[MacGorilla]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

[eklipse]

Not surprised.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

My impression is that were not done seeeing such people facing justice.

[stevesnj]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
My impression is that were not done seeeing such people facing justice.

Well Osama to me needs to face justice not Sadam..Osama to me is more of a threat than Iraq ever was.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by stevesnj:
Well Osama to me needs to face justice not Sadam.

They BOTH do.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by stevesnj:
Well Osama to me needs to face justice not Sadam..Osama to me is more of a threat than Iraq ever was.

I kinda agree with Zimphire, but only in this:

Ossama bin Laden should face American Justice. Hussein should face a real Iraqi court.

bin Laden is still a threat, Hussein was not a threat since 1992 or so.

bin Laden should go in court for terrorism, Hussein for crimes against humanity, but for that last part, the process should be 100% Iraqi.

But there are also people who should also face justice for an illegal (I know, not everybody agrees on this legality thing) invasion of a sovereign country.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Hussein was not a threat since 1992 or so.

Tell that to the people in Iraq that are STILL afraid of the guy.

He didn't stop his murdering tirade in 1992. Nor did he stop trying to gain weapons then either.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Tell that to the people in Iraq that are STILL afraid of the guy.

He didn't stop his murdering tirade in 1992. Nor did he stop trying to gain weapons then either. [/B]

True. The WMDs issue was still in the air, but there were no proof.

Regarding the threat to Iraqi people, I did not deny that. Where did you get such an idea?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by angaq0k:

Regarding the threat to Iraqi people, I did not deny that. Where did you get such an idea?

You said Saddam wasn't a threat since 1992...

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You said Saddam wasn't a threat since 1992...

Ah. I forgot to specify then.

not oa threat... to the world, and even less to the U.S.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They BOTH do.

[stevesnj]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They BOTH do.

I agree but after 9/11 the order of justice seeking should be Osama then Sadam...I like Sadam is gone but ...well you know the rest

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by stevesnj:
I agree but after 9/11 the order of justice seeking should be Osama then Sadam

Kinda hard to do that when you don't have Osama.

[stevesnj]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Kinda hard to do that when you don't have Osama.

Thats the point...we don't have him.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Kinda hard to do that when you don't have Osama.

Anyone know why we didn't go into Afghanistan with the same amount of force that we went into Iraq with?

[osiris]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
Anyone know why we didn't go into Afghanistan with the same amount of force that we went into Iraq with?

Sure, we only wanted a pipeline across Afghanistan. Iraq has the oil.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by TheMosco:
Anyone know why we didn't go into Afghanistan with the same amount of force that we went into Iraq with?

Because it was a different "going into" altogether.

If we did, that still wouldn't have gotten Osama.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Because it was a different "going into" altogether.

If we did, that still wouldn't have gotten Osama.

But it wasn't important to put maybe 100,000 troops on the border between pakistan and Afghanistan to stop them from escaping?

Maybe I just don't see what the difference is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...;notFound=true

this article says we had 10,000 troops there in 2003, and 5,000 in march of 2002, and less than 3,000 in december of 2001.

And we had what, 136,000 in iraq? seems like thats a huge difference considering we were attacked by al-quida and not iraq.

[el chupacabra]

edit wrong forum

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Tell that to the people in Iraq that are STILL afraid of the guy.

He didn't stop his murdering tirade in 1992. Nor did he stop trying to gain weapons then either.

Why don't we go after China then? The Chinese have nuclear weapons (Sadam didn't) and their human rights violations are despicable. Don't you think we should 'liberate' China too?

[Zimphire]

We were going after those who harbor and support terrorists. Iraq just happened to be one of those places.

There was a TON of reason why it needed to be done.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by TheMosco:


this article says we had 10,000 troops there in 2003, and 5,000 in march of 2002, and less than 3,000 in december of 2001.

And we had what, 136,000 in iraq? seems like thats a huge difference considering we were attacked by al-quida and not iraq.

