Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>
When will they learn???
Let's go over this VERY simply.
1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq
2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>
When will they learn???
Let's go over this VERY simply.
1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq
2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)
And you know this with 100% certainty how?
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>
When will they learn???
Let's go over this VERY simply.
1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq
2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>
When will they learn???
Let's go over this VERY simply.
1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq
2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)
conjur-
I wouldn't say there were NO Al Aqeda presence in Iraq prior to March 2003, I'm sure they've gone in and out of Iraq many times. The trick is- does Saddam have any ties with them? Afterall, no one can keep their borders 100% secure and be sure not to let any terrorists in- just ask the victims of 9/11...
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>
When will they learn???
Let's go over this VERY simply.
1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq
2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)
conjur-
I wouldn't say there were NO Al Aqeda presence in Iraq prior to March 2003, I'm sure they've gone in and out of Iraq many times. The trick is- does Saddam have any ties with them? Afterall, no one can keep their borders 100% secure and be sure not to let any terrorists in- just ask the victims of 9/11...
Well, there was that camp in the northern part of Iraq but that was under Kurdish control and was protected from Saddam by the U.S. no-fly zones. Ah...the ignominy.
Wasn't there a group in Kurd Contolled Northern Iraq prior to the war?Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>
When will they learn???
Let's go over this VERY simply.
1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq
2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)
And you know this with 100% certainty how?
and you know that al qaeda was in Iraq before the war how?
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>
When will they learn???
Let's go over this VERY simply.
1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq
2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)
conjur-
I wouldn't say there were NO Al Aqeda presence in Iraq prior to March 2003, I'm sure they've gone in and out of Iraq many times. The trick is- does Saddam have any ties with them? Afterall, no one can keep their borders 100% secure and be sure not to let any terrorists in- just ask the victims of 9/11...
Well, there was that camp in the northern part of Iraq but that was under Kurdish control and was protected from Saddam by the U.S. no-fly zones. Ah...the ignominy.
Which is exactly where al-Zarqawi was, because we knew it. Powell used that intel at his infamous UN speech (one of the few things that was factual). When presented with this intelligence, the President decided not to act because he felt it would undermine his case for war against Saddam (going after actual terrorists tied to the group that attacked us made just too much sense apparently)...
So to the OP, how's THAT food for thought?
To bad for your argument that's not what the so called Liberals said. What they stated was that there were no direct links between Al Qaeda and Hussien.Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>
When will they learn???
Let's go over this VERY simply.
1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq
2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)
conjur-
I wouldn't say there were NO Al Aqeda presence in Iraq prior to March 2003, I'm sure they've gone in and out of Iraq many times. The trick is- does Saddam have any ties with them? Afterall, no one can keep their borders 100% secure and be sure not to let any terrorists in- just ask the victims of 9/11...
Well, there was that camp in the northern part of Iraq but that was under Kurdish control and was protected from Saddam by the U.S. no-fly zones. Ah...the ignominy.
Which is exactly where al-Zarqawi was, because we knew it. Powell used that intel at his infamous UN speech (one of the few things that was factual). When presented with this intelligence, the President decided not to act because he felt it would undermine his case for war against Saddam (going after actual terrorists tied to the group that attacked us made just too much sense apparently)...
So to the OP, how's THAT food for thought?
Right, so the whole "there are/were no terrorists in iraq" liberal bs is just that, bs.
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>
When will they learn???
Let's go over this VERY simply.
1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq
2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)
And you know this with 100% certainty how?
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Right, so the whole "there are/were no terrorists in iraq" liberal bs is just that, bs.
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Right, so the whole "there are/were no terrorists in iraq" liberal bs is just that, bs.
As Red Dawn said, that wasn't the anti-war argument at all.
The fact is Zarqawi and his gang were hiding out in the Kurdish (read: non-Saddam) controlled northern border with Iran. In that sense, there were terrorists in Saddam's Iraq just as there are terrorists in the US, or Germany, or Canada. They are there, but the government does not sanction them. Should we wage war against those countries as well?
In fact, the CIA controlled more of that area than Saddam did. Saddam ran a secular dictatorship. He was not an Islamic fundamentalist and he didn't like them in his country. There has never been an official administration explanation as to why Bush decided to just ignore the terrorists we knew about in that region and go after Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda.
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Right, so the whole "there are/were no terrorists in iraq" liberal bs is just that, bs.
As Red Dawn said, that wasn't the anti-war argument at all.
The fact is Zarqawi and his gang were hiding out in the Kurdish (read: non-Saddam) controlled northern border with Iran. In that sense, there were terrorists in Saddam's Iraq just as there are terrorists in the US, or Germany, or Canada. They are there, but the government does not sanction them. Should we wage war against those countries as well?
In fact, the CIA controlled more of that area than Saddam did. Saddam ran a secular dictatorship. He was not an Islamic fundamentalist and he didn't like them in his country. There has never been an official administration explanation as to why Bush decided to just ignore the terrorists we knew about in that region and go after Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda.
Stop perpetuating the myth that CIA is involved in everything and anything and is responsible for every bad thing that happens in the world. The CIA has never controlled anything during their entire existence. If the CIA was as capable as you imply the bay of pigs and hundereds of other interventions by the CIA wouldn't have been the misserable failure they were.