Bush voted Man of the Year

[reigenborn]

See for yourself. (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2004/story.html)

Bad year huh..

[Ace Hippie]

Well, IIRC, they often pick people who have the most impact, not necessarily good impact. Hitler and Stalin have also been Men of the Year, for example (not to compare Bush to them). In that respect, this makes sense.

[Eegoog]

Another inanimate object made made man of the year once if I remember correctly; the computer. Or they call it "Person" of the year now with all the political correctness going on.

[Mr. Ram]

Good choice by time atleast they did not screw it up like they did in 2001 when Bin Laden was not the man of the year and 2002 when they chose the whistleblowers as person's of the year.

[Danimal87]

Good choice by time atleast they did not screw it up like they did in 2001 when Bin Laden was not the man of the year and 2002 when they chose the whistleblowers as person's of the year.

Yeah those women were ugly as hell.

[reigenborn]

Good choice by time atleast they did not screw it up like they did in 2001 when Bin Laden was not the man of the year and 2002 when they chose the whistleblowers as person's of the year.
Bin Laden never got picked...

2003 (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/covers/2003.html)
2002 (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/covers/2002.html)
2001 (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/archive/covers/2001.html)

[MGselwonK]

reigenborn, reading comprehension > you

[poopchow]

I completely agree, i mean thank God it wasnt michael moore.


He had the most impact on the country and the world so its a no brainer.

[TexasAggie]

He had the most impact on the country and the world so its a no brainer.

Very sad, wouldn't you say???

[MrDeliquent85]

1938 - Adolf hitler
1939 - Joseph Stalin

[reigenborn]

I completely agree, i mean thank God it wasnt michael moore.


He had the most impact on the country and the world so its a no brainer.
If you want to get technical it was Hussein... IF it wasnt for him, George Bush wouldnt have had a country to invade.

Wel, im sure he would have anyway.:)

[/Tilt/]

1938 - Adolf hitler
1939 - Joseph Stalin
Waitin to see that. Man of the Year means just that. Not "best" or "greatest", just the one with the most impact.

[TexasAggie]

Waitin to see that. Man of the Year means just that. Not "best" or "greatest", just the one with the most impact.

I don't think anyone has claimed that since Bush got Man of the Year, that he is "the best"

[poopchow]

If you want to get technical it was Hussein... IF it wasnt for him, George Bush wouldnt have had a country to invade.

Wel, im sure he would have anyway.:)


If you want to get "technical" it would be osama bin laden. If it wasnt for him, George Bush wouldnt have had a country to invade.

[Mr. Ram]

If you want to get "technical" it would be osama bin laden. If it wasnt for him, George Bush wouldnt have had a country to invade.

Why would Osama be person of the year in 2004 he had the most impact in 2001 and Saddam had the most impact in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq that year. Besides Bush wanted regime change in Iraq before 9/11.

If their was not a presidential race in 2004, I would of chose Donald Rumsfeld.

[Chewy]

Bush Man of the Year!!!! LOL wow you guys must be going through one hell of a drought for intellects.

[Danimal87]

Bush Man of the Year!!!! LOL wow you guys must be going through one hell of a drought for intellects.

Yeah, definately seeing as the contest is limited just to this country... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Kazimierz]

I don't think anyone has claimed that since Bush got Man of the Year, that he is "the best"

Exactly. Man of the year just means that. Not necessarily the best, nor the worst. Perhaps just the most public figure, or the one that had the most effect on people, etc.

I may not like the guy, but i probably wont ever forget this year and it's all because of him :mad:

[Chewy]

Just remember that the Ayatollah Khomeini was man of the year too, in 1979. ;)

other notibles
1938: Adolf Hitler
1939: Joseph Stalin
1942: Joseph Stalin


Yeah, definately seeing as the contest is limited just to this country... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If you don't think there is a bias toward who wins these every year, then look up those that have won it since 1927. :rolleyes: I'm sure that all the army's in the world had a shot at it last year.. :insane:

[poopchow]

Why would Osama be person of the year in 2004 he had the most impact in 2001 and Saddam had the most impact in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq that year. Besides Bush wanted regime change in Iraq before 9/11.

If their was not a presidential race in 2004, I would of chose Donald Rumsfeld.


I was using reignbornes logic of why saddam should have been person of the year in 2004

[Skizla]

Who the fuck is George Bush?

[Danimal87]

Who the fuck is George Bush?
He's the guy that invented the internet, but he lost his bid for the presidency in 2000.
:D

[Skizla]

He's the guy that invented the internet, but he lost his bid for the presidency in 2000.
:D
Bid? I couldn't find anything on running for president on Ebay.

[mike42]

Bush Man of the Year!!!! LOL wow you guys must be going through one hell of a drought for intellects.

Go write for the LA times so the majority of Americas can hate you. :insane:

[Benedictine]

Another inanimate object made made man of the year once if I remember correctly; the computer. Or they call it "Person" of the year now with all the political correctness going on.

And this time another inanimate object made the cover. A Lugnut.

[Chewy]

Go write for the LA times so the majority of Americas can hate you. :insane:
I'll pass I can just write for a paper in Canada where 85% of us think Bush is a dork. ;)

[Viceroy]

Does anyone actually give a damn about this award anyway?

[pacaveli]

apparently not, look who won...

[TexasAggie]

Does anyone actually give a damn about this award anyway?

Apparently so since those who hate Bush are getting their panties in a wad...

[jerkface]

Apparently so since those who hate Bush are getting their panties in a wad...


No only idiots who think the man of the year award is a gauge that measures how succesfull a person is... it is merely acknowldedges the impact you have had in the world.. it can have quite a negative connotation as hitler and stalin were both named man of the year..

[gobots]

i never understood this award....

does this mean that president bush is better than me...
does this mean that rudolph guiliani made the world a better place....

is it like the MVP of the world award cause shit...im sure the guy who invented a miracle drug this year is really pissed....and the guy who invented the computer is like shit, that shoulda been mine....

i can feesibly understand the impact and importance of george bush...but then why doesnt some assfuck like micheal more win...just as big of an impaact...in the end it made everyone in america hate democrats...

TIME Lick my butt...

[Chewy]

from what I read a big part of Bush getting the award was him sticking to his guns.... If awards were given solely for sticking to their guns and no other merits I would think that there are few others I would think deserve an award.

The sticking to your guns runners up……


Chirac (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/05/un.summit.names.reut/12.france.jacque.chirac.jpg) stood up to the strongest Nation in the world and stuck to his guns.


still in defiance of the US this man (http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,258944,00.jpg) continues to outsmart the US and its powerful allies, occasionally releasing a press release to taunt Bush. He maintains he convictions and is not remorseful.


He still thinks he’s the leader of Iraq and a nice guy who was just doing his duty. (http://in.yimg.com/xp/reuters_ids_new/20040312/2952822796.jpg)

A salute to those that stuck to their guns this year and a salute to the winner of last years Stuck to His Guns Award. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/images/030406media.jpg)

[Mr. Ram]

A salute to those that stuck to their guns this year and a salute to the winner of last years Stuck to His Guns Award. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/images/030406media.jpg)

Haha what hapened to that guy he was funnier then leno.

[Chewy]

Haha what hapened to that guy he was funnier then leno.
He was great, I miss him. :(

[Viceroy]

Haha what hapened to that guy he was funnier then leno.

I heard a rumour (nothing more) that he'd taken a job in Saudi Arabia as a talk show host or something. :)

[123man]

As an American Bush hater I think it's fine that Bush got the title. It makes sense, just like when Hitler got it. But it was a fucking farce that bin laden didn't get it in 2001. Gimme a break, by attack and killing(masterminding) 3000 Americans, he changed the world in a huge way. Time was too pussy to do it because American idiots would have been outraged because they're too fucking ignorant to understand what the award means.

[mike42]

Some of you people don't understand this award at all.

The award is about being the most talked about person or making a huge impact in the world.


Even it is good or evil.

[JerkyMyTurky]

Some of you people don't understand this award at all.

The award is about being the most talked about person or making a huge impact in the world.


Even it is good or evil.

This has been pointed out maybe 5 times already in this thread.

[mike42]

This has been pointed out maybe 5 times already in this thread.

OMG! I'm so sorry! :insane:


You think I actually care?

[Ryker]

As an American Bush hater I think it's fine that Bush got the title. It makes sense, just like when Hitler got it.
Wait. I don't remember Hitler removing two terrorist sponsoring nations and liberating 50 million people from a dictator and an oppressive regime.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

Wait. I don't remember Hitler removing two terrorist sponsoring nations and liberating 50 million people from a dictator and an oppressive regime.


I am sure the German people saw the invasion of Poland as "liberation". Same goes for all the other countries he invaded.

[Ryker]

I am sure the German people saw the invasion of Poland as "liberation". Same goes for all the other countries he invaded.
Well, if you have proof that there's been a genocide of over 6 million people in Afghanistan or Iraq, I'm all ears.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

Well, if you have proof that there's been a genocide of over 6 million people in Afghanistan or Iraq, I'm all ears.

Ok, now I'm going to put on my "heartless bastard hat"


Why should I, or any American for that matter, give a fuck about people being killed overseas? We, as a country, didn't care about WWII until the Japs brought the war to us. In fact, the country was predominantly anti-war until we were attacked.

My point is, genocide happens everywhere in the world, at all times. We shouldn't be on a quest to end it all, it is impossible and will only waste our men and resources.

Right now in Africa, they are killing humans faster then any time period in history. Why are we not there helping out with an enitire army? We should keep to ourselves, no matter how many people are killed overseas. In the long run, and short, it will be in our best interest.

[TexasAggie]

Ok, now I'm going to put on my "heartless bastard hat"



Hey! Only conservatives can do that! ;)

[Kazimierz]

Well, if you have proof that there's been a genocide of over 6 million people in Afghanistan or Iraq, I'm all ears.

(How did this thread turn into this? I'll read to find out after i post :D)

That 6 million was over a period of several years, over a huge geographical area, with a dense population. Per capita, i'm sure you could find similarities in Africa.

</matt's hat>

Now the stupidest thing i've heard all day:

Wait. I don't remember Hitler removing two terrorist sponsoring nations and liberating 50 million people from a dictator and an oppressive regime.

Hitler "removed" Jews, Gypsies, Poles, and various other undesireables. The Jews were killed, as far as the German people new, because they were the cause of Germany's struggling economy. It's called propoganda, and the US engages in it as well.

Liberated: like Matt said. And i'll tell you now, the Polish did not want to be "liberated."

A supporter of the Nazi Party in 1941 arguing with someone against them, would have exactly the same feelings and arguments as you.

[Ryker]

Why should I, or any American for that matter, give a fuck about people being killed overseas?
Well, now we know why the Democrats lost the election on Nov. 2. Most of them have the same mentality as you.

My point is, genocide happens everywhere in the world, at all times. We shouldn't be on a quest to end it all
We didn't go into Iraq just to stop oppression(even though that was a factor). We went in to remove a terrorist sponsoring state.

We should keep to ourselves, no matter how many people are killed overseas. In the long run, and short, it will be in our best interest.
So it wasn't in our best interest to confront the Soviet Union in the 80's? I think you should rethink your statement.

[Ryker]

Hitler "removed" Jews, Gypsies, Poles, and various other undesireables. The Jews were killed, as far as the German people new, because they were the cause of Germany's struggling economy. It's called propoganda, and the US engages in it as well.

Liberated: like Matt said. And i'll tell you now, the Polish did not want to be "liberated."

A supporter of the Nazi Party in 1941 arguing with someone against them, would have exactly the same feelings and arguments as you.
What's your point? All I was saying is that you can't compare what Hitler did in the 30's and 40's to what the US is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[PsiRedEye22]

Vote McCain for "Person of the Century".

[YouEnjoyMyself]

Well, now we know why the Democrats lost the election on Nov. 2. Most of them have the same mentality as you.

No, the democrats lost because they are spineless politicians, and Kerry was a shitty candidate. Not to mention that many Americans are fucking stupid.

