Powell: No evidence of al-Qaida link

[Shi Huangdi]

All we have is there is no proof of Al-Qaeda ties or WMDs. That doesn't mean there weren't Al-Qaeda ties, and the hunt of WMDs(Which may have been carefully hidden in places they wouldn't notice such aas RPG rounds) has lost resources due to the insurgency. We have, however, had members of the Iraqi military admit that Iraq did have WMDs.

[RGBVideo]

All we have is there is no proof of Al-Qaeda ties or WMDs. That doesn't mean there weren't Al-Qaeda ties, and the hunt of WMDs(Which may have been carefully hidden in places they wouldn't notice such aas RPG rounds) has lost resources due to the insurgency. We have, however, had members of the Iraqi military admit that Iraq did have WMDs.

In other words: Guilty until proven innocent.

I really didn't expect anyone to get that reference!

Point: Anyone in US who blames Iraq for supporting Al-Qaeda is a bloody hypocritical idiot.

[Patroklos]

If in your lifetime you have not had to follow a course you didn't particularly like to achieve a greater goal, or in other words pick a lesser of two evils, turn off your computer and go outside for the first time in your life.

There is no problem with USING Saddam (note the negative connotation for Saddam) against Iran and the Soviets considering what the greater stakes in that contest were. What would have been dispicable is if we continued to offer support after we won the Cold War. As it is once that war ended, actually before, not only did we cut him lose but they we beat the hell out of him.

[RGBVideo]

There is no problem with USING Saddam (note the negative connotation for Saddam) against Iran and the Soviets considering what the greater stakes in that contest were. What would have been dispicable is if we continued to offer support after we won the Cold War. As it is once that war ended, actually before, not only did we cut him lose but they we beat the hell out of him.

Missed the point.

[Patroklos]

Not suprising

[Jac de Molay]

In other words: Guilty until proven innocent.

Exactly. The old "absence of proof is not proof of absence" argument doesn't justify any war, at least not in a democratic society. As if we lived in anyway.

They were going to have their war no matter what. The rest was just window dressing.

[TheStinger]

If the reason was just to get rid of an evil git who killed over 300,00 people and invaded 2 other countries would people have supported it.

Thats why I think they should have gone to war.

[Sirotnikov]

In other words: Guilty until proven innocent.

Inexact.

Saddam was not exactly an innocent guy.

Consider this.

A person named Saddam is convicted of aggravated assault in 1991. His arrest reveals he also has been possessing illegal arms. He is forced to visit his parole officer and continuosly report on his stash of arms.

In 1998, he suddenly quits visiting his parole officer, and refuses to give any information on arms he may or may not have. Police intelligence suggests he does have arms, but at the time, no serious action is taken against him.

In 2001 new legistlation called "hard on crime" is passed. The police then decides to pursue Saddam for avoiding meetings with the parole officer, and, according to intelligence evidence, developing and possessing illegal arms.

Saddam is asked to report with his parole officer, and bring papers documenting his arms developing and smuggling bussiness. He tries to avoid meetings, or comes and doesn't speak. The evidence he gives on the arms issue is clearly missing any part about arms. When confronted, he promises he stopped dealing with them years ago, but the police knows it contradicts evidence they had in 1998.

When asked, Saddam does not provide any evidence of having disposed of any arms. He continues to claim he never had anything, which contradicts police intelligence.

Would you arrest this person on suspected charges of evading justice, purgery and arms smuggling?

I remind you that you have what appears to be soild intelligence that he is lying.

[GePap]

PLATO:

You mix up the timeline: the "triumvirate" formed AFTER the US made WMD's and a tie to Al-Qaeda the basic cliam for the war, NOT before. In fact, the US failed to get as many votes as it sought for the second resolution exactly becuase it failed to make the sale of this arguemnt, that this war was a valid war of pre-emptive self-defense. We can see right now why they failed- becuase that arguement was weak from the start.

From day 1 my opposition to invading iraq was based on the notion that the administration was defrauding the world but more specifically the American people for the rationale of the war, and that the war effort itself would be greatly undermined. Sloww's endless arguemnt that the US did thi to enforce UN resolutions is flawed becuase you can ahrdly base your action on the legitimacy of a UN resolution while at the same time undermining the very validity of the UN system.
Laz and a few others were the ones who pushed, as Spiff has said, the war on purely humanitarian reasons. If Bush had come out day one saying this was the reason for the war, I would jhave backed it- but the American people and congress would not have. If the Admin. had form day one said this was the start of a new experiemental porgram of democratization of the ME through the use of military power as opposed to trying to decay systems from within or using non-military presure form without, we could have had a real debate in this country about the core ideas that really drove this war- but I doubt such a serious discussion would have been possible and that at the end of the day the admin. would have been able to seel the idea to non-elites.

So, with a good idea that selling the war on the valid points was impossible before the fact, they distorted beyond reality the threat from Iraq to sell the war on the one basis that mattered.

Interestingly, the US would have been able to sell the war to foreign governments on the real basis of the war more easily than with the made up arguements, but the people who run this WH really do not care if anyone save maybe the UK is along- they do think US power is sufficient to do something like Iraq, which is why they could spurn the UN.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Word.

This is more important than the topic. This not a serious thread, right Ming?

[KrazyHorse]

So there's no evidence of CBN weapons and no evidence of Al Qaeda links.

So the US admin was lying through its teeth.

Not really news. Therefore the only possible justification for the war was to alleviate suffering of Iraqi people, the issue which got the least play in the US.

Don't Americans ever get tired of their leadership making up reasons to go to war?

Remember the Maine!

[TCO]

We were not lying when we said that Saddam had not complied with the inspections. He played cat and mouse a little too long...

[KrazyHorse]

Hah. Your twit of a Prez was spoiling for an excuse to knock off Saddam.

Too bad he's not a better liar.

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, I would really have loved to see Bush sell a war to the US with the line "he doesn't have CNB weapons, but he hasn't rolled over and played dead enough for us"...

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Hah. Your twit of a Prez was spoiling for an excuse to knock off Saddam.

Too bad he's not a better liar.

And for good reason. He invaded Kuwait and then continued to misbehave. If the Democrats had there way, he would still be in Kuwait.