Saddam Hussein supported anti-American terrorist groups

  • 57 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for whipassmt
whipassmt

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#1 whipassmt
Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

I just found this article on the internet which mentions a report done by the Defense Department that compiles seized Iraqi gov't documents and interviews of high ranking Ba'athist officials. The Article claims that information in the report show that since the end of the Gulf War Saddam sought to make alliances with various terrorist groups in order to attack U.S. interests in the region.

Among other things:

The former regime's stash of documents includes a list of some of the groups that were willing to commit these attacks on behalf of the Iraqi regime. The "Renewal and Jihad Organization" was one group willing to "carry out operations against American interests at any time." The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri's group, which merged with Osama bin Laden's terrorists to form al-Qaeda) is described in the report as having "agreed" on a plan for attacks against the Egyptian government. The Islamic Scholars Group in Pakistan is described by Iraqi officials as willing to "carry out any assignment we task them with." Another Pakistani organization, which the report refers to as the Pakistan Scholars Group, is listed as not being "tasked with commando operations during the (Gulf) war," possibly implying that the group was available to commit "operations" at Iraq's beckoning. (For more on Saddam Hussein's associations with Islamic groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Ray Robison's "Both in One Trench" is a must read.)

The report also reveals that in the late 1990s Saddam was willing to "support or co-opt" a group named "Army of Muhammad" that it knew to be loyal to Osama bin Laden. Iraq was aware that the group had plans to attack American military bases in Arab countries (a goal that Saddam's regime shared) and American embassies (another shared goal). Internal Iraqi documents note that the group was seeking Iraqi assistance, though they do not mention what Iraq's response was. Saddam was impressed with al-Qaeda attacks on American embassies and other targets, and his pattern of support for groups wishing to attack American interests suggests that refusing to grant the desired assistance to the Army of Muhammad would have been a deviation from normal behavior.

Another document lists an Islamic militant group in Afghanistan as dependent on Iraq for financing, and an Islamic group in Egypt as agreeing to make attacks in exchange for financing and training from Iraq. Saddam's regime also provided supervision and oversight, as well as 30,000 rifles and 10,000 pistols, to help get a Sudanese terrorist training camp off the ground at a time when anti-American Islamic terror groups were prevalent in the country. According to the report, Saddam's regime also maintained in-country training camps for all kinds of non-Iraqi groups, many of which were looking to destabilize America's allies in the Middle East.

Other documents show that a Kurdish Islamic group received "financial and moral support" from Saddam's regime and that the regime wanted to establish an organizational relationship with the group. This is probably the group referred to later in the report as conducting attacks against American and other U.N. humanitarian workers, as well as Kurdish officials and civilians, on behalf of the Iraqi regime.

A less contentious issue is the use of terrorism by arms of Saddam Hussein's intelligence and security branches. In 1993 Saddam ordered his men to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil, especially Somalia." This occurred within days of al-Qaeda's decision to do the same thing. In 1990 terrorists acting on behalf of the Iraqi regime attempted to bomb an American ambassador's home in Jakarta and an American Airlines office and the Japanese embassy in the Philippines.

Avatar image for whipassmt
whipassmt

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#2 whipassmt
Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

It appears that Saddam was a bigger threat than many people think he was.

Also, it seems that Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than Qaddafi was.

Avatar image for tenaka2
tenaka2

17958

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 tenaka2
Member since 2004 • 17958 Posts

It appears that Saddam was a bigger threat than many people think he was.

Also, it seems that Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than Qaddafi was.

whipassmt

No shock here, governments do it all the time. The U.S. has supported many, many terrorist groups.

Avatar image for m0zart
m0zart

11580

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 0

#4 m0zart
Member since 2003 • 11580 Posts

In other news, ice cream melts in the sun.

Avatar image for mrmusicman247
mrmusicman247

17601

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 mrmusicman247
Member since 2008 • 17601 Posts

In other news, ice cream melts in the sun.

m0zart
And the world isn't flat. Go figure.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

It appears that Saddam was a bigger threat than many people think he was.

Also, it seems that Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than Qaddafi was.

whipassmt
Which is to say: More than "not a threat at all"
Avatar image for Rhazakna
Rhazakna

11022

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Rhazakna
Member since 2004 • 11022 Posts
Saddam wasn't an existential threat to the US. Him supporting terrorists isn't surprising, nor does it vindicate the invasion of Iraq.
Avatar image for Half-Way
Half-Way

5001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Half-Way
Member since 2010 • 5001 Posts

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

It appears that Saddam was a bigger threat than many people think he was.

Also, it seems that Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than Qaddafi was.

tenaka2

No shock here, governments do it all the time. The U.S. has supported many, many terrorist groups.

this

Avatar image for whipassmt
whipassmt

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#9 whipassmt
Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

Saddam wasn't an existential threat to the US.Rhazakna
Nor is al Qaeda for that matter.

Avatar image for whipassmt
whipassmt

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#10 whipassmt
Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

It appears that Saddam was a bigger threat than many people think he was.

Also, it seems that Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than Qaddafi was.

Ace6301

Which is to say: More than "not a threat at all"

Well Qaddafi currently isn't much of a threat. He was a bigger threat in the past, but he gave up his WMD program in 2003.

Avatar image for whipassmt
whipassmt

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#11 whipassmt
Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

It appears that Saddam was a bigger threat than many people think he was.

Also, it seems that Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than Qaddafi was.

tenaka2

No shock here, governments do it all the time. The U.S. has supported many, many terrorist groups.

Not only did he support them. In some instances he might've even ordered attacks against Americans.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180266

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180266 Posts
This somehow does not surprise me.
Avatar image for Treflis
Treflis

13757

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 Treflis
Member since 2004 • 13757 Posts
Considering there was a war waged between him and the US that was called Desert Storm, inwhich the US won. I'm not surprised he was funding groups who dislike the US.
Avatar image for Blue-Sky
Blue-Sky

10381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#14 Blue-Sky
Member since 2005 • 10381 Posts

Is this a sad attempt at justifying our Iraqi Campaign?

Avatar image for ImaPirate0202
ImaPirate0202

4473

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#15 ImaPirate0202
Member since 2005 • 4473 Posts

I am shocked and appalled.

Avatar image for ItalStallion777
ItalStallion777

1953

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 ItalStallion777
Member since 2005 • 1953 Posts

this is about as surprising as coalition forces finding hundreds of chemical weapons in iraq

Avatar image for raynimrod
raynimrod

6862

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#17 raynimrod
Member since 2005 • 6862 Posts

Is this a sad attempt at justifying our Iraqi Campaign?

Blue-Sky

I think it might be. So what if he didn't like the US? There are plenty of countries that don't.

Avatar image for supergoat777
supergoat777

1470

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 supergoat777
Member since 2010 • 1470 Posts

I just found this article on the internet which mentions a report done by the Defense Department that compiles seized Iraqi gov't documents and interviews of high ranking Ba'athist officials. The Article claims that information in the report show that since the end of the Gulf War Saddam sought to make alliances with various terrorist groups in order to attack U.S. interests in the region.

Among other things:

The former regime's stash of documents includes a list of some of the groups that were willing to commit these attacks on behalf of the Iraqi regime. The "Renewal and Jihad Organization" was one group willing to "carry out operations against American interests at any time." The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri's group, which merged with Osama bin Laden's terrorists to form al-Qaeda) is described in the report as having "agreed" on a plan for attacks against the Egyptian government. The Islamic Scholars Group in Pakistan is described by Iraqi officials as willing to "carry out any assignment we task them with." Another Pakistani organization, which the report refers to as the Pakistan Scholars Group, is listed as not being "tasked with commando operations during the (Gulf) war," possibly implying that the group was available to commit "operations" at Iraq's beckoning. (For more on Saddam Hussein's associations with Islamic groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Ray Robison's "Both in One Trench" is a must read.)

