and I'm not a hippie and I don't vote. All the candidates are corrupt. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in politics.

You still have a lot to learn about forestry. Yes, clearcutting 100 years ago was destructive at times....but today, with regulations and proper planning, it has a purpose (actually, lots of purposes) - again, related to the life cycle of the forest, or changing the structure of a forest to make it BETTER. Sure, you can let a forest grow and die naturally, and then deal with all of the treehuggers complaining when their houses burn down - nothing satisfies them. They want to hear themselves talk/bitch/complain about something.

Let loggers do their job - UNLESS you want to completely eliminate wood/paper products from your life.

 

[Mudderoy]

But that's why we went, right? Or was it because Iraq was tied to 9/11? Or did they have a hand in a deal in Sudan for enriched uranium? Saddam had tea with Bin Laden?

It's all so confusing.

We went into Iraq because of Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to inspect. He lead everyone to believe he had something to hide. He didn't follow the UN sanctions(?) that were leveled against Iraq. The reason we went into Iraq was Saddam. Saddam was an idiot and died because of it.

I still say if you think a country is a threat it helps to have a couple of hundred thousand troops in the neighboring country.

Oh and it's hard to sell a book that has one page saying "Yep, he was a great guy."

I'm glad we finally got a president that stood up to the rest of the world (see my other post about this nation turning into sheep).

1. Kennedy - Stood up to the Russians (good)
2. Johnson - Wimped out then quit
3. Nixon - Really did a good job, got caught doing something bad
4. Carter - OMG! Smart man, likable man, horrible president. Let American hostages sit in captivity in Iran.
5. Regan - Great speaker - Got the hostages released - Actually used our military successfully - We didn't hear anything from Qaddafi for years after this.
6. Bush - Wow! Actually stood up and ran Saddam out of a country. Showed the world what we've been doing since Viet Nam. Very proud to be an American. Thought he should have finished it then.
7. Clinton - The dark times - The poster child of do nothing, well nothing militarily. Used his position to meet chicks! That's pretty cool, I just didn't like the part where he lied to me about it (we never speak now)
8. Bush - Ex-Texas Governor (gave us the right to carry handguns) - Got pissed off about 911 and put some hurt on the most logical parts of the world. Sent a message to the other parts we didn't attack (Iraq, North Korea) that we wouldn't put up with SH*T like this and if it happened again we will hunt you down kill you, or worse. With the exception of his stance on border security and how he and congress spent money like drunken sailors, everything else was fine by me.

 

[ehall]

. . but the simple reality is that after 9/11 "putting up with Saddam" was no longer an option.

So what exactly did Saddam have do with 9/11?

Where did I say he had anything to do with 9/11?? Oh wait I didn't

Instead I have repeatedly pointed out that the great risk is that terrorists will get their hands on WMD capability, that Saddam had demonstrated a history of working with and directly supporting terrorist agents, a willingness to attack US interests and citizenry, a willingness to use WMD against his enemies, and a refusal to relinquish his stocks and R&D capability.

Now see if you can figure out what that has to do with "after 911"

 

[Mudderoy]

Everybody.

It is possible to have a discussion, even on the Internet, without name calling and getting red in the face.

Please help keep this thread from getting deleted, okay?

I love this one...

 

[GSequoia]

I prefer this one:

 

[Mudderoy]

I prefer this one:

That's great!

 

[Mudderoy]

Where did I say he had anything to do with 9/11?? Oh wait I didn't

Instead I have repeatedly pointed out that the great risk is that terrorists will get their hands on WMD capability, that Saddam had demonstrated a history of working with and directly supporting terrorist agents, a willingness to attack US interests and citizenry, a willingness to use WMD against his enemies, and a refusal to relinquish his stocks and R&D capability.

Now see if you can figure out what that has to do with "after 911"

Correct! I don't care if they found WMD or not. I do care that a country full of people are no longer under a dictatorship, and have a CHANCE to be free.

I believe that if our troops weren't fighting in Iraq, you and I would be fighting in the US to defend our homes and families. God bless our troops!

 

[JNickel101]

We went into Iraq because of Saddam didn't allow the inspectors to inspect. He lead everyone to believe he had something to hide. He didn't follow the UN sanctions(?) that were leveled against Iraq. The reason we went into Iraq was Saddam. Saddam was an idiot and died because of it.

I still say if you think a country is a threat it helps to have a couple of hundred thousand troops in the neighboring country.

Oh and it's hard to sell a book that has one page saying "Yep, he was a great guy."

I'm glad we finally got a president that stood up to the rest of the world (see my other post about this nation turning into sheep).

1. Kennedy - Stood up to the Russians (good)
2. Johnson - Wimped out then quit
3. Nixon - Really did a good job, got caught doing something bad
4. Carter - OMG! Smart man, likable man, horrible president. Let American hostages sit in captivity in Iran.
5. Regan - Great speaker - Got the hostages released - Actually used our military successfully - We didn't hear anything from Qaddafi for years after this.
6. Bush - Wow! Actually stood up and ran Saddam out of a country. Showed the world what we've been doing since Viet Nam. Very proud to be an American. Thought he should have finished it then.
7. Clinton - The dark times - The poster child of do nothing, well nothing militarily. Used his position to meet chicks! That's pretty cool, I just didn't like the part where he lied to me about it (we never speak now)
8. Bush - Ex-Texas Governor (gave us the right to carry handguns) - Got pissed off about 911 and put some hurt on the most logical parts of the world. Sent a message to the other parts we didn't attack (Iraq, North Korea) that we wouldn't put up with SH*T like this and if it happened again we will hunt you down kill you, or worse. With the exception of his stance on border security and how he and congress spent money like drunken sailors, everything else was fine by me.

Awesome post!!! :cheers:

 

[ZomBrady]

Where did I say he had anything to do with 9/11?? Oh wait I didn't

Instead I have repeatedly pointed out that the great risk is that terrorists will get their hands on WMD capability, that Saddam had demonstrated a history of working with and directly supporting terrorist agents, a willingness to attack US interests and citizenry, a willingness to use WMD against his enemies, and a refusal to relinquish his stocks and R&D capability.

Now see if you can figure out what that has to do with "after 911"

And how is that risk posed by Iraq greater than that posed by Iran supplying arms to insurgents in Iraq(how many US military personal are dead because of them?) or provided weapons to Hezbolah in Jordan and Palestine. Or Korea supplying ballistic missile, and nuclear tech to Iran and Syria? Both Syria and Iran have HUGE ties to terrorist organizations and have pursued WMDs in force over the last thirty years. And you're going to try and tell me that Iraq was a bigger threat? That the flowed intel on Saddam that was the basis for the resolutions that you keep posting was enough to justify my family losing someone? To justify NOT pursuing in force, catch and bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice?

Dude, yer funny. :laugh2: