[Fireal]

^^^^

[quote="Cpt. Zapotoski":faf14]Come on ninty9... explain to me and Eightace how invading Iraq wasn't part of the global war on terror?? Since you know everything about anything, please enlighten me on the situation.

hake:[/quote:faf14]

Since when is Saddam a terrorist?

[Sergeant_Scrotum]

ok I dont get this. why is it on the football game they keep saying "today is a great day for america!" well what about iraq?!! god i hate the media

[General Cobra]

Originally Posted by ninty9

THe war on terrorism was to rid Al Quedia and Taliban. Saddam Hussein is neither. I didn't say he wasn't a terrorist, I said the Iraq war is not the war on terrorism.

Anyway, you people are hopeless and i'm not going to change any minds, and your not going to change mine. I feel sorry for you though, being mislead.

Well you are mislead by thinking the war on terror is limited to Al Quedia and Taliban.

[guarnere]

lmao @ what innox said...

"If you go on the streets of Baghdad right now and ask if they prefered Saddam to the current situation, maybe 90% would prefer Saddam."

totally false...what were all those people rejoycing once they heard he was in custody!?

[Vance]

Originally Posted by 1080jibber

Saddam's is a dictartor, not a terrorist you fool.

the word terrorist and hero get thrown around way to much these days, (thanks to the media)

He fits that description, doesn't he?

[Eames]

Basicly all the stupid foriegners who oposed the war (because of their anti american agendas) and american liberals hate the fact that we caught sadam, because they know we are going to catch al-duri and then osama and bush is going to be able to call all of the doubters and gloom and doom prophets unpatriotic bastards who doubted the ability of our fighting men, and they know its going to cost them the white house in 04. Now their only hope is to continue with their "there was no link between al-queda and sadam", which is alot of bs because even before 9-11 we knew of the link, i even posted articles from diferent media sources confirming the link, that most liberals conviently forget...let me refresh your memories...again.

[quote="Cpl. Eames":28ad1][quote="Recycled Spooge":28ad1][quote="Cpl. Eames":28ad1][quote="Sgt Stryker":28ad1][quote="Cpt. Zapotoski":28ad1]You stupid fucks, you guys are dumber then a box of rocks. The point is: Saddam was in the process of creating WMD, and if he did he would of most certaintly gave them to terroists. Then what would the terroists do?? Fucking land one in one of our bays back home. Then that'd wipe out half of our country east or west coast and then people would blame President Bush for not taking action against Saddam or the Terroists a few years back.

It's called being "prepared" you ignorant bastards. We're not going to sit around with our thumbs up our asses waiting for the next terroist attack. I'm just glad 9/11 was just two planes hitting two buildings... not two nukes taking out both of our coasts.[/quote:28ad1]

you should get your head out of your afterburner groundpounder!
they didn't have the ability to make replacement parts for Soviet era tanks, most of their intact armor was broken down.
You don't expect them to build a nuke or chemical weapons if they can't fix a goddamn tank![/quote:28ad1]

The real fact of the matter is that its a well known fact that sadam has had in his possesion wmd's and has used them before....if sadam didnt have wmd why wouldnt he let the un inspectors in?? Why did he keep delaying allowing them to come into iraq?? Maybe so he can hide them in some bunker in the middle of the dessert, or send them to another country...or better yet even sell them off?? If he wasnt hiding something why would he not allow the weapon inspectors in?? We went after him because he didnt comply, which by un law should have resulted in the security council taking action against iraq, but wait france and germany didnt want that...they didnt want to end their lucrative buisness ties to sadam, and what happend to nato? I thought when one nato country went to war the others were automaticly suposed to come to their aid...where are our nato allies with the exception of the uk and its common wealth (excluding canada) when we need them now in iraq? They are screwing us over forgeting all we have done for them in the past, the fucking ingrates...after we liberated the fucking cowaradly french and occupied western germany...under the marshall plan we payed for the rebuilding of western europe, and how are they repaying us now??!!! After 9-11 where 3000 americans died the adminstration took alot of heat for not being prepared and forseeing this attack, we don't play games anymore...as long as we suspect someone of harboring and suporting terrorist then we should attack them because we can't afford to let another 9-11 happen, ever.[/quote:28ad1]
He did let the inspectors in. Remmeber they were called out before the invasion? NATO is used for defense not offense. When one NATO country is attacked all of them declare war on that country. Not when one attacks a country. Why didn't NATO countries fight in Vietman then, if you think that? Dude, Al-Qaeda is no linked to Saddam. Saddam is a secular leader, while Bin Laden is fundementalist. Here's a hint... they tried to kill Saddam. You know, if Al-Qaeda would have had weapons of mass destruction it was highly likely that they would actually use them against Saddam. Why would Saddam give them weapons then brainiac?! Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..........[/quote:28ad1]