The report also reveals that in the late 1990s Saddam was willing to "support or co-opt" a group named "Army of Muhammad" that it knew to be loyal to Osama bin Laden. Iraq was aware that the group had plans to attack American military bases in Arab countries (a goal that Saddam's regime shared) and American embassies (another shared goal). Internal Iraqi documents note that the group was seeking Iraqi assistance, though they do not mention what Iraq's response was. Saddam was impressed with al-Qaeda attacks on American embassies and other targets, and his pattern of support for groups wishing to attack American interests suggests that refusing to grant the desired assistance to the Army of Muhammad would have been a deviation from normal behavior.

Another document lists an Islamic militant group in Afghanistan as dependent on Iraq for financing, and an Islamic group in Egypt as agreeing to make attacks in exchange for financing and training from Iraq. Saddam's regime also provided supervision and oversight, as well as 30,000 rifles and 10,000 pistols, to help get a Sudanese terrorist training camp off the ground at a time when anti-American Islamic terror groups were prevalent in the country. According to the report, Saddam's regime also maintained in-country training camps for all kinds of non-Iraqi groups, many of which were looking to destabilize America's allies in the Middle East.

Other documents show that a Kurdish Islamic group received "financial and moral support" from Saddam's regime and that the regime wanted to establish an organizational relationship with the group. This is probably the group referred to later in the report as conducting attacks against American and other U.N. humanitarian workers, as well as Kurdish officials and civilians, on behalf of the Iraqi regime.

A less contentious issue is the use of terrorism by arms of Saddam Hussein's intelligence and security branches. In 1993 Saddam ordered his men to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil, especially Somalia." This occurred within days of al-Qaeda's decision to do the same thing. In 1990 terrorists acting on behalf of the Iraqi regime attempted to bomb an American ambassador's home in Jakarta and an American Airlines office and the Japanese embassy in the Philippines.

whipassmt

Wow I never saw that one coming :roll:

Avatar image for bbkkristian
bbkkristian

14971

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 1

#19 bbkkristian
Member since 2008 • 14971 Posts

Also, it seems that Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than Qaddafi IS (he said was).

whipassmt

Fixed and read again.

I already knew that he was a big threat. In fact we were talking about the Gulf War today in my US History class.

Avatar image for jetpower3
jetpower3

11631

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 jetpower3
Member since 2005 • 11631 Posts

But was that any excuse to order the entire nation's army and police forces to disband, which in the process put maybe hundreds of thousands of angry, armed, and war-skilled men out on the streets, and gave dangerous players like Al Sadr and Al Qaeda free rein in the resulting power vacuum for years?

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#21 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Also, it seems that Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than Qaddafi IS (he said was).

bbkkristian

Fixed and read again.

I already knew that he was a big threat. In fact we were talking about the Gulf War today in my US History class.

Saddam was not a thread to the US, at all. Maybe Israel and Kuwait, but not the US.
Avatar image for bbkkristian
bbkkristian

14971

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 1

#22 bbkkristian
Member since 2008 • 14971 Posts
[QUOTE="bbkkristian"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Also, it seems that Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than Qaddafi IS (he said was).

Ace6301

Fixed and read again.

I already knew that he was a big threat. In fact we were talking about the Gulf War today in my US History class.

Saddam was not a thread to the US, at all. Maybe Israel and Kuwait, but not the US.

And this thread is about him supporting anti American terrorist groups?
Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#23 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

So what? Lots of people think the invasion of Afghanistan was totally unjustified. This won't change their opinions.

Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts
Welcome to 2005? We knew this a long time ago..
Avatar image for jetpower3
jetpower3

11631

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 jetpower3
Member since 2005 • 11631 Posts

So what? Lots of people think the invasion of Afghanistan was totally unjustified. This won't change their opinions.

Palantas

Afghanistan? Last time I checked, Saddam was the President of Iraq. A country also invaded by the U.S., but subsequent to the Invasion of Afghanistan. And for different reasons.

Avatar image for weezyfb
weezyfb

14703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#26 weezyfb
Member since 2009 • 14703 Posts
still no justification
Avatar image for _R34LiTY_
_R34LiTY_

3331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 _R34LiTY_
Member since 2008 • 3331 Posts

I think the last and final straw for Hussein was when he decided to commoditize his oil transactions from the US Dollar to the Euro. That was the WMD that he had that no one was able to find.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#28 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
- Saddam supports anti-American terrorist group - US supports Saddam before first Gulf War - US supports anti-American terrorist group Divide by zero. Universe implodes.
Avatar image for jetpower3
jetpower3

11631

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 jetpower3
Member since 2005 • 11631 Posts

I think the last and final straw for Hussein was when he decided to commoditize his oil transactions from the US Dollar to the Euro. That was the WMD that he had that no one was able to find.