Also, you would be hard pressed to find many democrats who would make the statement you quoted.

We didn't go into Iraq just to stop oppression(even though that was a factor). We went in to remove a terrorist sponsoring state.


First we went in because of WMDs.
Then it was for terrorist ties.
And now it is for humanitarian reasons :rolleyes:

There were NO ties between Iraq and terrorism...there only is now once we invaded. I'm not gonna drag up the link because it is like beating a dead horse, but Steve posted a link a while back where Bush says there was no terrorist connection.


So it wasn't in our best interest to confront the Soviet Union in the 80's? I think you should rethink your statement.


Did we engage them militarily? NO

I think Reagan went about the Cold* War in a very good manner. I can't disagree with anything he did.

* It is called the "Cold" War because there was no fighting, therefore it was considered "cold"

What's your point? All I was saying is that you can't compare what Hitler did in the 30's and 40's to what the US is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Of course you can.

Both instances were unjustifiable military actions. (aside from Afghanistan, although, we managed to fuck that up some what)

[reigenborn]

Bush Man of the Year!!!! LOL wow you guys must be going through one hell of a drought for intellects.
Did you see our candidates.... C'mon man put 1 and 1 together.

[mullenisahippie]

Well, now we know why the Democrats lost the election on Nov. 2. Most of them have the same mentality as you.

Ahhh you can't quote him on that....he just put on his "heartless bastard hat", and I agree, so what if they were killing their own people and shit there, it's not our business, and I would've loved to see our taxes going to fund something in our country, mabye like feeding/sheltering the homeless or something. That would have been a bit more noble than waging an unjust war in Iraq.

[Ryker]

Not to mention that many Americans are fucking stupid.
So, anyone who disagrees with someone else's views is automatically stupid?

Also, you would be hard pressed to find many democrats who would make the statement you quoted.
Well, maybe I should have said the Michael Moore crowd and the Hollywood crowd(the ones that make the most noise).

First we went in because of WMDs.
Then it was for terrorist ties.
No. It was both. Iraq ties to terrorism were proven before the war, and were stated in the case for war.

And now it is for humanitarian reasons
The war was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom". So, obviously there was a humanitarian cause before the war, not just after.

There were NO ties between Iraq and terrorism
Oh my god, you are completely wrong. Look it up. Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda, Abu Nidal, the PLF, and many more.

I think Reagan went about the Cold* War in a very good manner. I can't disagree with anything he did.
But you just said we should keep to ourselves. Reagan didn't. Tension between the US and USSR was at it's height.

[Ace Hippie]

Ryker, before you continue to spout about Iraqi-terrorist ties, reread this (http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=40314) thread. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. The only two conclusive ties to terrorist organizations were to Palestinian terrorism, and even then the links were rather weak.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

I am not going to debate what has been debated a hundred times.

This is my last post regarding you until you mention something new.

So, anyone who disagrees with someone else's views is automatically stupid?

NO. But I find that the reasons most Americans voted for GW for were very stupid reasons.
And that is my opinion, not fact.


Well, maybe I should have said the Michael Moore crowd and the Hollywood crowd(the ones that make the most noise).


Actually, you would be very hard pressed to find ANY liberal make the statments I made a few posts ago.

No. It was both. Iraq ties to terrorism were proven before the war, and were stated in the case for war.

You are so wrong, it isn't even funny. I might just have to dig up that link....


But you just said we should keep to ourselves. Reagan didn't. Tension between the US and USSR was at it's height.

We should keep to ourselves unless we are directly threatened. And no matter how much spin you pull, no matter how much you believe Bush's bullshit.

WE WERE NOT THREATENED BY IRAQ.

[ps527]

In the 1980s eastern europe was in a similar situation, each country was controlled by a communist government and each country's peoples were being treated unfairly, those people wanted to get liberated, freedom is something some of you take for granted, iraq's do get to practice freedom, they dont even know what freedom is, they never tasted it.

there is no genocide in the middle east, its the US and its allies (including middle eastern forces) vs. an oppressing government you will see how many people actually want to get liberated by the turnout in the elections.

[Ryker]

Ryker, before you continue to spout about Iraqi-terrorist ties, reread this (http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=40314) thread. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. The only two conclusive ties to terrorist organizations were to Palestinian terrorism, and even then the links were rather weak.
I still don't understand where you are getting your argument from. Iraq was on the US State Department's list of state-sponsors of international terrorism, and it was proven that they had ties to the Abu Nidal Organization, the MKO, the PLF, and was responsible for the assassination attempt on President Bush. Not only that but it states clearly in the 9/11 report that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda. Your only argument is declaring that those ties are "loose" or "weak". But still you can't refute the evidence.

[WiseBobo]

Liberated: like Matt said. And i'll tell you now, the Polish did not want to be "liberated."


Are you and Matt both fucking retarded?

Do you know what happened after Germany's Blitzkrieg swept through Poland?

The Poles seeked helped from the Russians, and to their surprise, the Russians were cooperating with the Germans!

15,000 Polish officers and personnel "disappeared" under the USSR's jurisdiction, never to be seen or heard from again. A total of 2.5 million Polish civilians were killed, and 330,000 military.

My ass they did not want to be liberated. Stupid ignorant fools.

[Ryker]

We should keep to ourselves unless we are directly threatened. And no matter how much spin you pull, no matter how much you believe Bush's bullshit.

WE WERE NOT THREATENED BY IRAQ.
We weren't directly threatened by Afghanistan either. We are at war with terrorists, and every government that supports them.

[Ace Hippie]

I still don't understand where you are getting your argument from. Iraq was on the US State Department's list of state-sponsors of international terrorism, and it was proven that they had ties to the Abu Nidal Organization, the MKO, the PLF, and was responsible for the assassination attempt on President Bush. Not only that but it states clearly in the 9/11 report that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda. Your only argument is declaring that those ties are "loose" or "weak". But still you can't refute the evidence.

Your continued belief in rather inane points of history and incorrect statements (to outright lies) concerning the truth of Iraq's terrorist ties is interesting, but remains incorrect (as it was even then).

The Abu Nidal Organization has not staged an attack on a Western target since the late 1980s. The MKO supported the Iranian embassy takeover 25 years ago, and is committed to the overthrow of the Iranian government. The PLF is an anti-Israeli terrorist organization, and does not threaten the US. The attempted assassination of President Bush occurred over a DECADE ago, was retaliated for, and the Iraqis had not even tried anything ever since. It was the Iranians who were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombins, and the USS Cole. Not the Iraqis!

I suggest you re-read the following posts:

One (http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showpost.php?p=585696&postcount=32)
Two (http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showpost.php?p=585696&postcount=40)

Your argument is simply wrong.

[Ryker]

The attempted assassination of President Bush occurred over a DECADE ago, was retaliated for, and the Iraqis had not even tried anything ever since.
Not directly, no. The terrorist organizations they support, however, did. And the Khobar Towers and USS Cole were attacked by Al-Qaeda, they weren't attacked by a single country. And I see you left out Iraq ties to Al-Qaeda, so I guess you can't refute them. But, the case still stands; the Iraqi regime was a terrorist state and was justifiably removed.

[Ace Hippie]

The terrorist organizations they support, however, did. And the Khobar Towers and USS Cole were attacked by Al-Qaeda, they weren't attacked by a single country

Wrong. Iran has been linked to both of those attacks.

And I see you left out Iraq ties to Al-Qaeda, so I guess you can't refute them.

Wrong. I directed you to my second post, which included a CNN article that said:

Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden

While it is certainly reassuring for you to continue to believe otherwise, you are again wrong.

But, the case still stands; the Iraqi regime was a terrorist state and was justifiably removed.

The case you have made is wrong. A much weaker case could be made, but that is about it.

[Ryker]

Wrong. I directed you to my second post, which included a CNN article that said:
Maybe you are confused about what I said. I said Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda(which they do, read the 9/11 report). They didn't, however, have ties to 9/11, which no one ever claimed. Those are two separate things.

[Ace Hippie]

Members of 9/11 commission found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks carried out by al Qaeda hijackers, and they concluded that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, the network's leader, according to details of its findings disclosed Wednesday at a public hearing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

You are, again, wrong

[Ryker]

If you actually read that article it meant, there "have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Which I never claimed. This is a preemptive war, if you didn't already know. We are preventing another attack.

[Ace Hippie]

I have come to the conclusion that you are simply too close-minded to accept the fact that your conclusions are based not on fact but on a presupposed idea of what the 'truth' really is.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/

The panel said it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The Bush administration has said the terrorist network and Iraq were linked.

The "links":

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

The panel also dismissed reports that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in the Czech Republic on April 9, 2000. "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

There were no links. There were a possibly a handful of meetings which did not result in any collaborative relationship. According to your logic, the United States could be labelled a supporter of the Nazi Party because we met and worked with Klaus Barbie after World War II. Such a conclusion would be just as asinine as the one you are making now; the facts that you claim to support you do not exist.

[Ryker]

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

Actually, in the footnote of the report they cite CIA memoranda with sources that did claim requests were fulfilled, in particular training requests. The report was that an Iraqi military bomb-making expert and the chief of Iraq's intelligence services met with Bin Laden and trained his group on bomb making techniques in 1996.

[Ace Hippie]

Seriously, you consider that to be worthy of pre-emptive war? A single CIA memoranda that the commission included as a footnote, and was contradicted by the conclusions of the report? Its inclusion as a footnote signifies that it was considered as evidence; the conclusion of the report signifies that the commission did not agree. Thus, you are wrong in saying the 9/11 Commission agreed that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were linked. It was the CIA that did so.

[MGselwonK]

arguing with ace_hippie is like fighting a brick wall

youre not going to win and youre going to look like an idiot doing it

[Ryker]

Seriously, you consider that to be worthy of pre-emptive war? A single CIA memoranda that the commission included as a footnote
Of course not, get real. Before the war it was said by many nations that Iraq had WMD, including the US, UK, France, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, and most of the UN. That's something you can't ignore. Also Iraq's ties to terrorism, hatred, and repeated threats against the United States is something you can't ignore. The fact that Iraq carried out a terror attack on us in 1993 is something you can't ignore. And the fact that Iraq violated 16 UN resolutions with no retaliation from the UN is something we can't ignore. It was all of this together that made the case for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the liberation of 25 million people form an oppressive dictator and the establishment of a new democracy in the middle east.

[Ace Hippie]

arguing with ace_hippie is like fighting a brick wall

Normally I am not like this, but the continued attempts at justification on grounds proven to be false is nonsense. In this case, my innate Greek stubborness is not at fault ;)

Of course not, get real. Before the war it was said by many nations that Iraq had WMD, including the US, UK, France, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, and most of the UN. That's something you can't ignore.

That is quite true. It's too bad that Iraq had actually disarmed its arsenal in the early to mid-1990s, as was proved by our inspectons.

Also Iraq's ties to terrorism, hatred, and repeated threats against the United States is something you can't ignore.

Its ties to terrorism were not linked to anti-Western terror. Hatred and repeated threats could refer to almost any Middle Eastern country, save Israel. Not good enough, particularly given that things are much worse in both Saudi Arabia and Iran, both of which have links to anti-American terror.

The fact that Iraq carried out a terror attack on us in 1993 is something you can't ignore.

It was not ignored; Clinton ordered a retaliatory air strike, which taught the Iraqis a lesson. Never mind the sanctions, which also served as a severe punishment.

And the fact that Iraq violated 16 UN resolutions with no retaliation from the UN is something we can't ignore.

Israel and Turkey have both violated far more (more than double, in fact). UN resolutions should not be used as justification for an American war. We should not go to war simply because of international perogatives, especially when said international bodies have decided to attempt negotiation before war.

It was all of this together that made the case for the removal of Saddam Hussein.

You are wrong. The case for war was always about WMDs, the rest of this nonsense only came about because of the failure to find any weapons, and later realization that there were, in fact, no weapons programs as we had claimed. This statement is merely representative of the general attempt by supporters of the war to create reasoning ex post facto.

