Iraq had something to do with 9/11

Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

WhipTheHip -> Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 8:26:42 AM)
We invaded Iraq because 9/11 alerted to the reality that Islamic terrorists would attack us in the most horrific way possible if given the chance. And we didn't trust Saddam Hussein, not to provide terrorists with WMD. The time to stop an enemy from acquiring weapons WMD is before they get them. Saddam was only cooperating with us when we had all our forces poised on his border. We couldn't do this indefinitely.

CrappyDom -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 8:44:40 AM)
9/11 only clued in the clueless quote: Saddam was only cooperating with us when we had all our forces poised on his border. We couldn't do this indefinitely. Uh, if we can occupy the place forever at a massive economic, military, and human cost, then we could afford to sit "poised" on the border at a FAR cheaper economic, military, and human cost. Doing so would also have kept tens of thousands of American troops from being killed or crippled, our equipment would not be worn out, our military would still be ready to fight, and we would not have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to install an Iranian government at the head of Iraq.

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 9:24:25 AM)
I believe the Bush administration invented an enemy in Iraq, in order to gain a military presence in the region. We have an army there now, and that army has proven close to invincible in open combat, in this terrain. We seem to be having a great deal of difficulty "winning the peace", which is to be expected. It seems to be the lesson we never learn ... our army isn't very good at this sort of thing. We tend to be a hammer trying to swat a fly. The only thing Iraq had to do with 9/11, was that 9/11 served as a wonderful excuse to invade Iraq. Do I think we should have invaded Iraq? Clearly not. Does what any of us think, really matter now? Clearly not, as it's already done.

CrappyDom -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 9:29:20 AM)
Caitlyn, Our military is quite capable of winning the peace and the lesson was well learned. The problem is this administration will not allow them the tools, equipment, and manpower to do it. This administration has consistently made the wrong decisions and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. So yes, there is a lot we can do. We can agitate for not only impeachment but war crimes trials of this administration and put in place one that will steer us a bit more effectively out of this gigantic disaster.

captiveplatypus -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 9:39:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip We invaded Iraq because 9/11 alerted to the reality that Islamic terrorists would attack us in the most horrific way possible if given the chance. And we didn't trust Saddam Hussein, not to provide terrorists with WMD. The time to stop an enemy from acquiring weapons WMD is before they get them. Saddam was only cooperating with us when we had all our forces poised on his border. We couldn't do this indefinitely. I guess you didn't read anything in the other thread either? See, Dauric? Just not keen on reading.

meatcleaver -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 9:41:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I believe the Bush administration invented an enemy in Iraq, in order to gain a military presence in the region. We have an army there now, and that army has proven close to invincible in open combat, in this terrain. We seem to be having a great deal of difficulty "winning the peace", which is to be expected. It seems to be the lesson we never learn ... our army isn't very good at this sort of thing. We tend to be a hammer trying to swat a fly. The only thing Iraq had to do with 9/11, was that 9/11 served as a wonderful excuse to invade Iraq. Do I think we should have invaded Iraq? Clearly not. Does what any of us think, really matter now? Clearly not, as it's already done. The problem the American army has is that it relies on advanced technology weapons which are effective in open combat which is why no fighters in their right minds will engage the US in open combat. The American arms industry wins America's wars. However, in guerilla warfare the US has a problem because they seem to have forgotten how to get out of their armoured cars and fight hand to hand because that makes them fight their enemy on equal terms. Just look at an American infantryman, they are like star troopers. My brother who used to be in the army said the Americans had fantastic gear but you can't fight effectively laden down with so much kit. I've no idea as I've never been in the army but when was the last time an American infantryman used bayonets?

Chaingang -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 9:47:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip And we didn't trust Saddam Hussein, not to provide terrorists with WMD. Do you know what WMD means? WMD means "weapon of mass destruction" and prior to Bush being in office it was an acronym generally used only to refer to nuclear capabilities. Now it means practically anything. I am not really that worried about the weapons Saddam was able to lay hold to. And if you mean those moldy old weapons that he already had in his possession, please contextualize them for us: please note that they were passed their shelf life and that we sold him those weapons in the first place.

mnottertail -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 9:51:36 AM)
I thought that Colin Powell made a spirited defense on behalf of the administration for the edification of the UN that a remote crop duster was part of the huge cache of WMD in the arsenal... In fact it was the only evidence he showed of that very thing. I still got the idea somehow that his heart wasn't in it, and that was one reason that he is no longer with the company. Ron

CrappyDom -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 9:52:41 AM)
meatcleaver, quote: in guerilla warfare the US has a problem because they seem to have forgotten how to get out of their armoured cars and fight hand to hand because that makes them fight their enemy on equal terms As a guerilla, you WANT to keep the enemy in the armoured cars because that makes them disconnected with the people. It is in fact an accurage gauge of who is "winning" an insurgency. quote: but when was the last time an American infantryman used bayonets? OUTNUMBERED British soldiers killed 35 Iraqi attackers in the Army’s first bayonet charge since the Falklands War 22 years ago. The fearless Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders stormed rebel positions after being ambushed and pinned down. Despite being outnumbered five to one, they suffered only three minor wounds in the hand-to-hand fighting near the city of Amara. The battle erupted after Land Rovers carrying 20 Argylls came under attack on a highway. After radioing for back-up, they fixed bayonets and charged at 100 rebels using tactics learned in drills. When the fighting ended bodies lay all over the highway — and more were floating in a nearby river. Nine rebels were captured.

meatcleaver -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 9:59:40 AM)
You have a point about the armoured cars CD. Apparently British troops aren't allowed to wear sunglasses on duty because it stops locals looking into their eyes and empathizing. It seems such a small point but if you think about talking to a policeman who wears sunglasses and one that doesn't, there is a point to it.

philosophy -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 11:04:18 AM)
...an apparently true story i was told by a squaddie who served over there. As is fairly well known those Iraquis like shotting their guns now and then, at weddings or because they're feeling cranky. Just like Texans really. Sadly this did occasionally lead to the odd armed argument. The American response in the north was to send a couple of APCs full of tooled up grunts........the British response was to send two squaddies round, on bicycles with a football and to ask if anyone fancied a kickaround.

NorthernSwitch11 -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 11:25:16 AM)
Anybody who is open minded and prepared to spend an hour watching this i would make the time, maybe its lies or fabricated but make your own mind up. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en Now now taking a footie around has to better than killing someone if it can be avoided, unfortunatly our guys dont have the support or equipment to drop a ten ton bomb everytime a guy fires a rifle; but bicycles come on be fair were all in this together. It takes alot of guts and courage to get out of an armour plated vehicle and actually speak to people rather than just shoot it if it moves.

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 11:26:05 AM)
General response ... Historically, early occupations by strong nations, has always been difficult. It's probably too early to know the eventual outcome. It may turn out a complete mess, and it may not ... it may end up like Roman Dacia, or may end up like Roman Palestine.

fox2152 -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 11:33:15 AM)
i've been to Iraq and i may be going back. All i can say to Y/you all is don't beleave what you see on TV.

Chaingang -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 12:28:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernSwitch11 ...maybe its lies or fabricated but make your own mind up. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en I think "Loose Change" is counter-intelligence games with what happened on 9/11. So much of it is the right arguments with all the wrong reasoning, flat out nonsense, etc. Personally, I think "Loose Change" was made by the CIA to discredit more serious examinations of the events of 9/11 and dissenters of the report of the 9/11 commission. If you state an opinion counter to the official story, you are automatically a "Loose Change" type conspiracy nut. We have people on this forum that regularly confuse rigorous doubt and questioning authority with the actions of "conspiracy nuts" and that make all the usual comments and jokes about tinfoil hats, etc. They can't bear to exist in a world where they don't have all the answers all the time. Sheep, say I. Similar to the scientific method, my first position is one of questions rather than answers. Sure, I eventually arrive at conclusions with which I am comfortable, but not before I open my mind to the very real multitude of possible explanations for things. Questioning authority is a deeply patriotic activity. And if you don't think that's true, then you were intended as cannon fodder and not as part of the thinking electorate. A person's character is his fate.