_R34LiTY_

Saddam should have waited and done that instead of completely destroying his economy, oil output, and international credibility in two reckless wars against fellow OPEC nations. Maybe then that move would have had significance.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#30 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

It appears that Saddam was a bigger threat than many people think he was.

Also, it seems that Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than Qaddafi was.

whipassmt

The United States allowed Iraq to do more damage to them through invasion and occupation than they ever could before that.... And Qaddafi was never a threat to begin with, NATO did not give air support due to a threat of Libya..

Avatar image for ToastRider11
ToastRider11

2573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#31 ToastRider11
Member since 2010 • 2573 Posts

Well........Good thing we got him and killed him. (Was it the US who killed him?)

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#32 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

Well........Good thing we got him and killed him. (Was it the US who killed him?)

ToastRider11

No he was executed by the new Iraqi government.. Which always scratched my head, we never found these supposed WMD's.. But the Bush Adminstration never recanted their claims, so the US allows them to execute the one man who would know for sure if they had wmd's or not?

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#33 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

No he was executed by the new Iraqi government.. Which always scratched my head, we never found these supposed WMD's.. But the Bush Adminstration never recanted their claims, so the US allows them to execute the one man who would know for sure if they had wmd's or not?

sSubZerOo

Oh man, the US screwed up big time!

Avatar image for deactivated-5e97585ea928c
deactivated-5e97585ea928c

8521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#34 deactivated-5e97585ea928c
Member since 2006 • 8521 Posts

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

It appears that Saddam was a bigger threat than many people think he was.

Also, it seems that Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than Qaddafi was.

whipassmt

No shock here, governments do it all the time. The U.S. has supported many, many terrorist groups.

Not only did he support them. In some instances he might've even ordered attacks against Americans.

And the united states did the same thing with osama against the russians.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180266

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180266 Posts

[QUOTE="ToastRider11"]

Well........Good thing we got him and killed him. (Was it the US who killed him?)

sSubZerOo

No he was executed by the new Iraqi government.. Which always scratched my head, we never found these supposed WMD's.. But the Bush Adminstration never recanted their claims, so the US allows them to execute the one man who would know for sure if they had wmd's or not?

You're not proposing the US interfere with another countries court system?
Avatar image for Cheesehead9099
Cheesehead9099

2849

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#36 Cheesehead9099
Member since 2008 • 2849 Posts

And in other exciting new developments, I took a rather large s*** today.

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#37 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

[QUOTE="I"]

So what? Lots of people think the invasion of Afghanistan was totally unjustified. This won't change their opinions.

jetpower3

Afghanistan? Last time I checked, Saddam was the President of Iraq. A country also invaded by the U.S., but subsequent to the Invasion of Afghanistan. And for different reasons.

Oh, no kidding? I learned something new today. :roll:

Avatar image for jetpower3
jetpower3

11631

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 jetpower3
Member since 2005 • 11631 Posts

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="I"]

So what? Lots of people think the invasion of Afghanistan was totally unjustified. This won't change their opinions.

Palantas

Afghanistan? Last time I checked, Saddam was the President of Iraq. A country also invaded by the U.S., but subsequent to the Invasion of Afghanistan. And for different reasons.

Oh, no kidding? I learned something new today. :roll:

But that very fact shows that your original post doesn't make much sense, especially given that many less people objected to the Invasion of Afghanistan than that of Iraq.

Avatar image for Shottayouth13-
Shottayouth13-

7018

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 Shottayouth13-
Member since 2009 • 7018 Posts
I would never have guessed.
Avatar image for PsychoLemons
PsychoLemons

3183

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 PsychoLemons
Member since 2011 • 3183 Posts

I'm not surprised.