Not to mention the liberation of 25 million people form an oppressive dictator and the establishment of a new democracy in the middle east.

I don't even know where to begin, but I'll start with the fact that this was never one of our reasons for going into Iraq; not until it was deemed necessary to cover for the lack of WMDs. The oppressive dictator was an American ally for over a decade even as he was committing the atrocities the government decries now (with members of this government having actually looked the other way during this period). There is no democracy in Iraq right now; it is an occupied state with the potential for democracy, yes, but also the potential to denigrate into another Islamicist state hostile to American interests. Let's not get ahead of ourselves like we did when we put the Shah into power in Iran.

[ps527]

i still believe iraq either has wmds, had in the last 6 years or has access to wmds

[Ace Hippie]

i still believe iraq either has wmds, had in the last 6 years or has access to wmds

Iraq certainly has access to weapons of mass destruction on the black market (any nation with money does). Your other two statements, however, contradict the findings of the Duelfer report (the official American report), as well as those by the UN:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/transmittal.html

The problem of discerning WMD in Iraq is highlighted by the prewar misapprehensions of weapons, which were not there. Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions

It now appears clear that Saddam, despite internal reluctance, particularly on the part of the head of Iraq’s military industries, Husayn Kamil, resolved to eliminate the existing stocks of WMD weapons during the course of the summer of 1991 in support of the prime objective of getting rid of sanctions.

It is clear that Saddam would have liked to rebuild his programs, but he had none at the time of the invasion.

[Ryker]

That is quite true. It's too bad that Iraq had actually disarmed its arsenal in the early to mid-1990s, as was proved by our inspectons.
The inspectors left because the Iraqis refused to give them full access.

Its ties to terrorism were not linked to anti-Western terror.
Al-Qaeda was.

Hatred and repeated threats could refer to almost any Middle Eastern country
So they should be ignored or dismissed?

Never mind the sanctions, which also served as a severe punishment.
Sanctions don't hurt a dictator. The UN should have given him more severe consequences.

Israel and Turkey have both violated far more (more than double, in fact).
Do they have ties to terrorism, evidence of WMD, or have made repeated threats? No.

UN resolutions should not be used as justification for an American war.
Please stop trying to single out one case for war and act like it's the only case. I've said before, it's everything together.

You are wrong. The case for war was always about WMDs
Yeah, WMD's in the hands of terrorists. Which means Iraq had ties to terrorism, and thus an enemy of the free world. Even when WMD haven't been found, it is still justified because we removed a terrorist state and created a new democracy in the middle east.

I don't even know where to begin, but I'll start with the fact that this was never one of our reasons for going into Iraq; not until it was deemed necessary to cover for the lack of WMDs.
The name of the war was “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. So are you saying that we were covering for the lack of WMD’s even before the war started?

[MGselwonK]

even if the name of the war was "Operation Finding WMD and nothing else" you would insist on your nincompoopery

[Ryker]

even if the name of the war was "Operation Finding WMD and nothing else" you would insist on your nincompoopery
I was simply saying that the just cause of liberating the Iraqi people was stated before th war.

[Ace Hippie]

The inspectors left because the Iraqis refused to give them full access.

Actually, as even the Duelfer report, Saddam actually was balking at allowing inspectors to continue to have full access to his facilities for as long as they wanted. He demonstrated a willingness to accept temporary inspections, but viewed permanent versions to be an affront to his sovereignty.

Al-Qaeda was.

Too bad that there were no substantial links or any cooperation between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

So they should be ignored or dismissed?

No, but neither should they be blown out of proportion.

Sanctions don't hurt a dictator. The UN should have given him more severe consequences.

Nice selective quoting, where you took out the part about us bombing Iraq in retaliation for their involvement in the attempted assassination of former President Bush. In addition, we (along with the British) created the no-fly zones and bombed Iraqi targets when we felt like it.

Do they have ties to terrorism, evidence of WMD, or have made repeated threats? No.

Actually both have ties to terror (though on different sides, as it were, and Israel does have WMDs (including nuclear weapons, which was more than Iraq ever had). For that matter, Turkey has been just as repressve of the Kurds as Saddam was.

Please stop trying to single out one case for war and act like it's the only case. I've said before, it's everything together.

Why should an international organization's dictates be a direct cause for American wars? The same organization that issued the resolutions did NOT view them as a rationale for war. Can you not recognize the extreme disconnect between this and our own actions?

The name of the war was “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. So are you saying that we were covering for the lack of WMD’s even before the war started?

That is nothing more than the usual crap that the politicians pull to make wars seem more appealing. Democrat, Republican, whoever or whatever, these names are nothing more than propaganda.

[Ryker]

Too bad that there were no substantial links or any cooperation between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
There were links, just no ties to an attack. Hence, a preemptive war.

No, but neither should they be blown out of proportion.
Nor have I done such.

Nice selective quoting, where you took out the part about us bombing Iraq in retaliation for their involvement in the attempted assassination of former President Bush.
Oh well then, cased closed. Iraq can't be a threat now, since we bombed them. They must have learned their lesson, and we should trust the intentions of Hussein.(extreme sarcasm)

Why should an international organization's dictates be a direct cause for American wars? The same organization that issued the resolutions did NOT view them as a rationale for war.
Because the UN today is just as spineless as the League of Nations of the 30's.

[Ace Hippie]

There were links, just no ties to an attack. Hence, a preemptive war.

Wrong, again.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

No evidence of a collaborative operational relationship OR involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Nor have I done such.

Indeed, you have, by including them as justification for a pre-emptive war. If we were to use threats and 'hatred' as justification, then the entire Middle East ought to be invaded (after all, most are not democracies and are harbors to terrorism).

Oh well then, cased closed. Iraq can't be a threat now, since we bombed them. They must have learned their lesson, and we should trust the intentions of Hussein.(extreme sarcasm)

Are you simply unable to accept you are wrong, or do you relish that fact? You claimed that Iraq was a threat because of the attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1993. I noted that we responded, using air strikes, sanctions, inspections and the no-fly zones.

