For everyone who said Iraq was not a threat...
 

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/...7_20041008.htm

Education officials in six states including Michigan were put on notice last month that a computer disc found in Iraq over the summer contained photos, floor plans and other information about schools in their districts, two U.S. government officials said.

So no WMDs were found, but look at all the stuff thats been found that showed their was definite intent to cause harm to the US. Doesn't this make a difference? I mean, school plans for gods sake, we go out of our way not to bomb hospitals, schools, or mosques, even when we know they are holed up in them, and yet they think our schools are ok targets. WTF?

I'm even more pissed because I have friends whose kids go to one of the schools whose plans were found...

Irishsean,

I think you've been duped. Several reports have already contradicted these findings as false; this is just another despicable act by the administration.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

Typical Bush fear mongering. Here is the truth:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/08/sch...raq/index.html

Look, both sides are gonna say whatever they need it to come out as, Democrats are gonna say its fake, republicans are gonna say its true. As for my part, I have people I really care about going to those schools and I think it should be taken seriously.

"He did have a connection to civic groups doing planning for schools in Iraq, the official said."

Okay- probably safe to establish he's not a terrorist. If paranoia suits your taste, then have at it.

Can you really be too paranoid when kids are involved?

You can be too paranoid. Period. Seriously, we have become a nation beset by the politics of fear. This administration encourages it. We have allowed our freedoms to be reduced and destroyed in the name of protecting them. Because of fear and paranoia.

Not a good thing

we must stop saddam from destroying traverse city junior high.

you know, floor plans can be useful, especially when your country is in rubble. i don't know if republicans are really going to say this is legit. they'd have to fill in the blanks with some wild story of a renegade architect on the other side of the world.

Just remember: it's only a legitimate threat if they found a farmers alamanac!

... anyone seen my emergency supply of duct tape?

For some reason I feel safer because we are war then if we let that cancer that was iraq fester. I'm happy nothing happen to those schools, if anything was even going to happen. I'm just happy that we don't have to have people die to start acting.

For christ sakes... Let me bold the important part.

He did have a connection to civic groups doing planning for schools in Iraq, the official said.

He was an Iraqi citizen much like you are an American citizen. He had plans and outlines of US schools so that he and his group could build Iraqi schools using them as a model.

He didn't want to blow them up. He wanted to build schools in Iraq that looked like them or used similiar teaching methods.

Please tell me how YOUR freedoms have been reduced. What can't you do now that you used to do? Plan terrorist attacks? What? :eek:

Do you personally know this for a fact? Or are you just regurgitating facts from a biased news source like the rest of us?

My sons are in one of the school systems that was in these files. My wife went to a meeting at the school last night, they had no real information. Looks like more fear-mongering to me, wait out the rumor mill and see

1066 lives of other family's young adult, U.S. military volunteers is one cost of
Bush's folly and deception. I hope that you can reconsider the wording of your
last post. You enable a president who resists admitting a huge mistake by
rushing our country into war in Iraq. Would it take the loss of one of your own
family members for you to hold Bush accountable for his actions. Do you favor
government with a secret agenda, and no penchant for ever admitting a
mistake. Please tell us why you think we are in Iraq........?

Although I'm generally in favor of the war on Iraq, in this case I must point out that discs found *after* the removal of Saddam from office do not prove that Iraq was a danger *before* that removal. It might prove that terror groups in Iraq have plans to attack US schools, but that's about as far as I'd go.

Saddam was still a bastard, though.

Again with calling the war in Iraq a mistake. The real mistake would have been to let that man (Saddam) continue on doing what he did. How many mass graves need to be uncovered? How many horror stories need to be told by the Iraq people of the autrocities they suffed under his hand, until people realize that if nothing else, it was right to get Saddam out of power? Skewed reasoning for entering the war aside, is what we're trying to do (and what we have managed to do) wrong?

I also don't think this war is unnecessary. I think its quite necessary. Furthermore, the US didn't start this conflict. So, we take it to them and fight it now, or we wait until they bring it to us, lose the initiative and lose more lives. A poor strategy.

