War with Iraq a result of 9/11?

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Reading through the posts it seems many people DIRECTLY connect 9/11 with the Iraq war. Just wanted to get an idea of what people think.

[pajarito 0]

I can't vote b/c there aren't enough scenarios.

Directly connected to 911 (specifically)?

NO

Indirectly connected to the types and support of terrorist acts that 9-11 was?

Yes

Just like the muslim extremists in many other dangerous countries around the globe.

[Tonto 1]

There are many connections between nine eleven, Al Quaeda and Iraq.

Just to get you started...

1. Nine and Iraq both have 4 letters

2. eleven and Saddam both have 6 letters

3. Al Quaeda and Iraq. Coincidence? Unlikely.

Any more spring to mind?

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Amended original post to make it clearer for you. No doubt I'm going to get complaints from people saying I can't amend the original post after people have voted - well tough titties I have! If it bothers anyone then vote again to cancel your original vote.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Reading through the posts it seems many people DIRECTLY connect 9/11 with the Iraq war. Just wanted to get an idea of what people think.

How about, I have a minimal amount of common sense and therefore know that Iraq was connected with Al Queda but I intend to deny it as long as I possibly can, just like I did the forged memos, because I am a far left ideologue and this is just what we do.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

Indirectly connected to the types and support of terrorist acts that 9-11 was?

Yes

If you read what you have just said your answer is "no" to being indirectly related to 9/11. You refer to "types... of terrorist acts that 9/11 was" which in itself means they weren't connect to 9/11 but other acts of terrorism instead.

No link has been found between Saddam Hussein and 9/11

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Reading through the posts it seems many people DIRECTLY connect 9/11 with the Iraq war. Just wanted to get an idea of what people think.

How about, I have a minimal amount of common sense and therefore know that Iraq was connected with Al Queda but I intend to deny it as long as I possibly can, just like I did the forged memos, because I am a far left ideologue and this is just what we do.

What are you talking about?

[Tonto 1]

Quote

No link has been found between Saddam Hussein and 9/11

What! Are you mad? I just gave you 3 examples!
You're one of those people who only beleive what you want to beleive, right?








Right?

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[mr2mk1g 10]

If you ask the authorities they tell you that SH had nothing to do with 9/11 - not in any way. They don't hide that fact, no one in a possition of power appears to even be hinting at it from what I've seen.

It's still amazing that some dumbasses out there believe SH had something to do with 9/11 - even when no one but the voices in their head is saying he did.

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

No link has been found between Saddam Hussein and 9/11

What! Are you mad? I just gave you 3 examples!
You're one of those people who only beleive what you want to beleive, right?








Right?

t

Yeah you're probably right. Stupid of me really. It all makes sense now. Why didn't I see the link before? Now I can see other links...

USA - Universally stupid ars*hol*s
UK - Unilaterally Korrect!!

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Amended original post to make it clearer for you. No doubt I'm going to get complaints from people saying I can't amend the original post after people have voted - well tough titties I have! If it bothers anyone then vote again to cancel your original vote.

I still can't vote but here's mine:

I am from the USA and believe that the war in Iraq is indirectly connected to the events of 9-11.

Iraq was similar to other countries around the globe that aid or provide comfort to Muslim extremist terrorists. The preemptive attack was fully justified. Iraq had 12 years to comply with UN resolutions. It did not. I don’t think it takes that long for UN inspectors to do their jobs and I also don’t think it takes that long for Iraq to comply with what the world demanded. Similarly, if Iran is told by the UN to cease nuclear development and they fail to comply, I have no problem whatsoever with “corrective action” being taken against them. That is, if all peaceful and diplomatic measures fail first. However, that also shouldn’t take 12 years. It shouldn’t take “a year.” Let’s be reasonable. If the UN makes a resolution, exactly what value does that piece of paper have unless there is potential enforcement power behind it? The many UN resolutions for Iraq apparently weren’t worth the paper that they were written on with the UN behind them.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Indirectly connected to the types and support of terrorist acts that 9-11 was?

Yes

If you read what you have just said your answer is "no" to being indirectly related to 9/11. You refer to "types... of terrorist acts that 9/11 was" which in itself means they weren't connect to 9/11 but other acts of terrorism instead.

No link has been found between Saddam Hussein and 9/11

I don't think you're reading my post in detail. What you said that I said is not what I said at all. The situation is more complicated than simply "was Iraq connected to 9-11?" Of course, the hijackers were Saudi. Not Iraqi. I guess you could just stop there if that keeps you feeling all warm and fuzzy at night but I don't believe national security policy based simply on exacting justice on “only” those who coordinated the 9-11 attack specifically would be very effective. I would hope that our leaders, as they’re doing, would be able to think a little bit further “out of the box” in these matters when the safety of my family is concerned.

[Red_Skydiver 0]

The preemptive strike was not justified at all. That is a dangerous viewpoint to take. Why not just eradicate the rest of the world in that case and call it preemptive just in case they later decide to attack you? If a country doesn't comply with the UN then it is up to the UN to deal with it. If the UN doesn't do it's job then you should kick the UN and not just take the matter into your own hands.

[mr2mk1g 10]

The problem with linking Iraq with OBL is that apparently OBL hated SH and Iraq even more than he hated the USA. Why would Iraq have even indirectly supported OBL?

