Bush just gave some ultimatim

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-02-06 04:45pm

I caught Dan Rather talking about some "powerful" speech or something, but I missed almost all of it.

Who wants to give up the 411?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-02-06 04:52pm

He is preparing the US for a war.

He said Iraq is helping train Al Queda and there is a camp in northern Iraq.
This bothers me a great deal, why?

If there is a solid link between Iraq and Al Queda we DO NOT NEED THE UN, we can end his ass (Sadam) as an act of self defense now.

Why is an Al Queda camp being allowed to sit unmolested by the US? It should have been bombed already or hit by ground troops? Mabye the link is not so firm, or worse they are letting it sit there for political gain, but I believe the link is not as strong as they want us to believe.

He said the man running the camp was responsible for the murder of an American diplomat, again why have we not bombed it in retaliation?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-06 04:59pm

It is unlikely Iraq has any real meaningful link with al-Queda. Saddam and bin Laden are ideological opposites, and both pose a risk to each other. If they didn't have a common enemy in the U.S., they'd be going at each other.

We should still bomb Iraq though, because goddamnit if the hippies are against it, then it must be right.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-06 05:01pm

If there is a solid link between Iraq and Al Queda we DO NOT NEED THE UN, we can end his ass (Sadam) as an act of self defense now.

Why is an Al Queda camp being allowed to sit unmolested by the US? It should have been bombed already or hit by ground troops? Mabye the link is not so firm, or worse they are letting it sit there for political gain, but I believe the link is not as strong as they want us to believe.

He said the man running the camp was responsible for the murder of an American diplomat, again why have we not bombed it in retaliation?

I can sum this up pretty easly, Why have we not hit the Al-Queda camps in Libya? Because they want to backtrack the fokes and bag more people rather than simply reduce the collective inhabtents to greasy stains

Thats the reason in Libya anyway, We have not hit the Iraq camps because they piss and moan about everything we do, inculding Afghanstan, remeber France's little speach about us having no right back before we went?

The reason we have not hit Iraq camps is simply because we have not done anything in Iraq because GW Bush is bending over backwords for every little pissy ant fucker who is complaing so when we finaly DO move we can say we have done absoulty every single thing they wanted before we lifted one finger

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-06 05:02pm

It is unlikely Iraq has any real meaningful link with al-Queda. Saddam and bin Laden are ideological opposites, and both pose a risk to each other. If they didn't have a common enemy in the U.S., they'd be going at each other.

So Powel's Evidance he presented to the UN of the Al-Queda Connection(Basicly nothing more than Funding and a Mutal Non-Agression Pact) was bullshit? Or do you not trust it for any particular reason

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-02-06 05:04pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:He is preparing the US for a war.

He said Iraq is helping train Al Queda and there is a camp in northern Iraq.
This bothers me a great deal, why?

If there is a solid link between Iraq and Al Queda we DO NOT NEED THE UN, we can end his ass (Sadam) as an act of self defense now.

Why is an Al Queda camp being allowed to sit unmolested by the US? It should have been bombed already or hit by ground troops? Mabye the link is not so firm, or worse they are letting it sit there for political gain, but I believe the link is not as strong as they want us to believe.

He said the man running the camp was responsible for the murder of an American diplomat, again why have we not bombed it in retaliation?

First, the USA and the British MI6 seem to be of a very diametral opinion about Al Queda and Saddam.

And Saddam hasn't really control over Northern IRaq, with thousands of Kursih fighter running around there and US jets flying. If the US wanted to bomb that camp, they could have done it at any time.
But they probably kept it to have some convenient "proof".

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-02-06 05:06pm

Just more assertions and nothing new.

The CIA said that Al Queda and Saddam have no alliance.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-02-06 05:07pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:It is unlikely Iraq has any real meaningful link with al-Queda. Saddam and bin Laden are ideological opposites, and both pose a risk to each other. If they didn't have a common enemy in the U.S., they'd be going at each other.

We should still bomb Iraq though, because goddamnit if the hippies are against it, then it must be right.

bin laden actually made an offer to the Kindom of Saud to incite a holy war against Iraq, both to liberate Kuwait and overthrow the secular Ba'ath party led by Saddam. He actually had thousands of Mujahadeen warriors from Afghanistan and Pakistan willing to fight. However as we all know the Saudis opted for US/European assistance. this infuriated Bin Laden to no end. Whatever bad blood Bin Laden may have had with Saddam in the past, Bin Laden does, at least rhetorically, has sympathy for Iraqi citizens and sees the US as the cause of their pain (not saddam). Hell, the Americans and Soviets allied in WWII....that being said it wouldn't take much to convince me that saddam and Usama have, at least, an alliance of convienence.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-06 05:10pm

Mr Bean wrote:So Powel's Evidance he presented to the UN of the Al-Queda Connection(Basicly nothing more than Funding and a Mutal Non-Agression Pact) was bullshit?