Because the UN today is just as spineless as the League of Nations of the 30's.

Talk about deja vu, this is the exact same argument you used in the previous thread, and it remains an exaggeration. The United Nations had protocols to follow which included using negotiation to secure further inspections before going to war. The United States chose to pre-empt such efforts by demanding all or nothing, and Iraq refused. Had we not done so, we would have discovered our error on both the WMDs and the supposed 'threat' posed by Iraq before becoming entangled in what has become a morass of a situation.

[Ryker]

Wrong, again.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
No, I'm not wrong. All your saying is that there were no collaborative ties to an attack. If there was an attack, then it would cease to be a preemptive war.

Indeed, you have, by including them as justification for a pre-emptive war.
As well they should be. But there not the only case.

Are you simply unable to accept you are wrong, or do you relish that fact? You claimed that Iraq was a threat because of the attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1993. I noted that we responded, using air strikes, sanctions, inspections and the no-fly zones.
And Iraq continued to defy and threaten the free world afterwards. That's a big sign of a threat if you ask me.

Had we not done so, we would have discovered our error on both the WMDs and the supposed 'threat' posed by Iraq before becoming entangled in what has become a morass of a situation.
Yeah, because the inspections in 90's went so well(sarcasm again). We couldn't give Hussein more months of failed inspections and negotiations to do whatever he pleased.

[Ace Hippie]

No, I'm not wrong. All your saying is that there were no collaborative ties to an attack. If there was an attack, then it would cease to be a preemptive war.

Evidently you choose to ignore anything that you cannot try to spin a manner to rationalize your mistaken beliefs. The 9/11 Commission says, and I quote "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.". No collaborative operational relationship means they were not working together.

And Iraq continued to defy and threaten the free world afterwards. That's a big sign of a threat if you ask me.

Defiance and ridiculous threats qualify as justification for war? Most nations in the world are defiant of the world; the United States refuses to sign many treaties that others have (the Land Mine Ban, Kyoto accord, etc.), China continues to repress its people, and Russia's democracy continues to denigrate under Putin's control.

As for 'threatening the free world', that is utter nonsense. Even in the previous thread, you could only find a handful of such threats, and they were empty threats at that. Iraq could not do anything to threaten us, and did not work with any terrorists to do so. There was only the epheremal threat of words, no threat of substance.

Yeah, because the inspections in 90's went so well(sarcasm again). We couldn't give Hussein more months of failed inspections and negotiations to do whatever he pleased.

Funny how our own inspections proved the earlier 'failures' were right; there were no WMDs.

[Ryker]

Evidently you choose to ignore anything that you cannot try to spin a manner to rationalize your mistaken beliefs. The 9/11 Commission says, and I quote "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.". No collaborative operational relationship means they were not working together.
I'm not ignoring it. I admit it, Iraq never attacked us, nor was involved in a attack of any kind. Iraq did however had ties to Al-Qaeda, as well as training camps in their country(Salman Park).

Defiance and ridiculous threats qualify as justification for war?
Ridiculous is your opinion. The reason 9/11 happened is that we didn't take "ridiculous threats" seriously.

Funny how our own inspections proved the earlier 'failures' were right; there were no WMDs.
Wow, somehow everyone is a genius in hindsight. I, however, choose not to trust the intentions of a dictator whose has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

[MGselwonK]

what you lack in intelligence you make up for in stupidity


"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

THIS MEANS THAT IRAQ AND AL-QAEDA DID NOT HAVE A COLLABORATIVE OPERATIONAL RELATIONSHIP, ITS RIGHT THERE IN PLAIN SIMPLE ENGLISH

[Ace Hippie]

I'm not ignoring it. I admit it, Iraq never attacked us, nor was involved in a attack of any kind. Iraq did however had ties to Al-Qaeda, as well as training camps in their country(Salman Park).

It's funny that the 9-11 Commission disagrees with you, I'll let the various readers of this thread reflect on that.

Ridiculous is your opinion. The reason 9/11 happened is that we didn't take "ridiculous threats" seriously.

Wrong. Unlike Iraq, Al Qaeda had the capability of striking us in such a manner, and our own intelligence agencies said so (the infamous briefing that stated as such, for example). Iraq had no conventional ways of attacking us, it had no WMDs to use against us or our interests, and had no operational ties to any terrorist groups that attacked us. Saying that Iraq threatening us with revenge is also ridiculous when you consider our own government (via the Duelfer report) has noted that Saddam wanted to re-integrate himself into the world society because he recognized the benefits of being an ally of the West.

Wow, somehow everyone is a genius in hindsight. I, however, choose not to trust the intentions of a dictator whose has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Moralistic pontificating aside, you are still wrong. We went to war over WMDs, not oppression, and we were wrong about it. It sucks to admit it, but it is not hindsight alone that recognizes this; a more rational approach before the war would have too.

[Ryker]

It's funny that the 9-11 Commission disagrees with you
Actually if you would read the 9/11 report it disagrees with you. There are ties to Al-Qaeda.

Unlike Iraq, Al Qaeda had the capability of striking us in such a manner, and our own intelligence agencies said so
Afghanistan didn't have the means of attacking us either, but they did harbor terrorists organizations, just like Iraq. Your trying to compare a country with a terror organizations which aren't the same thing.

Iraq had no conventional ways of attacking us
This isn't a conventional war.

it had no WMDs to use against us or our interests
Like I said, everyone's a genius in hindsight.

our own government (via the Duelfer report) has noted that Saddam wanted to re-integrate himself into the world society because he recognized the benefits of being an ally of the West.
He wanted the sanctions lifted to reconstitute his weapons programs. And he was bribing the UN (oil for food scandal) to try to help them get lifted.

Moralistic pontificating aside, you are still wrong. We went to war over WMDs
... and terrorism ties, and the violation of 16 UN resolutions, and the threats against the US, and the liberation of an oppressed people, and the assassination attempt in 93 that showed us what Hussein's really thinks about the US.

[TexasAggie]

Funny how a thread about an "award that means nothing" has garnered 80+ posts...

