Kerry: US troops are terrorists

[Upchurch]

It's going to take a stronger argument than "Saddam was secular" to convince some of us that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

{imaged snipped for thread sanity}

Oh, c'mon. You know that poster was ad hoc support for the 9/11 attacks, not an admission of guilt/taking credit for the event.

Never mind that he was paying Palestinian terrorists some of that hard earned oil-for-food money to buy his popularity in the Arab states. Never mind that he actually used WMD in two wars. Never mind that in the Gulf War he sent missiles at Israel without being attacked by Israel. Never mind that he was burying any opposers in his own country in mass graves. Never mind that he refused to cooperate fully with the UN in order to keep Iran guessing about his WMD capability.

What of that suggests to you that Saddam was involved in either the planning or executing of 9/11?

 

[billydkid]

I'd love to see you changing your shorts at being vindicated on a semantic issue while ignoring the larger point at hand, namely Kerry's contempt for the military and the DNC smears going out over the airwaves as facts.

Yes, Kerry, the war hero has contempt for the military and Dubya/Cheney the draft dodgers are great Americans.

 

[Mark]

It's going to take a stronger argument than "Saddam was secular" to convince some of us that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.


Never mind that he was paying Palestinian terrorists some of that hard earned oil-for-food money to buy his popularity in the Arab states. Never mind that he actually used WMD in two wars. Never mind that in the Gulf War he sent missiles at Israel without being attacked by Israel. Never mind that he was burying any opposers in his own country in mass graves. Never mind that he refused to cooperate fully with the UN in order to keep Iran guessing about his WMD capability.

None of which had to do with 9/11.

 

[rikzilla]

Oh, c'mon. You know that poster was ad hoc support for the 9/11 attacks, not an admission of guilt/taking credit for the event.


What of that suggests to you that Saddam was involved in either the planning or executing of 9/11?

Upchurch,

You really need to re-read Manny's post in this thread and absorb it:

Originally posted by Manny:
Look, the Bush administration overplayed the WMD thing. That's fine, beat them up for that; they took a gamble and lost and deserve it. But the case for war was never a one-legged stool. Don't imagine for a second that a single person on earth believes that WMD alone would have justifed this war. Pakistan has WMD. Russia has WMD. We have WMD. Even other direct threats like Iran and Libya have WMDs or WMD programs. WMD alone did not cause this war. Try this on. Saddam Hussein was a bad person for a host of reasons and could not be allowed to run a pivotal country in the post 9-11 world. That's why we did the war, OK? It's really that simple. The world changed on 9-11 and some threats were previously OK to appease or contain were no longer appeasable or containable. And at the core, in our hearts, we believe that removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq was, is and will be a noble mission.

I'd have nominated this post for the speech award. (but really I doubt any partisan political speech no matter how apt or stirring would make the cut since it's guaranteed to piss off someone...)

-z

 

[Just thinking]

9/11 was the primary excuse for invading, not the Gulf War.

Close, Mark ... preventing a repeat of 9/11 was the primary reason for invading.

 

[Mark]

Close, Mark ... preventing a repeat of 9/11 was the primary reason for invading.

Which invading Iraq has done nothing to help with. Unless you buy the utter nonsense that all the terrorists are now in Iraq. I wonder who is blowing up all the people and buildings around the world then? Martians?

 

[Just thinking]

Which invading Iraq has done nothing to help with.

a) That's pure 20/20 hindsight of opinion. Would you have said that if chemical weapon supplies were found?

b) How is that proven? ... especially when a stable and non-violent MiddleEast is clearly a benefit to all.

 

[Mark]

a) That's pure 20/20 hindsight of opinion. Would you have said that if chemical weapon supplies were found?

b) How is that proven? ... especially when a stable and non-violent MiddleEast is clearly a benefit to all.

a) Before the invasion I said there was no evidence whatsoever for WMDs. If I had been wrong I would have said so. What difference does it make? What would you have said if they found plans for distributing flowers and joy to all the world? It didn't happen and the idea is irrelevant.

b) A stable and non-violent Mid-East is indeed a benefit to us all. The invasion of Iraq has pushed that goal even farther away. Which anyone with an even passing knowledge of the history of the region could (and did) have predicted.

