Well what’d’ya know, the only articles I’ve ever read say things like the following.
I am a bit wary of an official Israeli PR source on this matter, but it seems to be legit. As such I retract my previous claim as factually innacurate, thanks for clearing up my ignorance.
I’m wary as well, but it was the first article I found.
The “Palestinian donation” is an example of facts neatly trimmed to fit predetermined conclusions. Israel is not the USA. We were not offered this splendid little military adventure as a means to protect Israel, but to protect ourselves.
The case presented was that Saddam was in possession of nasty nuclear-anthrax mojo and furthermore that he was likely to provide such to terrorists for use against the USA. Please carefully note the distinction. Israel here, USA way over here. Not the same thing.
That a secular cynic might be moved to offer weapons to religious fanatics who have sworn enmity to him is a proposition we need not examine at the moment.
Well thanks for clearing up that Israel isn’t the USA. But while you are correct that one of the reasons offered for this war was that Iraq was thought to possess WMD’s
(and let’s not beat the dead horse again of the cripplingly large number of people who believed this who:
#1 were not named George W. Bush
#2 came to this conclusion without British intelligence or any other evidence that this administration “manufactured” or “stretched”)
as this horse could now be slid underneath the nearest available door…
this was not the only reason we were given.
Your and other Bush-bashers insistence on ignoring this argument is an example of neatly side-stepping arguments that were extant prior to the initiation of the war against Iraq.
Yes… and the others were a connection to Al Queda, which never existed, and a desire to ‘liberate’ the people of Iraq which was only a slogan.
No quotes. The OSP’s job was to manufacture and/or stretch intel to suit Bush’s agenda of invasion. The Downing Street Memos confirm that Bush had decided to attack Iraq way before the public was informed about it, and that they were dedicated to ‘fixing’ the evidence to support their claims. As for those who were fooled, what was their reason for belief? How many of them had a direct pipeline to the CIA? And out of those, how many were able to talk to CIA agents who weren’t bullied or outright fired by Team Bush for not walking the party line?
What argument? That Bush gave numerous bullshit reasons? That some people who weren’t the commander in chief were either duped or ignorant? What exactly is your point?
. . . Amongst the reasons we chose to invade and are remaining in Iraq are such diverse elements as . . .
Mushroom MUSHROOM!
My god man, we have proven this in a hundred threads since Iraq. If you haven’t read any of them, you have no business posting here. Not to mention **Psycho Pirate **has already (in a nice gesture) provided a link. True, he only provided (im)moral support (and sometimes not even that) to Al Qaeda, the group which is most dangerous to the USA. Yes- there is no direct link of support to AlQaeda, as claimed/thought before the war. Thus, as far as Terrorism goes, SH doesn’t seem to have been much of a “clear and present danger” to the USA. Isreal, sure, and even there he wasn’t even close to being amoung the most dangerous.
Look- I am anti-war too. Have been so ever since the start. But demonizing the USA and ignoring the Evilness of Saddam doesn’t make your case any stronger- in fact, it makes it worse. Saddam was Evil. He did support terrorism( true, apparently not terrorism aimed specifically at the USA). He was into WMD, and (at one time) possessed and used one of the largest arsenals of them. SH did possess Weapons that were illegal under the UN treaty- those missles for example. Those aluminum tubes that were thought to have been bought for use to make Nukes and weren’t? Well- they were instead bought to make motars- which SH wasn’t supposed to do, either. He was a sick, cruel man, given to institutionalized torture that boggles the mind. However- despite all that- we *still *had no moral right to invade. So- making SH into a new Santa Claus and claiming GWB is Satan just makes dudes :rolleyes: and ignore you.
Nice strawman, dick.
So your sole proof of your statement that Iraq aided and abetted terrorists is the payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? The situation specifically conceded in its own paragraph of the OP?
A replay of this thread for your benefit:
- Bush stated that ''We will build a free Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and sanctuary." That is, Saddam’s Iraq gave terrorists aid and sanctuary.
- ETF took issue with this, pointing out that this is untrue, save for a few payments to the families of dead Palestinians terrorists for political purposes - aid, but to the families and after the fact, and certainly not sanctuary.
- You said “Oh, and Saddam did aid & abet Terrorists”. If you meant the Palestinians, ETF had already dealt with them. You were raising this as if it were new information and the rest of us were idiots for not knowing this.
It is important, Psycho, because you toss about such words as “terrorist” with an eye to flexibility. The War on Terror was sold as a means to protect ourselves, based on two flatulent pillars of butt-whistle: that Saddam possessed bad mojo, and even if he didn’t use them himself, he might very wlll supply them to The Terrorists. That he might have been moved to offer such weaponry to his sworn enemies is a subject for a feeble debate, but he didn’t have them in the first place.
If Saddam’s promise to donate money to the families of dead dumfucks was a threat to US security, why didn’t we threaten him then? Sure, they publicly expressed their disapproval, but in no wise was it implied that such represented a threat to the US. Hell, the Slutty Elbonians had a goddam telethon supporting the Palestinian cause, and we didn’t say “boo”!
But now all of a sudden this lame ass public relations stunt on Saddam’s part is supposed to convince us that Saddam was in cahoots with ObL in some tenuous and subtle fashion. Telepathy, maybe, or some obscure Arab version of voodoo.
If it was such a Big Hairy Deal, how come we didn’t say something like “You write that first check and you’ll have 1st Cav bootprints on yer ass by morning!”
If you have the time to make sure you’ve read all the hundreds of Iraq threads, I’m sorry for your social life. I read newspapers and information online, and as much on the Dope as I can. As I pointed out with my link, everything I’d read said that it was not clear if any money actually changed hands. If that’s not good enough, I recomend that you cry yourself to sleep.
I’ll post where I damn well please.
He provided it after I asked, and as I result I thanked him for clearing up my ignorance. Cause and effect giving you headaches today or something?
Are you on drugs?
I’ve demonized the US and ignored Sadaam’s evil?
Um, no, he wasn’t. That’s why we didn’t find any. Unless, of course, you’re using “into” like, “Steve’s really into high end audio components but doesn’t actually own any.”
Again, are you on drugs? I asked for a cite for a claim, and then I accepted it and retracted my objection. Seriously dude, decaf.
Oh, and, you original claim, deth, is still a big ol’ glob of feces.
He did not aid and abet Al Queda. And payments given to widows of Palestinian murderers do not assist in commiting the crimes.
If the best you can do is make the halfassed claim that he gave AQ ‘moral support’, and then make some strawmen that would better come from O’Reilly or Coulter about loving Sadaam and demonizing the US…
Sorry for the tripple post, but now I think I understand. You were talking about Sadaam’s support for anti-Iranian/Turkish/etc… militant groups. So you are, strictly speaking, correct. On that point at least.
It’s too damn early in the morning for this. Maybe Sadaam Claus will bring me a cup of tea. Wouldn’t that be neat?
C’mon, guys. I hate Bush as much as the next pinko, but this isn’t a change from his earlier rationales.
Remember “We’re fighting them there so that we don’t have to fight them here?” Well, it just so happens that fighting them there means that our oil is in danger. What, you thought it was going to be easy to fight them over there, that there’d be no risk, no losses to America? We have to protect our oil! I mean THEIR oil, 'scuse me.
Wars have risks, you know. Things get lost. That’s what soldiers are for.
Daniel
Do not use the quote functions to misattribute your words to somebody else, Dark Prince.
Veb
Well, technically, he didn’t misattribute words. He’s merely guilty of leaving out some ellipses. Here’s the quote – directly copied from FinnAgain’s post – with ellipses representing deleted text:
It was a joke. As in Badger Badger Badger. And it was funny, too.
Right. Saddams support for terrorism seems to have been limited to anti- Isreali/Iran/Turkey/kurd groups. His support of AQ seems to have only been along the lines of “Rah, go get them!”, and even that was off & on.
Sorry by the way Deth, you caught me at a bad moment, I shouldn’t have been so snippy. You have my apologies.
But, I’ll point out, that one of the reasons for war was that his terrorist connections were a direct threat to our security. Or so it went.