Iraq, Saddam & al-Qaida
The new Senate Intelligence Committe report on Saddam and al-Qaida found no evidence of cooperation between the two. Also, Saddam had considered them to be a threat to his regime. This contradicts what the White House had been saying for years, that Iraq and al-Qaida had a connection and even making indirect connections between Saddam and 9/11. Vice President Dick cheney had said Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. Now when administration officials are asked point blank about the connection, they claim Saddam did not committ 9/11, but then say Iraq was a part of the war against al-Qaida and terrorism. These types of comments led many Americans to believe that Saddam was being attacked in retaliation for 9/11 when this certainly was not true. While we might be fighting terrorists in Iraq now, it was certainly not a part of the war on terror when we went in.
The President continues to claim that we must fight the terrorist in Iraq over there so we don't have to fight them here. These comments are absolutely dumb. Not all the people carrying out attacks are terrorists. Their are those who believe they are freedom fighters for Iraq, the Sunnis who feel threatened by the Shiite dominance, the Shiites who are fighting the Sunnis for payback, and then the actual terrorists. All these different groups are fighting which is leading to thousands of civilians dead and over 2600 of our soldiers lives. Another point is, their is not a definite amount of terrorists. Their is a never ending cycle of new people joining them everyday, and we have to fight the root cause and stop them for joining.
What was the point of the war if their was no current nuclear or bilogical weaponse program and if he had no conneciton with al-Qaida? Now the administration claims he had the intent to restart the nuclear and biological programs, but that means the UN inspections had been working, and intent and the ability to build them is two different things. If we were that worried about nukes, we should have been attacking Iran or North Korea first, not the country that was nearly broke from about 12 years of sanctions.
Leading up to the war, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had even created his own Intelligence group in the Pentagon, even though we already have a group that does that, called the CIA. What was the purpose of doing this, to create more reasons for goinf to war. During the Clinton years, neo-cons such as VP Dick Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz had pushed Clinton to go to war with Iraq, they had their eyes on Iraq for years. They keep on claiming that Clinton wanted regime change also, that is absolutely true, but he did not go to war to accomplish this. He used the UN, sanctions, and covert operations. While these would take longer, it is much better then having our resources drained, our soldiers dying, thousands of civilians dead, and our military so weakened that countries like Iran no longer feel as threatened.
"Stay the course" is no longer a legitimate plan, it has not been working for the past 3 years, the administration needs to come up with a new strategy. While I don't know what is best, he needs to work with former and current government officials to find a new plan. He needs to come out of his shell and drop the idiots in his administration who do not want to hear anybody except themselves. Immediate withdrawal will also not work and will leave the region destabilized and let the nation fall to warlords giving us another Afghanistan, already many regions of Iraq are being controlled by local warlords and their militias. We also do not want to give the Iranians the ability to control Iraq and the vast oil resources, while many people do not like to admit it, oil is our lifeline and we have to do whatever we can to protect it until we become more environmental.
No WMDs and no connection with Al-Qaida are claims some people had been making from the beginning, but in the aftermath of Septemeber 11th, their voices were ignored and those who spoke loudly were called traitors and weak on defense. It is time for people to start saying what they believe is true and not be silenced by fear of being called traitors. The ones who are the real traitors are the ones who attempt to stop free speech. Imagine how different it would have been if their had beeen a real debate in the administration and the public about going to war, instead of the decision that was already make on the day of the President's inauguration.
Digg
Resources
The new Senate Intelligence Committe report on Saddam and al-Qaida found no evidence of cooperation between the two. Also, Saddam had considered them to be a threat to his regime. This contradicts what the White House had been saying for years, that Iraq and al-Qaida had a connection and even making indirect connections between Saddam and 9/11. Vice President Dick cheney had said Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. Now when administration officials are asked point blank about the connection, they claim Saddam did not committ 9/11, but then say Iraq was a part of the war against al-Qaida and terrorism. These types of comments led many Americans to believe that Saddam was being attacked in retaliation for 9/11 when this certainly was not true. While we might be fighting terrorists in Iraq now, it was certainly not a part of the war on terror when we went in.
The President continues to claim that we must fight the terrorist in Iraq over there so we don't have to fight them here. These comments are absolutely dumb. Not all the people carrying out attacks are terrorists. Their are those who believe they are freedom fighters for Iraq, the Sunnis who feel threatened by the Shiite dominance, the Shiites who are fighting the Sunnis for payback, and then the actual terrorists. All these different groups are fighting which is leading to thousands of civilians dead and over 2600 of our soldiers lives. Another point is, their is not a definite amount of terrorists. Their is a never ending cycle of new people joining them everyday, and we have to fight the root cause and stop them for joining.
What was the point of the war if their was no current nuclear or bilogical weaponse program and if he had no conneciton with al-Qaida? Now the administration claims he had the intent to restart the nuclear and biological programs, but that means the UN inspections had been working, and intent and the ability to build them is two different things. If we were that worried about nukes, we should have been attacking Iran or North Korea first, not the country that was nearly broke from about 12 years of sanctions.
Leading up to the war, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had even created his own Intelligence group in the Pentagon, even though we already have a group that does that, called the CIA. What was the purpose of doing this, to create more reasons for goinf to war. During the Clinton years, neo-cons such as VP Dick Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz had pushed Clinton to go to war with Iraq, they had their eyes on Iraq for years. They keep on claiming that Clinton wanted regime change also, that is absolutely true, but he did not go to war to accomplish this. He used the UN, sanctions, and covert operations. While these would take longer, it is much better then having our resources drained, our soldiers dying, thousands of civilians dead, and our military so weakened that countries like Iran no longer feel as threatened.
"Stay the course" is no longer a legitimate plan, it has not been working for the past 3 years, the administration needs to come up with a new strategy. While I don't know what is best, he needs to work with former and current government officials to find a new plan. He needs to come out of his shell and drop the idiots in his administration who do not want to hear anybody except themselves. Immediate withdrawal will also not work and will leave the region destabilized and let the nation fall to warlords giving us another Afghanistan, already many regions of Iraq are being controlled by local warlords and their militias. We also do not want to give the Iranians the ability to control Iraq and the vast oil resources, while many people do not like to admit it, oil is our lifeline and we have to do whatever we can to protect it until we become more environmental.
No WMDs and no connection with Al-Qaida are claims some people had been making from the beginning, but in the aftermath of Septemeber 11th, their voices were ignored and those who spoke loudly were called traitors and weak on defense. It is time for people to start saying what they believe is true and not be silenced by fear of being called traitors. The ones who are the real traitors are the ones who attempt to stop free speech. Imagine how different it would have been if their had beeen a real debate in the administration and the public about going to war, instead of the decision that was already make on the day of the President's inauguration.
Digg
Resources
The President continues to claim that we must fight the terrorist in Iraq over there so we don't have to fight them here. These comments are absolutely dumb. Not all the people carrying out attacks are terrorists. Their are those who believe they are freedom fighters for Iraq, the Sunnis who feel threatened by the Shiite dominance, the Shiites who are fighting the Sunnis for payback, and then the actual terrorists. All these different groups are fighting which is leading to thousands of civilians dead and over 2600 of our soldiers lives. Another point is, their is not a definite amount of terrorists. Their is a never ending cycle of new people joining them everyday, and we have to fight the root cause and stop them for joining.
What was the point of the war if their was no current nuclear or bilogical weaponse program and if he had no conneciton with al-Qaida? Now the administration claims he had the intent to restart the nuclear and biological programs, but that means the UN inspections had been working, and intent and the ability to build them is two different things. If we were that worried about nukes, we should have been attacking Iran or North Korea first, not the country that was nearly broke from about 12 years of sanctions.
Leading up to the war, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had even created his own Intelligence group in the Pentagon, even though we already have a group that does that, called the CIA. What was the purpose of doing this, to create more reasons for goinf to war. During the Clinton years, neo-cons such as VP Dick Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz had pushed Clinton to go to war with Iraq, they had their eyes on Iraq for years. They keep on claiming that Clinton wanted regime change also, that is absolutely true, but he did not go to war to accomplish this. He used the UN, sanctions, and covert operations. While these would take longer, it is much better then having our resources drained, our soldiers dying, thousands of civilians dead, and our military so weakened that countries like Iran no longer feel as threatened.