 

[DavidJames]

Close, Mark ... preventing a repeat of 9/11 was the primary reason for invading.

and exactly, show your work, how would the invasion of Iraq would prevent another 9/11. Providing evidence that would prove Iraq was directly involved with 9/11 in the first place would be a good place to start. I hope you wouldn't include that bogus meeting in Poland, unless you could provide verifiable minutes

 

[RandFan]

I'll try to be open minded but, seriously, where is the sense in invading a nation that nothing to do with 9/11? Keep in mind I supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

It is logically possible for Iraq to have nothing to do with 9/11 and have a purpose for invading Iraq.

I mean, Canada would have been a lot less trouble and would have made about as much sense in terms of 9/11.

Canada didn't invade Kuwait, gas its citizens, amass WMD and fail to comply with UN Security measures.

ETA: That doesn't mean we don't have plans to invade Canada BTW. They are just not top on the list right now.

 

[Mark]

It is logically possible for Iraq to have nothing to do with 9/11 and have a purpose for invading Iraq.

Canada didn't invade Kuwait, gas its citizens, amass WMD and fail to comply with UN Security measures.

Those reasons didn't come to the forefront until after we invaded Iraq. That's called spin. 9/11 was the big justification and you know it.

Plus, Iraq destroyed their WMDs and there was no reliable evidence that they still had them.

 

[Upchurch]

Upchurch,

You really need to re-read Manny's post in this thread and absorb it:

One, I wasn't talking about what Manny had said. I was refering to pepto's statement:

It's going to take a stronger argument than "Saddam was secular" to convince some of us that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Two, Saddam played about as much to do with the planning of 9/11 as we did. He may have funded and/or supported islamic terrorists at one time or another, but so have we (we just didn't call them terrorists then).

There may have been legitemate reasons for going into Iraq (what has been presented so far seems like very weak rationalizations), but linking Saddam to 9/11 attacks isn't one of them.

 

[Just thinking]

a) Before the invasion I said there was no evidence whatsoever for WMDs ...

The Kurds would disagree with you. Some of our troops from the first Gulf War might differ as well.

b) A stable and non-violent Mid-East is indeed a benefit to us all. The invasion of Iraq has pushed that goal even farther away. Which anyone with an even passing knowledge of the history of the region could (and did) have predicted.

It seemed to me that Saddam, well before the invasion, was a threat to the entire region -- did you forget the invasion of Kuwait? Do you think Saddam was going to stop there? Did you think he or his sons were going to abandon desires to control more than Iraq?

The years between our Declaration of Independence and our ability to call ourselves a Nation were those of heavy turmoil too. Yet, the resolve was needed to complete the goal. Only well after the success could the benefits been seen as exceeding the costs.

 

[RandFan]

Those reasons didn't come to the forefront until after we invaded Iraq. That's called spin. 9/11 was the big justification and you know it.

The logical critique of your post is correct.

You are right, the reasons were always there they just weren't the ones used to sell the war. Was that wrong? An argument can be made that it was but I understand the reasons why from a political view point.

1.) Regime change was a policy of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and others.

2.) George W. Bush and others wanted to get rid of Saddam long before 9/11.

3.) There are good arguments to be made why regime change was good policy.

4.) 9/11 was an event that gave George W. Bush the opportunity to implement a decade old policy.

5.) WMD was used as an impetus to invade Iraq. I believe that Bush honestly believed that there was WMD. Sadly I think his opinion was based on faulty intelligence and lack of critical thinking on the part of many in the administration. They saw what they wanted to. I don't condone this.

6.) We honestly did not know whether there was WMD. We know now that there was not. We know now that there was good evidence to conclude that there was likely no WMD.

 

[Mark]

The Kurds would disagree with you. Some of our troops from the first Gulf War might differ as well.



It seemed to me that Saddam, well before the invasion, was a threat to the entire region -- did you forget the invasion of Kuwait? Do you think Saddam was going to stop there? Did you think he or his sons were going to abandon desires to control more than Iraq?

The years between our Declaration of Independence and our ability to call ourselves a Nation were those of heavy turmoil too. Yet, the resolve was needed to complete the goal. Only well after the success could the benefits been seen as exceeding the costs.

And England gassed the Kurds on the 1920s. That also had nothing to do with the invasion.

Did you forget the we beat Iraq in the Gulf War? I have to assume so since you think that justifies invading again a decade later. Maybe we should invade Germany and Japan, too.

 

[RandFan]

Did you forget the we beat Iraq in the Gulf War? I have to assume so since you think that justifies invading again a decade later. Maybe we should invade Germany and Japan, too.

Germany and Japan complied with the terms of surrender. Did you forget that Saddam was not in compliance and fought tooth and nail for a decade, was caught with materials for WMD on at least one occasion when he said he had no such materials and that he routinely shot at our planes?

 

[Mark]

The reasons were always there they just weren't the ones used to sell the war. Was that wrong? An argument can be made but I understand the reasons why from a political view point.

1.) Regime change was a policy of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and others.

2.) George W. Bush and others wanted to get rid of Saddam long before 9/11.

3.) There are good arguments to be made why regime change was good policy.

4.) 9/11 was an event that gave George W. Bush the opportunity to implement a decade old policy.

5.) WMD was used as an impetus to invade Iraq. I believe that Bush honestly believed that there was WMD. Sadly I think his opinion was based on faulty intelligence and lack of critical thinking on the part of many in the administration. They saw what they wanted to. I don't condone this.

6.) We honestly did not know whether there was WMD. We know now that there was not. We know now that there was good evidence to conclude that there was likely no WMD.

You can dance around it all you want, but 9/11 was the stated reason we invaded Iraq. Bush Sr. could have removed Hussein and did not. Clinton could have done so and did not. Saying they wanted to is irrelevant; they didn't even try.

There was never any evidence for WMDs...if I knew it, how is it that the geniuses in the Bush Administartion didn't know it?

 

[Mark]

Germany and Japan complied with the terms of surrender. Did you forget that Saddam was not in compliance and fought tooth and nail for a decade, was caught with materials for WMD on at least one occasion when he said he had no such materials and that he routinely shot at our planes?

And was being sanctioned and isolated for it.

 

[Freakshow]

and exactly, show your work, how would the invasion of Iraq would prevent another 9/11. Providing evidence that would prove Iraq was directly involved with 9/11 in the first place would be a good place to start. I hope you wouldn't include that bogus meeting in Poland, unless you could provide verifiable minutes

He's probably thinking along these lines:
(I'm not saying this is or isn't correct, I am just taking a guess at the line of thinking, as it was my line of thinking before the war. It isn't anymore.)

1. Iraq had WMD (this is the only part I have changed my mind on.)
2. Iraq was friendly with some terrorists and terrorist organizations. Example: giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. (Note: read that as many times as you need to, in order to realize that I said nothing about Iraq and 9/11. I know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11).
3. Iraq did not like the US.
4. Iraq would be okay with giving/selling WMD's to some terrorist organizations. Even ones that it didn't particularly like all that much. But as long as they hate the US too: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
5. Said terrorists will bring those WMD's into the US.
6. Use of those WMD's in the US will result in much more death, injury, and damage to our economy than 9/11.

How'd I do for "show you work"?

 

[Just thinking]

And England gassed the Kurds on the 1920s. That also had nothing to do with the invasion.

It showed that Saddam had and used illegal weapons (WMD's) of war.

Did you forget the we beat Iraq in the Gulf War? I have to assume so since you think that justifies invading again a decade later. Maybe we should invade Germany and Japan, too.

Oh ... you think so?

I believe that it was clearly defined as a "cease-fire" pending Iraq abide by some UN resolutions. This incuded No-Fly zones (over which our planes were targeted and fired upon) and inspections (which were routinely obfuscated by Saddam). Not to mention several other little ditties.

Just when did either of the countires you mentioned invade Kiwait and ignore multiple UN resolutions after we defeated them? Or -- BTW those were unconditional surrenders, not mere cease-fires. The differences between Germany and Japan vs. North Korea show the difference between a surrender and a cease-fire.