At the time we invaded Iraq, did you believe Hussein was behind 9/11?

[Kondor3]

The

I remember the WMD thing very clearly.

I remember increasing Iraqi ground-fire against Coalition aircraft sorties which were carried out under the terms of the armistice-surrender of 1991.

I remember some lightweight fluff about an Iraq-9-11 connection but nobody over the age of 5 was buying it, even during the immediate prelude to war.

WMD and Iraqi intransigence in their dealings with UN inspectors, etc., were the primary casus belli, if memory serves correctly.

So the polls that showed Americans believing the 9/11 - Iraq link were off by 60 to 70 points?

lol, insane.

That's not what I said.

And not what one should infer.

You really need to stop putting words into peoples' mouths.

Especially when they lean more towards a trumped-up casus belli than trying to defend the indefensible.

You said nobody over the age of 5 was buying it. The polls said 2 out 3 Americans were buying it.

I was talking about the run-up to the war, not after we were deep into it.

( a post-edit, that I was too slow in posting )

 

[Kosh]

I believed it was possible that Saddam could have had a hand in it, but knew pretty much hours after it happened that it came from Bin Laden. Could have Saddam paid the families the martyrs death pay he was promising? Sure he could have done that as well.

However the original intent of the UN resolution was to get Saddam to comply within a few years, not 12+ years.

At that time had we not left troops in the region we would have been back defending Saddam from an Iran invasion. But who cares about that now since Obama has given Iraq as present to Iran..

 

[NYcarbineer]

The

I remember the WMD thing very clearly.

I remember increasing Iraqi ground-fire against Coalition aircraft sorties which were carried out under the terms of the armistice-surrender of 1991.

I remember some lightweight fluff about an Iraq-9-11 connection but nobody over the age of 5 was buying it, even during the immediate prelude to war.

WMD and Iraqi intransigence in their dealings with UN inspectors, etc., were the primary casus belli, if memory serves correctly.

So the polls that showed Americans believing the 9/11 - Iraq link were off by 60 to 70 points?

lol, insane.

That's not what I said.

And not what one should infer.

You really need to stop putting words into peoples' mouths.

Especially when they lean more towards a trumped-up casus belli than trying to defend the indefensible.

You said nobody over the age of 5 was buying it. The polls said 2 out 3 Americans were buying it.

I was talking about the run-up to the war, not after we were deep into it.

( a post-edit, that I was too slow in posting )

I posted the poll from October 2002.

 

[Kondor3]

The

I remember the WMD thing very clearly.

I remember increasing Iraqi ground-fire against Coalition aircraft sorties which were carried out under the terms of the armistice-surrender of 1991.

I remember some lightweight fluff about an Iraq-9-11 connection but nobody over the age of 5 was buying it, even during the immediate prelude to war.

WMD and Iraqi intransigence in their dealings with UN inspectors, etc., were the primary casus belli, if memory serves correctly.

So the polls that showed Americans believing the 9/11 - Iraq link were off by 60 to 70 points?

lol, insane.

That's not what I said.

And not what one should infer.

You really need to stop putting words into peoples' mouths.

Especially when they lean more towards a trumped-up casus belli than trying to defend the indefensible.

You said nobody over the age of 5 was buying it. The polls said 2 out 3 Americans were buying it.

I was talking about the run-up to the war, not after we were deep into it.

( a post-edit, that I was too slow in posting )

I posted the poll from October 2002.

Then I was wrong.

I concede the point.

I remember that I didn't believe the side-chatter about a connection.

I remember that nobody I know (and interacted with on the subject, a couple of dozen, at least) believed the side-chatter about a connection.

Apparently, my sampling universe was far too small.

My bad.

 

[Adrian]

I have never thought for a moment that Saddam's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. I never believed we would find the WMD's he had long since moved to Syria. I supported the Iraq war for what I believe was the actual objective of that war: To place a big US footprint in the crazy sandbox over there to achieve the very outcome we have witnessed since Saddam's fall. The entire Middle East and its sphere of influence in North Africa and elsewhere has been turned on its head with tyrannical governments falling or being thrown into turmoil.

The people running the show, I mean the real big picture people of Bilderberg, et al, who plan decades ahead and shape human activities to meet their own more global objectives. Events we see through the lens of those caught up in those events, whereas those pushing the big buttons live above the fray of our mundane lives and plan humanity's course with the unemotional efficiency that being immune provides. As the players move their pawns around the game board that is Earth, they guide us to a world that preserves dynastic wealth and meets the goals of a very privileged few.

So while we all sit about engaging in machinations, the powers that be sip champagne in celebration of a master plan going exactly as designed. The People remain clueless as to the real reason for the Iraq war and its carefully orchestrated repercussions. Only those who take the time to look at the really big picture will grasp what is going on. For those who cannot see the pattern and the writing on the wall, get ready for a one world government by the close of this century. Everything is being guided and maneuvered to reach that goal. The evidence is clear and plentiful if you can think out of the box.

I have no expectation that anyone will believe me and I don't blame you, you shouldn't. All I am suggesting is that you step back and reexamine the facts and the unfolding of events with a totally open mind and considering the possibility that what I am saying might be true. Do that and I believe you will see what I am talking about. If you don't, keep looking, you will.

There is usually much more to most things than meets the eye.

 

[BlindBoo]

the Iraq war started in 2003 after approval from congress and the UN.

There was no UN approval of military action against Iraq in 2003. After the occupation started going really badly, President Bush asked them for help and they gave it. They pulled that support in 2008 which is why President Bush had to forge a new SOFA by the end of that year or else been force to withdraw all our troops by the end of 2008.

 

[Wyatt earp]

the Iraq war started in 2003 after approval from congress and the UN.

There was no UN approval of military action against Iraq in 2003. After the occupation started going really badly, President Bush asked them for help and they gave it. They pulled that support in 2008 which is why President Bush had to forge a new SOFA by the end of that year or else been force to withdraw all our troops by the end of 2008.

what are you talking about we didn't start attacting till after the UN and the US didn't have to pull out in 2008 , remember we went back again with out a vote from Iraq's parliament, so your excuses is lame if you want to imply obama had no choice.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And your a moron going badly? The war was over in a month or less against the Iraq military. I bet you were crying your eyes out with shock and awe

 

[Wyatt earp]

I remember laughing my ass off and watching Powell at the UN justify the invasion, then took a few days off from work to watch the US blow Iraq to kingdom come. Going badly?

GETFO with bull shit left wing revitilist history

God damn

 

[BlindBoo]

what are you talking about

Your lie about the UN approval in 2003.

remember we went back again with out a vote from Iraq's parliament,

That has nothing to do with the SOFA of 2008.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And your a moron going badly? The war was over in a month or less against the Iraq military. I bet you were crying your eyes out with shock and awe

No it wasn't.

 

[BlindBoo]

I remember laughing my ass off and watching Powell at the UN justify the invasion, then took a few days off from work to watch the US blow Iraq to kingdom come. Going badly?

GETFO with bull shit left wing revitilist history

God damn

Considering the state of Iraqis military, of course the invasion's outcome was never in doubt. We won the war but lost the peace because of the poor decisions of the Bush administration during the early days of the occupation..

 

[Wyatt earp]

And your a moron going badly? The war was over in a month or less against the Iraq military. I bet you were crying your eyes out with shock and awe

No it wasn't.

yes it was against the standing army, you know their is a fucking difference winning a war against a standing army then a gorllia urban warfare.

 

[boilermaker55]

Total innuendo on your part.

Oh, fuck no. It was pretty clear that Saddam had nothing to do with it. The Bush administration kept trying to insinuate connections. But they never held up.

Bullshit. The Democratic party simply lied by creating that ridiculous strawman to beat down in order to convince useful idiots like you to vote for them.

That's the reality of the matter.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We should of broken in up in three states. Every one knew it except Bush and Obama.

 

[Adrian]

Exactly bear513. The mistake was to believe that your rank and file Iraqi Muslim would be civilized enough to get his shit together once liberated. That was a grave misjudgment of the Arab culture and Islamic influence over the people. They acted like savages because that's who developed Islam.

 

[Muhammed]

I remember laughing my ass off and watching Powell at the UN justify the invasion, then took a few days off from work to watch the US blow Iraq to kingdom come. Going badly?

GETFO with bull shit left wing revitilist history

God damn

Could you quote Powell saying that he advocates an invasion at a UN meeting? If not, then, it's obvious that you're a lying idiot.

 

[g5000]

I never heard them claim a direct connection to 9/11.

Of course you didn't. That's because people like you were in a coma until January 20, 2009.

 

[Faun]

I never heard them claim a direct connection to 9/11.

"It‘s been pretty well confirmed that he [hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April." - Dick Cheney, 12.9.2001

 

[imawhosure]

Why do you people argue over facts that you create?

We went to war because of the 15 or 17 times that Iraq ignored UN resolutions, PERIOD. That is exactly why we were able to acquire a coalition.

I really, really, despise when people try to re-write history. It is all about WMDs, it is all about Busch senior, it is all about this, that, or the other. Ridiculous.

Now, if you geniuses want to discuss how Bush really felt, and the real reason Bush went to war, go ahead. I could probably agree with 50% of your tin hat ideas. But, it was legal throughout the world, and if Saddamn complied with the UN resolutions, poof, no legal war. No coalition, no nothing.

In essence, this poll is a question that has no bearing on WHY we went to war; obviously meant to NOT give the answer that was real, while promoting a specific political agenda.