Estring -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 12:36:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fox2152 i've been to Iraq and i may be going back. All i can say to Y/you all is don't beleave what you see on TV. I salute you for your service to our country. I know the media wants to portray that there is nothing good happening in Iraq to discredit an administration that they hate. There are some people who do see past that. Unfortunately, many don't.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 12:37:48 PM)
quote: Sheep, say I. Similar to the scientific method, my first position is one of questions rather than answers. Sure, I eventually arrive at conclusions with which I am comfortable, but not before I open my mind to the very real multitude of possible explanations for things. Why do you only assign this ability to the contrarian side of generally acceptable truth? Only those coming to the same conclusions as you are correct and not subject to denigration by name calling, always an effective debate tool-at least through 5th grade? Wouldn't the converse be true making you just be a sheep of a different color?

juliaoceania -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 12:39:20 PM)
I rarely contribute to these threads because I find that people are so entrenched within their opinions that no matter what I write or the links I produce if they want to believe in lies, well they want to believe in lies... no amount of information opposite to what your beliefs on the subject wiill convince you otherwise. There are dangers in this world that far outweighed Saddam, and it pretty much has been shown he had no WMD, so any justification for going to war is pretty moot, not to mention the fact that they cherry-picked the evidence to go to war. The Saudis are far more dangerous, we did not attack them...I guess they were willing to invest in us. You know, we never intend to leave Iraq, that is why they have 14 permanent military bases planned for Iraq. It is part of the justification Osama gave for Jihad, having Infidels parked on Holy Land (Saudi Arabia). Extremists like Osama and Bush really piss me off, they kill innocent people because "God" tells them to, it really is quite disconcerting that people are so afraid and hateful that they would be willing to grasp on to any ideology to protect them, no matter how flawed

NorthernSwitch11 -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 12:48:01 PM)
Im not really going to comment on it further except to say make your own mind up on it. Maybe it was CIA maybe it was not but there are just too many coincidences to be dismissed. Im happy to be branded a nut job :) and if im wrong in my opinion so be it but honestly planes vapourising into nothing, bring back the magic baton theory.

Estring -> RE: Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (8/23/2006 12:59:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I rarely contribute to these threads because I find that people are so entrenched within their opinions that no matter what I write or the links I produce if they want to believe in lies, well they want to believe in lies... no amount of information opposite to what your beliefs on the subject wiill convince you otherwise. There are dangers in this world that far outweighed Saddam, and it pretty much has been shown he had no WMD, so any justification for going to war is pretty moot, not to mention the fact that they cherry-picked the evidence to go to war. The Saudis are far more dangerous, we did not attack them...I guess they were willing to invest in us. You know, we never intend to leave Iraq, that is why they have 14 pemranent military bases planned for Iraq. It is part of the justification Osama gave for Jihad, having Infidels parked on Holy Land (Saudi Arabia). Extremists like Osama and Bush really piss me off, they kill innocent people because "God" tells them to, it really is quite disconcerting that people are so afraid and hateful that they would be willing to grasp on to any ideology to protect them, no matter how flawed Do you just make stuff up? Every single intelligence agency investigating whether Iraq had WMDs came to the same conclusion. He did. Were they all liars? Check your facts. Even Bill Clinton has gone on record as believing Saddam had WMDs. I suppose he is a liar too? And regardless of whether Iraq had WMDs or not, they were in violiation of a UN resolution that they were to declare all of their WMDs. For that alone we were justified in getting rid of him. The fact that the UN, France, Germany and Russia all had moneymaking deals with Saddam is the reason why they weren't interested in going into Iraq. And Saudi Arabia is far more dangerous than Iraq? Maybe they don't keep maintenance up on the air bases they let us have in their country? Is that what you meant? The Saudis are not the greatest allies, but more dangerous than Iraq? Lol. They are at least more consistent than the French as to being our allies. And how exactly do you know that we are planning on staying in Iraq permanently? Facts please. And to equate Osama and President Bush as moral equals just points out your ignorance in these matters. I have never heard the President say that God tells him to kill innocent people. Maybe I missed that speech?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125