Why invade Iraq?

[Evil Baby]

Originally posted by macnpat,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (macnpat,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-bluecoller-eddie,

macnpat
Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause,

Balder-dash, kid-shit, I&#39;ll believe this nonsense when
I see republicans march on Washington demanding that
we invade N. Korea, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for
a great moral cause. Bah humbug&#33; :(

First of all, I didn&#39;t say that, Bush did. And the point is not that he said it, the point is that he said it before the invasion of Iraq. Why this is important is because the leftists in this country are trying to spin it to show that Bush only went in for WMD&#39;s.

You lefties are so caught up in your own muck raking, there is not one iota of common sense among yas.[/b][/quote]


are we completey ignoring the White House website? It clearly states the White House&#39;s reason for invading Iraq... WMD

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Evil Baby,
are we completey ignoring the White House website? It clearly states the White House&#39;s reason for invading Iraq... WMD

It is also the main case presented to the United Nations, it was central for the legality of the war. Some people keep forgetting that. :rolleyes:

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Evil Baby,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Evil Baby,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-nogoodideas,
2. 9/11 revealed that we can no longer wait until a threat fully materializes. If there is clear threat we need to act on it. I find it amazing that some people criticize Bush for not acting against Al Quida preemptively and the criticize him for doing exactly that in Iraq.

Iraq didn&#39;t show any threat towards the U.S. or anybody else, whereas Al Quida did, well before Bush was in power and still does
[/b][/quote]
Didn&#39;t Zarqawi, Bin Laden&#39;s buddy, run to Iraq after he was hurt in Afganistan?

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by macnpat,
Please read, learn. Nothing you have said is real, true or facts.

:-))) (Such statements make me laugh. That is a syllogism as well, since there is no matter in this world that may accumulate all the particular values as one and the only state, even on its own) :-)))

I did read it, and here it is an example to support my points. It concerns U.S. military and intelligence in Middle-East region.
Open the world atlas (in case you have none, use te nearest library for that purpose, please) with Middle-East region map set, and try to distinguish a difference :
- with U.S. military forces presence in Iraq
- without U.S. military forces presence in Iraq

After W.Buckley&#39;s death (CIA operative - in the rank of Colonel, whos mission was to establish an intelligence network in Middle-East region), U.S. intelligence in Middle-East region was merely a "symbolic" one.
Example :
U.S. used its political and intelligence ties with Poland, to free CIA operatives held in Iraqi prsion. Crucial informations on Iraq (and Saddam himself) along with freed CIA operatives was the result of that successful operation conducted by Polish intelligence. As the final outcome, U.S. - as a token of "appreciation" - cut Polish debts for the ammount of appx. &#036;2 billion dollars.

Having U.S. military and intelligence presence in Iraq is a very important objective for U.S.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Dieval,
Didn&#39;t Zarqawi, Bin Laden&#39;s buddy, run to Iraq after he was hurt in Afganistan?

Is this your attempt to link Al Qaeda directly to Iraq again? Sources please.
Preferably ones that would refute your 9/11 commission.

[bluecoller-eddie]

macnpat
First of all, I didn&#39;t say that, Bush did.
And the point is not that he said it,
the point is that he said it before the invasion of Iraq.
Why this is important is because the leftists in this
country are trying to spin it to show that Bush
only went in for WMD&#39;s.

And you&#39;re trying to say that he had moral reasons?
Moral?--Poppycock.
Moral men dont lie to go to war.
End of story

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030714-3.html

bush
"We worked with the United Nations --
as Kofi mentioned, not all nations agreed
with the decision, but we worked with the
United Nations. And Saddam Hussein did not comply".

President lying bastard says
"Saddam did not comply"

IRREFUTABLE FACT
President lying bastard LIED
Saddam did comply

(Exhibit A)
Hans Blix&#39;s briefing to the security council

Friday February 14, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,895882,00.html

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections
covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without
notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case
have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance
that the inspectors were coming.

More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have
been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been
screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the
Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been
consistent with Iraq&#39;s declarations

In my 27 January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from
our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide
cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to
all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of
the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we
note that access to sites has so far been without problems,
including those that had never been declared or inspected,
as well as to Presidential sites and private residences.

The Iraqi side also informed us that the commission, which had
been appointed in the wake of our finding 12 empty chemical
weapons warheads, had had its mandate expanded to look for
any still existing proscribed items. This was welcomed.

(Exhibit B)
a few chemical shells have been found in
iraq, but all were made in the 1980s .
FACT
WMDs produced since 1991------
0 -none-nada--- zilch-

IRREFUTABLE FACT
saddam told the truth.

End of story.

......[SIZE=2][color=orange]Iraq is innocent of 911[/color][/SIZE]
The problem with republicans is....
...........[color=red][SIZE=2]YOU CAN&#39;T HANDLE THE TRUTH[/color][/SIZE]...
-------------- bluecoller -- the grumpy old
kraut -------

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Pooeypants,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Pooeypants,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Dieval,
Didn&#39;t Zarqawi, Bin Laden&#39;s buddy, run to Iraq after he was hurt in Afganistan?

Is this your attempt to link Al Qaeda directly to Iraq again? Sources please.
Preferably ones that would refute your 9/11 commission.[/b][/quote]
Are you saying that Zarqawi didn&#39;t go from Afganistan to Iraq(before the Iraq war)?

[nogoodideas]

President lying bastard says
"Saddam did not comply"

IRREFUTABLE FACT
President lying bastard LIED
Saddam did comply

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,895882,00.html ://http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...895882,00.html

From the blix report you quoted?

[QUOTE]In my earlier briefings, I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999 (S/1999/94 and S/1999/356) and should be well known to Iraq. I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside...". The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December last year, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.

A credible inspection regime requires that Iraq provide full cooperation on "process" - granting immediate access everywhere to inspectors - and on substance, providing full declarations supported by relevant information and material and evidence. However, with the closed society in Iraq of today and the history of inspections there, other sources of information, such as defectors and government intelligence agencies are required to aid the inspection process.

.... Cut....

I remember myself how, in 1991, several inspections in Iraq, which were based on information received from a Government, helped to disclose important parts of the nuclear weapons programme. It was realized that an international organization authorized to perform inspections anywhere on the ground could make good use of information obtained from governments with eyes in the sky, ears in the ether, access to defectors, and both eyes and ears on the market for weapons-related material. It was understood that the information residing in the intelligence services of governments could come to very active use in the international effort to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This remains true and we have by now a good deal of experience in the matter.

....Cut ...

Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination, under UNSCOM and IAEA supervision, of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete, when inspectors were withdrawn almost 8 years later at the end of 1998.

If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.

[QUOTE]

So you telling me that inspections that were on going for the better part of decade and still not complete where working?

I personally don&#39;t want to wait for another decade of inspections. Also, Blix himself said that even when the US put its ultimatum down Saddam was still trying to use allowing inspections and bargaining tools.

[nogoodideas]

1) The inspections were working.

2) 9/11 showed that murder is not a constructive occupation.

3) Iraq was a threat to no one.

4) Invading Iraq was a crime against humanity and a crime against all reason.

1. If we surrender now do you think the terrorist will spare you?

2. 9/11 showed that a hand ful of motivated intellegent men filled with the ideolog of hate and murder should be considered a real threat. If we had considered them a greater threat we could have arrested 14 of the people hi-jackers before 9/11.

3. Even John Kerry says Iraq was a threat.
When he voted to give the president the power to do it and again in the debates.

Just because you don&#39;t agree with the Invation of Iraq does not mean you should attempt to make Saddam look innocent.

4. All war is a crime against humanity.

[bluecoller-eddie]

nogoodideas
A --Iraq was a clear threat they had training camps used to train terrorist
on plane hi-jacking techniques. B --They had weapons banned by the U.N.
C --Saddam offered &#036;25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers
if they manage to kill an American in their attacks.

I see that you have 15 posts since May. --May I suggest that you do
a bit of study before posting nonsense.

A----Iraq had a couple of their aircraft hijacked during the 1980s.
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-19-03/d...ion.cgi.56.html

In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A.
station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said
that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for
terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the
mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft.
In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists
and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least
sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and
America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West,
and got what it wanted from Britain&#39;s MI6.

B --------what weapons? Where the hell have you been?
The final report came in weeks ago, no weapons, zero zilch nada.
C ----nonsense, if the threat is Palestine, why invade Iraq?

To get you a little up to date,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no
"collaborative relationship"
between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush
administration&#39;s main justifications for the war in Iraq.

No WMD,
Plus no terror ties,
Equals = NO THREAT---period
End of story.

nogoodideas
Bush made a few mistakes. Did he move to war with more haste
than was needed? In hind sight yes, I guess so. However its easy
to second guess everything.

"I guess so"??????
A rather cavalier attitude considering that Iraq was innocent,
-----which means we MURDERED tens of thousands of
INNOCENT PEOPLE.



The price of freedom is courage.

[color=blue][SIZE=2]The truth is…….. pResident craven coward
is a liar,period.[/color][/SIZE]
......[SIZE=2][color=orange]Iraq is innocent of 911[/color][/SIZE]
The problem with republicans is....
...........[color=red][SIZE=2]YOU CAN&#39;T HANDLE THE TRUTH[/color][/SIZE]...
-------------- bluecoller -- the grumpy old
kraut -------

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Dieval,
Are you saying that Zarqawi didn&#39;t go from Afghanistan to Iraq(before the Iraq war)?

I honestly, didn&#39;t know much about the guy.
Though a quick google search revealed this.

Back to the original post, I asked if you were trying to link the original Iraq regime to Al Qaeda. But not about Zarqawi&#39;s possible whereabouts.

[nogoodideas]

3. Iraq was a clear threat they had training camps used to train terrorist on plane hi-jacking techniques. They had weapons banned by the U.N. Saddam offered &#036;25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers if they manage to kill an American in their attacks.



Sorry, I&#39;ve never heard this one so I&#39;m not sure how true it is. Do you have a link? or is this just another defector story that has failed to be proven while the U.S. was in Iraq?

[Salman Pak - Iraq&#39;s Own Terrorist Training Camp

Colin Powel Statment (Arguements with this should be directed to colin powel.)

Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifadah. And it’s no secret that Saddam’s own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=36789

I will add more to this in a while. I have to go now.