I think we had more like 300,000 in Iraq to begin with. If we hadnt bothered with Iraq we could have put more troops in Afganistan and we would probably be in pakistan too not having to rely on their army to take care of Osama.

Why don't we go after China then? The Chinese have nuclear weapons (Sadam didn't) and their human rights violations are despicable. Don't you think we should 'liberate' China too?

Well the idea was, it was illegal for Iraq to have the weapons, not China. Had China violated world trust and gone to war and lost then it would be illegal for them too. Not to mension the US can't liberate China even if they want too.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
We were going after those who harbor and support terrorists. Iraq just happened to be one of those places.

There was a TON of reason why it needed to be done.

Ok. The TON of reasons:

Reason #1
Sadam has WMD - opps he didn't.

Reason #2
He had connections to Osama - actually the two met and they didn't like each other. It was after Sadam was removed from power that Al Qaeda moved in.

Reason #3
He killed his own people - yes he did, there are other countries just as bad like North Korea.

Reason #4
They have TONS of oil - this is the real reason we have soldiers over there.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
Ok. The TON of reasons:

Reason #1
Sadam has WMD - opps he didn't.

Still up in the air.

Reason #2
He had connections to Osama - actually the two met and they didn't like each other. It was after Sadam was removed from power that Al Qaeda moved in.

BZZZZZZZZT. No one ever said he had connection with Osama. I think you mean "Iraq had connections and supported terrorists networks. Something the 9/11 commission said that was true beyond a doubt.

Reason #3
He killed his own people - yes he did, there are other countries just as bad like North Korea.

Again, this was a war on terrorists and those who support them.

Reason #4
They have TONS of oil - this is the real reason we have soldiers over there.

How Shilly.

If it was just about the oil, we'd have taken them long ago.

Heck, if it was just about the oil, Canada has just as much! Lets get them too!

I still can't believe people are using the lame "It's about teh oil!11" rant still.

It's not like we are taking their oil and not paying for it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
We were going after those who harbor and support terrorists. Iraq just happened to be one of those places.

Hold on! We had a long discussion about this recently and I thought you undertook to stop presenting your BLIND FAITH in Iraq's links to Al Qaeda as fact. Here you are doing it again. It is NOT a fact that Iraq supported and harboured terrorists. Let's rehash some of the arguments for you shall we.

WHICH TERRORISTS?
For the war to be just, the terrorists that Saddam is accused of supporting and harbouring need to have either already attacked the USA or represent an imminent threat to it. That excludes Palestinian terrorists who never posed such a threat (if they did, the US would have invaded Palestine). Which means that for your statement to be true, there would have to be a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No such link has ever been proved. Bin Laden listed Saddam as an enemy of Islam. Saddam expressed disdain for Al Qaeda too fearing that they posed a threat to his oligarchy.

EVIDENCE OF IRAQ/AL QAEDA LINK
There are only two pieces of "evidence" of Iraq harbouring and supporting Al Qaeda that have ever been publicised:

1) A statement by a clerk who worked on a police training camp in Iraq for 6 months. He went to some two-bit far right website and alleged that one part of the camp had been used to train Al Qaeda terrorists. He had absolutely no evidence to back up his claims, they have never been repeated by anyone else (including major news channels) and President Bush, who would be desperate to show such a link, has never given this person the limelight. Conclusion: probably rubbish.

2) US intelligence sources at one point said that Al Zarqawi, who they said had been injured at Tora Bora, had had his leg amputated in Iraq. They never alleged that Iraq knew that Zarqawi was in Iraq or had received treatment or that they had sponsored it but they must have meant that otherwise any number of countries on the planet, including the United States would be guilty of harbouring Al Qaeda. When Zarqawi started decapitating hostages more recently, the intelligence services decided that actually he had never had his leg amputated at all. Conclusion: almost definitely rubbish.

WHAT HAPPENED TO IRAQI AL QAEDA TERRORIST?
On the other side of the scale, let's see what happens when Iraqis do get involved in terrorist attacks against the United States. A certain Iraqi national, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was allegedly involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The US released him after questioning and later realised their error. He was put on the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists. Iraq captured him, emprisoned him and twice offered to extradite him to the US - once in 1994 and again in 2001. The US refused the extradition. Does that sound like the sort of thing Osama's best buddy would do?

ZIMPHIRE'S FAITH
Your belief in Iraq's guilt in this regard is precisely that - a quasi-religious belief based on blind faith. Very similar to the belief you have that Iraq had WMD in 2002. That's your choice. You can believe whatever you like, but as I've said before, your presentation of suspicions as facts is most annoying! Rather say, "I believe that Iraq harboured and sponsored Al Qaeda."

[eklipse]

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
We were going after those who harbor and support terrorists. Iraq just happened to be one of those places.

There was a TON of reason why it needed to be done.

Based on the numbers that I found earlier, do you think we sent enough troops into Afghanistan considering the fact that we didn't dismantle al-quidac contrary to what some will claim? Did you know that they removed arabic speaking special forces and moved them to iraq and replaced them with spanish speaking forces that we trained to fight drug lords in Columbia? Whats up with that?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
Hold on! We had a long discussion about this recently and I thought you undertook to stop presenting your BLIND FAITH in Iraq's links to Al Qaeda as fact. Here you are doing it again. It is NOT a fact that Iraq supported and harboured terrorists. Let's rehash some of the arguments for you shall we.

Sure thing. Read this first.

http://www.hudson.org/files/publicat...damarticle.pdf

Your' Iraq wasn't harboring terrorists" rant has been debunked time and time again.

Yet you keep bringing up the SAME FUD time and time again.

EVEN THE 9/11 Commission said THERE WAS NO DOUBT THIS WAS GOING ON.

But of course, Troll knows better.



And I didn't have to use any verbal masturbation like you did.

Just blunt and to the point.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Sure thing. Read this first.

http://www.hudson.org/files/publicat...damarticle.pdf

Your' Iraq wasn't harboring terrorists" rant has been debunked time and time again.

A link to a Neocon website. Why am I not surprised that you provide neocon propaganda to bolster neocon positions?

Let's pretend for a moment that this isn't propaganda. Let's have a look at that document shall we. 3 pages of Saddam supports Palestinian terrorist. Dealt with that point above.

Then a list of things that a certain Nidal did. Relevance? Oh, he was in Iraq for 3 years and he had entered with the "full knowledge" of the Iraqi government. You mean in the same way, some of the 9/11 hijackers, known Al Qaeda terrorists entered the US with the full knowledge of the US government?

Terrorist training camp at Salman Pak. Dealt with above. What happened to Mr. Khodada? He's been very quiet?

Then there's the bit about Zarqawi. Dealt with above. Oh, and the terrorist training camp he is alleged to have started once he had recovered. Strange that since he was supported by Saddam, he chose to base the camp in Kurdish territory controlled by the Northern Alliance. That makes perfect sense.

Ramzi Yousef had an Iraqi passport. So?

Then an allegation that Saddam gave Yasin a house and a salary. The same Yasin that they offered to extradite to the US TWICE!

Under interrogation the ex Iraqi ambassador to Turkey admitted having met with Al Qaeda. Lindy England style interrogation? Even if true, so what? Merely meeting with them doesn't prove anything.

The rest is rehashing information that the Bush Administration themselves have said is untrue.

You don't really make a point regarding the 9/11 Commission. The Commission said that one of the things referred to in your linked article may have happened. Namely that Al Qaeda and Iraqi officials may have met. But the Commission came to same conclusion I came to above. So what? They said there was no contact between them after Osama left Sudan and went back to Afghanistan. They said that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.” The 15th report of the Commission concluded, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.”

Thomas Kean of the Commission also said, "We believe....that there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq."

Mass debate on that.