I was trying to say that their relationship is not like one say between the U.S. and Canada, where both parties are friendly and genuinely care about each other. I would describe the Iraq/al Queda connection to be like the Hitler/Stalin one. They don't like each other in any way, and you can be sure they will betray each other as soon as the oppertunity arises.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-02-06 05:13pm

I can sum this up pretty easly, Why have we not hit the Al-Queda camps in Libya? Because they want to backtrack the fokes and bag more people rather than simply reduce the collective inhabtents to greasy stains

I did not know there were camps in Libya, but I would support destroying those too, unless there would be some greater gain by monitoring them in the short run as you suggest they are doing now.

Thats the reason in Libya anyway, We have not hit the Iraq camps because they piss and moan about everything we do, inculding Afghanstan, remeber France's little speach about us having no right back before we went?

I dont remember the speech, but France's opinion is not relevant when it comes to Al Queda, IMO.

The reason we have not hit Iraq camps is simply because we have not done anything in Iraq because GW Bush is bending over backwords for every little pissy ant fucker who is complaing so when we finaly DO move we can say we have done absoulty every single thing they wanted before we lifted one finger

Im am opposed to a war in Iraq, but I would not, and most people I know, would not be opposed to striking and destroying Al Queda camps. Even if its is in Iraq.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-06 05:16pm

The point is, unless we are prepared to go all out in Iraq, even a surgical bombing, Saddam is gonna piss and moan and get the attention of some countrys who need his Oil(Russia/France/Germany, Though Putin supports us now thanks to a old Fasion Powel talk

)
So a minor thing like blowing up an Al-Quada Camp even if we had Satlite Photos of Folks walking around wearing blazers with "Al-Quada" on the back, Saddam can spin it until we got 10% of the American Popluation beliving that the Bombers hit not crazed madmen, But good honset Boyscouts! BAD US BAD!

Image is an important part of International and National Relations remeber...

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-02-06 05:23pm

So a minor thing like blowing up an Al-Quada Camp even if we had Satlite Photos of Folks walking around wearing blazers with "Al-Quada" on the back, Saddam can spin it until we got 10% of the American Popluation beliving that the Bombers hit not crazed madmen, But good honset Boyscouts! BAD US BAD!

Well, I disagree with blowing up Al Queda being minor. Are we not supposed to be at war with these guys? Didnt Bush say we would hunt them down anywhere they hide?

I think, IMHO, blowing up or capturing an Al Queda camp would be a boon for the Bush admin.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-02-06 05:25pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:He is preparing the US for a war.

He said Iraq is helping train Al Queda and there is a camp in northern Iraq.
This bothers me a great deal, why?

If there is a solid link between Iraq and Al Queda we DO NOT NEED THE UN, we can end his ass (Sadam) as an act of self defense now.

Couldn't have said it better myself, same to you, Wicked Pilot, I agree wholeheartedly.

Why do we need the UN or the hippies? Usually if they are against something, then it is right to bomb the living daylights out of it, LOL.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-06 05:39pm

Dahak wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:He is preparing the US for a war.

He said Iraq is helping train Al Queda and there is a camp in northern Iraq.
This bothers me a great deal, why?

If there is a solid link between Iraq and Al Queda we DO NOT NEED THE UN, we can end his ass (Sadam) as an act of self defense now.

Why is an Al Queda camp being allowed to sit unmolested by the US? It should have been bombed already or hit by ground troops? Mabye the link is not so firm, or worse they are letting it sit there for political gain, but I believe the link is not as strong as they want us to believe.

He said the man running the camp was responsible for the murder of an American diplomat, again why have we not bombed it in retaliation?
First, the USA and the British MI6 seem to be of a very diametral opinion about Al Queda and Saddam.

And Saddam hasn't really control over Northern IRaq, with thousands of Kursih fighter running around there and US jets flying. If the US wanted to bomb that camp, they could have done it at any time.
But they probably kept it to have some convenient "proof".

Actually, not even the UK knows what the fuck it thinks. Blair said there was a link and then a report came out (leaked that is) saying there wasn'y which made Blair look a tad silly. Then a day later the CIA say that they have no link.

Someone is fucking around here, whether it's MI6 yelling at "Little Sister" MI5 or them both quarrelling with the CIA and FBI, they can't seem to reach a concensus.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-02-06 07:30pm

Saddam is a secular despot with little care for religion.....
Ossama is a religious nut with little care for anything but religion....
Ossama hates Saddam, he is the opposite of everything he stands for and vice versa....the CIA even said there was no link....its basically a steaming pile of bullshit designed to make a legitimate reason to go in and waste saddam.....

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-02-06 09:01pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:He is preparing the US for a war.

He said Iraq is helping train Al Queda and there is a camp in northern Iraq.
This bothers me a great deal, why?

If there is a solid link between Iraq and Al Queda we DO NOT NEED THE UN, we can end his ass (Sadam) as an act of self defense now.

But there is no link.

There never has been and never will be. Their fundamentally opposed ideologies mean that they cannot and will not cooperate.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-02-06 09:03pm

I think we will be at war with Iraq within the next three months.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-02-06 10:50pm

On the abc (American) they actually had an interview with the 'head' of the training camp in Northern Iraq (which is currently NOT under Saddam's control), he is living in exile in Europe (Denmark? Norway?), and he effatically stated that he IS NOT in league with either Al - Queada OR Saddam. He considers Saddam to be a 'bad muslim' and is trying to overthrow him and his regime.

You gotta love it when investigative journalists rebut Shrubby's claims on the day he makes them. It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2003-02-06 11:20pm

Oh yeah, Saddam and the fundies are enemies, no doubt, but we don't exactly see them lining up to shoot each other do you? We hear all the talk, but have they walked the walk? Instead, we have Saddam giving money to the fundies!

We also don't hear about acts of terrorism from Saddam. If the fundies really hated Saddam that much, why haven't they done anything about it? That leads me to one conclusion.

They both treat the west as a primary target. After they've settled the US, then they'll slug it out. Not before then.

The Crazed Guy

TheDarkOne · Post by **TheDarkOne** » 2003-02-06 11:26pm

I want to know why, if the US does go to war with Iraq, it has to be open war? Couldn't it be handeled much more subtely? With spec ops teams and so forth. Is there some reason that they couldn't do this, or a reason they shouldn't if they could?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-02-06 11:28pm

Yes, my enemies enemy is my friend. That is the case between Saddam and Al Quaida. Once this is over, they will go back to hating each other, that is, if they are both still alive, which I would very much doubt.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-02-07 12:03am

TheDarkOne wrote:I want to know why, if the US does go to war with Iraq, it has to be open war? Couldn't it be handeled much more subtely? With spec ops teams and so forth. Is there some reason that they couldn't do this, or a reason they shouldn't if they could?

You think a handful of covert special operation soldiers can go into Iraq and topple Saddam's regime by themselves? Special forces operatives are not supermen. I think you have seen a little too many movies.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-02-07 12:08am

Wicked Pilot wrote:
TheDarkOne wrote:I want to know why, if the US does go to war with Iraq, it has to be open war? Couldn't it be handeled much more subtely? With spec ops teams and so forth. Is there some reason that they couldn't do this, or a reason they shouldn't if they could?
You think a handful of covert special operation soldiers can go into Iraq and topple Saddam's regime by themselves? Special forces operatives are not supermen. I think you have seen a little too many movies.

Its not possible. Sadam is very good at hiding and as WP points out SF are not super soldiers.

A team of (insert favorite spec op here) cant fight off large numbers of troops. That is not what they are made for. They're specalties are training other troops and low level warefare.

Sonnenburg · Post by **Sonnenburg** » 2003-02-07 12:16am

Crown wrote:On the abc (American) they actually had an interview with the 'head' of the training camp in Northern Iraq (which is currently NOT under Saddam's control), he is living in exile in Europe (Denmark? Norway?), and he effatically stated that he IS NOT in league with either Al - Queada OR Saddam. He considers Saddam to be a 'bad muslim' and is trying to overthrow him and his regime.

You gotta love it when investigative journalists rebut Shrubby's claims on the day he makes them. It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

And of course, terrorists would never lie.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-02-07 12:56am

jegs2 wrote:I think we will be at war with Iraq within the next three months.

I predict the US will be at war with Iraq within the next three weeks. The strike date can't be pushed back much further given the desert heat and the risk that the troops will need to fight in NBC gear.

Chances are you'll still be fighting in three months, too....