"Stay the course" is no longer a legitimate plan, it has not been working for the past 3 years, the administration needs to come up with a new strategy. While I don't know what is best, he needs to work with former and current government officials to find a new plan. He needs to come out of his shell and drop the idiots in his administration who do not want to hear anybody except themselves. Immediate withdrawal will also not work and will leave the region destabilized and let the nation fall to warlords giving us another Afghanistan, already many regions of Iraq are being controlled by local warlords and their militias. We also do not want to give the Iranians the ability to control Iraq and the vast oil resources, while many people do not like to admit it, oil is our lifeline and we have to do whatever we can to protect it until we become more environmental.
No WMDs and no connection with Al-Qaida are claims some people had been making from the beginning, but in the aftermath of Septemeber 11th, their voices were ignored and those who spoke loudly were called traitors and weak on defense. It is time for people to start saying what they believe is true and not be silenced by fear of being called traitors. The ones who are the real traitors are the ones who attempt to stop free speech. Imagine how different it would have been if their had beeen a real debate in the administration and the public about going to war, instead of the decision that was already make on the day of the President's inauguration.
Digg
Resources
posted by Amar Shah at 11:42 AM
Site Feed
6 Comments:
Most of what you say is "ok" with me. But, hold it right there about the last few points.
If Congress had done it's job and actually debated the issues, they would have either officially delcared War - or not. Instead they (that is to say, almost all of them, Democrats and Republicans alike) the ignored the Constitution - again - and gave the power to fight this "war" to one man. If we were really at War, there would be no discussion about torture of detainees becuase there wouldn't be any! They'd be prisoners! There's a very big difference. Since when does a "prisoner" get constitutional rights? That's a whole other topic.
Also, I don't remember President Bush discussing going into Iraq before 9/11. All he could talk about was our borders and how much better it would be if they were even more open!
I think you are caught up in the liberal malaise. If you are looking for a reason we went to war in Iraq I would suggest reading Allies by William Shawcross. It lays out the reasons why the nations in the West had to remove Saddam. Saddam used biological and chemical weapons on his own people and had defied the United Nation's resolutions since the early nineties.
Hi my name is D’Anne Burley and I am a radio talk show host on both http://www.rbnlive.com Mon –Fri 6pm-7pm. And then on Saturday 10-pm-12am both programs from Central Standard Time.
We talk about the politics of the world, and also confront the issues that are not broadcast within the mainstream press. We have the top guest from the scientific community, whistleblowers, CIA/FBI agents and others who know the facts of the story which is not shared within the mainstream media.
So please come a listen to these programs. We also want your input, comments and tips.
So please join me on one of the top broadcast in the world.
Your point of view on the war in Iraq is the same as mine. It is my opinion that we should not be there, and should get out as soon as possible. Nothing positive is coming out of the war, and nothing will be settled when the US eventually pulls its soldiers out - which will never occur in the Bush administration, because he knows as soon as he leaves, within six months everything that the US did over there will be undone by the people of Iraq.
The US had no business getting involved in Iraq - there were no weapons of mass destruction, and who is George W. to say that Saddam is not running his country properly? There are much bigger problems - social security, health care, ect., that we have here in the United States that need to be dealt with rather than wasting our money and resources over in Iraq.
I pretty much agree with everything you say. I believe that it is ridiculous that the United States went to war with Iraq. According to Bush, the reason of going to war with Iraq was to "destroy/find their weapos of mass destruction." They have been there for quite a while now. What the heck are they still doing there when they have not find anything?? Bush should start worrying about the problems that we are facing here, instead of worrying about other peoples' bussiness. He is just throwing billions and billions away when he should be using them to try to fix his own country!! and its not only that he is wasting money with this dumb war, but he is also KILLING many people!
I'm really tired of al the second guessing. I'm tired of the left always talking about what we should have done. I'm tired of the right being so defensive about what we have done. How about a discussion about what we really can do to help the people in Iraq achieve peace, how we can live in peace with the radical islamics of the world and how we can regain our standing in the world. Ideas around that seem elusive for most people. This is probably not controversial enough for most readers.
Post a Comment
<< Home