The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War! Updated Info

Originally posted by edsinger
He had the means to provide them with WMD

No, Saddam didn't have WMD and therefore he couldn't provide anybody with them, even Prophet Mohammed if he asked him to.

The UN would not enforce its own threats, so the US and a few Allies did.

Mighty Bulgaria, Estonia, Equador and other political prostitutes joined the fight, sending a few dosen unfortunate soldiers over.

If the UN didn't do something it had the legal right to not do it. That's the best, albeit imperfect approximation of law and order we have in this world.

Case closed.

Indeed. Based in heaps of lies (read above, Saddam could NOT have provided weapons to anyone), illegal and immoral war.


[edit on 9-11-2004 by Aelita]

Yet another classic thread from Edsinger. Im tired of responding to his idiocy since he obviously has no capability for free-thought. At least normal Bush supporters will admit that he, like every other president, has made some mistakes. Edsingers infatuation with the President borders on romantic. The only explanation for his blind support is that he has a crush on Bush.
"Edsinger and George, sittin in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g..."


[edit on 9-11-2004 by apw100]

Originally posted by edsinger

He had the means to provide them with WMD and was getting more senile as time passed. He had plenty of chances to aviod war, but failed to meet the agreements HE signed.

The UN would not enforce its own threats, so the US and a few Allies did.

Case closed.

what weapons eh?
a few used sarin shells?
a ton of radioactive ore?
the only thing he broke was genocide which is worth invadeing i agree but one thing i must say is that the militants we fight are fighting the same evil that hurt them before its just a diffrent name and face.
the UN wanted to wait, they're policy is peace through disscusion , you know sittng and actually stopping a war not rushing head long into one?
they believe in peace through talking and then if that doesnt work then by action.
now the US policy now is attack first ask questions and discuss later.
name me one threat that iraq, no wait i'll make it simpler , how many WMD did they have ?
the UK came in because blair values our atlantic treaty over everything else.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by LostSailor

Check out the link in my signature ed..... its some interesting stuff.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by LostSailor]

I will when the low bandwidth mode puts it back

Originally posted by Aelita
Indeed. Based in heaps of lies (read above, Saddam could NOT have provided weapons to anyone), illegal and immoral war.
[edit on 9-11-2004 by Aelita]

So you would be willing to bet he absolutley had none? Would you bet your life on it? What if the documents show that he did purchase some anthrax in 2000? Did you read the Dalfur report? It stated that saddam could have restarted production in weeks from his ok to do so. I guess you would have some excuse for that one also? Even Durden
knows this to be the case....we still know he had them, he did not declare all that he had, some think he destroyed them so as to not have to admitt he had biological weapons........funny turns of events wouldnt you say?

Originally posted by apw100
Yet another classic thread from Edsinger. Im tired of responding to his idiocy since he obviously has no capability for free-thought. At least normal Bush supporters will admit that he, like every other president, has made some mistakes. Edsingers infatuation with the President borders on romantic. The only explanation for his blind support is that he has a crush on Bush."Edsinger and George, sittin in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g..."

[edit on 9-11-2004 by apw100]

Puberty must be hell m8, I hope the acne is not that bad.

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
wrong, the people control the nation, the president controls the military!

[edit on 11-9-2004 by KrazyIvan]

Good point and who controls the President? The people do.

Look I have never said this president is perfect, I think Ronnie Raygun was a much better one, but I will say this, Bush doesnt back down and he says what he means and means what he says. You know what you have with him, unlike the POS the demo's through out for fodder this year.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Acutally, it doesn't matter if Americans support the war or not. We were going into Iraq even if 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the population said no. Americans don't control the nation, the president does.

wrong, the people control the nation, the president controls the military!

[edit on 11-9-2004 by KrazyIvan]

Originally posted by devilwasp
what weapons eh? a few used sarin shells?a ton of radioactive ore?

Well what happened to the 7800 tons of it? When he only declared 680 tons? Look he had Bioweapons, where are they? Do you trust him when he says he destroyed them? Could they be in Syria? Iran? Lebanon? Do you REALLY know? Does anyone REALLY know?

Originally posted by devilwasp
the only thing he broke was genocide which is worth invadeing i agree but one thing i must say is that the militants we fight are fighting the same evil that hurt them before its just a diffrent name and face.

