• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iraq - Al Queida Link

GarzaUK

British, Irish and everything in-between.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,688
Reaction score
631
Location
Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Okay, I am getting a little annoyed about people saying that Saddam and Osama were the best of buddies, therefore it was justifable to go to war with Iraq.
Personally I was in favour of the war in a Iraq (I was a conservative in my young days lol), but when the Bush Administration told of the link and how Iraq could be responsible for 9/11 - I immediatly though "liar". Even the pro-war guys in the UK knew not to say that.

It was that moment that I realized that the Bush Administration was making every excuse in the book. (It wasn't about Iraqi freedom either, since Bush offered Saddam a chance to stay in power). Ever since then I have become more and more liberal, university played alot in my liberalism. Maybe it was the multi-racial atmosphere or I might have just got smarter lol.

Are you conservatives in denial? You must be, the truth keeps on staring you in the face.
Prepared a few links to back myself up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,944741,00.html
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/02/05/story87091.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3027234.stm
I love this one, Powell does a 180 and says he found "no smoking gun" to the link. lol
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150
This one has sources from 3 or 4 newspapers.
http://theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0505
 
Last edited:
GarzaUK said:
Okay, I am getting a little annoyed about people saying that Saddam and Osama were the best of buddies, therefore it was justifable to go to war with Iraq.
Personally I was in favour of the war in a Iraq (I was a conservative in my young days lol), but when the Bush Administration told of the link and how Iraq could be responsible for 9/11 - I immediatly though "liar". Even the pro-war guys in the UK knew not to say that.

It was that moment that I realized that the Bush Administration was making every excuse in the book. (It wasn't about Iraqi freedom either, since Bush offered Saddam a chance to stay in power)

Are you conservatives in denial? You must be, the truth keeps on staring you in the face.
Prepared a few links to back myself up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C944741%2C00.html
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/02/05/story87091.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3027234.stm
I love this one, Powell does a 180 and says he found "no smoking gun" to the link. lol
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150
This one has sources from 3 or 4 newspapers.
http://theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0505

When did Bush make that offer?
 
Bush and Blair did just before the invasion.

I tried to find links, but it was 2 years ago, i found one.

Blair, "Saddam Hussein is being given his "final opportunity" to disarm peacefully."

It was probably just a ploy to look like the good guys, while they prepared to invade. Saddam probably couldn't have done a thing, Bush and Co wanted Iraq no matter what.
 
GarzaUK said:
Bush and Blair did just before the invasion.

I tried to find links, but it was 2 years ago, i found one.

Blair, "Saddam Hussein is being given his "final opportunity" to disarm peacefully."

It was probably just a ploy to look like the good guys, while they prepared to invade. Saddam probably couldn't have done a thing, Bush and Co wanted Iraq no matter what.

So, get rid of the WMD's you don't have or be invaded. Interesting.
 
GarzaUK said:
Bush and Blair did just before the invasion.

I tried to find links, but it was 2 years ago, i found one.

Blair, "Saddam Hussein is being given his "final opportunity" to disarm peacefully."

It was probably just a ploy to look like the good guys, while they prepared to invade. Saddam probably couldn't have done a thing, Bush and Co wanted Iraq no matter what.
Well, at the end, Saddam was given an ultimatum to get out of the country (abdicate his leadership and homeland) or to be invaded:
W. Bush said:
Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.
 
Here's a link to a story from the Washington Times that backs up GarzaUK's statement about Bush leaving Saddam in power.(sorry, no mention of Blair. That doesn't mean anything tho.)

Two top Bush administration officials said yesterday that America would accept the continuation of Saddam Hussein‘s regime if Iraq disarms, apparently backing away from the official U.S. policy of seeking the ouster of the dictator.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said in television interviews yesterday that a disarmed Saddam could remain in power, and Mr. Powell said that is now President Bush‘s position.
 
Would you guys be for the war if it was for humanitarian reasons
 
pwo said:
Would you guys be for the war if it was for humanitarian reasons

I would not. There is nothing 'humanitarian' about war. If we wanted to help out humanity, why not give some money to AIDS-plagued Africa? Or help regulate the awful working conditions in the sweatshops of China? Or help out Rwanda and Sudan?? These are true humanitarian causes and require the use of no army.
 
anomaly said:
I would not. There is nothing 'humanitarian' about war. If we wanted to help out humanity, why not give some money to AIDS-plagued Africa? Or help regulate the awful working conditions in the sweatshops of China? Or help out Rwanda and Sudan?? These are true humanitarian causes and require the use of no army.

Sometimes, "would you pretty please stop - with sugar on top", doesn't cut it.
 
Still, there is so much suffering in the world that is being ignored that doesn't require more war to end.
 
Blue Hobgoblin said:
Still, there is so much suffering in the world that is being ignored that doesn't require more war to end.
All of this should not be the responsibility of the US. We have our own problems sometimes.
 
Chaos10187 said:
All of this should not be the responsibility of the US. We have our own problems sometimes.





I would agree with this except we are tied to them in several ways.
Religion on both sides will always be a problem until we can mend some fences.
Alliances (Israel,Kuwait) will draw US attention, oil dependency,etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom