Is there a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

Or he could do what Kerry said he would do in the debate, which is what he's doing right now already, anyway.Train the Iraqis to fight and police, get elections going to get legitimacy in the eyes of many Iraqis, and get out.Have you seen any polling data from Iraq on how the citizens feel about our plan for their future? (I haven't in a long while, just curious as to current numbers)-Justin

Incorrect. The U.N. called on him to *disarm his nation*, and let inspectors back in. He did not.-Justin

The administration can't even decide if we're going to have elections everywhere, or just somewhere. As for training police:

quote:

---

The documents show that of the nearly 90,000 currently in the police force, only 8,169 have had the full eight-week academy training. Another 46,176 are listed as "untrained," and it will be July 2006 before the administration reaches its new goal of a 135,000-strong, fully trained police force.

​

Six Army battalions have had "initial training," while 57 National Guard battalions, 896 soldiers in each, are still being recruited or "awaiting equipment." Just eight Guard battalions have reached "initial (operating) capability," and the Pentagon acknowledged the Guard's performance has been "uneven."

​

Training has yet to begin for the 4,800-man civil intervention force, which will help counter a deadly insurgency. And none of the 18,000 border enforcement guards have received any centralised training to date, despite earlier claims they had, according to Democrats on the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.

​

They estimated that 22,700 Iraqi personnel have received enough basic training to make them "minimally effective at their tasks," in contrast to the 100,000 figure cited by Bush.

---

What do I have to show you to convince you that Bush is doing a poor job? Tell me, and I'll try to find it. Apparently polls show that only 2 percent of Iraqis think of us as liberators, and a vast, vast majority favor immediate withdrawl of all our forces.Draw your own conclusions, I guess. How do you think they feel about our plan for their future?

How quickly they forget... think back to Sept. 17th, 2002. Still fuzzy? Maybe this article will refresh your memory:

quote:

---

Saddam lets UN back in
By Toby Harnden and Philip Sherwell
(Filed: 17/09/2002)

​

Saddam Hussein has agreed unconditionally to allow United Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq for the first time in four years, Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, said last night.

​

In a dramatic announcement that raised hopes that war could be avoided, Mr Annan said: "I can confirm to you that I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying its decision to allow the return of inspectors without conditions to continue their work."

---

Of course, the inspectors were pulled out in March 2003. Why? Because we were about to invade:

quote:

---

U.N. pulls inspectors, all staff out of Iraq
They join a stream of foreigners fleeing the Middle East
Associated Press
Last Updated: March 17, 2003

​

Baghdad, Iraq - The United Nations ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq on Monday, widening the stream of diplomats and foreign journalists heading for the exits before any shooting starts.

---

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-04-2004 05:20 PM

quote:

---

I can't make myself believe it was "rushing to war" when there are 16 previous resolutions trying to use "diplomacy" as a means to an end.

---

Iraq failed to provide documentation that was required by the resolutions. However, Iraq had submitted to UN weapon inspections where inspectors could go to any place at any time. This was ongoing till two days before the bombs were dropped. The UN resolutions were working.

quote:

---

It was the STATED policy of the Clinton administration as well as the current Bush administration to have "regime change" in Iraq. This is not a new concept.

---

Regime change in the USSR was stated policy for 40 years and yet we never had to go to war. There are different paths beside an unpopular war both at home and abroad.Imagine the arguments of UN inspections had been allowed to continue? This is the part that makes me sick. Even after a year of inspections and no weapons found Bush would have still called for an invasion. Guess what, over a year of control and zero evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I heard many arguments that the inspections weren't working because they weren't finding anything. The shoe is on the other foot now.The attitude towards a link between terrorism and Iraq is heading down the same path. People have already decided that there is a link, so when one isn't found it is because we aren't looking close enough. This is where Bush moved from "decisive" to "stubborn". Making a decision is one thing, making the right one is much harder. Saying you are wrong is the hardest thing of all.

quote:

---

Incorrect. The U.N. called on him to *disarm his nation*, and let inspectors back in. He did not.

---

Saddam did let them back in and there were no WMD's to disarm. Bush attacked anyway, flip flopping on his previous statements about disarming Iraq. If he wanted to disarm Iraq all he had to do was let the inspections continue. Rearming was not possible with inspectors in the country, nor was it possible to launch WMD's with inspectors around. The "urgent threat" had been eliminated, Saddam was being disarmed.

Besides the fact that Saddam did allow inspectors back in, he couldn't have disarmed himself anyway. Iraq had nothing to disarm.It's like pointing a gun to an unarmed person and say, "drop the machine gun now or I'll shoot." The question is how the hell is the unarmed person supposed to respond?

Why am I reminded of that scene in Robocop?

Yeah, the Iraqi people were in a no-win situation. If the UN inspectors had found WMDs then the Bush administration would have used this as proof that Saddam was a threat and would have attacked. As it was, the inspectors did not find WMDs, and that was just used as proof that Saddam was not cooperating, and so the US attacked.

Cool - does that mean that you think Nicaragua should invade the US for funding the Contras?PE

The Contras were not suicide bombers. They killed their victims in the manly way -- by tying them up first and shooting them in the head. And blowing up medical clinics from a distance. But no sissy suicide bombings.

But the Contras had the advantage of US technology.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Gotcha. Not suicide, so good guys. Lucky for all concerned that the 9/11 bombers didn't bail from the planes, else Creationistal would have to support them. PEeta:attributionThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-04-2004 06:49 PM

Gee, sounds alot like the stories this administration has been touting as grounds and justification for invading Iraq (humanitarian in the absence of WMD) and removing Saddam.

Well, in just the last couple weeks Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Condie Rice have all backpedaled saying there were no known connections between Iraq and AQ or Iraq and WMDs.If even the very people who were selling the story are now saying there was no firm evidence, why would anyone without the information they have access to think there was a connection.Bush lied.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion