Russia warned USA of Terror attacks from Iraq post 9/11.

[newsstand 0]

Quote

kmcguffee said:
We've been planning to invade North Korea since the 1950's.

Then tunaplanet said

Quote

...- The reason for us going to war in Iraq was for a pre-emptive measure to ensure an incident as 9/11 would not happen again. Iraq had the capability, motive not to mention we had evidence they were attempting something. Russian intel recently has supported our claim that Iraq was in the process of terrorist attacks both on our soil as well as other installations around the world.
...

So if North Korea were to invade South Korea as a pre-emptive measure to prevent it assisting us in an invasion of North Korea that would be justifiable.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[crwtom 0]

Quote

- The report stated that there was no link between Iraq and Al Queda regarding 9/11.

- Bush has stated all along that there was never a link between Iraq and Al Queda regarding 9/11.

there's been in fact a curt statement that there's been no link by the
WH sometime last year. It appears it went largely unnoticed.

Whatever the WH said, for a long time around three quarters of Americans
thought there was a link. The efforts of the Admin to rectify this gross
misperception in the US public were less than impressive. Wonder why ...

Quote

- The war on Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda.

The Iraq war has become a black hole that is eating away on military resources,
lives, treasure, and US legitimacy more than anything else.

The only thing I can conclude from that is that AlQuaeda is a second priority
behind the distant first Iraq.

After 9-11 this is not how I would set priorities.

blues, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

So if North Korea were to invade South Korea as a pre-emptive measure to prevent it assisting us in an invasion of North Korea that would be justifiable.

If South Korea was planning terrorist acts against North Korea on it's home soil and other installations around the world...then yes.

Forty-two

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

The Iraq war has become a black hole that is eating away on military resources,
lives, treasure, and US legitimacy more than anything else.

The only thing I can conclude from that is that AlQuaeda is a second priority
behind the distant first Iraq.

After 9-11 this is not how I would set priorities.

The military is still capable of handling another major conflict in a complete seperate theater.

Forty-two

[newsstand 0]

Quote

The military is still capable of handling another major conflict in a complete seperate theater.

So then why do we have stop-loss and involuntary extensions of people in Iraq and Afghanistan?

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[TheAnvil 0]

No Kallend, your assertions make much LESS sense than his statements.

This nutty notion many of the Bush haters have about Iraq - they think that there was freedom of speech and assembly there. I oft heard 'I would be protesting in Iraq' when left wingers were throwing tirades about the US invasion.

Terrorist training camps don't operate in nations such as Iraq/Iran/Syria without knowledge and consent of the government.

The left wing press is doing their usual job of distorting facts in favor of their man sKerry. Deal with it.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Terrorist training camps don't operate in nations such as Iraq/Iran/Syria without knowledge and consent of the government.

Do you have any prove of terrorist training camps in Iraq prior to the US invasion?

According to the facts I have seen, the only proven link between SH and terrorist movements were Iraq's financial support for the families of palestinian suicide bombers.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[newsstand 0]

And when did we demonstrate that Iraq was planning or executing terrorist attacks against the US?

When I was in USAF basic training and Tech. School I remember both Iraqi and Iranian officers being there. A regular occurrence at Lackland was shots being fired between their dormitories. This was when we thought both sides were our friends. Of course in that line your sig. says it all doesn't it? Amazing how that sentiment can come back to bite you in the ass.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I'm not even going down this well trod road about how almost all world leaders including US Democrats voted to go to war based on the same itel Bush had."

Ach, now you see, we differ in opinion on "almost all world leaders".
Putin, Chirac, and Schroeder certainly were opposed, don't you recall the coalition NOT getting security council 'approval' for the invasion? How popular was the war with the Spanish people? If it had gone to the vote in my country, Blair would not have been there either.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[bodypilot90 0]

solmond pac, for one. (to early to be sure of the spelling)

[TheAnvil 0]

Jim Lehman on Meet the Press yesterday told us about SH-terrorist connections that existed. Unlike what the leftist media is asserting, the commission does not dispute the fact that terrorist connections existed. They state that SH seems not to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Salmon Pak was one of the training sites I believe. I recall others being discovered, but don't recall any locations, etc. I'd have to do some surfing to find out.


Hope all's well down under.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok, so for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the Iraqi gov't had some ties to terrorist organizations. Whether it was AQ or whoever. That being said, my question for those in favor of the Iraq invastion is....

Was Iraq the most prolific terrorist state and did the largest threat to the US of a terrorist attack come from Iraq or somewhere else?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

"I'm not even going down this well trod road about how almost all world leaders including US Democrats voted to go to war based on the same itel Bush had."

Ach, now you see, we differ in opinion on "almost all world leaders".
Putin, Chirac, and Schroeder certainly were opposed, don't you recall the coalition NOT getting security council 'approval' for the invasion? How popular was the war with the Spanish people? If it had gone to the vote in my country, Blair would not have been there either.

Yes apparently we do differ on the definition of "almost all world leaders". My definition would be more than the four you site. Since we were talking about who believed SH had WMDs I would like to see the evidence you have which show the four leaders you site believed he didn't have WMDs. As I recall the only reason they didn't support the war was because they wanted to give inspections more time. Please back up your point by providing statements from these four leaders, before the war, saying "SH doesn't have WMDs and we should leave him alone".

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Since we were talking about who believed SH had WMDs I would like to see the evidence you have which show the four leaders you site believed he didn't have WMDs.

Actually, you were talking about who voted to go to war. He pointed out they didn't. Now you're asking him to prove a statement that he didn't even make. Nice subterfuge.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Since we were talking about who believed SH had WMDs I would like to see the evidence you have which show the four leaders you site believed he didn't have WMDs.