Now supporting Islamic extremism in general simply because they were anti west... or simply because it pissed the west off – yup I’d go with that... but Al Qaeda was apparently an exception.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The preemptive strike was not justified at all. That is a dangerous viewpoint to take. Why not just eradicate the rest of the world in that case and call it preemptive just in case they later decide to attack you? If a country doesn't comply with the UN then it is up to the UN to deal with it. If the UN doesn't do it's job then you should kick the UN and not just take the matter into your own hands.

12 years...

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The problem with linking Iraq with OBL is that apparently OBL hated SH and Iraq even more than he hated the USA. Why would Iraq have even indirectly supported OBL?

Now supporting Islamic extremism in general simply because they were anti west... or simply because it pissed the west off – yup I’d go with that... but Al Qaeda was apparently an exception.

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Iraq was directly connected with Al-Qaida or OBL. I don't have the kinds of intel that our people in charge do. However, OBL and Al-Qaida aren't the only terrorist organizations in the world. Al-Qaida is big but it it isn't necessarily the world hub for terrorist activity. However, I believe Iraq would support Al-Qaida for the same reasons many other Muslims would. They fundamentally hate the ideology of the West. The problem with Iraq, as with countries like Syria, is that they have no problem with selling stuff or providing assistance to other rogue countries that would use them for terrorist causes. That is, if they don't themselves.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

The preemptive strike was not justified at all. That is a dangerous viewpoint to take. Why not just eradicate the rest of the world in that case and call it preemptive just in case they later decide to attack you? If a country doesn't comply with the UN then it is up to the UN to deal with it. If the UN doesn't do it's job then you should kick the UN and not just take the matter into your own hands.

12 years...

don't forget 17 UN resolutions. Besides there are clear traces of money going from the oil for food to swiss banks and then to from there to Al Queda. So I guess SH hated Al Queda but he funded them. Whatever...

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The preemptive strike was not justified at all. That is a dangerous viewpoint to take. Why not just eradicate the rest of the world in that case and call it preemptive just in case they later decide to attack you? If a country doesn't comply with the UN then it is up to the UN to deal with it. If the UN doesn't do it's job then you should kick the UN and not just take the matter into your own hands.

12 years...

don't forget 17 UN resolutions. Besides there are clear traces of money going from the oil for food to swiss banks and then to from there to Al Queda. So I guess SH hated Al Queda but he funded them. Whatever...

It all goes back to ideology. They fundamentally hate us. Most of them.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Even if I don't like them much.

[Red_Skydiver 0]

12 years - you're refering to the time period between the first Iraq war and the second aren't you? But yeah inanswer to your question sanctions and resolutions take time. Just because you don't like waiting and you can't get your own way doesn't justify ignoring proceedures.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I was not intending to put words in your mouth. But in fairness the question is not who should we fight against – but did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11.

I was under the impression though that we were all quite certain that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and that it was not something to do with any other of the many organisations out there.

Thus if we’re asking for a link between 9/11 and Iraq we’re not asking how we should defend our loved ones – we’re asking if there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The question must equally be is there a link between SH and OSB as those two were the controlling heads of each entity.

I was also under the impression that we had been told on numerous times that OSB hated SH and SH hated OSB… That with the ascertion that there was no link between OSB and SH. Whilst SH may well have supported Islamic terrorism in a wider sense he did not support OSB or AQ – or so we’re told at least.

If he did not support either OSB or AQ then he had no link to 9/11, even if he does have a link to the wider concept of international terrorism, attacks on the West or instability in the middle east.

If you want to link things like that to 9/11 as being an indirect link… well – surely then we start to say we’re losing a kingdom for want of a horse?

[Ron 10]

I agree with you 100%...

How can ANYONE call the US attack not justified?

He had 12 YEARS to follow the terms of the UN resolution.

The UN backed down in part due to the "food for Oil" program linning the pockets of the UN members.

One of the largest countries that was against the war was France...A country that was selling Iraq parts against the econiomic sanctions.

Gee I wonder why France didn't want to go to war with Saddam? Answer: $$$$$$$

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

It all goes back to ideology. They fundamentally hate us. Most of them.

Who are you refering to when you say "them"? Iraqis or terrorists? They are not the same people you know.

I do agree that the UN should have done much more and it did fail. It's a pity we couldn't invest our time and money into getting the UN to do a proper job instead of getting into a war which divides people even further.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

12 years - you're refering to the time period between the first Iraq war and the second aren't you? But yeah inanswer to your question sanctions and resolutions take time. Just because you don't like waiting and you can't get your own way doesn't justify ignoring proceedures.

How long is long enough before it becomes ridiculous?

[Ron 10]

Quote

12 years - you're refering to the time period between the first Iraq war and the second aren't you? But yeah inanswer to your question sanctions and resolutions take time. Just because you don't like waiting and you can't get your own way doesn't justify ignoring proceedures.

Saddam ignored the resolutions since day one.

He had no intention of following them.

In fact he only started to play along while troops were preparing to invade.

And if they had not gone in and had gone home...He would have continued to ignore the rest of the worlds demands.

Funny that some claim that the US launched an illegal war according to the UN...But that we went in based off of the UN not doing shit about their own rule for 12 years.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

In case this thread starts to drift off into a "should we have gone into Iraq" thread - remember all that the question is "did Iraq have a direct connection with 9/11".

Those two are very different questions!