The US Armed Forces is a voluntary service; if you don't want to put your ass on the line and serve your country in a war setting you have the option not to. Still, Warriors live to fight.

Amen powerclown. It's very unfortunate that those 1066 had to die. But they did, and they're heroes. They had the bravery not many people do.

So if all of a sudden they find a man in Iraq ONE MAN with a disk of shopping malls and they bring it public are you going to say "Oh holy shit they are going to blow up malls now?"

Trust me if OBL and Al Quida can get your child's school's floorplans online or in public records at the county courthouse. If these people were going to hit schools they'd have started by now.

Where does the insanity and paranoia end? This administration wants power so bad they will do whatever and say whatever it takes to keep that power and instill fear so noone questions them (and if anyone does, by God they aren't God fearing Christian Patriotic Americans.... Those who question US well let's just say that OBL and Co. appreciates them very much, we'll make sure they don't question anymore if you re-elect us). And if they are shown to be liars, they will come back and say they never said that original thing, that really the information was bad BUT they still had a damn good reason to fuck with you and scare the shit out of you so that you would keep them in power.

They did it with Iraq...... WMD's...what WMD's? we never claimed that..... 9/11 connections.... What 9/11 connections, we never said that....... Imminent threat.... The Dems. are twisting our words, we never claimed imminent, we said could be...... humanitarian Saddam was evil, killed millions..... well there are some mass graves and he was very evil and the torture chambers and all... sure when George Sr. was CIA director he sold Saddam all this crap but but..... Imminent threat..... WMD's... ummmm disks of schools.....

HOW did we not start this war?

Did Iraq ever attack us?

How is this war necessary?

Did Saddam have Nukes, WMD's, imminent threat, funding OBL, how was he a danger to us?

What are we proving? OOOO yeah Khadafi, whom we blew the hell out of and wasn't much of a factor gave us his weapons. While Iran and N. Korea have been speeding up their production and we haven't done anything to stop them.

So when we invade Iran now (and we will) THEY WILL nuke our ass.

Makes sense to me.

Pick on Saddam who has nothing and we can pretty much claim a win in a week over while we let Iran, N. Korea and OBL build their forces and get prepared so that when we have to confront them.... we get our asses handed back to us.

So all those African warlords committing genocide and killing whole tribes of people is ok?

Saddam was evil and didn't deserve his country moreso than these African Warlords (even though we put him in power and helped him stay there.)

N. Korea has mass graves and lots of attrocities but they are ok and we can look the other way, but Saddam needed to go.

We, GOP'ers never believed in getting involved in the Bosnia-Serbia genocide because it was a Clinton distraction and a UN affair. Their genocide had nothing to do with this country... nope no sirree Bob.

The people the Saud family kill deserve it. The people the Isreal government kill deserve it... none of them are near as evil as Saddam.

Oh, so he controlled some oil, big deal (and except for our great friends and allies Isreal and Saudi Arabia none of those other countries have anything financially beneficial to us), he was evil.

Besides, the genocide in Africa is just saving us money anyway, because eventually we'd have to send AIDS medicines over to help them.

Pan6467: You're putting up a straw man argument. Nobody said anything about African warlords being nice, or any of the other "arguments" you use.

My father was involved in a cival war. Where he had to kill his own people.
I would rather fight for freedom from an enemy, then kill me own blood so I can live longer. Don't give me rethoric about having my own family die to realize the extent of war, My family is already drowned in blood.

Why do I think we are in iraq.

Oil is the main reason. Yes oil is money, but none of us are innocent. Oil fuels western economy. I'm not saying the US wants the oil fields but I'm more saying the world economy is more stable without the strangle hold of a Hussien. Good deeds are done on the price of blood and toil that crude petroleum involves.