[Ace Hippie]

Actually if you would read the 9/11 report it disagrees with you. There are ties to Al-Qaeda.

Wrong. They clearly state (as I have posted many, many times) that the links were in the forms of meetings and did not extend to operations.

Afghanistan didn't have the means of attacking us either, but they did harbor terrorists organizations, just like Iraq. Your trying to compare a country with a terror organizations which aren't the same thing.

Wrong. Afghanistan (at least the Taliban government) actively cooperated with and harbored Al Qaeda, INCLUDING Osama bin Laden himself. This is in marked contrast with Iraq, which did not do either.

This isn't a conventional war.

Ok, so we agree; no conventional threat

Like I said, everyone's a genius in hindsight.

And like I said, it's easy to dismiss this when blinded by partisanship. Pre-war inspections had turned up nothing, precisely because there was nothing to find. War was not necessary to discover this.

He wanted the sanctions lifted to reconstitute his weapons programs. And he was bribing the UN (oil for food scandal) to try to help them get lifted.

Congratulations on missing the point. We went to war because of supposed Iraqi WMD arsenals, which did not exist. It is irrelevant as to what Saddam might have wanted to do (it is quite debatable as to whether or not he could have done so), because our actions were directly correlated to the mistaken and incorrect belief he still had weapons.

Also, just for your information, though I doubt you will even read it; read the Duelfer report summary here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/transmittal.html) . Particularly focus on this part:

Conversely, it would have been equally prestigious for him to be an ally of the United States—and regular entreaties were made, during the last decade to explore this alternative.

On multiple occasions very senior Iraqis close to the President made proposals through intermediaries (the author among others) for dialogue with Washington. Baghdad offered flexibility on many issues, including offers to assist in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Moreover, in informal discussions, senior officials allowed that, if Iraq had a security relationship with the United States, it might be inclined to dispense with WMD programs and/or ambitions.

... and terrorism ties, and the violation of 16 UN resolutions, and the threats against the US, and the liberation of an oppressed people, and the assassination attempt in 93 that showed us what Hussein's really thinks about the US

All of this is merely rubbish attempting to obfuscate the issue. The ties to terrorism were not a threat to the United States, and it was us and a distinct and small minority willing to use the UN resolutions to justify war. The 'threats' against the US were meaningless, with Iraq being unable to follow through on any of them; they were propaganda. The liberation of the Iraqis had nothing to do with it, and the assassination attempt had already been dealt with.

The war was about WMDs, and remains so. The United States was wrong; deal with it.

[JerkyMyTurky]

Ryker has a good chin, but his face is getting really messed up. Is there a referee to jump and end it. Someone throw in a towel. :shuffle:

[Ryker]

that the links were in the forms of meetings and did not extend to operations.
Yes, thanks to the removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Wrong. Afghanistan (at least the Taliban government) actively cooperated with and harbored Al Qaeda
There were terror training camps in Iraq, too. What's your point?

The ties to terrorism were not a threat to the United States
Wrong. The Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization was responsible for the deaths of US military personnel and US civilians. And the Abu Nidal has targeted the United States and other western nations, and have offices in Baghdad.

and the assassination attempt had already been dealt with.
The assassination attempt proves that Saddam is willing to attack America.

The war was about WMDs, and remains so.
Yes, WMD's was a big part of it, but it wasn't the only. Why you still persist to say it was the one and only case for is mind-boggling.

[droogsteve]

People like Ryker make all conservatives look stupid. Ace has presented numerous facts and the proof to back them and Ryker simply denies them. When Bush finally admitted in the face of the Duelfer report that there haven't been WMDs since 1991, I'm surprised that Ryker didn't claim that the real Bush was replaced by an android by Saddam and Al Qaeda.

[Sketcher]

Ryker, just stop.

I am a conservative.
I voted for Bush in November.
There are NO WMD's in Iraq.
There is NO connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida.

It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum your on. Facts are facts.

[ps527]

how can anyone be so sure as to say there are no wmds in iraq, because some inspectors came and werent even allowed to search everywhere? there could very well be wmds in iraq, we didnt search everywhere.

my theory is, saddam hid the wmds in syria before the inspectors came

[droogsteve]

how can anyone be so sure as to say there are no wmds in iraq, because some inspectors came and werent even allowed to search everywhere? there could very well be wmds in iraq, we didnt search everywhere.

my theory is, saddam hid the wmds in syria before the inspectors came


Jesus H Christ! :banghead:

The following are from the Deulfer report. Deulfer was the US weapons inspector handpicked by Bush. He had access to all areas of Iraq. Here are his conclusions:


Biological:

With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995, ISG judges that Baghdad abandoned it's existing BW program in the belief that it constituted a potential embarrassment, whose discovery would undercut Baghdad's ability to reach it's overarching goal of obtaining relief from UN sanctions.

In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned it's ambition to obtain advanced BW programs quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a BW program or was conducting BW specific work for military purposes.

Chemical:

While a number of old abandoned chemical munitions have been found, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed it's undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or it's fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.


Nuclear:

Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

Here's the report, it's on the official CIA government website

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

No WMDs.

Understand?

None.

Period.

They weren't moved to Syria or anywhere else. They aren't hidden. They don't exist. Haven't for years. It's not theory or speculation, the Bush administration has admitted it. You are simply denying reality because you don't like it. Accept the fact that there were no WMDs and move on with your life.

[Karajan]

But Droog, AM radio says otherwise!!!!!!!111

[/sarcasm]

[Charon]

how can anyone be so sure as to say there are no wmds in iraq, because some inspectors came and werent even allowed to search everywhere? there could very well be wmds in iraq, we didnt search everywhere.

my theory is, saddam hid the wmds in syria before the inspectors cameUS,British and Australian Special Forces were operating throughout western Iraq to;
1) prevent any Scud missile launches against Israel
2)prevent personnel and materials escaping Iraq to Jordon and Syria.

If you believe Saddam could transport WMDs across the desert to Syria, without US special forces interdicting such convoys then you are infering that the US Special Forces are not competent in their duties.