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#41 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

[QUOTE="I"]

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Afghanistan? Last time I checked, Saddam was the President of Iraq. A country also invaded by the U.S., but subsequent to the Invasion of Afghanistan. And for different reasons.

jetpower3

Oh, no kidding? I learned something new today. :roll:

But that very fact shows that your original post doesn't make much sense, especially given that many less people objected to the Invasion of Afghanistan than that of Iraq.

Oh for f***'s sake... People objected to the invasion of Afghanistan even though it was harboring/supporting a group that attacked the US. Ergo, even if Iraq were doing the same, people would still complain about it.

Avatar image for KH-mixerX
KH-mixerX

5702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#42 KH-mixerX
Member since 2007 • 5702 Posts

Not surprising. This won't deter the Iraqi invasion opposers one bit though if that's what you were going for TC.

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
LostProphetFLCL

18526

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 LostProphetFLCL
Member since 2006 • 18526 Posts

Well if somebody on the internet said it, it must be true.

Avatar image for jetpower3
jetpower3

11631

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 jetpower3
Member since 2005 • 11631 Posts

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="I"]

Oh, no kidding? I learned something new today. :roll:

Palantas

But that very fact shows that your original post doesn't make much sense, especially given that many less people objected to the Invasion of Afghanistan than that of Iraq.

Oh for f***'s sake... People objected to the invasion of Afghanistan even though it was harboring/supporting a group that attacked the US. Ergo, even if Iraq were doing the same, people would still complain about it.

Only to the extent that the population of both said opposition sets overlap. It just seems irrelevant to mention one, and then automatically assume "they" also represents the population set for the other one.

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#45 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

jetpower3

Well, I don't think it's irrelevant. How 'bout that? I imagine that people who complain about one thing based on a certain rationale will complain about another situation based on the same or similar rationale. And what do you know? We have people in this thread saying that the information presented in this thread doesn't justify the invasion.

Now explain what this has to do with your banally obvious objection to my original statment: That Saddam Hussein was, in fact, the president of Iraq and not Afghanistan, and that these are two different countries the US invaded.

Avatar image for jetpower3
jetpower3

11631

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 jetpower3
Member since 2005 • 11631 Posts

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Palantas

Well, I don't think it's irrelevant. How 'bout that? I imagine that people who complain about one thing based on a certain rationale will complain about another situation based on the same or similar rationale. And what do you know? We have people in this thread saying that the information presented in this thread doesn't justify the invasion.

Now explain what this has to do with your banally obvious objection to my original statment: That Saddam Hussein was, in fact, the president of Iraq and not Afghanistan, and that these are two different countries the US invaded.

I don't want to start a snowballing argument, but I will just say that the implications and reasons behind the Invasion of Afghanistan, at least at face value, do not have much to do with the fact of whether Saddam dealt with anti-American terrorist groups or not. Therefore, I found your comment somewhat out of the blue, unless you really believed that Afghanistan was linked to Saddam. But now I see you do not.

Avatar image for whipassmt
whipassmt

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#47 whipassmt
Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

[QUOTE="bbkkristian"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Also, it seems that Saddam was more of a threat to the U.S. than Qaddafi IS (he said was).

Ace6301

Fixed and read again.

I already knew that he was a big threat. In fact we were talking about the Gulf War today in my US History class.

Saddam was not a thread to the US, at all. Maybe Israel and Kuwait, but not the US.

In that case, neither is Qaddafi.

Avatar image for Riverwolf007
Riverwolf007

26023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 Riverwolf007
Member since 2005 • 26023 Posts

don't care the us govt is 10 times the threat to my freedom and well being than any terror organization or foreign govt.

Avatar image for -RocBoys9489-
-RocBoys9489-

6336

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 -RocBoys9489-
Member since 2008 • 6336 Posts

In other news, ice cream melts in the sun.

m0zart
I haven't lol'd that hard in a while, especially after seeing your avatar :lol:
Avatar image for whipassmt
whipassmt

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#50 whipassmt
Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

this is about as surprising as coalition forces finding hundreds of chemical weapons in iraq

ItalStallion777

They did.

"The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee"

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_did_find_iraq_wmd_AYiLgNbw7pDf7AZ3RO9qnM