Actually, you were talking about who voted to go to war. He pointed out they didn't. Now you're asking him to prove a statement that he didn't even make. Nice subterfuge.

Bullshit and you know it.
We were talking about the justifications for going to war.

[PhillyKev 0]

Ummm...it's your words.....right here....

"I'm not even going down this well trod road about how almost all world leaders including US Democrats voted to go to war based on the same itel Bush had"

To which, he replied that certain leaders didn't vote for war. Then you asked him to prove that they said SH never had WMD. I'm just not following where you're making that leap.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Salmon Pak was one of the training sites I believe."

Salman Pak, aka Al Salman has been...
A tropposcatter site (some sort of radar?), it was hit several times during Gulf 1.
A chem/bio weapons site.
A terror training camp.

The presence of a jet fuselage was probably good enough evidence to suggest some training was conducted there, mind you, there's a big runway there as well. Who was being trained there and what for should be the big question.

The suggestion that it was a training camp for AQ followers apparently comes from sources supplied by Chalabi (that guy again).

"They state that SH seems not to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks."

I'd go with that. IE he was up to something, probably no good.

Scott Ritter..."The facility at Salman Pak does
exist; its use as an Al Qaeda training camp is unsubstantiated."
Scott Ritter is former chief of the Concealment Investigations Unit for the
UN Special Commission on Iraq.
"This media coverage serves policy figures gunning for a wider war. It generates a frenzy of speculation concerning Iraq in the public arena, which accepts at face value this information despite the fact that almost none of what Chalabi has purveyed to the media about Iraq has turned out to be accurate. There is a substantial lack of clarity and credible sources on the actual nature of the Iraqi threat to the US. A wider debate on US policy toward Iraq is imperative, especially in light of the increasing war talk out of Washington. Rather than relying on information from dubious sources, let's put all the facts on the table. The conclusions drawn from such a
debate could pull us back from the brink of an unnecessary and costly war." from jan last year.

>Edit I'll be right back Kev and G-master, I was distracted researching some stuff re the training camp thingie<

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"We were talking about the justifications for going to war."

Yes, we were. As I recall, the justification for going to war was not over who believed SH had WMDs, it was over his breach of a UN resolution.
Agreed so far?
However Bush and Blair decided to go to war over this breach without the UN security council's agreement.
Agreed so far?

Thats a lynch mob mentality, and this is where we disagree. You think its okay to take the enforcement of international law into your own hands, I don't.

I reckon that is basically where we differ over this issue.

edited to add the bits in <...>

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[TheAnvil 0]

Ahhh...so the conversation shifts to the premise for invading Iraq now. OK.

I'd have to say that Iraq was the most available target, but not necessarily the most prolific one. Saudi culture breeds far more terrorists than Iraq, though their goverment most assuredly is more benign towards its citizenry than Iraq. Foreign policy sanity precludes an attack on Saudi Arabia - at least at this time.

Personally, the open paying of Palestinian homicide bombers' families in and of itself is open support of terrorism and grounds for US action. At least the Saudi's are concealing it. Add to that the training areas we knew about (Salmon Pak et al), contacts w/AQ we knew about, the recently revealed Russki intel, etc and you have a fairly solid case for considering all out military action. Lobbing a few TLAMs/bombs doesn't send these a-holes the picture anymore. They have declared war and there is no substitute for victory.

Most prolific target - no, that would be Saudi. A viable target - absolutely.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Most prolific target - no, that would be Saudi. A viable target - absolutely.

And what about Afghanistan? I'd say that was the most prolific and most viable. Yet we diverted attention from there to Iraq. Do you know why? Even with the evidence supporting war that you site, does any of it add up to an "immediate, credible threat" that required immediate action and couldn't wait for either A) the job to get finished in Afghanistan or B) more time to convince allies of the threat.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Ummm...it's your words.....right here....

"I'm not even going down this well trod road about how almost all world leaders including US Democrats voted to go to war based on the same itel Bush had"

To which, he replied that certain leaders didn't vote for war. Then you asked him to prove that they said SH never had WMD. I'm just not following where you're making that leap.

Please see Nacmacfeegles answer below. In the future, I would appreciate it if you would try to noodle out the whole conversation and do your best to understand what's being discussed before calling me a liar.

[PhillyKev 0]

There's that leaping again. Where exactly did I call you a liar?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

"We were talking about the justifications for going to war."

Yes, we were. As I recall, the justification for going to war was not over who believed SH had WMDs, it was over his breach of a UN resolution.
Agreed so far?
However Bush and Blair decided to go to war over this breach without the UN security council's agreement.
Agreed so far?

Thats a lynch mob mentality, and this is where we disagree. You think its okay to take the enforcement of international law into your own hands, I don't.

I reckon that is basically where we differ over this issue.

edited to add the bits in <...>

I would say that just about sums it up fairly. I believe International Law is secondary to self-preservation.
If I were in Washington D.C. where guns are illegal and needed to use one to protect my life, I would do so and then deal with the consequences of its' legality later.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Thought you might like to read this too.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs
Saturday, June 19, 2004

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the Abu Ghraib prison abuses on poorly trained National Guard personnel and higher-ups in the Bush administration.

The former president said he was not surprised by the abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib but that he was surprised by their extent.

"There is no excuse for that," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I would say that just about sums it up fairly."

Phew, no hard feelings then, its too early in the week to be falling out over words.

"If I were in Washington D.C. where guns are illegal and needed to use one to protect my life, I would do so and then deal with the consequences of its' legality later. "

I'm not sure thats a good analogy for this case.
For example...
Would you 'load up on guns and bring your friends' on a roadtrip to Washington specifically to root out and kill would be muggers, or potential burglars, without the support from the legitimate law enforcement agency?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson