Yay for the Guardian

[Admiral_K]

And thanks to the French, we can spell "color" without a "u". Please acquaint yourself with the history of this country. Past support is not an excuse to invade a sovereign nation (under sanction, by the way) which poses absolutely no threat to its neighbors, much less the most powerful country in the world.

Well, hate to break it to ya, but American, British, and Russian intelligence felt that Saddam WAS a threat to the U.S. and was planning attacks against our interests at home and abroad. Putin, who no one will accuse of being a pro-american "Bush supporter", confirmed this himself on behalf of the Russians.

You think Bush should have sat on that Intelligence, knowing that Saddam hates America, and his family in particular? Should he sit on that intelligence after what happened on Sept 11th? Should he trust "sanctions" which have failed to do the job since they were enacted back in 91?

Here's an analogy:

Now, you may have a girlfriend or wife that you trust dearly. If you notice she is behaving suspiciously, you might write it off as insecurity on your part. If your friends tell you she is cheating, you might still doubt, although you'd definately be watching. Now, if you notice something, your friends notice something, and the neighbor whom you've never gotten along with notices the same thing, you're a fool if you don't do something about it.

Was Iraq ever going to conquer the U.S? No, but they sure as hell could've supported attacks similar to the one on the Spanish, and 9/11. So spare me the "Farehnehit 9/11" bullshit line of Iraq being a "Sovereign nation" (ruled by a ruthless dictator no less) that was "no threat" to the U.S. or our allies.

You might have a legitamate gripe with alot of what Bush did during his 4 years in office. But quite frankly invading Iraq isn't one of them.

[MKSheppard]

What's really insulting is Americans who are so bad at history they think they saved the day. Grow a brain, kid. You didn't save anyone's butts from speaking German or Russian.

The thousands of Liberty Ships that saved Britain from the UBoat Assault and the hundreds of LSTs that allowed the Allies to invade at Normandy didn't
spring from British yards you know

And who bore the brunt of the Cold War, Eh? Certainly not an economically
broken basket case Britain.

[SirNitram]

Oh wow, someone who

1) Can't fathom that Saddam had no connection to 9/11.

2) Is another of the idiot brigade who beleives 'everything changed' on 9/11. Nothing changed, except perhaps idiotic Americans stopped thinking they were immune to terrorists and therefore finally started thinking about getting their shit together(What a pity Bush is busily shovelling Homeland Security dollars to Alaska, not states with actual targets).

3) Acts like Saddam could threaten anyone, when every real report on his capabilities showed he was powerless.

4) Actually thinks anyone is gonna buy any of this shit.

[SirNitram]

What's really insulting is Americans who are so bad at history they think they saved the day. Grow a brain, kid. You didn't save anyone's butts from speaking German or Russian.

The thousands of Liberty Ships that saved Britain from the UBoat Assault and the hundreds of LSTs that allowed the Allies to invade at Normandy didn't
spring from British yards you know

We'd have survived. You can eat Scotsmen, you know. AND their sheep.

And who bore the brunt of the Cold War, Eh? Certainly not an economically
broken basket case Britain.

I'll give you that one, but I'll beleive a Russian invasion of Britain working being about the same as a WW2 Germany one. Though getting blockaded again would have sucked big donkey nads.

[Durandal]

Well, hate to break it to ya, but American, British, and Russian intelligence felt that Saddam WAS a threat to the U.S. and was planning attacks against our interests at home and abroad. Putin, who no one will accuse of being a pro-american "Bush supporter", confirmed this himself on behalf of the Russians.

Hate to break it to you, but they were dead-wrong, using padded intelligence so the Yes Men could please their boss and ignoring damning criticisms of that intelligence.

You think Bush should have sat on that Intelligence, knowing that Saddam hates America, and his family in particular? Should he sit on that intelligence after what happened on Sept 11th? Should he trust "sanctions" which have failed to do the job since they were enacted back in 91?

Hate to break it to you, but the sanctions worked, you blithering idiot. Not a single weapon of mass destruction has been found, nor does a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime exist. Period.

Here's an analogy:

Now, you may have a girlfriend or wife that you trust dearly. If you notice she is behaving suspiciously, you might write it off as insecurity on your part. If your friends tell you she is cheating, you might still doubt, although you'd definately be watching. Now, if you notice something, your friends notice something, and the neighbor whom you've never gotten along with notices the same thing, you're a fool if you don't do something about it.

What does "do something" mean? Precision-bomb your girlfriend's apartment? And what is the nature of this "something"? Is it a direct observation of her fucking some other guy? Or is it movement of shadows through a curtained window? Or is it hearing her moan from across the hall?

And what happens when you factor in the other accounts of her not fucking some other guy at the time these damning accounts were witnessed? What if you talk to her mom, and she says she was talking to her daughter for an hour that night? That's right: you, George W. Bush, totally ignore evidence to the contrary and begin an invasion. In your analogy, you'd be doing the equivalent of raping her and then beating her until she pledges loyalty to you, whether or not she's actually cheated on you.

Which a special commission one year later reports that she did not, in fact, cheat on you at all and was just masturbating with her vibrator.

Was Iraq ever going to conquer the U.S? No, but they sure as hell could've supported attacks similar to the one on the Spanish, and 9/11.

Did they? Nope. You obviously don't like criticism of Bush, so you could support the gassing of all liberals. See how fun preemption can be?

So spare me the "Farehnehit 9/11" bullshit line of Iraq being a "Sovereign nation" (ruled by a ruthless dictator no less) that was "no threat" to the U.S. or our allies.

Um ... it was a sovereign nation. It had its own government and everything. Did you know Iraq actually had laws too? I know, I was surprised to find that out, as well.

And it wasn't a threat to the US. Our steamrolling of their military should have proven that to anyone, but obviously not a rabid Bushite like you.

[Elfdart]

I wish you foreigners would stop whining and instead would work on making your own nations into super powers. Then you wouldn't be so concerned with who the American people vote for.

You don't see us writing letters to the French and Germans begging them to vote for candidates that are U.S. friendly now do you?

Reminds me of a famous quote by James Baldwin. He was giving a lecture in Britain about the evils of the Nixon regime and especially J. Edgar Hoover. The crowd was disinterested until he said they should pay attention "Because Richard Nixon is your President, too!"

Of course foreigners should have an interest in the U.S. government -in many cases, it's theirs, too!

[Admiral_K]

Well, hate to break it to ya, but American, British, and Russian intelligence felt that Saddam WAS a threat to the U.S. and was planning attacks against our interests at home and abroad. Putin, who no one will accuse of being a pro-american "Bush supporter", confirmed this himself on behalf of the Russians.

Hate to break it to you, but they were dead-wrong, using padded intelligence so the Yes Men could please their boss and ignoring damning criticisms of that intelligence.

Doesn't explain how the Russian intelligence was hearing the same thing. Russia was against the Iraq invasion, if you will recall (likely because of the nice kickbacks they were getting via the oil for bribes). Wouldn't make sense for them to "create" a reason for the invasion by telling the U.S. that they'd gotten word of Iraq planning attacks.

You think Bush should have sat on that Intelligence, knowing that Saddam hates America, and his family in particular? Should he sit on that intelligence after what happened on Sept 11th? Should he trust "sanctions" which have failed to do the job since they were enacted back in 91?

Hate to break it to you, but the sanctions worked, you blithering idiot. Not a single weapon of mass destruction has been found, nor does a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime exist. Period.

WMDs are IRRELEVANT. The Sanctions weren't stopping IRAQ from providing support to terrorists and planning attacks against U.S. interests. There were no WMD's in Afghanistan either, and that didn't stop us from invading.

The administrations real goal all along was regime change in IRAQ. The whole WMD's mess came latter to drum up support for it. Was it wrong for them to do that? Maybe, but that doesn't mean it was wrong for them to invade Iraq. And if I were you, I'd use more than just Michael Moore as my only source of information, lest it be revealed that it is you who are the blithering idiot.

Here's an analogy:

Now, you may have a girlfriend or wife that you trust dearly. If you notice she is behaving suspiciously, you might write it off as insecurity on your part. If your friends tell you she is cheating, you might still doubt, although you'd definately be watching. Now, if you notice something, your friends notice something, and the neighbor whom you've never gotten along with notices the same thing, you're a fool if you don't do something about it.

What does "do something" mean? Precision-bomb your girlfriend's apartment? And what is the nature of this "something"? Is it a direct observation of her fucking some other guy? Or is it movement of shadows through a curtained window? Or is it hearing her moan from across the hall?

Ofcourse you wouldn't precision bomb her appartment. You would take action appropriate to the situation (such as leaving the bitch). Its an analogy, moron.

And what happens when you factor in the other accounts of her not fucking some other guy at the time these damning accounts were witnessed? What if you talk to her mom, and she says she was talking to her daughter for an hour that night? That's right: you, George W. Bush, totally ignore evidence to the contrary and begin an invasion. In your analogy, you'd be doing the equivalent of raping her and then beating her until she pledges loyalty to you, whether or not she's actually cheated on you.

Apparently you are basing everything on whether or not WMDs were found. The jury is still out on that by the way. If 380 tons of explosives supposedly "vanished" in IRAQ, then it is highly probable that the same could have happened to IRAQ's suspected WMDS.

Regardless, Lets look at the facts:

FACT: Iraq was a supporter of Terrorism, both financially and logistically. Even Democrats don't refute this. They try to spin it by saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Osama, but you won't see them out right deny it being a suporter of terrorism.

FACT: Iraq had the capability of making WMD's whether they had them at this point in time or not. The current REgime could not be left in place given its posture towards the United States. The inspectors would have had to leave some time. Do you really believe Saddam, or possible his sons, wouldn't have resumed their weapons programs once the watchful eye of the world was turned elsewhere?

FACT: Iraq had the knowledge and expertise in creating and utilizing chemical and biological weapons. They also had a willingess to pass such information on to terrorist groups.

FACT: Iraq has highly valuable resources, with which it could use to support attacks on the U.S, either directly or by proxy throug terrorist groups. Saddam sure as hell wasn't concerned with using that money to feed his people and you can only have so many presidential palaces.

Which a special commission one year later reports that she did not, in fact, cheat on you at all and was just masturbating with her vibrator.

There is no such equivalent commission. Again, you are trying to srawman my argument by basing it strictly on WMDs. The presence or lack thereof of WMDS is irrelevant. Lots of Countries have WMDS. What you have to be concerned with is the posture of the regime in control of those weapons. Saddam was a threat simply because of the position and resources being dictator of iraq afforded him.

Was Iraq ever going to conquer the U.S? No, but they sure as hell could've supported attacks similar to the one on the Spanish, and 9/11.

Did they? Nope. You obviously don't like criticism of Bush, so you could support the gassing of all liberals. See how fun preemption can be?

Well, we know that Saddam was working on a way to assassinate George H W Bush but simply hadn't succeeded. You also have Multiple nation's intelligence agencies hearing plans for Iraqi terrorist style attacks against the U.S.

So spare me the "Farehnehit 9/11" bullshit line of Iraq being a "Sovereign nation" (ruled by a ruthless dictator no less) that was "no threat" to the U.S. or our allies.

Um ... it was a sovereign nation. It had its own government and everything. Did you know Iraq actually had laws too? I know, I was surprised to find that out, as well.

And it wasn't a threat to the US. Our steamrolling of their military should have proven that to anyone, but obviously not a rabid Bushite like you.

You really are dense aren't you? The fact that our Military could squash their military didn't mean they were "not a threat" or "couldn't hurt us". It simply means they would have had no chance at "defeating" the united states. You can squash a wasp with relative ease, but that doesn't mean it can't hurt you with its stinger before you do so.

They could've done serious damage to "soft" targets in the U.S. and our interests abroad and made it appear to be the work of islamic fundamentalists. In fact, that is exactly what our intelligence, Britains intelligance, and Russias intellegince was hearing. They also had the capability and the willingness to provide logistical support to terrorist groups, including training areas, money, etc.

But Hey, keep sticking your head in the sand and pretend. You don't have to worry, because thankfully there are more intelligent people in this world that are here to protect you. Your laveling me as a "bushite" only shows your ignorance. I'm not here to demand that you elect Bush to another term, or espousing the greatness of his presidency. I'm merely setting the record straight on the Iraq war.

[Admiral_K]

I wish you foreigners would stop whining and instead would work on making your own nations into super powers. Then you wouldn't be so concerned with who the American people vote for.

You don't see us writing letters to the French and Germans begging them to vote for candidates that are U.S. friendly now do you?

Reminds me of a famous quote by James Baldwin. He was giving a lecture in Britain about the evils of the Nixon regime and especially J. Edgar Hoover. The crowd was disinterested until he said they should pay attention "Because Richard Nixon is your President, too!"

Of course foreigners should have an interest in the U.S. government -in many cases, it's theirs, too!

Well, if foreigners are so interested in the U.S., then they petition the United States and ask to join =/. I could see Britain as being a fine addition as the 51st state!

[SirNitram]

WMDs are IRRELEVANT. The Sanctions weren't stopping IRAQ from providing support to terrorists and planning attacks against U.S. interests. There were no WMD's in Afghanistan either, and that didn't stop us from invading.

Evidence?

[Patrick Degan]

WMDs are IRRELEVANT. The Sanctions weren't stopping IRAQ from providing support to terrorists and planning attacks against U.S. interests. There were no WMD's in Afghanistan either, and that didn't stop us from invading.

The "support for terrorists" amounted to a token widows-and-orphans fund for Palestinian suicide bombers attacking Israeli interests. There was and is exactly zero evidence that Iraq was involved in terrorist plots against the United States in the years between the two wars, and any connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda's been quite thoroughly debunked. So let's have an end to this horseshit, shall we?

And Afganistan is a Red Herring in any argument concerning the non-threat of Iraq.

[Elfdart]

I wish you foreigners would stop whining and instead would work on making your own nations into super powers. Then you wouldn't be so concerned with who the American people vote for.

You don't see us writing letters to the French and Germans begging them to vote for candidates that are U.S. friendly now do you?

Reminds me of a famous quote by James Baldwin. He was giving a lecture in Britain about the evils of the Nixon regime and especially J. Edgar Hoover. The crowd was disinterested until he said they should pay attention "Because Richard Nixon is your President, too!"

Of course foreigners should have an interest in the U.S. government -in many cases, it's theirs, too!

Well, if foreigners are so interested in the U.S., then they petition the United States and ask to join =/. I could see Britain as being a fine addition as the 51st state!

Canada already is #51. They're more like Americans anyway, only decent and civilized. *

[Admiral_K]

WMDs are IRRELEVANT. The Sanctions weren't stopping IRAQ from providing support to terrorists and planning attacks against U.S. interests. There were no WMD's in Afghanistan either, and that didn't stop us from invading.

The "support for terrorists" amounted to a token widows-and-orphans fund for Palestinian suicide bombers attacking Israeli interests. There was and is exactly zero evidence that Iraq was involved in terrorist plots against the United States in the years between the two wars, and any connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda's been quite thoroughly debunked. So let's have an end to this horseshit, shall we?

Horse shit eh?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123051,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06 ... index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06 ... index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... index.html

And Afganistan is a Red Herring in any argument concerning the non-threat of Iraq.

Its not a red herring. The reasoning behind attacking Iraq was similar to the reasoning behind attacking Afghanastan.

[Durandal]

Doesn't explain how the Russian intelligence was hearing the same thing. Russia was against the Iraq invasion, if you will recall (likely because of the nice kickbacks they were getting via the oil for bribes). Wouldn't make sense for them to "create" a reason for the invasion by telling the U.S. that they'd gotten word of Iraq planning attacks.

Does the term "burden of proof" mean anything to you? Every intelligence agency in the world could've said that Hussein had such weapons. But they're not there.

Allow me to repeat.

They are not there.

Theory must give way to direct observation. Bush made it sound like we'd be tripping all over Iraq's barrels of WMDs the minute we entered the country. So what did Hussein do? He had all his WMDs evacuated instead of deploying them against American invaders, all just to spite Bush? That's hilarious.

WMDs are IRRELEVANT.

Not according to your boy in the White House.

The Sanctions weren't stopping IRAQ from providing support to terrorists and planning attacks against U.S. interests. There were no WMD's in Afghanistan either, and that didn't stop us from invading.

That's because the Taliban directly sponsored al Qaeda by supplying them with equipment, funds and allowing training camps in their country. Iraq did none of those things. Hussein gave money to the widows and orphans of Palestinian suicide bombers. That's just a tad different.

The administrations real goal all along was regime change in IRAQ. The whole WMD's mess came latter to drum up support for it. Was it wrong for them to do that? Maybe, but that doesn't mean it was wrong for them to invade Iraq. And if I were you, I'd use more than just Michael Moore as my only source of information, lest it be revealed that it is you who are the blithering idiot.

Poisoning the well. I never mentioned Michael Moore. But feel free to make these insane assumptions of yours.

Ofcourse you wouldn't precision bomb her appartment. You would take action appropriate to the situation (such as leaving the bitch). Its an analogy, moron.

And a bad one. In order to be an analogy, it has to translate correctly. You would have to take some action against her and harm her, because that's what we did to Iraq, as I said before. A point which you completely ignored.

Apparently you are basing everything on whether or not WMDs were found.

And apparently you need a pop-up book with a sing-along in order to decipher an opponent's argument. My point is that Iraq was not a clear and present danger to the US or even its immediate neighbors, a perfectly defensible conclusion. They were not sponsoring terrorists by giving them shelter, supplying them with weapons or turning a blind eye to training camps. Nor did they have WMDs or the capacity to make WMDs.

The jury is still out on that by the way. If 380 tons of explosives supposedly "vanished" in IRAQ, then it is highly probable that the same could have happened to IRAQ's suspected WMDS.

Begging the question. First show that they must have been there.

Regardless, Lets look at the facts:

Yes, those pesky things which don't support your argument.

FACT: Iraq was a supporter of Terrorism, both financially and logistically. Even Democrats don't refute this. They try to spin it by saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Osama, but you won't see them out right deny it being a suporter of terrorism.

So they never denied it, therefore it must be so? Then if someone knocks on my door at 8am and asks if I'm gay, then I shut the door in his face, I must be gay since I never denied it?

FACT: Iraq had the capability of making WMD's whether they had them at this point in time or not. The current REgime could not be left in place given its posture towards the United States. The inspectors would have had to leave some time. Do you really believe Saddam, or possible his sons, wouldn't have resumed their weapons programs once the watchful eye of the world was turned elsewhere?

Yes, they had that capability a decade or so ago. And that capability was dissolved by the sanctions, as our thorough, unintruded inspection of the country after combat operations ceased has told us.

FACT: Iraq had the knowledge and expertise in creating and utilizing chemical and biological weapons.

Yes, a decade ago.

They also had a willingess to pass such information on to terrorist groups.

Slothful assertion without evidence. Hussein was a secular dictator whose government defied the very principles that Islamic terrorists are upholding. Why would they want to do business with each other?

FACT: Iraq has highly valuable resources, with which it could use to support attacks on the U.S, either directly or by proxy throug terrorist groups. Saddam sure as hell wasn't concerned with using that money to feed his people and you can only have so many presidential palaces.

Baseless speculation. The fact is that Iraq did nothing.

There is no such equivalent commission. Again, you are trying to srawman my argument by basing it strictly on WMDs. The presence or lack thereof of WMDS is irrelevant. Lots of Countries have WMDS. What you have to be concerned with is the posture of the regime in control of those weapons. Saddam was a threat simply because of the position and resources being dictator of iraq afforded him.

And again, your reading comprehension problems come to light.

Well, we know that Saddam was working on a way to assassinate George H W Bush but simply hadn't succeeded.

Yes, ten years ago. What is this obsession with the first Gulf War?

You also have Multiple nation's intelligence agencies hearing plans for Iraqi terrorist style attacks against the U.S.

When?

You really are dense aren't you? The fact that our Military could squash their military didn't mean they were "not a threat" or "couldn't hurt us". It simply means they would have had no chance at "defeating" the united states. You can squash a wasp with relative ease, but that doesn't mean it can't hurt you with its stinger before you do so.

Must I explain everything to you with flow charts and pretty pictures? Saddam's government and military were houses of cards. There is simply no way they could've sustained WMD programs with the sort of chaos and disorder that we knew they were in.

They could've done serious damage to "soft" targets in the U.S. and our interests abroad and made it appear to be the work of islamic fundamentalists. In fact, that is exactly what our intelligence, Britains intelligance, and Russias intellegince was hearing. They also had the capability and the willingness to provide logistical support to terrorist groups, including training areas, money, etc.

Again with the "capability and willingness." Willingness is an assertion on your part. There is no evidence to suggest that Hussein was planning any such attack on the US. He was a tin-pot dictator who was no threat to anyone.

But Hey, keep sticking your head in the sand and pretend. You don't have to worry, because thankfully there are more intelligent people in this world that are here to protect you. Your laveling me as a "bushite" only shows your ignorance. I'm not here to demand that you elect Bush to another term, or espousing the greatness of his presidency. I'm merely setting the record straight on the Iraq war.

Your record is only straight if you're standing on the event horizon of a black hole. You've taken capability, assumed willingness and then extrapolated that these are acceptable conditions for an invasion of a sovereign nation under sanction which has not attacked us directly or indirectly.

[Patrick Degan]

WMDs are IRRELEVANT. The Sanctions weren't stopping IRAQ from providing support to terrorists and planning attacks against U.S. interests. There were no WMD's in Afghanistan either, and that didn't stop us from invading.

The "support for terrorists" amounted to a token widows-and-orphans fund for Palestinian suicide bombers attacking Israeli interests. There was and is exactly zero evidence that Iraq was involved in terrorist plots against the United States in the years between the two wars, and any connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda's been quite thoroughly debunked. So let's have an end to this horseshit, shall we?

Horse shit eh?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123051,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06 ... index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06 ... index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... index.html

That's right, Dense One —HORSESHIT. The Russian intel was uncorroborated and the charge is not supported by any information that has been uncovered since the late war. Oh, and citing Dick Cheney as a support for the supposed Grand Iraq/Al-Qaeda Alliance would go a little further had not the 9-11 Commission definitively debunked it in their final report. Even your CNN article fails to support Cheney's assertions —particulary as they still lean on that hoary old chestunt of the Atta-in-Prague meeting which the Czechs themselves disavowed.

And Afganistan is a Red Herring in any argument concerning the non-threat of Iraq.

Its not a red herring. The reasoning behind attacking Iraq was similar to the reasoning behind attacking Afghanastan.

Bull and Shit. The case for the war with Iraq was its alleged Vast WMD arsenal and the imminent threat it supposedly posed to the U.S. and its allies. Afganistan was a retaliation for 9-11 and for the Taliban's direct material support of Al-Qaeda combined with their refusal to turn over its leadership for justice. Afganistan is exactly a Red Herring in any debate about Iraq, and does not become relevant simply because mindless Right Wing assholes keep chanting "Iraq/9-11" ad-infinitum.

[White Cat]

Slothful assertion without evidence. Hussein was a secular dictator whose government defied the very principles that Islamic terrorists are upholding. Why would they want to do business with each other?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

(Note: I'm not claiming that this proves a Saddam/Islamic terrorism link, just pointing out that they did have a good reason to "do business with each other.")

[Oberleutnant]

@ Admiral_K

Do you think Iraq and Middle East are now safer and more stable than pre-March 2003? Don't you find it disturbing that in western countries people take a very negative view of United States as a direct result of Bush administration's actions? By going to war in Iraq you lost a great deal of that unanimous worldwide support that followed September 11th. While Kerry may not be a perfect candidate, in the eyes of the world he is much more respected than Bush can ever hope to be.

It's hardly surprising that "we foreigners" take interest in your elections. After all, their outcome affects us all.

[Perinquus]

What's really insulting is Americans who are so bad at history they think they saved the day. Grow a brain, kid. You didn't save anyone's butts from speaking German or Russian.

Bullshit.

We didn't save anyone from speaking German. The Nazis bit off more than they could chew when they attacked the U.S.S.R.. It was only a matter of time before they lost. But how would Britain have fared without the U.S.? At best, they would have survived in their island, uninvaded. Let's take a brief look at what Britain got from the U.S. during WWII:

Small arms - a large number of small arms used by British tropps were made in the U.S. since British factories could not produce the required number. This ranges from No. 4 rifles made by Savage, to Smith & Wesson pistols chambered for the British 38/200 cartridge, to .50 caliber machine guns.

Tanks - the majority of British tank crews went to war in U.S. made Shermans.

Wheeled vehicles - from Jeeps, to 2 1/2 ton trucks, to Harley-Davidson motorcycles, American made vehicles were extensively used by British forces.

Aircraft - B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, P-51s, P-40s, PBY Catalinas, etc. etc. were all supplied to Britain by the United States. C-47 Skytrains were supplied; in fact, most, if not all British airborne troops dropped from these American transport aircraft, in addition to the numerous other transportation duties these planes served in with the RAF. The Fleet Air Arm made extensive use of American Corsairs, Hellcats, Avengers, and other aircraft during WWII. In fact it's safe to say the Royal Navy owed most of its ability to operate in the Pacific Theater during WWII to the fact that it was able to use American equipment.

Ships - 50 Wicks and Clemson class destroyers, 46 Buckley class destroyer escorts, 10 Lake and Chelan class coast guard cutters, 9 R and S-boat submarines, 35 LSTs, and innumerable Liberty ships, provided indispensible aid to Britain.

In fact, Britain recieved some 31 billion dollars worth of aid from Lend Lease in WWII. Without all of this, how would Britain have prosecuted its war effort? Far less effectively. I doubt Britain could have effectively waged war at all in the Pacific theater had it not been for the availability of American made war materiel the British could use. And in the European theater, the availability of American trucks, tanks, aircraft, small arms, etc. etc. greatly increased the ability of the British military to wage war against the Germans. American destroyers transferred to the Royal Navy under lend lease, or under American command, escorting ships as far as Iceland, after March 1941, proved indispensible in winning the Battle of the Atlantic.

Without U.S aid Britain would never have been able to fight effectively against both the Japanese and the Germans in WWII. And without the U.S. the British would never likely have made the invasion of the continent. Without that, what would have stopped the Russians from advancing as far as the Atlantic coast of France?

Nothing.

At the Potsdam conference, when President Truman went up to Stalin and congratulated him on the successes of the Red Army, successes that had brought Soviet power to Berlin in the heart of Europe, Stalin grumbled that, "Czar Alexander reached Paris".

From Stalin's actions, from his brutal imposition of communist regimes on all the nations of eastern Europe "liberated" from the Nazis, from the stated aim of the U.S.S.R. since its inceptions to export red revolution to the rest of the world, there is little reason to doubt that Stalin would have marched as far west as his military power would have taken him. Without American help, Britain never would have breached Hitler's Festung Europa, and there would have been no force on the continent to prevent the Red Army from marching all the way to the Atlantic Coast of France. You do owe us that the Red army did not "liberate" western Europe the same way it did eastern Europe.

[Patrick Degan]

Without U.S aid Britain would never have been able to fight effectively against both the Japanese and the Germans in WWII. And without the U.S. the British would never likely have made the invasion of the continent. Without that, what would have stopped the Russians from advancing as far as the Atlantic coast of France?

Nothing.

At the Potsdam conference, when President Truman went up to Stalin and congratulated him on the successes of the Red Army, successes that had brought Soviet power to Berlin in the heart of Europe, Stalin grumbled that, "Czar Alexander reached Paris".

From Stalin's actions, from his brutal imposition of communist regimes on all the nations of eastern Europe "liberated" from the Nazis, from the stated aim of the U.S.S.R. since its inceptions to export red revolution to the rest of the world, there is little reason to doubt that Stalin would have marched as far west as his military power would have taken him. Without American help, Britain never would have breached Hitler's Festung Europa, and there would have been no force on the continent to prevent the Red Army from marching all the way to the Atlantic Coast of France. You do owe us that the Red army did not "liberate" western Europe the same way it did eastern Europe.

Um, ahem:

The Soviet-German War 1941 - 1945
By Richard Overy

Turnaround

The central question of the German-Soviet war is why, after two years of defeats, and the loss of more than five million men and two-thirds of the industrial capacity of the country, the Red Army was able to blunt, then drive back, the German attack.

The idea that the USSR had limitless manpower, despite its heavy losses, is inadequate as an answer. Germany and her allies also possessed a large population, and added to it the peoples of the captured Soviet areas - men and women who were forced to work for the German army or were shipped back to work in the Reich. Soviet armies were always desperately short of men.

Above all, Soviet tactics in 1941-2 were extremely wasteful of manpower. If the Red Army had continued to fight the same way, it would simply have sustained escalating losses for little gain.

Nor did the USSR enjoy an advantage in economic resources. After the German attack, Soviet steel production fell to eight million tons in 1942, while German production was 28 million tons. In the same year, Soviet coal output was 75 million tons, while German output was 317 million. The USSR nevertheless out-produced Germany in the quantity (though seldom in the quality) of most major weapons, from this much smaller industrial base.

The impressive production of weapons was achieved by turning the whole of the remaining Soviet area into what Stalin called 'a single armed camp', focusing all efforts on military production and extorting maximum labour from a workforce whose only guarantee of food was to turn up at the factory and work the arduous 12-hour shifts. Without Lend-Lease aid, however, from the United States and Britain, both of whom supplied a high proportion of food and raw materials for the Soviet war effort, the high output of weapons would still not have been possible.

Without $11 billion worth of Lend-Lease aid from the U.S. and Britain, I doubt the Soviets will have the resources after driving the Nazis off their home soil alone and without said aid to march the Red Army "all the way to the Atlantic coast of France."

[Vympel]

While that excerpt is generally right (i.e. Lend-Lease was important) I find it focusing on a few figures from 1942 misleading- Soviet sources freely admit this was a period of "deep war"- defeat averted, but victory nowhere in sight. The USSR lost vast portions of its industry and resources to Germany, and it was a while before the great move to beyond the Urals of the previous year could bear fruit. I wouldn't be surprised if the production figures were substantially different, and I'm pretty sure the real important materials the Soviets needed from the other Allies was trucks, food and aviation fuel, rather than mundanes like coal and steel that the Soviets always had in abundance even taking into account the loss of the West. The Soviets certainly had the resources to push the German's back on their own, but it would've taken longer without Anglo-American aid.

I also find the reference to peoples in the captured Soviet areas as an advantage for Germany overstated- the occupied USSR was more trouble than it was worth, being subjected to scorched Earth tactics, teeming with Soviet partisans etc. Germany and her allies never had the manpower to array against the USSR, that's a simple fact. "Germany had a large population too" seems like simplistic handwaving.

[Perinquus]

While that excerpt is generally right (i.e. Lend-Lease was important) I find it focusing on a few figures from 1942 misleading- Soviet sources freely admit this was a period of "deep war"- defeat averted, but victory nowhere in sight. The USSR lost vast portions of its industry and resources to Germany, and it was a while before the great move to beyond the Urals of the previous year could bear fruit. I wouldn't be surprised if the production figures were substantially different, and I'm pretty sure the real important materials the Soviets needed from the other Allies was trucks, food and aviation fuel, rather than mundanes like coal and steel that the Soviets always had in abundance even taking into account the loss of the West. The Soviets certainly had the resources to push the German's back on their own, but it would've taken longer without Anglo-American aid.

I also find the reference to peoples in the captured Soviet areas as an advantage for Germany overstated- the occupied USSR was more trouble than it was worth, being subjected to scorched Earth tactics, teeming with Soviet partisans etc. Germany and her allies never had the manpower to array against the USSR, that's a simple fact. "Germany had a large population too" seems like simplistic handwaving.

Thank you. As I said, the Germans bit off more than she could chew. The Soviet Union was a juggernaut, which was beyond Germany's ability to defeat in the long run. American lend lease aid was important, but without it, the Russians still would have beaten the Germans in the end; it just would have taken a lot longer. The only change Germany had was for a limited victory. Make huge gains in the initial phase of the war, consolidate, and try to make peace. Stalin probably wouldn't have ever been willing to do this, but the Germans, had they behaved like liberators rather than worse oppressors than the communists, might have been able to foment a coup. Perhaps the Germans could have pacified their conquered territories had they been careful to treat people in the conquered territories like liberated comrades rather than untermenschen. The communist governement was hated, especially in the Ukraine. The Germans might have been able to win the hearts and minds of the people there if they'd behaved differently. But even if they'd done all this, I'm not sure they could have won in the end. And given Hitler's mad dream of conquering lebensraum in the east, as well as the "master race" complex of the Nazis, which led them to treat the slaves like subhumans, there was never any chance they'd have tried something like that anyway.

[Perinquus]

And given Hitler's mad dream of conquering lebensraum in the east, as well as the "master race" complex of the Nazis, which led them to treat the slaves like subhumans, there was never any chance they'd have tried something like that anyway.

Goddamn lack of an edit feature. I meant to say "treat the SLAVS (not slaves) like subhumans".

[Admiral_K]

That's right, Dense One —HORSESHIT. The Russian intel was uncorroborated...

Wrong. It WAS Corroborated by American AND British intelligence. However, if you want to believe it was "all made up" I can't help you. Some intelligence may have been wrong, but that doesn't mean it was all wrong.

...and the charge is not supported by any information that has been uncovered since the late war. Oh, and citing Dick Cheney as a support for the supposed Grand Iraq/Al-Qaeda Alliance would go a little further had not the 9-11 Commission definitively debunked it in their final report.

I'm sure most any incriminating paperwork went into the shredder shortly after we began prepping for war. And you don't exactly keep detailed records of attacks you plan to wage in secret.

The 9/11 Commission stated it had no direct link between Iraq and 9/11. However, it did hint at co-operation between Iraq and terrorist groups. IT didn't go in depth, naturally, since its focus was on 9/11, not global terrorism as a whole.

Even your CNN article fails to support Cheney's assertions —particulary as they still lean on that hoary old chestunt of the Atta-in-Prague meeting which the Czechs themselves disavowed.

CNN isn't exactly "pro Bush". They may not have openly supported it, but they didn't dispute Cheney's assertions either.

Bull and Shit. The case for the war with Iraq was its alleged Vast WMD arsenal and the imminent threat it supposedly posed to the U.S. and its allies. Afganistan was a retaliation for 9-11 and for the Taliban's direct material support of Al-Qaeda combined with their refusal to turn over its leadership for justice. Afganistan is exactly a Red Herring in any debate about Iraq, and does not become relevant simply because mindless Right Wing assholes keep chanting "Iraq/9-11" ad-infinitum.

The fact that you think "right wingers" are chanting "Iraq/9-11" ad-infinitum shows you simply do not get it. The primary people mentioning Iraq and 9/11 in the same context are liberals who are attempting to paint the entire war on terror as being just the U.S. vs Osama and Al Qaeda.

When non liberals speak about 9/11, and how it regards Iraq they are letting you know that it changed the way we had to view threats. No longer would we "sit back and wait" to get hit. We went into Afghanistan because thats where many of Al Qaeda's training camps, and leadership were. We went into Iraq because it had a history of supporting terrorist activities, a history of pursuing WMDs, and a history of defieing U.N. resolutions, and a noted hostility towards the United States ever since the 1st gulf war.

You see, the real goal of the U.S. all along was Regime change. WMDs became the media focus later, but in the beggining it was about getting Saddam out of power so he could not pursue his ambitions of "getting back at" the U.S. for humiliating him back in 91. If you don't believe me, go back and look it up.

[Gustav32Vasa]

When non liberals speak about 9/11, and how it regards Iraq they are letting you know that it changed the way we had to view threats. No longer would we "sit back and wait" to get hit. We went into Afghanistan because thats where many of Al Qaeda's training camps, and leadership were. We went into Iraq because it had a history of supporting terrorist activities, a history of pursuing WMDs, and a history of defieing U.N. resolutions, and a noted hostility towards the United States ever since the 1st gulf war.

So if a nation has or seeks WMD, breaks international laws and threatens other nations you think it is alright to invade all such nations.

[Patrick Degan]

That's right, Dense One —HORSESHIT. The Russian intel was uncorroborated...

Wrong. It WAS Corroborated by American AND British intelligence. However, if you want to believe it was "all made up" I can't help you. Some intelligence may have been wrong, but that doesn't mean it was all wrong.

By "corroborated", I meant from multiple foreign sources in addition to the two intelligence services which either got it wrong or were politically motivated to say what their bosses wanted to hear. And if it was as certain as you keep making it out, then why didn't the White House try to cite this as part of its case for war against Iraq?

...and the charge is not supported by any information that has been uncovered since the late war. Oh, and citing Dick Cheney as a support for the supposed Grand Iraq/Al-Qaeda Alliance would go a little further had not the 9-11 Commission definitively debunked it in their final report.

I'm sure most any incriminating paperwork went into the shredder shortly after we began prepping for war. And you don't exactly keep detailed records of attacks you plan to wage in secret.

So you can't actually back your contention with anything approaching evidence and simply take it on faith. Thank you for demonstrating that you have no actual argument.

The 9/11 Commission stated it had no direct link between Iraq and 9/11. However, it did hint at co-operation between Iraq and terrorist groups. IT didn't go in depth, naturally, since its focus was on 9/11, not global terrorism as a whole.

It hinted at historical linkages between Iraq and terrorist groups prior to the 1991 war, and showed that whatever contacts Iraq and Al-Qaeda had were tenuous at best and faded through the 90s.

Even your CNN article fails to support Cheney's assertions —particulary as they still lean on that hoary old chestunt of the Atta-in-Prague meeting which the Czechs themselves disavowed.

CNN isn't exactly "pro Bush". They may not have openly supported it, but they didn't dispute Cheney's assertions either.

No, fool —reality has done that:

Czechs Retract Iraq Terror Link

NewsMax Wires
Monday, Oct. 21, 2002

PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Czech intelligence officials have knocked down one of the few clear links between al-Qaeda terrorists and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, UPI has learned.

Senior Czech intelligence officials have told their American counterparts that they now have "no confidence" in their earlier report of direct meetings in Prague between Mohammed Atta, leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers and an Iraqi diplomat stationed in Prague who has since been expelled for "activities inconsistent with his diplomatic status."

"Quite simply, we think the source for this story may have invented the meeting that he reported. We can find no corroborative evidence for the meeting and the source has real credibility problems," a high-ranking source close to Czech intelligence told UPI Sunday.

The initial report of the meeting in June 2000 claimed that Atta had met Ahmad al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official based in Prague under diplomatic cover, whose movements were being routinely monitored by BIS, the Czech intelligence service. The report also suggested that the Iraqi was probably the source of $100,000 that Atta suddenly obtained to finance the U.S. leg of the terror mission.

The report went on to claim that Atta returned to Prague on April 9 last year on a three-day mission to see al-Ani once more, just two weeks before the majority of the hijack team left Saudi Arabia for the United States. The report was then publicly confirmed by Czech Interior Minister Stanislas Gross, on the basis of the initial assessment of the BIS.

The nearest to a smoking gun connecting Iraq to al-Qaeda, the Czech report was taken very seriously in Washington, in the face of growing skepticism at the Central Intelligence Agency.

But other influential figures in Washington, including former CIA Director James Woolsey and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle pursued their own inquiries using their own sources, and have now also been told by high-ranking Czech sources that they no longer stand by the initial report.

Perle, in Prague this weekend for a meeting of the Trilateral Commission, was told in person Sunday that the BIS now doubts that any such meeting between Atta and al-Ani in fact took place.

The question of the Czech meeting, and whether it ever happened, is just one aspect of a growing dispute within the George W. Bush administration, with officials close to the White House leaping to conclusions while the CIA remains skeptical. There is a separate argument over Iraq's attempt to smuggle a consignment of specialized aluminium tubes, cited by President Bush as a sign that Iraq was building a gas centrifuge systém to create weapons-grade uranium.

CIA experts doubt whether the tubes in question were suitable for the supposed task, and believe they were intended instead for use in missile engines, still a clear violation of Iraqi commitments to the United Nations, but not necessarily proof of nuclear intent.

"One of the most dangerous things in this business is to start believing a report simply because it fits with your preconceptions and confirms what you always wanted to believe," a Czech intelligence source told UPI.

Copyright 2002 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

And yet Cheney continues to flog the Atta-in-Prague story two years after the Czechs Intelligence disavowed it.

Bull and Shit. The case for the war with Iraq was its alleged Vast WMD arsenal and the imminent threat it supposedly posed to the U.S. and its allies. Afganistan was a retaliation for 9-11 and for the Taliban's direct material support of Al-Qaeda combined with their refusal to turn over its leadership for justice. Afganistan is exactly a Red Herring in any debate about Iraq, and does not become relevant simply because mindless Right Wing assholes keep chanting "Iraq/9-11" ad-infinitum.

The fact that you think "right wingers" are chanting "Iraq/9-11" ad-infinitum shows you simply do not get it. The primary people mentioning Iraq and 9/11 in the same context are liberals who are attempting to paint the entire war on terror as being just the U.S. vs Osama and Al Qaeda.

Will it really be necessary to quote every speech by George Bush, Dick Cheney, or Condoleeza Rice in which they very obviously, deliberately conflated Iraq and 9-11 in the same statements?

When non liberals speak about 9/11, and how it regards Iraq they are letting you know that it changed the way we had to view threats. No longer would we "sit back and wait" to get hit. We went into Afghanistan because thats where many of Al Qaeda's training camps, and leadership were. We went into Iraq because it had a history of supporting terrorist activities, a history of pursuing WMDs, and a history of defieing U.N. resolutions, and a noted hostility towards the United States ever since the 1st gulf war.

As you wish...

You see, the real goal of the U.S. all along was Regime change. WMDs became the media focus later, but in the beggining it was about getting Saddam out of power so he could not pursue his ambitions of "getting back at" the U.S. for humiliating him back in 91. If you don't believe me, go back and look it up.

Sigh:

excerpt:

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

From Bush's own 2003 State of the Union address prior to the late war. Perhaps that's why WMD became the "media focus"; what with two years of Bush and his gang constantly chatting it up in the press at every fucking opportunity. And that's not speaking of "a history of pursuing WMD" but "actually POSSSESSING a huge arsenal of WMD and having the imminent possession of atomic bombs. But I guess you tossed all that down the Memory Hole, didn't you?

Oh, and speaking of that:


Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein.

Link


“Public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible.”

—Secretary of State Colin Powell, 12 September 2001


Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was referring to a meeting that Czech officials said took place in Prague in April 2000. That allegation was the most direct connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. But this summer's congressional report on the attacks states, "The CIA has been unable to establish that [Atta] left the United States or entered Europe in April under his true name or any known alias."

Link


Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said that Cheney's "willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding."

In particular, current intelligence officials reiterated yesterday that a reported Prague visit in April 2001 between Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi agent had been discounted by the CIA, which sent former agency Director James R. Woolsey to investigate the claim. Woolsey did not find any evidence to confirm the report, officials said, and President Bush did not include it in the case for war in his State of the Union address last January.

But Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," cited the report of the meeting as possible evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link and said it was neither confirmed nor discredited, saying: "We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know."

Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and senior Iraqi intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and has since been discredited further.

The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim, while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself, now in US custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech government has also distanced itself from its original claim.

A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this," the official said.

Link


Another fabricated pretext for war was that Iraq has been involved in Al Qaeda activities, including 9/11. But the US intelligence community has repeatedly denied that there's any significant, reliable evidence of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And yet Bush and his spokespersons continue linking Iraq, Al Qaeda and, implicitly, 9/11. As Bush stated in Sept 2002, "The danger is, is that they work together"-an assertion that he exaggerated even further by saying that "in the war on terror, you can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam" (Washington Post, 9/26/02). Also in Sept 2002, when asked if there was such a linkage, Rumsfeld asserted: "... the answer is yes" (Washington Post, 9/26/02). Then Ari Fleischer claimed, "Clearly, al Qaeda is operating inside Iraq" (Washington Post, 9/26/02). On Jan. 31, 2003, Bush stated, that Powell "will talk [to the UN Security Council] about al Qaeda links, links that really do portend a danger for America and for Great Britain" (www.whitehouse.gov). And in the same press conference, Bush claimed that "After Sept. 11th, the doctrine of containment [of Iraq] just doesn't hold any water, as far as I'm concerned," again falsely suggesting that Saddam caused 9/11.

Link


”I'm not saying there's a 9/11 link. We haven't seen that yet, but I wouldn't rule that out.”

—Secretary of State Colin Powell, 29 January 2003

Link



But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said: "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes."


Link


”Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans —this time armed by Saddam Hussein.”

—George W. Bush, 2003 State of the Union address

Link



Originally posted by George W. Bush, January 29, 2003, as reported by CNN.com:

He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans and we're going to deal with him. We're going to deal with him before it's too late.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by George W. Bush, September 25, 2002, as reported by The State Department:

The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.


Oh, and for further amusement and edification:


Link
Pilger claims White House knew Saddam was no threat
September 23, 2003 - 2:33PM

Australian investigative journalist John Pilger says he has evidence the war against Iraq was based on a lie which could cost George W Bush and Tony Blair their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them.

A television report by Pilger aired on British screens last night said US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice confirmed in early 2001 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been disarmed and was no threat.

But after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11 that year, Pilger claimed Rice said the US "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities" to attack Iraq and claim control of its oil.

Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Powell boasted this was because America's policy of containment and its sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.

Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.

Pilger interviewed several leading US government figures in Washington but said he did not ask Powell or Rice to respond to his claims.


Link

Pilger claims White House knew Saddam was no threat
September 23, 2003 - 2:33PM

Australian investigative journalist John Pilger says he has evidence the war against Iraq was based on a lie which could cost George W Bush and Tony Blair their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them.

A television report by Pilger aired on British screens last night said US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice confirmed in early 2001 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been disarmed and was no threat.

But after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11 that year, Pilger claimed Rice said the US "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities" to attack Iraq and claim control of its oil.

Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Powell boasted this was because America's policy of containment and its sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.

Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.

Pilger interviewed several leading US government figures in Washington but said he did not ask Powell or Rice to respond to his claims.


Link



I mean, really, after having debated these same topics for more than a year with a fool like Comical Axi, you imagine I've not kept the files for ready-reference?

[Admiral_K]

I hope you enjoyed pasting all of that in. No one is going to read it. You always have had a problem with keeping your arguments concise and to the point.

I'd rebut your points, but most of them are already rebutted.

Here's something for you to chew on that won't take an hour to read:

http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2002/10/ ... 1729.shtml

The goal of the administration all along was the removal of Saddam Hussein. As the media focus fell on WMDs the Bush administration used that to spur their goal. Now, you can piss and moan and cry that Bush "lied" to the public. Or that he "mislead" the public. Fact is, he may truly have believed the WMDs were there. Regardless, the threat posed by Saddam was such that whether he had WMDs or notis irrelevant. He needed to be removed from his position as head of one of the wealthiest oil producing nations in the world, with a deep set hatred of the United States. Regime change, was in fact, a continuation of a policy the Clinton Adminstration had started.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 7rkunu.asp

Ever hear of the Iraqi Liberation act? Guess who signed it...

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/ ... 000814.php

More info on the conflict:

http://www.why-war.com/encyclopedia/rhe ... me_Change/

Even John Kerry admits Saddam was a threat, with or without the WMDs. The only question was do you leave him in power to try and enact some of the plans American, British, and Russian intelligence had discovered? Or do you finally commit to getting rid of him once and for all.