Remember, how he wouldnt let them into specific facilities in the country???! facilities rumored to have wmd's in them?? The inspectors were in Iraq, but they were sitting on their asses in a hotel in baghdad because they werent allowed into the facilities that needed to be inspected. And like I said before, even if we find no wmd's we're already in iraq and you should suport the administration and the troops instead of bickering about how we shouldnt be there and how we should go home. As for the link between sadam and bin ladin and your statements of no liberal bias in the media (which is just idiotic ask any moderate political science major or anyone with common since and they will tell you there is a liberal bias) tell me how quick the media was to forget what they had been reporting regarding the link between saddam and bin ladin prior to 9-11.

United Press International
Nov. 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee. ...




U.S. Newswire
Dec. 23, 1999
Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.

... Aauthor Yossef] Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism."




National Public Radio
MORNING EDITION (10:00 a.m.ET)
Feb. 18, 1999
THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW. ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER

... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.

Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey ... known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place.

SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony. ...

Foreign news services also carried news of the now-supressed Saddam-bin Laden connection:




Agence France-Presse
Feb. 17, 1999
Saddam plans to use bin Laden against Kuwait, Saudi: opposition

Iraq's President Saddam Hussein plans to use alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden's network to carry out his threats against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, an Iraqi opposition figure charged on Wednesday.

"If the ... Jaber, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said Iraq had "offered to shelter bin Laden under the precondition that he carry out strikes on targets in neighbouring countries."




Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Feb. 17, 1999, Wednesday, BC Cycle
Opposition group says bin Laden in Iraq

DATELINE: Kuwait City

An Iraqi opposition group claimed in a published report Wednesday that Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is in Iraq from where he plans to launch a campaign of terrorism against Baghdad's Gulf neighbours.

The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).

Bin Laden "recently settled in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein in exchange for directing strikes against targets in neighbouring countries," Jabor told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al- Aam ... Taleban leaders in Afghanistan, where he had been living, said they lost track of him. Media reports have speculated he sought refuge in Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, or with a non-Taliban group in Afghanistan.

Jabor, who was interviewed in Damascus, Syria, said Iraq began extending invitations to bin Laden six months ago, shortly after the United States bombed his suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after linking him with the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar-es-Salam, Tanzania.

The United States indicted Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and has offered a five million dollar reward for information leading to his capture. Bin Laden's disappearance has coincided with stepped up threats by Iraq against neighbours Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey for allowing the United States and Britain to use their air bases to carry out air patrols over two "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq. ...[/quote:28ad1]

[ninty]

http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-05-03.html

[General Cobra]

Originally Posted by guarnere

lmao @ what innox said...

"If you go on the streets of Baghdad right now and ask if they prefered Saddam to the current situation, maybe 90% would prefer Saddam."

totally false...what were all those people rejoycing once they heard he was in custody!?

[img]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/031214_iraqiscelebrate_hmedium.standard.jpg[/img]
Yeah these people look pissed. stupid:

[guarnere]

thank god for Eames rock:

[1080jibber]

[quote="General Cobra":e0be5][quote="Animal Mother":e0be5]AY

Originally Posted by Innoxx

Against the UN accords. There's over 200 countries in the world and a lot of them have the same sutuation. Look how disloyal the Iraqi army was. If the Iraqi people took up arms they could've easily taken Saddam. They didn't because Saddam did provide them something VERY important, ECONOMIC STABILITY.

If you go on the streets of Baghdad right now and ask if they prefered Saddam to the current situation, maybe 90% would prefer Saddam.

What's the point of the picture of the dead child and it's mother? The US bombed Iraq on a weekly basis since '91 up until this war. How many children died then? I've also read on how 9 children and one dult died in Afghanistan last week when an American fighter plane dropped a bomb on a group of school children because they thought they were Al Quaeda.

You'll never read about that shit in American media.

[/quote:e0be5]

Its in the American media all the time. The fact that people say it isnt just shows they dont watch the news. The only dif is we aren't the BBC so we cant show an iraqi shaking adead baby by it's leg at the camera.

When i was in the hospital I watched cnn everyday during the war and I saw a ton of reports of the USA mistakingly bombing places they shouldnt have. America fucks up a lot no question. But no other country has the BALLS to dislodge a communist from killing his own people. They just sit back and watch. FRANCE GERMANY CANADA go ahead and sit back and spit. But we have the honor to still fight for you if you ever needed it. Something you will never understand.[/quote:e0be5]


why did you just say Canada just sits back, Canada played by the rules, and if the U.S. did the same, then Canada would be there in Iraq with them

[Zen]

I don't believe you guys are still fighting about this.

Look it is impossible for us to know EXACTLY why we went to war with Iraq. It is quite possible that the Government of the United States knows something we don't.

The story given to us is the Imediate tread of WMD. This is possible because we were not in the palace with Saddam talking about his next moves with him.
Saddam has or did have WMD. We know this because Reagan gave them to him to stop the Iraq-Iran war in the mid 80s. Now he very well could have hidden them to use later , sold them to the highest bidder , or dismantled them for the greater good of humanity. who knows..... Not me.

Some believe it was good to go in there and oust the Bath party. Others think the war was wrong. Either way we simply don't have all the facts. The US has a long history of cover-up operations for the greater good.

Hell look at UFOs. Do you honestly think it would have been in the US best interest to tell the world they were working on Top Secret Spy planes in the middle of the cold war?

At least this much is sure.....

Saddam was a tyrant and villian of the Iraqi people.
He killed and torchered thousands of people.
The Iraqi people now have the oppertunity to call him on that.
The liberation of Iraq is like putting a police station in the hood. It will help to promote ballance and justice in the worst part of the world.

I don't want to come off as an individual whom places total trust in my government. I'm not. I just understand that there are things that the public does not know. And there is a reason for that.

It is useless to argue over what was done is right or wrong. Simply because it is Done. We can now only move forward and decide what the best action is now.
I do know this is a constant fight against terrorism. You may disagree , and thats fine. I have know way of knowing what Saddam was up to. Maybe he is involved , maybe he is not.
But this fight is very similar to the war on drugs. It is not always faught against those directly involved. It is a fight on all fronts to make the world a safer place.

Instead of focasing on what you don't agree apon , why not look at what you do. The team that found and caught him was not only Americans. I don't know exactly but the term used was colition (Sp?).

The world is changing around us guys , and I think it's changing for the better.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone about thier views on the issues at hand. I just think it is a great day for freedom and we should be grateful to those who made it possible.

[Tool-back]

Uhh Ninty9 the "War on Terror" wasn't just the war with Al Queda and Taliban. When Bush gave his speech on the war on terror, he made it very obvious that it would include nations that harbored terrorists.

Originally Posted by guarnere

lmao @ what innox said...

"If you go on the streets of Baghdad right now and ask if they prefered Saddam to the current situation, maybe 90% would prefer Saddam."

totally false...what were all those people rejoycing once they heard he was in custody!?

That's the 10% of people who don't want him back.

As I'm sure a lot of them hate Saddam, they hate Amercia (and the west) more.

[Zap. USMC]

[quote="General Cobra":0be88]

Originally Posted by ninty9

THe war on terrorism was to rid Al Quedia and Taliban. Saddam Hussein is neither. I didn't say he wasn't a terrorist, I said the Iraq war is not the war on terrorism.

Anyway, you people are hopeless and i'm not going to change any minds, and your not going to change mine. I feel sorry for you though, being mislead.

Well you are mislead by thinking the war on terror is limited to Al Quedia and Taliban.[/quote:0be88]

Took the words out of my mouth.

---

Ninty9, get out of that igloo of yours and get an education, because you are one dumb kid.