Recent History - U.S vs Iraq

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You understand, I hope, that [yours] is a downward course.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you tell from down there?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you are getting smaller, in more ways than one.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I can call myself Al Queda, walk downtown, and set myself on fire. Does that mean that they will have attacked us in NY, in Iraq and in Michigan?



[/ QUOTE ]

If you did those things people would probably think you were just a quack. If you really wanted to convince people you were part of the oraganiztion do what Zarqawi did. Make a video of yourself severing the head of an American you kidnapped. Publically pledge your allegence to Osama Bin Laden. Actively correspond with Osama Bin Laden and with such frequency that multiple letters are captured.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
How can one respond to such an assertion, to such a gross generalisation, without calling its source names, such as "ignorant" or "close-minded"?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll cede to the validity of your point if you can point to any one person in Iraq who has a larger bounty on their head than Zarqawi

Stu

[Borodog]

Stu,

Excellent avatar.

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, the number one enemy in Iraq is Zarqawi and his organization, Al Queda in Iraq. These are the people thousands of American soldiers have died fighting. They attacked us first in the United States, and then in Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

How did this "Al Queda" group in Iraq come into existence? Were they there before the war started? Did they form after the war? Was it an existing terrorist group in Iraq that decided to join Al Queda after the war?

These are not facetious questions. IIRC, we went into Iraq to get Saddam because he possibly had WMDs. When we initially went into Iraq, I don't remember any mention of there being an existing Al Queda group in Iraq. The reason for the war was strictly to find the WMDs and remove Saddam from power.

The first time I heard of Al Queda being in Iraq was after the U.S. had achieved "Mission Accomplished" status. I was listening to some of the President's ramblings and he said something or other about how the U.S. military was now fighting Al Queda in Iraq.

So how did "Al Queda in Iraq" come to be? Was the group able to form after Saddam was removed and there was no longer any strong, stabilizing power in Iraq? Somebody clue me in.

[sam h]

What is your point? It's well known that some people have been worried about Saddam having WMD for a long time. The question was always whether (a) sanctions and inspections were sufficient to keep him from arming or to keep his arsenal to a minimum and (b) the relative costs of different courses of action.

Bush answered these two questions differently than Clinton, a fundamental departure that amounts to an entirely different middle east policy. Your implication that there is a strong continuity here is nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
Just how big a threat was Saddam Hussein? Let’s reprise what our leaders had to say on the subject. First, here’s the president:


[ QUOTE ]


If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

As soon as I read the first sentence, I knew this quote didn't come from our current president. No way that monkey is able to construct a sentence, much less a whole paragraph, that elegant. Thanks for the reminder of the good ol' days when we had an intelligent president in office who followed an intelligent policy in regards to Iraq.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
What is your point? It's well known that some people have been worried about Saddam having WMD for a long time. The question was always whether (a) sanctions and inspections were sufficient to keep him from arming or to keep his arsenal to a minimum and (b) the relative costs of different courses of action.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie."
Ted Kennedy

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"He betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
Al Gore

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Tere was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud."
Ted Kennedy

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush lied about al Qaeda, about nukes, and about WMDs.
Howard Dean

[/ QUOTE ]

[sam h]

I don't see the contradiction between Clinton and Gore saying that Saddam was dangerous and Bush lying about the situation to support the case for war. Why don't you just clearly state your argument rather than give these quotes?

[nicky g]

"Here’s the hitch: That was Clinton and Gore in 1998, not Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002.

President Clinton offered his assessment in February 1998. Gore made his observations the following December, defending the military strikes Clinton had ordered against Iraq. These were not off-the-cuff remarks but vetted statements by the two highest officials of the United States."

This point has been made and discussed here many times before.