Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Where are you getting your information from??? Half the stuff you posted is completely wrong.
3.
Abu Masab al-Zarqawi was already in Iraq when we invaded, but there are a lot of questions as to whether Saddam knew this or allowed him in the country etc etc.
The question isn't whether there was any member there, but whether there was any meaningful link between Al Queda and Saddam justifying war on Iraq.
The evidence shows that Saddam *rejected* alliance with Al Queda; in fact, Al Queda's main gripe was how they wanted to go to war with Saddam for his wrongs, and they asked Saudi Arabia to let them fight Saddam instead of the US in the first Gulf War to keep the issue in the Muslim world, but they felt - with some justification - that Saudi Arabia made a mistake by letting the US come into the region and fight the war against Muslims, including the creation of indefinite military bases in the nation with Muslim's most sacred location.
For you to challenge the assertion that there was not any Saddam-Al Queda relationship significant for justifying war is utterly dishonest of you.
In fact, to use your absurd standard, there's no question there were active Al Queda members living inside the US... and remember, Saddam had no control over Northern Iraq.
4. Ever heard of Abu Abbas or Abu Nidal?? Both terrorists who killed or helped to kill Americans and both lived in Iraq with the knowledge of Saddam.
Grounds for concern, not for war. Are you consistent, so that Cuba and Venezuela can invade the US for our harboring the terrorist who exploded a Cuban civilian airliner?
And that the UN should vote to support them in that invasion, so that we'll see British and Canadian troops among others under the flag of the UN plotting to bomb and invade us?
5. Saddam paid the families of any suicide bomber $25,000. There is no 'alleged' about this funding it was very wide known.
A matter between Israel and Iraq, but there are two sides to the story as always. What was the US's role in the creation of the by far most militarily powerful nation in the region?
Are you saying if someone created a military far more powerful than the rest of the US combined in part of our current 48 states that treated groups of Americans the way Israel treats the Palastenians, that you would condemn all actions by the Americans to oppose them that were violent?
Again, if you are to be consistent, if that policy of financial assistence to terrorists is ground for invading a nation, are you willing to say a large amount of the world has grounds (and everyone else on their behalf, the way you want the US, *on behalf of Israel*, to invade Iraq), for the US's countless cases of supporting terrorism around the world, just to name a few, our former 'School of the Americas' training the death squads for Central American nations, our creation of a terrorist army ni Nicaragua, our training and deployment of terrorists in North Vietnam 'before the war', Cuba (Bay of Pigs), etc.?
6. Funny enough... Saddam was responsible for PROVING that he destroyed his WMD but he never did such a thing. The burden of proof was always on Saddam and right before the invasion even Blix said that Saddam was not fully cooperating.
That might be an argument for the inspectors going into Iraq to find out the truth. Which *they were doing*, but Bush, *not Saddam*, refused to let them complete the inspections.
As for Saddam's cooperation - which had certainly been lacking during a period when the US did things like create illegal no-fly zones as a pretense for ongoing bombing of Iraq - the issue is in the context of *justifying war*. You try to misuse, completely dishonestly, the incomplete cooperation by Saddam with inspectors cited by Hans Blix *to respond to the issue of the war being justified*, when in fact, you can read Blix's reports, and they said while imperfect, the cooperation was *sufficient*, and war was *not* recommended.
7. The law that set the removal of Saddam as US policy was signed by Bill Clinton, was he a secret member of PNAC??
And here you try to dishonestly mislead people into believing that the 'policy of regime change' as a goal is the same as approving war.
Clinton, the man you cite as having approved the 'regime change' pollicy, was President for eight years, but he did not - and had no plans to - invade Iraq.
There's a case to be made against Clinton for his support of the ongoing bombing and the 'sanctions' that hurt so many Iraqi civilians, but you are not going to make that case.
There's a case to be made against Clinton that he did too little against Saddam over Saddam's kicking the inspectors out - but that argument ends the moment Bush did not just get the inspectors back in, at which point you could argue he did better than Clinton, but when Bush *kicked the inspectors out* and invaded without justification.
Facebook
Twitter