The US has also offered large rewards for ANY information regarding any evidence of caches of WMDs or of current programs. From lorry driver to engineer/scientist $200,000 is a huge incentive, and they have no reason to remain silent now-but no one has offered any credible information to date.

[Ryker]

Ryker, just stop.

I am a conservative.
I voted for Bush in November.
There are NO WMD's in Iraq.
There is NO connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida.

It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum your on. Facts are facts.
What's with you people? Do you not even listen to what I say? I never claimed that there were WMD's in Iraq. And yes, the fact is there were connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, proven by the 9/11 report; just no connection between Iraq and 9/11 or any attack. That's all acehippie was saying, but somehow you can't understand that.

[Ryker]

Ace has presented numerous facts and the proof to back them and Ryker simply denies them.
And I have presented facts supported by the US State Department and the 9/11 report, but your biased opinion somehow overlooks that.

[pat99872]

And I have presented facts supported by the US State Department and the 9/11 report, but your biased opinion somehow overlooks that.
your the one thats biased.. after reading your posts.. my IQ has dropped 15 notches. gg

[Ryker]

Did you know the better ranked the school the more liberals there are? Like some redneck school is like 99% conservative with very very poor ratings and test scores. While Harvard is like 90% liberal. Which proves my point.... Educated people are liberal

And I can tell by your signature, your just a model for indepenedent politics.

[Kazimierz]

And I have presented facts supported by the US State Department and the 9/11 report, but your biased opinion somehow overlooks that.

Simply claiming that there are facts supported by the State Department and/or 9/11 report doesn't count as facts. You need to cite them, or they're as good as moot.

[Viceroy]

I think you'll find the general consensus among american university students is a support for Democrats. It's simply their age group.

Oh by the way, Merry Christmas from Britain. I can almost hear Father Christmas being torn apart by the friction from flying fast enough to reach every child on earth in a single night.

[WiseBobo]

I think you'll find the general consensus among american university students is a support for Democrats. It's simply their age group.


In the words of Sir Winston Churchill:

"If you are not a liberal by age 20 you have no heart, and if you are not a conservative by age 40 you have no brains".

[Ryker]

Simply claiming that there are facts supported by the State Department and/or 9/11 report doesn't count as facts. You need to cite them, or they're as good as moot.
Well, I thank you for not calling me stupid or biased. Here are my sources...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html (Iraq's links to terrorism and training camps)

You can find the 9/11 report almost anywhere, but here are the important parts...

p 61:"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi [Sudanese extremist ally of Bin Laden] brokered an agreement that Bin laden would stop supporting activities against Saddam ... In 2001, with Bin laden's help they [Kurdish extremists] reformed into an organization called Ansar Al-Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar Al islam against the Kurdish enemy. (NOTE: There is plenty of evidence linking Iraqi intelligence to Ansar Al Islam. That linkage has served the insurgency, and Zarqawi is one of those links)

p61: "With Sudanese Govt acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 and early 1995. Bin Laden is said to ask for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons."
In the footnote they cite CIA memoranda with sources that did claim requests were fulfilled, in particular training requests. The report was that an Iraqi military bomb-making expert and the chief of Iraq's intelligence services met with Bin Laden and trained his group on bomb making techniques in 1996. This piece of intelligence was passed to the US in 1996. They cite the sources saying the Iraqi bombmaking expert was there in December 1995.

Page 66: “In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq 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.”

Page 66: “According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.”

Page 128: On November 4, 1998, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led (Richard) Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qaida agreement” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq”.

[Kazimierz]

Well, I thank you for not calling me stupid or biased. Here are my sources...

Thumbs up. While i have no interest in joining another argument in CE, being able to back up sources is a step up in credibility for anyone's argument.

[Ryker]

Thumbs up. While i have no interest in joining another argument in CE, being able to back up sources is a step up in credibility for anyone's argument.
Well, I didn't think I had to post them because I thought ace would have at least read the report.

[Ace Hippie]

That's all acehippie was saying, but somehow you can't understand that.

Wrong again. The report says that while there were a few interactions/meetings, there were NO operational ties. Your refusal to admit something that is a plain fact means that either you are blinded by partisanship or something worse.

And I have presented facts supported by the US State Department and the 9/11 report, but your biased opinion somehow overlooks that.

The "facts" you cite are incorrect. The 9/11 report does not say that Iraq and Al Qaeda were allies, it says that they met a few times. The State Department does link the Iraqi government to several terrorist groups, but none had attacked American or Western targets for over a decade and a half. There is no 'biased opinion' against you; what opposes you is this scary thing called the truth.

Before you spout off about your supposed expertise on the 9/11 Report you need to learn to comprehend the difference between a conclusion of the commission and a piece of evidence put forth. The reports of bomb-making help from the Iraqis was from a CIA memoranda that was neither confirmed nor accepted by the commission. Simply because something is mentioned as having been presented TO the commission does not mean that the commission itself certifies it as fact. It is truly baffling that you continue to deny this, but I will post it yet again:

But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.

That is their summary. No evidence of any collaborative operational relationship, none. Unlike you, I have read the report and realize that while there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, they did not progress beyond that. It would behoove you to take the blinders off and realize the same.

[Ajax]

How does the
time thing work. I dont think the people vote

[Ryker]

That is their summary. No evidence of any collaborative operational relationship, none. Unlike you, I have read the report and realize that while there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, they did not progress beyond that.
Obviously. That's what I've been saying; this is a preemptive war. We removed Hussein so it would not progress beyond that. We knew he had ties to terrorism and was willing to attack the US, and we couldn't take that chance of leaving him in power in a post-9/11 world.

[MGselwonK]

everybody stop arguing with ryker, i think he is just kidding

nobody can honestly be that stupid, he is leading us on and trying to amuse himself from our frustration

[JerkyMyTurky]

everybody stop arguing with ryker, i think he is just kidding

nobody can honestly be that stupid, he is leading us on and trying to amuse himself from our frustration

This may sound a little scary, but I think he really believes in what he is saying. :eek: