Proof of Pre-War Iraq Terror Links?

[MobBoss]

He was left in power (in fact, George H.W Bush has on many occasions stated he should be kept in power), and absolutely no help was given to anyone trying to oppose of rebel against Saddam.

Yeah, and in turn he was so grateful he hatched a plot to assassinate G.H.W. Bush. Please...your premise that he relied upon us being buddy-buddy after the first gulf war is totally insupportable. Trying to justify it further is just

This was as part of a UN team, not the US acting alone, and certainly not acting in a time of war.

Your kidding right? UN team or not...who shouldered the majority of combat operations? Air support? And I am here to tell you, enforcement of the "No Fly Zone" after the war was pretty much left the sole responsiblity of the USA.

This is the Taleban who had been invited to the US to negotiate oil deals?

As I recall it wasnt the "US" gov that was invited, but rather oil excutives and/or their reps correct?

 

[skadistic]

I love it.
First there is no conection then there is but it doesn't matter because the "level" of such conections isn't great enough then the taliban and al-quada are not realy all that exclusive to each other.

Mobboss you should stop trying like Bozo said. Not because your wrong but because if you try to convince the un-convincable you'll just give yourself an ulser and early coranary

 

[Mastreditr111]

I doubt that would slow down Iran one iota if that is what they wanted to do. Plus the allegation of it being a deliberate falsehood doesnt make sense in that aspect - why do something to mislead a lesser powerful enemy like Iran when doing so would give a much more powerful enemy like the USA a valid reason to invade?

because at the time when these were probably written the US had nointention of invading, while Iran is always a threat to Iraq. Why would they worry about us, and besides, Saddam understood fully that we could again knock Iraw flat if we felt like it, so he didnt really care about justification

 

[warpus]

So, I guess this IS another story now isnt it?

Not really. All I see is evidence of that there were intents to cooperate, agreements to cooperate in the future, agreements to share intelligence, etc.

But where is the evidence outlining any actual cooperation?

 

[Mastreditr111]

yes, that is what i mean.
1. where are papers showing actual cooperation?
2. how can we prove that these or any other such papers are not merely lying, just like documents saying you have WMD's can be planted to deter an enemy (like Iran) from attacking you?

 

[C~G]

I love it.
First there is no conection then there is but it doesn't matter because the "level" of such conections isn't great enough then the taliban and al-quada are not realy all that exclusive to each other.

And I love it too.

It sounds like you are trying to make point that if someone disagrees with the possible fact that there was connection between Hussein and some terrorist organizations he is wrong about everything.

I find it extremely funny that people don't ever put these things into perspective but always seem to find the extremes. One artillery shell filled with chemical agents is direct evidence of something horrifying and suddenly Bush has been right about everything.

But this is just normal political talk where people draw extreme conclusions from the most insignificant of things in order to prove other side being wrong.

 

[skadistic]

And I love it too.

It sounds like you are trying to make point that if someone disagrees with the possible fact that there was connection between Hussein and some terrorist organizations he is wrong about everything.

I find it extremely funny that people don't ever put these things into perspective but always seem to find the extremes. One artillery shell filled with chemical agents is direct evidence of something horrifying and suddenly Bush has been right about everything.

But this is just normal political talk where people draw extreme conclusions from the most insignificant of things in order to prove other side being wrong.

The point I'm making is that people say there was no conection but when its shown there is those people switch to the conection means nothing instead of there is no connection. It nice how nay-sayers change thier story to suit what ever the facts may be at the time.


One artilary shell with bio-agents is horrible and a direct violation of UN resolutions and it was more like 500.

 

[MobBoss]

The point I'm making is that people say there was no conection but when its shown there is those people switch to the conection means nothing instead of there is no connection. It nice how nay-sayers change thier story to suit what ever the facts may be at the time.


One artilary shell with bio-agents is horrible and a direct violation of UN resolutions and it was more like 500.

Quoted for absolute truthery.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Just saw this on Foxnews

Dude, this was on FOX "news". Everything reported by Faux news is a lie! Don't you know anything?

 

[delsully]

frankly, noone really knows enough to say whether this war was warranted or not, though we try anyway. We did find vast stocks of chemical shells and chem. components, and even more documents pertaining to the topic. does this justify the war? I dont know.