Safety. It is Bush's job to make sure we the United States is protected. Us being in Iraq yes makes me feel like tommorow, next year, next decade would be a better day. Once again no one is innocent. We can't be a nation of tree huggers singing koombyya while our people are getting slaughtered. Diplomacy, mostly against what seems like a zealot group of people who think death is just, is meant more for people who can see on the same ideals and equality. It's difficult to enforce when our enemy now seems to believe equality is eradication.

Little Boys Obsession - I think part of the war is Little Bush's obsession with finishing what his Father started.



Now here is my opinion on the Government.

They should know things that we shouldn't. I feel if we knew 100% of what the government knows, the web of our civilization would crumble faster then we could believe. People as of now are greedy, selfish, and all sorts of unappealing. To gather a group of people to create a civilization and society, is to basically coral them, drug them, entertain them, and hope they don't revolt. Why should we care if Osama is dead? Isn't it just enough that we haven't had another Airplane fly into one of our buildings killing our people? What's with this obsession with definates. How the war isn't a success without the head of our enemy? How a war isn't just because we haven't found a WMD? Isn't it enough to know that we were stupid, we got hit, and now we are doing our damned best to make sure we don't make that mistake again?

I don't like bush, but he is my commander in cheif. The United States, with all its negatives, I believe is a bastion of hope.

In the end it's perspective. You say a 1000+ people who died for no meaning, I see 1000+ people who were my countrymen, and that is meaning enough to enjoy the freedoms we obviously have.



On a final note, I think if Kerry comes into office, he will realize when he's briefed about the war that He won't be able to do much. That the situation is deeper than any of us can even comprehend.

Oil fuels the entire world. Everyone needs it. As far as Im concerned, better its taken out of the hands of a madman who used it to build himself palaces, line the pockets of his business partners in the UN, arm himself to the teeth to attack his neighbors, all the while letting his people suffer in abject poverty and his country fall into comprehensive ruin.
Completely agree. He might not be Bush, but he's still an American. And we all know how the enemy feels about them.

Here are the reasons we didn't attack North Korea:

You are aware the oil is running down? Reserves are estimated to last approx. 100 years perhaps far less with the boom in China. When this happens inevitably we will seek new sources of power, solar hydrogen etc. which, if the president and vice president didn't have their head up their ass we would be doing right now, instead of This quote refers more to the US than any other country I can see right now.

Not a strawman. Just curious as to why we didn't attack those "evil" leaders who are as bad or worse than Saddam.

We claim we attacked Saddam for his genocide and torture chambers and to liberate and democratize and yet, we don't do anything to others just as bad, do we?

Just curious why Saddam who had been under sanctions and really couldn't do anything to anyone was worse than these other dictators we turn blind eyes to.

Bodyhammer,

Good and understandable reason not to invade N. KOrea, but what of the GOP who did not want anything to do with Bosnia-Serbia, or Africa or Iran (which if we were going to fight a war in the M/E Iran should have been first). Instead we chose a country we knew was totally weak, had no WMD's and allowed Iran to arm themselves and prepare.

Thank you, Bodyhammer for presenting the facts in a very non partisan understandable way.

Just pointing this out.

We ar not the world's police. When Clinton wanted to help end Bosnia and Mogadishu and do so with UN approval, the GOP wouldn't allow him. Congress wouldn't help him help those people at all. NOW, we are expected to believe that we attacked Saddam because he was evil and a personal vendetta, rather than for the truth. We are to believe these men and women and Iraqis have died for a righteous government? One who sends them to die for a presidential vendetta and oil?

I support our troops but this war is wrong. The best way to support the troops is to say this war is wrong and we need to find a way to stop it so that no more innocents have to die.

The world isn't looking at us and admiring what we are. The world is no longer saying we are a great nation. The world is scared of what we will do next. If we are to ever even try to have world peace we cannot be looked upon as a bully and have other fear us. It breeds contempt, contempt breeds hatred, hatred breeds war.

You sound like you are simply repeating one of Bush's canned speeches......
The following isn't directed toward you, mjw. You won't be swayed by any
argument other than Bush/Cheney-2004:

Yes you can be to paranoid.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134961,00.html

And let me guess--you'll be the first one to blame Bush if something happens to a school here.
You're right-- it's impossible. Nothing like that has ever happened anywhere else. Especially Russia.

Or at any government buildings in Oklahoma.

And you my friend sound like you're simply regurgitating liberal propaganda.....and the following isn't directed toward you.......

Unlike most people, I'm not basing my judgments on the war in Iraq on random news articles, press releases, or anything of the such. My opinion of what is going on over there is based 100% on my conversations with my friends and family that are over there, and have been over there for pretty much the entire time.

Now you can spout these articles at me all you want, and I will read them and consider what they have to say(because of the fact that I don't consider myself a fanatic, and like to take into consideration both sides of the story), but they're not going to carry as much weight in my mind as the opinions of the people that are there right now.

Yes it's a straw man. We're discussing Iraq, Saddam Hussain, and why someone thinks Iraq was a threat.

MJW gave some details about Saddam's attrocities, and you reply: "So all those African warlords committing genocide and killing whole tribes of people is ok?" --- that's a straw man argument; nobody said anything about African warlords, but you make it sound as if MJW said their genocide wasn't important, or even okay. You may not have meant that, but then you should have put it in different words.

I fully understand what your line of reasoning is, and I agree that attacking Iraq, but not Sudan, is quite unfair and illogical. However, I'd like to point out that the situations are simply different - Sudan (for example) hasn't violated UN resolutions for the past decade, hasn't invaded it's neighbors recently, hasn't used WMDs recently (apart from a very hush-hush report about Syrian troops using them as a test!); Furthermore, US troops aren't in the area, US warplanes aren't patrolling no-fly zones (and being shot at), and Sudan's leaders haven't tried to assassinate a former US president... the list can go on and on, by the way. :)

While we're on the subject, I'd like to draw your attention to the incredible, almost deafening silence from the Arab/Muslim world about the murder of some 50,000 Sudanese (African) Muslims by Arab militias in the past 18 months. Compare this to the uproar every time Israel does anything to the Palestinians, or the anger over poor innocent civilians killed in Iraq by the US forces... I'd say the whole middle-east is made up of hypocrites.

Aside from 1069 American dead, other troops wounded and maimed, the
$120 billion spent (borrowed) the damge inflicted to U.S. military readiness,
and the misuse of reserve and national guard forces, and the backdoor draft
that will make future recruitment of new volunteers more difficult, to name only
the impact on this misuse of U.S. forces in the "war on terror", is the continued deception of nearly half the electorate by Bush and Cheney.

Powerclown still argues <i>"we take it to them and fight it now, or we wait until they bring it to us"</i>, when the truth is that Iraq had nothing to do
with 9/11 or the war against the people who the president claimed attacked
this country. How can you "take it to them", when there would have been no
conflict with those who kill our troops in Iraq today, if we had not invaded
Iraq under false, and ever changing pretenses ?
Bush feeds his propaganda to his faithful base; they parrot his empty.
macho, "bring it on", rhetoric, while American troops continue to die in
an unnecessary war that Bush intiated. If our troops were killing foreign
fighters in Iraq in any numbers, why would our government not offer proof
of this by inviting journalists and international monitors from the Red Crescent, Red Cross, and the U.N. to view the bodies and the evidence, and
even make a validating point by inviting the Red Crescent to identify the
bodies and repatriot themn to their country of origin. Instead, we hear Bush's
bluster about taking the fight to them instead of fighting them here, echoed
by those who need no truth from Bush to continue to believe his every word!

Lemme see.....I'm "regurgitating liberal propaganda" by providing points of
argument, backed by links to opinions of others that contain verifiable, dates,
names, and places, and you are providing vague references to unverifiable
sources. What is the responsibility of your sources in Iraq ? If they are
military, how about a name, rank, and mission history. How many people and
what areas of Iraq have they been in, and when, and for what length of time.
If this is the right war, where are the bodies of the foreign terrorists that our
troops have killed or captured? Now that the reasons for invading Irag in the
first place have been exposed as empty and baseless, what reason could there be for the U.S. to conceal the physical evidence that our troops are
fighting non-Iraqi terrorists and winning ?
Here's some more "liberal propaganda":

Details on the "deception?"


Perhaps you should post a quote of one of these "false pretenses."


Yeah, it's not like any American soldiers or civilians had been attacked in the last 20 years or so, or any of our pilots were being shot at in no-fly zones.

I 've heard Bush state time and time again that the war in Iraq will eventually bring peace,democracy and stability to the mideast. In other words, a safer world for Israel, Americas nearest and dearest ally. Oh yeah,..and the money and oil thingy too I guess.

Well, then for the next 100 years or however long oil continues to be an important resource for all, no more Saddam Husseins in charge of the world's oil supplies please. As far as weapons, I sleep better at night knowing that the world's most powerful military conducts itself to a level of professionalism, and has respect for the rule of law that the US Armed Forces abide by. It is the most civilized, benevolent and neurotic World Power in the history of mankind.

"Did Iraq ever attack us?"....for 10 years, while we were trying to enforce UN sanctions, the answer would be "yes" damn near daily.

I guess I just have more faith in the intelligence of the other 100 million or so Americans who support this war. I don't believe they feel themselves decepted; I think they saw 9/11 and realized fully from then on the nature of the enemy we're dealing with, and agree with current US policy that the only way to prevent more 9/11s is measured, decisive pre-emption.

Iraq was a time-bomb waiting to go off. The mad dog needed to be put to sleep. Scratch one country off the list of potential terrorist allies willing to sell them WMD to light up an infidel Western city or three. The entire middle east and western hemisphere should be thankful Hussein is gone.

Indeed, keep the American people protected and far from the fighting, while at the same time pacify a hostile anti-western terrorist arms depot.

You made my argument for me. Iraq did not attack the U.S. "The fighting" did
not have to happen. Our president and his neocons caused an unnecessary
war. None of the reasons for launching the attack on Iraq were valid. Bush
knew this in advance. You demonstrate that you cannot accept this. You have no facts to back your statement that <i>"Iraq was a time-bomb waiting to go off".</i> Your president has, however, made your statement a true
prediction for the future. We are fighting Iraqis in Iraq, who Bush elected,
unnecessarily to fight!
Bush and his administration knew the truth but later misled and distorted the actual threat Saddam posed to the rest of the
world are press remarks from Colin Powell on Feb. 24:
Next, we offer a quote from National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01:
Iraq was no "time bomb"......and now it is ! If the "new justification" that
Bush spews as the reason for this war is true, that Saddam could spread
knowledge of how to make WMD's to terrorists, why is the following happening?:
One more time:
There were no WMD's in Iraq.
Before 9/11 happened, there was no "excuse" to attack Iraq.
Powell, Rice, and Tenent are all on record saying that Saddam was
contained and that there was no evidence that he had reconstituted
pre-Gulf War weapons programs, They said that the sanctions and the
no fly zone patrols WERE WORKING!
Bush and Cheney keep changing the reasons we invaded Iraq, as
events unfold that expose their deliberate misleading manipulation of
some Americans and some foreigners.
The newest reason is to prevent Saddam from passing knowledge of
weapons making to terrorists. That reason is as dubious as all the others.
Can you provide anything to substantiate your defense of Bush except
to quote him? Will you even consider that this was a mistaken war that
has cost too many American and Iraqi lives and too much money, and that
it has destablizied the middle east, and exposes Bush as an international
war criminal and as an incompetent commander in chief ?
I suspect that you will continue to back his orders to send more of our
troops to their deaths in Iraq, while mistaking your unquestioning loyalty
as "patriotism", instead of as enabling a pathetic failure of a president !

Looks like were going to have to agree to disagree host. Iraq did, in fact, have WMD. This was not a secret. The entire world knew it. I'm too lazy to go look for the links right now, maybe you might want to? Its a matter of public record. We've been over this before here. He killed a million Iranians in the Iran/Iraq War, putting mustard gas, nx/sarin-derivative and blistering agent, among others, to widespread use. He used nerve gas on the Kurdish rebels in Halabja, Northern Iraq. But don't take my word for it, research the matter yourself.