No, as we do not kill for sport and fun and bury in mass graves. That comment was complete #.

Originally posted by devilwasp
the UN wanted to wait, they're policy is peace through disscusion , you know sittng and actually stopping a war not rushing head long into one?
they believe in peace through talking and then if that doesnt work then by action.

And 12 years of this got us where? Did he EVER cooperate with the inspectors? We didnt rush headlong into it, we waited for over 5 months for the UN and France to get off their asses. They didnt and we ot tired of waiting. Plus as we now know, they never would have allowed the UN to act anyway, miracle of the French, Russian, and Chinese VETO.

Originally posted by devilwaspnow the US policy now is attack first ask questions and discuss later.name me one threat that iraq, no wait i'll make it simpler , how many WMD did they have ?the UK came in because blair values our atlantic treaty over everything else.

If you would look into it, there is a lot of circumstancial evidence that he sent some to Syria and/or hid them in the Western desserts. I would not be so quick to believe the lies that you hear.


EDIT Added some information I was not aware of...



The Link Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda Posted Sept. 29, 2003

Senior investigators and analysts in the U.S. government have concluded that Iraq acted as a state sponsor of terrorism against Americans and logistically supported the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States - confirming news reports that until now have emerged only in bits and pieces. A senior government official responsible for investigating terrorism tells Insight that while Saddam Hussein may not have had details of the Sept. 11 attacks in advance, he "gave assistance for whatever al-Qaeda came up with." That assistance, confirmed independently, came in a variety of ways, including financial support spun out through a complex web of financial institutions in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Italy and elsewhere. Long suspected of having terrorist ties to al-Qaeda, they now have been linked to Iraq as well.


plus



Also listed as a defendant in the lawsuit is the Arab TV network al-Jazeera. "Defendant Mohammed Jaseem al-Ali and two other employees of al-Jazeera are identified in documents captured in the April 2003 U.S. military action in Iraq as having received substantial funding from the Iraqi regime in exchange for acting as liaisons between Iraq and al-Qaeda. One document reveals that al-Jazeera passed letters from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein," the complaint alleges. According to the Barcelona-based La Vanaguardia, the FBI is holding Tayssir Alouni, an al-Jazeera reporter suspected of being an al-Qaeda operative. The reports say he has been jailed in Spain based on the belief of the FBI and Spanish police that he was "in charge of al-Qaeda propaganda for Europe and the United States." A spokesman for al-Jazeera, Jihad Ballout, tells Insight he cannot comment because it is part of an ongoing legal matter.


www.insightmag.com...



I do not know if it is real, but I would not be surprised...




[edit on 9-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 9-11-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by LostSailor

I've never seen anyone hate another man so much. I think thats more dangerous and fanatical.

Whoa....you don't know me. I DO NOT "hate" anyone! Not ex's, not anyone! It takes too much energy that can best be used elsewhere than to hate...I am just not a "hating" sort of person! I do not like Bush, different than hating someone. The man thinks god talks to him....I do not trust him, he is a lair...he professes to be something he isn't, a good person.

Look I have never said this president is perfect, I think Ronnie Raygun was a much better one, but I will say this, Bush doesnt back down and he says what he means and means what he says. You know what you have with him, unlike the POS the demo's through out for fodder this year.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by edsinger]

Well Hitler said what he meant and meant what he said. Being resolute is not the same as being right. I believe that Bush means well, but I also think that he is taking the US in the wrong direction. If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that small groups of determined terrorists are our enemy, not entire nations. Sure N.Korea, Iran and Iraq rattled their sabre's occasionally, but they never posed a clear and present danger to the US. Why not? Because they knew that if they attacked, or were complicit in an attack against the US, that they would be completely and utterly destroyed. All they care about is keeping power in their respective nations, and attacking America would be a guaranteed way to lose that power. If 9/11 has taught us anything, it is that sovereign nations arent the enemy, its small groups of determined terrorists who have nothing to lose.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by apw100]

Originally posted by apw100
Well Hitler said what he meant and meant what he said. Being resolute is not the same as being right. I believe that Bush means well, but I also think that he is taking the US in the wrong direction. If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that small groups of determined terrorists are our enemy, not entire nations. Sure N.Korea, Iran and Iraq rattled their sabre's occasionally, but they never posed a clear and present danger to the US. Why not? Because they knew that if they attacked, or were complicit in an attack against the US, that they would be completely and utterly destroyed. All they care about is keeping power in their respective nations, and attacking America would be a guaranteed way to lose that power. If 9/11 has taught us anything, it is that sovereign nations arent the enemy, its small groups of determined terrorists who have nothing to lose.[edit on 9-11-2004 by apw100]

And what you say is very good, and for the most part I agree. The Mean what you say comment was more directed to not following the polls, Hitler didnt give a hoot what the polls said.


As for your recognition that nation states are not the enemy, I could agree but what about nation states that support terror? There are quite a few, but Iraq was the most "logical" target. The others now know that the US will no longer tolerate these types of acts. Libya seemed to get the message.


A link for you, to show that Saddam was not as "clean" from Al Qada as some would have you believe.


** Mods, I need them to read this, and it is not that big of an article **



SUBJECT: 9-11 Commission Confirms Iraq-al Qaeda Ties





According to the September 11 report:

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request ... [but] the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. (p.61)

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin�s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin�s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. (p.66)

That the Iraqi regime �certainly� had knowledge that Abu Musab al Zarqawi � described in Iraqi Support for Terrorism as �a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner� � was operating in Baghdad and northern Iraq.

www.newamericancentury.org...

Well I got nailed, please follow the link and read it as they will not let me post it all...



[edit on 9-11-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by craigandrew
Uh....Ummm...Errr....Marge, no offense.....but youre still here and responding to Ed, and ahhh....I thought you said you couldnt be bothered? (or words to that effect).

Sorry I see the humor in that, as I think I have said the same thing once or twice myself on the threads.....then i'm back.

Its almost seems like a compulsion to be involved....somewhere

Back to the "heated" discussion.

The reason is the paper that his is claiming as evidence and remember ATS is about "denied ignorance"

Sorry I could not keep quiet on this one.

by the way, no is not that I find edsinger so irresistible I can not stay away from him

Originally posted by marg6043

The reason is the paper that his is claiming as evidence and remember ATS is about "denied ignorance"

Sorry I could not keep quiet on this one.

by the way, no is not that I find edsinger so irresistible I can not stay away from him

Look you said they have already been debunked and you have the wrong set of papers, thats all. These have not been authenticated either as of yet.

You peaceniks will not understand that a country that is not aggressive will cease to exist. War although ugly is necessary. This war was to make sure that no one threatens the US. It was absolutely necessary and justifiable. I may not me a military strategist, but here is what some of the more famous strategists have to say, you dont see John Kerry's name up there:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
- Edmund Burke (1729-1797), British statesman and philosopher

"Veni, vidi, vici."
(I came, I saw, I conquered)
- Julius Caesar, Roman emperor (100BC-44BC)

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- General George Patton Jr

"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum".
("If you wan't peace, prepare for war")
- Flavius Vegetius Renatus. Roman Military strategist. c. 390. A.D

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of
tyrants and patriots."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten."
Calvin Coolidge, US

"In war there is no substitute for victory"
General Douglas MacArthur, US

"There is no avoiding war, it can only be postponed to the advantage of others."
Niccolo Machiavelli, IT

"Get action. Seize the moment. Man was never intended to become a oyster."
Theodore Roosevelt, US

I ask for you to think about what these wise men have said and not let history repeat itself.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by IBM]

Originally posted by IBM

"There is no avoiding war, it can only be postponed to the advantage of others." Niccolo Machiavelli, IT



I ask for you to think about what these wise men have said and not let history repeat itself.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by IBM]

This one sure is a good one in this day and age and it fits exactly with why I think we need to be in Iraq in 2004.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by IBM

"There is no avoiding war, it can only be postponed to the advantage of others." Niccolo Machiavelli, IT



I ask for you to think about what these wise men have said and not let history repeat itself.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by IBM]

This one sure is a good one in this day and age and it fits exactly with why I think we need to be in Iraq in 2004.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by edsinger]

Exactly, do we want to give others a chance to gain an advantage, hell no. they want america to fall and are trying very hard. It is a chess game, you must develop your pieces use tactics and strategies. We cannot wait till it is too late like Machiavelli said.