He got them from American companies dating back to the Iran-iraq War. Remember, that was when he was a useful despot.

 

[tomsnowman123]

does this justify the war? I dont know.

At least for me, no.

 

[FriendlyFire]

So, no pertinent comments? Just allegations of Foxnews being a tool of the administration and large scale lies and more denial without even reading the story or its merits?

Okey Dokey.

I dont get it you dismmissed the Former head(s) of the ISG David Kay and Baxter as bias, weak and opioioned based when confrounted with there factual conclusions (Heck not to mention Scott Ritter former head of the UN weapon inspection teams or Han Blix)

Yet your willing to back this as "proof" of terrorist links ???

I dont get it.

 

[FriendlyFire]

One artilary shell with bio-agents is horrible and a direct violation of UN resolutions and it was more like 500.

once again

...intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.

They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

It's an AP story
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_go_co/iraq_s_weapons

EDIT
Its Hugely IRONIC that you should mention this being a "direct violation" of UN resolution.

 

[skadistic]

Sarin = bio-weapon = something the UN told Saddam he had to get rid of all and verify that he did. Did he do what the UN resolution told him to do? NO. Is that a direct violation of the UN resolution? YES. Was the punishment for such violations use of force? YES.

What is so ironic? That the Iraqi goverment was in direct violation of UN resolutions?

 

[Godwynn]

As I recall it wasnt the "US" gov that was invited, but rather oil excutives and/or their reps correct?

So they were funding terrorists? Throw them in Guantanamo!

 

[FriendlyFire]

What is so ironic? That the Iraqi goverment was in direct violation of UN resolutions?

On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war

As mobboss did point out this isnt a un resolution but giving it came from the Head of the UN. You can take it anyway you want.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I note that Warpus' valid post has largely been ignored so I'll repeat it here:

Not really. All I see is evidence of that there were intents to cooperate, agreements to cooperate in the future, agreements to share intelligence, etc.

But where is the evidence outlining any actual cooperation?

I still think that we've put the cart before the horse somewhat here. If there is now evidence linking Iraq and AQ, shouldn't we have been shown this before the War?

I love it.
First there is no conection then there is but it doesn't matter because the "level" of such conections isn't great enough then the taliban and al-quada are not realy all that exclusive to each other.

Mobboss you should stop trying like Bozo said. Not because your wrong but because if you try to convince the un-convincable you'll just give yourself an ulser and early coranary

Quoted for humour. Those in support of the War accusing others of changing their reasons for denoucing it? What is the justification this week? WMDs? Regime Change? Imposing Installing Democaracy?

 

[MobBoss]

On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war

As mobboss did point out this isnt a un resolution but giving it came from the Head of the UN. You can take it anyway you want.

Well, gee...if Kofi said it, its gotta be true.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Well, gee...if Kofi said it, its gotta be true.

Why the ? Don't you think, as all people in positions like his do, that he had someone advise him that what he was saying was true before he said it? I find it amusing that you think a one liner can dismiss what the Secretary General of the UN claims to be true. Be it with a smiley or not.

 

[skadistic]

On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war

As mobboss did point out this isnt a un resolution but giving it came from the Head of the UN. You can take it anyway you want.

Is this the same guy who let his son get away with violating UN rules, let saboardanets (SP?) get away with sexual harasment more then once, let UN peace keepers get away with child rape, let UN employies get away with empezaling tons of money in the Oil- for Food debacle? Yea this guys word holds so much merrit. Not but a few weeks ago when the UNs #2 said that the American people were stupid and that it was FOX news that caused the UNs problems not the UN doing bad things, when asked for his view on the stament Kofi instead of decrying it for the bunk it was he praised his buddy and his bogus remarks. Now tell me why I should give two shakes what this anti-American ,corrupt, weasle says or thinks?

If its so illegal what happened to the charges? There are none because the war was legal. Keep in mind that this was not a new war but an extension from the first gulf war. There was a cease fire aggrement signed by Iraq (wich was violated on a daily basis) not a peace treaty. I can come up hundreds of violations of treaties on behalf of Iraq each one in and of itself a reason to re-engage the war.