US Troops in Iraq deluded

[quote=“Richardm”]I’m pretty sure that we did not attack Iraq in retaliation for 9/11.[/quote]RichardM -
If you insist on replying in the manner of the “spook school of ambiguous posting” allow me to make this recomendation.

Please refer to the Laurie Mylroies testimony to the 9/11 Commission and comments made by Mansoor Ijaz who were both Clinton Advisor’s that have established clear links between Saddam and 9/11.

Last I heard, Helen Thomas asked the President why, and he said,

[quote]I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That’s why I went to the [United Nations] Security Council; that’s why it was important to pass [Resolution] 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences –

[THOMAS]: – go to war –

BUSH: – and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.
[/quote]
Resolution 1441 is all about WMD.

I wonder how many posters here would remain in Taiwan if another Chiang Kai-shek/Saddam Hussein were to take power.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Richardm”]I’m pretty sure that we did not attack Iraq in retaliation for 9/11.[/quote]RichardM -
If you insist on replying in the manner of the “spook school of ambiguous posting” allow me to make this recomendation.

Please refer to the Laurie Mylroies testimony to the 9/11 Commission and comments made by Mansoor Ijaz who were both Clinton Advisor’s that have established clear links between Saddam and 9/11.[/quote]

We have a winner. :slight_smile:

“We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks.”
– President George W. Bush, 2003

(How’s that for an unambiguous answer?)

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Richardm”]I’m pretty sure that we did not attack Iraq in retaliation for 9/11.[/quote]RichardM -
If you insist on replying in the manner of the “spook school of ambiguous posting” allow me to make this recomendation.

Please refer to the Laurie Mylroies testimony to the 9/11 Commission and comments made by Mansoor Ijaz who were both Clinton Advisor’s that have established clear links between Saddam and 9/11.[/quote]RichardM -
Yeah…if you don’t like what you might find…just ignore it.
Much safer that way.

[quote=“spook”]
We have a winner. :slight_smile:

“We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks.”
– President George W. Bush, 2003

(How’s that for an unambiguous answer?)[/quote]

So you’re saying you believe Bush? :loco:

:roflmao:

[quote=“Comrade Stalin”][quote=“spook”]
We have a winner. :slight_smile:

“We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks.”
– President George W. Bush, 2003

(How’s that for an unambiguous answer?)[/quote]

So you’re saying you believe Bush? :loco:

:roflmao:[/quote]

I believe the truth. :sunglasses:

[quote=“spook”][quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Richardm”]I’m pretty sure that we did not attack Iraq in retaliation for 9/11.[/quote]RichardM -
If you insist on replying in the manner of the “spook school of ambiguous posting” allow me to make this recomendation.
Please refer to the Laurie Mylroies testimony to the 9/11 Commission and comments made by Mansoor Ijaz who were both Clinton Advisor’s that have established clear links between Saddam and 9/11.[/quote]
We have a winner. :slight_smile:
“We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks.”
– President George W. Bush, 2003
(How’s that for an unambiguous answer?)[/quote]spook -
Nice try.
But, if someone were to actually read Laurie Mylroies testimony to the 9/11 Commission and comments made by Mansoor Ijaz who were both Clinton Advisor’s that have established clear links between Saddam and 9/11.
They would aee the intellectual vaccum of the info you present.
One has only to read about Operation Able Danger, The Docex Project and Salman Pak.
This will be sufficient to negate your claims.
All the best.

[quote=“spook”]
I believe the truth. :sunglasses:[/quote]

Do you believe Senator Hillary Clinton?

[quote]Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is [i]apparently[/i] no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.[/quote]

clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Richardm”]I’m pretty sure that we did not attack Iraq in retaliation for 9/11.[/quote]RichardM -
If you insist on replying in the manner of the “spook school of ambiguous posting” allow me to make this recomendation.