Originally posted by edsinger



Well what happened to the 7800 tons of it? When he only declared 680 tons? Look he had Bioweapons, where are they? Do you trust him when he says he destroyed them? Could they be in Syria? Iran? Lebanon? Do you REALLY know? Does anyone REALLY know?

how should i know?
he used the bioweapons years ago, if you dont remember. no but i trust the UN weapon inspectors when they said there was none. well if they are not in iraq then we should not be in iraq. i dont REALLY know.

No, as we do not kill for sport and fun and bury in mass graves. That comment was complete #.

oh really? what about the body count in vietnam? eh?

And 12 years of this got us where? Did he EVER cooperate with the inspectors? We didnt rush headlong into it, we waited for over 5 months for the UN and France to get off their asses. They didnt and we ot tired of waiting. Plus as we now know, they never would have allowed the UN to act anyway, miracle of the French, Russian, and Chinese VETO.

doesnt that show you that 3 world powers say wait that you should wait.
your leader has made an ass out of both the US and the UK. we are the laughing stock of the world thanks to that man. the UN is not there to go into countries and blows stuff up , they are there to work things out by discussion.
well he only stopped a year before the war , now when they say he has none now doesnt that mean the , he was right in saying , "there are no WMD here"

If you would look into it, there is a lot of circumstancial evidence that he sent some to Syria and/or hid them in the Western desserts. I would not be so quick to believe the lies that you hear.

circumstancial! that is about as useful or believeable as hitlers reason for killing jews.
for your information i supported the war and thought he had weapons BUT now i find out the info the government had i wouldnt even of sent a reacon team in never mind the whole army.

this information by US government officials only proves that he supported people hurting his old enemy. now the US has done this many a time, hell they helped create terror groups.

can i ask all those war supporters , do you not believe in cooperation?
do you not believe in peace?
i mean come on!
many people over there have great minds yet cannot put them to good use.
those people you listed are just a handful of war supporters do you want me to list many famous people saying how war is wrong?

Marge said;

"by the way, no is not that I find edsinger so irresistible I can not stay away from him"

Pity, I thought you made a lovely couple.


My pre- bed light relief for the night....dont try sleeping without it!

[edit on 10-11-2004 by craigandrew]

The killing and deaths of thousands of men/women and children is never neccessary and will never be justified.
This is an eye-for-an-eye mentality. Bush decided he wanted Saddam because he could have possibly at some point in the future have attacked american interests in some way?????
and they say bush is a religous man.....if this was so, why did he not turn the other cheek?
It takes a braver and better human being to rsist the ways of war and killing, and actually forgive and welcome your enemies into your world, rather than let fear of what might happen drive you to murder anyone....no matter what they have done.......

Modern thinking and circles of control have warped the thinking of many people in this world, they belive that having a great big army with hundreds of nukes makes them safe.....but then preempiveley strike any percieved threat....and complain when their soldiers and civilians are killed and tortured for these attacks........this makes me sick.
any 1 man who takes a mans life, should lay his own down in return.....remember....treat others as you would have them treat you and love your enemies, for altruistic love is the only way to heal our world and its problems.

I dont mean to offend any1....but any1 who condems another man to death by his own hands doesnt deserve the life they were given in my opinion.

So nice.

And what about NORTH KOREA?

N.K. actually have WMD and tehy dont even hide that.

Whay there is no war there?

I.

Originally posted by craigandrew

My pre- bed light relief for the night....dont try sleeping without it!

[edit on 10-11-2004 by craigandrew]

No in a million years I bet he has lost a lot of friends since the elections.

by the way,

Allawi "is the person through whom the controversial claim was channelled that Iraqi 1. weapons of mass destruction could be operational in 45 minutes


Exiled Allawi was responsible for 45-minute WMD claim
1. By Patrick Cockburn

29 May 2004
The choice of Iyad Allawi, closely linked to the CIA and formerly to MI6, as the Prime Minister of Iraq from 30 June will make it difficult for the US and Britain to persuade the rest of the world that he is capable of leading an independent government.

Don�t you get it Ed, US was duped by these hungry for power people to invaded Iraq. You president Ed listen to anybody that big corporations tell him to listen too.

Al-qaida is still in the loose while US is fighting Iraqis in their own country for the devastation that US has brought to them.






[edit on 10-11-2004 by marg6043]