Is there a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

quote:

---

Al-Qaida isn't the only terrorist organization in the world, nor the only dangerous one. Far from it, Hamas and Hezbollah fund, plan, and execute a multitude of terrorist operations every week in the Middle East and abroad against U.S. and Israeli interests.

---

This is a very good point. Iraq and Israel have been involved in a Warm War (definitely warmer than US/RUSSIA but cooler than all out aggression) for some time. In the 80's Israel bombed a nuclear power plant in Iraq before it was completed because they saw Iraq as a threat. Saddam then returned the "favor" by funding terrorism in Israel. Besides the first Gulf War, Saddam has never overtly attacked the US. In fact, many oil companies, including Haliburton CEO'ed by Cheney, were partners with Saddam during the 80's (the same time that he was gassing the Kurds).Yes, Saddam was a dangerous man. This is what Kerry believed then and believes now. It was the method by which Bush "rushed this country to war" that Kerry is debating. This has been Kerry's position from day one, that the war in Iraq was reckless and we should have gone back to the diplomacy tables. We had inspectors IN IRAQ two days before the bombs first fell. It was working, but Bush didn't allow it to work. He simply didn't "stay the course" that he told congress he would follow. Disarming Iraq and reducing terrorism did not have to include an invasion. Diplomacy and international pressure were already making inroads when the fighting began.

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.

Primordial Egg,From your article Rumsfeld: Iraq/al-Qaida remarks 'misunderstood' | World news | The Guardian : So what was that? Was that a "flip flop" or a "mixed message"?

quote:

---

1. He truly didn't have anything to hide either because the UNSCOM inspections had been successful (if so, why did he kick 'em out in the first place?) or because, during the four-year hiatus, he'd gotten rid of the whatever was left on his own initiative (possible, but why?).
  —Quetzal

---

Saddam kicked out the inspectors so he could continue using torture and killings to intimidate the populace. Inspectors, even if they had already scoured every inch of Iraq, should have stayed in the country for this reason. Increasing pressure should have mounted once these types of activities were discovered. Saddam MAY HAVE removed WMD's because they were a liability. The presence of WMD's did nothing to strenghthen his position in Iraq and were a liability if they were round by the UN.In my opinion, Saddam was playing a bluff. He was hoping that the THREAT of WMD's would be enough to first keep his neighbors from invading, and secondly to keep the US from invading. If the US or the UN called the bluff all they had to do was invite inspectors in and show them that they don't have WMD's now nor did they in the past 4 years. Saddam never thought ahead on this one.

quote:

---

Oh, and to prevent Moose from suspending me for being off-topic, I never thought or agreed with the contention that there was any substantive linkage between Iraq and Al Qaeda. As our friend RAZD so eloquently and bluntly puts it - that was a lie from the git go.

---

This is the whole problem. Bush's case was not that Saddam had WMD's, but that he had WMD's he would give to terrorists which made Iraq a "urgent and grave risk". Without the link to the one group that had the chutzpah to use WMD's, I don't see how this is justified. Saddam has obvious ties to Palestinian terrorists and yet WMD's have never reared their ugly heads in the Gaza Strip nor in the Golan Heights. If Saddam had WMD's and he was willing to give them to terrorists then why didn't it happen over the past 4 years in Israel, a country he hates more than the US? We didn't suffer an intelligence break down, the Bush administration suffered a loss of intelligence.

quote:

---

He was misunderstood by the liberal pinko media, and you are an evildoer trying to take away our freedoms for trying to suggest otherwise. Obviously.

---

Oh, so when Kerry is misunderstood it is a flip flop, but when anyone in the Bush administration is misunderstood it is because of the liberally biased media. Nice try, but I ain't buying it.

quote:

---

You're obviously brainwashed. I bet you've got posters of Hitler and Bin Laden on your (toilet) wall.

---

Am I missing the sarcasm here? Pulling my leg perhaps?

quote:

---

Personally, I don't think there is anything anyone outside the US administration, least of all Saddam, could have done to prevent a war.

---

Ok, ignore the post above this one. I agree with you. When people say that "George Bush is a great leader" my response is "So was the Pied Piper, and look where he took their children." Bush is playing the tune and a lot of people, mostly the conservative right, is dancing to it. They don't want the music to stop, nor look ahead and see where the Pied Pier is taking us. Hopefully we will get new leadership in the White House, if not in this election hopefully in a Cabinet coup that gets rid of the hawks.

quote:

---

Do people really say that? (Sorry, I'm a Brit and can't really fathom the appeal).

---

Bush being a "good leader" is one of the main topics of his campaign. And the reason he is a good leader, you ask? According to his campain, because he is consistent and he doesn't send "mixed messages". I can't fathom the appeal either.

quote:

---

Mind you (OT, and sticking my neck out here), do you think that Kerry would have done things differently if he'd been in office this term? From my restricted-view vantage point, I'd say that apart from not reading books about goats to schoolkids at crucially important times and possibly enlisting more countries to support the US in the invasion of Iraq, there's very little to choose between them, in foreign policy terms. Is this fair?

---

Kerry would have invaded Afghanistan, no doubt. He supported this from the very beginning. Kerry would not have invaded Iraq, especially with inspectors already in the country. In fact, I doubt that Kerry would have even asked Congress for an OK to use force. Kerry would have gone through diplomatic routes to reinstate UN inspections. At least this is my opinion.As far as allies, the French and Germans were both part of the invasion of Afghanistan. They aren't against America defending itself, quite the opposite. What they are against is imperialism which the US is sliding towards. What I find interesting is that Bush expects to have veto power over every country in the world, especially those in the middle east. Yet, when faced with forming a coalition, he states that a sovereign nation should not let another country have veto power over the US. Bush has made america look like a bunch of hypocrits, and ruined our credibility world wide.

quote:

---

Then, instead of hunting down the leader (as Bush promised he would at all costs before later stating that He didn't care where Bin Laden was, and that it was not a priority) he starts another war, in an unrelated country under false pretenses, and bad info, thus spreading our military thinner.

---

That boils it down to it's essence. The arguments from the White House have changed signifigantly over the last couple years. Before we attacked Afghanistan we were told that America was going after OBL. Now, the White House claims that we were there to disrupt Al Queda. Then, we went into Iraq to take away Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's before he gave them to terrorists. Now, the White House says that we interrupted "weapons programs" and freed the Iraqi people. Bush, as it turns out, isn't even consistent. My contention is that a lot of Americans can't see the difference between being resolute and being stubborn.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 10-08-2004 03:01 PM