Please refer to the Laurie Mylroies testimony to the 9/11 Commission and comments made by Mansoor Ijaz who were both Clinton Advisor’s that have established clear links between Saddam and 9/11.[/quote]RichardM -
Yeah…if you don’t like what you might find…just ignore it.
Much safer that way.[/quote]

Do you agree with Laurie Mylroie that Saddam was also responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing?

washingtonmonthly.com/featur … ergen.html

The title of this article is Armchair Provocateur
Laurie Mylroie: The Neocons’ favorite conspiracy theorist.

So if you don’t believe there’s any credible evidence Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack you’re the victim of an “intellectual vacuum.”

Now we’re getting somewhere! :slight_smile:

[quote=“spook”]So if you don’t believe there’s any credible evidence Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack you’re the victim of an “intellectual vacuum.”

Now we’re getting somewhere! :slight_smile:[/quote]
You’re being ambiguous. Could you dumb it down for me?

Old news. There are thousands of tons of Iraqi documents and the few that have been translated and released do show Iraqi involvement with Al-Qaeda.

[quote]
Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show

By ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 24, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a “significant set of facts,” and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.[/quote]

nysun.com/article/29746

I honestly don’t think the troops have a clear idea of their role in Iraq. There’s still some debate as to whether they are a liberation or an occupation force. We all saw US troops draping a US flag over the statue of Saddam, didn’t we? If you were to ‘liberate’ a country, would you plant your flag on that country’s soil? I would if I thought I was there to occupy.

Either way, certainly tactics would depend on whether you want to occupy or liberate?

Troops are there for one purpose: that is to fight the people they are told to fight, and defend the places they are told to defend.

End of story.

You don’t HAVE an opinion if you wear the uniform. The US military is the least democratic system out there, and when you VOLUNTEER you know it. They don’t understand their purpose? That’s crap. Their primary purpose is to kill the enemy and defend territory. The first part is self explnaatory; the second is done by securing buildings and regions, training Iraqi troops and cops.

You guys are talking politics. Those KIDS planted a US flag, because they wanted people to know who they were, in Iraq and back home on TV. They were proud. What an advertising COUP it would have been if they had taken out Iraqi flags and waved them! Great idea. Truly. But again, that’s politcs.

jds

Old news. There are thousands of tons of Iraqi documents and the few that have been translated and released do show Iraqi involvement with Al-Qaeda.

[quote]
Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show

By ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 24, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt - A former Democratic senator and 9/11 commissioner says a recently declassified Iraqi account of a 1995 meeting between Osama bin Laden and a senior Iraqi envoy presents a “significant set of facts,” and shows a more detailed collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda.[/quote]

nysun.com/article/29746[/quote]

So are you going to come out of the closet as a full-fledged Saddam+9/11 conspiracy theorist or are you going to keep dancing around it and let your compatriot Tainan Cowboy dangle slowly in the wind?

[quote=“spook”]
So are you going to come out of the closet as a full-fledged Saddam+9/11 conspiracy theorist or are you going to keep dancing around it and let your compatriot Tainan Cowboy dangle slowly in the wind?[/quote]

Well…you think it was The Evil Jooos ™ controlling Chimpy McHitlerstein in order to grab the Iraqis oil.

I believe otherwise.

[quote=“Comrade Stalin”][quote=“spook”]
So are you going to come out of the closet as a full-fledged Saddam+9/11 conspiracy theorist or are you going to keep dancing around it and let your compatriot Tainan Cowboy dangle slowly in the wind?[/quote]

Well…you think it was The Evil Jooos ™ controlling Chimpy McHitlerstein in order to grab the Iraqis oil.

I believe otherwise.[/quote]

Not ready to come out unambiguously yet, eh? It’s okay. Take your time and work your way up to it.

What I believe? Al Qaida terrorists motivated by hatred and religious extremism and acting on the behest of Osama bin Laden carried out the attack on the World Trade Center. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[quote=“spook”]
What I believe? Al Qaida terrorists motivated by hatred and religious extremism and acting on the behest of Osama bin Laden carried out the attack on the World Trade Center. Nothing more. Nothing less.[/quote]

It’s well known that 4,000 Joos didn’t report to work in the WTC on September 11.