We'll possibly never know for absolute certain if he did/did not have some type of connection to 9/11, but what is known undeniably is that he had a pathological hatred of the US, he provided sanctuary to known terrorists, he personally sponsored Palestinean terrorism in Israel, he had hostile relations with every single neighboring country in the region (invading one of them) and led his country to economic ruin, a la Kim Jung-Il of N. Korea. He was an international pariah.

I really don't care what further evidence this Administration or any other subsequent Administration can or cannot bring to bear to justify action against Saddam Hussein. His public record makes the case for itself as far as I'm concerned. It takes very little imagination to conceive of the type of damage this guy could have done by arming terrorists as hostile to the West as he was.

1) chemical weapons are not WMD. i realize that they've been lumped into that catergory, but that's a pretty recent development. first of all, they don't destroy anything, and second of all, even under pristine conditions, you'll get more terror then death from them. remember the tokyo subway gas bomb? i think 11 people died when sarin was released into a subway station filled with hundreds of people. not very destructive.

2) his having chemical weapons in the 80's weren't the basis for the war. the basis was that he had be rebuilding his weapons programs since the gulf war, which has been proven to be false.

you're right, we'll never know for 100% sure. but so far 99% of the evidence seems to suggest that he had no relations with al queda. and while that 1% chance means it was still possible, the other 99% is pretty damning to the point that he wasn't in cahoots with them.


so basically, you're saying that you don't care about why we went to war, you just like us being at war. cause the reasons don't seem to matter to you. i guess being blindly partisan is nice and comforting... makes you all warm and fuzzy inside... :icare:

possibly surprising, i would have been for the war if they'd just said "he's a bad man, he's got oil, and he tried to kill my dad, and he's violating sanctions that were part of the cease-fire agreement." but he didn't, he decided to create a pink unicorn to get the poeple to believe in...

as the prophet PT Barnum said: there´s a sucker born every minute. He just underestimated by a coupla hundred thousand.

Yes, they are.

Definition of WMD

It has been claimed that he stopped producing WMD because he wanted to get UN sanctions lifted. It has been further claimed that he would have revived those programs the moment sanctions were lifted. There is confirmation in the Duelfer Report of a top-secret 'poisons program' developed by Hussein out of his WMD program that was used to assasinate his rivals and political enemies. Gotta put some of that juice to good use, at least while the whole world is watching for WMD.

If your accusing me of not being a pacifist, then yes you are correct. 9/11 changed everything about terrorism, the potential damage caused by terrorists, hiding terrorists, and supporting terrorists. I believe the reaction was an appropriate one: to prove Bin Laden & Co. dead wrong that America is not, in fact, a hedonistic paper tiger that could be brought down by one simple massive strike.

why anyone blame bush for a terrorist attack on a school in michigan? he can't stop someone from blowing up a school if they truly want to.

so there have been attacks in russia and ok city. it's a real strech to compare this to russia/chech. i don't think michigan is trying to leave the union or is engaged in a decade-old conflict with the central gov't. but since you mention oklahoma, who's to say that toledo and branson aren't next? well, i'm sorry my postion bothers you, but i'm not going to lose any sleep over it since it's really out of my hands.

in all likelihood, a specific threat that had made the news will not come to fruition. in my completely ignorant opinion, this particular situation is not worth worrying about. let me know if something actually happens here and i'll apologize for being so trite. if not, i see no problem with that i said. earlier someone predicted that republicans would play up the fear aspect of the story, and i illustrated my doubts that they would do so. i haven't heard much more about it, so perhaps i was right?

there's a new "threat" every week or so, but usually it's just an attempt to get you to wait through the commericals.

my bad. "During the Cold War, WMD exclusively meant nuclear weapons." (from your site). guess i hadn't updated my definition. it also mentions that up until 1991, chemical and biological weapons weren't referred to as WMD. and it's still my opinion that they shouldn't be (but that's neither here nor there).

so? what your basically saying is "while sanctioned its illegal for him to make these things and we can legally enforce that, but once we lift the sanctions, and he can legally make them (and we can't force him not to), well, we've gotta stop that." i'm sorry but your theory of intent has nothing to do with the original reasons for the war, and unless you like the idea of thought crimes, that just doesn't hold up.

and oh my god! a dictator, especailly one we already know is as bad as saddam was, had a poison program to get rid of his enemies!?!?@! what the hell does that have to do with justifying the war?



i agree, 9/11 changed everything. and there's no better way to prove we're not a paper tiger than to take on an inferior army (after 12 years of sanctions) that's not a threat to us while we let countries that are actual threats go unbothered. it's kinda like when i used to beat up my little bro as a kid because i knew that if i tried to take on my older bro, it wouldn't be nice and easy.

your paper tiger wants steak. but all it got was iraq.

you've GOT to put that on a fucking T-shirt! :D

Thank God Saddam is gone and all we have now is that splendid fellow Zarqawi.

I'm sure all of Iraq, America and the world will sleep better for it.

Your logic is horriffic. According to your reasoning, none of us can ever know anything about anything.

Oh, and yes, you can be too paranoid when kids are involved. If you strip liberties from US citizens to "protect" the children, then the children will grow up without the liberties that make this country what it is. Rather like destroying the village in order to save it, isn't it?

1) Zarqawi is not (and will not be) in charge of Iraq, and does not have the necessary support to do what Saddam did to the Iraqis. He also does not have an army to attack Iraq's neighbors with.
2) Zarqawi was around *before* the Iraq war, and was doing nasty things before too. The US invasion did not create Zarqawi or his brand of terrorism, it just exposed it.
3) as nasty as he may be, he's still just one leader of one very small group of criminals. I suspect more Iraqis died of traffic accidents than from his terror attacks. You just tend to hear about terror attacks because it's a lot of dead people at one time, at one place. Saddam was infinately more deadly.

Better tell John Kerry that. He's going to end terrorism. I assume by giving a group hug to terrorists. Or maybe with the UN.


I'm not sure what your position IS, but as far as I know, no one in the World Trade Center was trying to leave the union or was engaged in a decade-old conflict with the central government.


I doubt that will make the victims and their families feel any better.

Germany didn't attack Pearl Harbor, either.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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 ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Well, for starters, he's wiped out two thirds of Al Qaeda. Oh, and the Navy SEALS in Iraq recently destroyed an al Qaeda training camp consisting of 40 buildings and capable of training 600 recruits at a time.

So is it your position that we should ignore all terrorists who don't live in the US?

To respond to the first part of your post, my criticism of Bush is that he
he failed in leadership of our military by not ordering them into war only
as a "last resort". History reveals now that he was wrong, and he refuses to take responsibility for his mistake, his own father's book reinforces the folly of his decision to invade Iraq:
The weapons inspector's report reveals the error in judgment Bush made by
not heeding the request for more time made by Hans Bilx:
James Chace, the biographer of U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson,
wrote an article about Bush and Iraq that contained the following.....
(Chace died on Oct. 8, and the world has lost an important historian and
a critical thinker)
There is no way to verify how much damage Bush's response has inflicted
on al Qaeda. It is fact that bush diverted military resources from Afghanistan
for the invasion of Iraq.
You provided no link to reference your claim that Navy Seals destroyed a
large al Qaeda training camp in Iraq. If you are referring to Salman Pak, it was
not an al Qaeda camp, and it does not appear that it was in use as a terrorist
training facility.
If this is true, these are not the actions of a U.S. government that I, and
I suspect, the founding fathers, could support. Can you ?

i was responding to one unmotivated insinuation you made (somehow i would blame bush for something); now you seem to be making more. i'm not sure this is really worth a response.

no one will end terrorism for a very long time, if ever. "yep, we got the last one! no one hates us anymore." = wishful thinking.

actually kerry said he intends to kill terrorists, but i'm not sure when he said he was going to end terrorism. either way, this has nothing to do with my post.
my position is (third time now) republicans won't make an issue out of the story that started this thread. and, as the past days have shown, they have not done so. the story was a bunch of nothing to being with. a politician would be foolish to make an issue out of this story.

you cited russia as an example of terrorism. i said it was not comparable to an attack in michigan because the situation is completely different. russia was recently attacked by chechen rebels. this has been going on for years. chechnia wants to leave russia, a somewhat legitimate position, but uses methods of terrorism. you can't really parallel their situation to any random terrorist attack on us. an amount of violence over there is expected because it has been happening for a long time. in the US there is not a highly organized resistance to the government. here there is no terrorism associated with an ongoing conflict in a specific part of the country.

so it is not valid to cite russia as an example of terrorism that could happen in the US.

what's more, russia and the US are increasingly different. russia is hardly even a democracy anymore.
well, since the story has been repeatedly shown to be baseless, it would take an amazing set of circumstances for the alleged threat to happen after all.

"you cited russia as an example of terrorism. i said it was not comparable to an attack in michigan because the situation is completely different. russia was recently attacked by chechen rebels. this has been going on for years. chechnia wants to leave russia, a somewhat legitimate position, but uses methods of terrorism. you can't really parallel their situation to any random terrorist attack on us. an amount of violence over there is expected because it has been happening for a long time. in the US there is not a highly organized resistance to the government. here there is no terrorism associated with an ongoing conflict in a specific part of the country."


Chechan rebels are Muslims, I really wonder why the news won't say that.

No, he just wants to harm Westerners. So we've gone from someone who did nothing to Westerners to someone who only wants to target Westerners and their supporters and who doesn't mind killing a few Iraqis on the way. The US has actually created what they set out to destroy. Is that a step in the right direction?

Whether he's in charge of the country or not or is able to invade Kuwait is irrelevant.

Yes, they gave it a global stage and in the eyes of many impressionable young men, they gave his cause a very persuasive justification. Youths from all around the region are pouring into Iraq to follow him. He couldn't have hoped for a more impactful recruitment campaign than this invasion. How is this helping to defeat terrorism?

Give him time. Saddam had decades to "do his thing." Let's talk about this 10 years from now when we can really see who was worse.

DJ Happy, are you suggesting that Zarqawi did not want to harm westerners before the Iraq war? 'Cause that's bullocks - he was a major Al-Qaida figure before, so it's not like the war suddenly changed his mind. The US did not create Zarqawi and his band of merry men; the Iraq war gave Zarqawi a stage to play on. I'd say he would've gone on killing Westerners in other countries had the US not attacked. And that he's not in charge of a country is pretty damn relevant - it means he's unable to kill as many people as he might have otherwise.

The young men would have been angry anyway, or are you forgetting the US-backed sanctions that killed thousands of innocent Muslim babies, and the US-backed no-fly-zones that killed many brave Muslim soldiers? Extremists don't need a reason to hate, just an excuse, *any* excuse.

Yes, when Zarqawi is able to kill millions of innocent civilians instead of dozens, we'll talk again. But I think you're giving the man too much credit - I think he'll be dead pretty damn soon, killed by the Iraqis he's "liberating".

I'm just curious; do you give credability to the UN?

No, I was saying that Saddam wasn't targeting Westerners.

I find it disturbing that you say the fact that he can't kill as many as he wants to is a positive. I thought the aim was to eliminate killing altogether.

This statement is baseless. The fact is that while they may have been angry, they weren't acting on it. Even if what you say is true, Iraq has given them the perfect opportunity to act. Your argument is that terrorists will always exist, no matter what you do. In which case, what are you doing?

Extremists always need a reason to hate. Your analysis of them as nutters who just want to kill is one of the major problems with the US attitude to this situation.

You mean the ones who are currently hiding him?

I like your use of the word "liberating" in inverted commas. It seems appropriate on so many levels.