America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 21 years ago by usahog. 34 replies replies.
9/11 and al-Qaeda
jdrabinski Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 08-16-2002
Posts: 794
usahog,

Sorry I missed your previous question about 'proof' that there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. I am posting here so that it does not jack the other threads.

Funny question, if you think about it. I have to prove that there is no connection? Show me the connection! The burden of proof is on those who make the claim that they are connected, after all. And no one exactly says it, do they? Just hint at it. Enough to get people to blend rhetoric together...suspicious motif.

The point is simple: Saddam Hussein is precisely the kind of leader al-Qaeda opposes and wants to bring down. Hussein is a purely secular leader. When he used gas on his own people, it was on the Kurds in the North of Iraq and on the religious fundamentalists threatening uprising in the South of Iraq. This latter group is along the lines of al-Qaeda, looking for a Islamic law to govern Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

Al-Qaeda is a fundamentalist, messianic religious group. Hussein is a secular military dictator, not at all a religion-based leader, and so is one of those most in need of overthrowing. There is no basis for a natural alliance at all. Bin Laden has repeatedly called for the fundamentalists in Iraq to rise up and overthrow Hussein.

Notice that Bush never makes the link. It is just 'assumed' or 'hinted at.' But it is never outright said, that Hussein was involved with 9/11 attacks, because there is no evidence. In fact, it is ludicrous to make the connection. Bin Laden and Hussein are natural and active enemies.

Sorry! Sometimes bad guys are enemies to each other. Guess that whole 'you're with us or your agin' us' doesn't apply here. Sometimes the bad guys are against each other.

This doesn't mean that there is no argument for war in Iraq. I simply mean that that argument cannot appeal to 9/11 for justification. There just isn't a link.

John
DrMaddVibe Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
Please tell me this is a joke or some sarcasm.

http://www.factsofisrael.com/load.php?p=http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000407.html

http://www.intellnet.org/news/?type=category&value=Abu%20Nidal
DrMaddVibe Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
Saddam has invaded almost EVERY neighbor Iraq has and tried to gain a stranglehold on the world's oil supply a while back. You might remember Desert Storm? Yeah...
usahog Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
John, I simply asked you to show me facts that there is not... Germany and Japan both had different agenda's but they bacame an Axis....Right now and even before.. these Fundamintalests (sp) and religious groups are still of the same beliefs there are a couple different types of Islam... and Yes Saddam is for Saddam he will fit what ever bill he needs to keep what he has (His Power) Osama is an extremist and very bent on the western world of Infadels in his homeland... Saddam also wants the Western World out of the area so he can still run his ring of Terror...
Basically they both ran there country's with the same kind of Control... Death to anyone who Apposed them...
Now could you please show me facts???
it is not my place to show you facts because you were the one blatingly telling others there's no connection... I just differ with your Theory...Until I see different Facts from what I have seen that tells me different....

I'll be waiting
Thanks
Hog
penzt8 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
I usually try to stay out of the political pot but this issue really is interesting. First off, I do believe we should take the appropriate military action to remove Hussein from power. Not because of some possible ties to AlQeda but because he has not lived up to his end of the bargain from his surrender during the gulf war. He has not provided convincing evidence that all his weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed. and I believe he is a very dangerous man.

We should have smoked his ass the first time around. Along with his sons.

That's my simplistic view of things.

Of course on another level, there's all kinds of deals going on behind the scenes between the different governments of the region. Turkey won't let us build up bases there unless we pay them $10 billion. Plus they want a gaurantee that we won't allow the Kurds to create their own country in the northern region of Iraq where they are currently living.

The Kurds got hosed by the international community the first time around. We asked them to stand up to Hussein and when they did we sat by and left hundred or thousands of them get killed. We eventually came in and secured the no fly zone but by then the damage was done.

Personally, I don't believe that removing Hussein will make a big difference unless we're willing to go in and establish a post war democratic government run by the UN or the US like we did in Japan after WWII. Of course none of the other Arab states want that. The last thing they want is a democracy next door. Next thing you know, their citizens will want the same thing. and none of the Arab rulers want to give up power to their people. Politically it's a giant mess.

The jury is still out on Afghanistan. The government is still very fragile. All it will take is a leader with charisma and some power that the peole will follow and they could be right back where they were a year ago. There's a lot of warlords that would love to move up and fill that spot.

OK enough of my rant.
usahog Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Here's some help Penzt...

GOBTAPPA, Iraq -- On the worst day of his life, Qadir Ismail Ali said, he found so many corpses on the ground at Gobtappa that he walked right past those of his wife, Hajir, who was 50, and their eldest daughter, Amina, 18. He failed to recognize his girls, Aska, 12, Kocha, 10, and all three boys, Sadir, 11, Dara, 6, and Sarbast, 5. And he overlooked Hawzhen, a girl of 18 months, huddled with the others in a neighbor's yard.
According to historians and human rights advocates, the Iraqi air force had dropped 13 gas-laden containers on Ali's home village just after 6 p.m. that day -- May 30, 1988. The attack was part of Operation Anfal, mounted to punish Kurdish militiamen and their families for rising up in alliance with the Iranian enemy of the time. Kurds say as many as 180,000 people in 60 villages were killed in the operation.
That number is disputed, but one thing is certain: In the bloodstained ledger of modern Iraq, no population has paid quite so dearly as the Kurds for opposing President Saddam Hussein's Baath Party government.

xrundog Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2002
Posts: 2,212
There may be proof of a connection. It has been alleged that Iraq provides funding for Al-Qaeda. It has also been alleged that Al-Qaeda members are soaking up sun in Baghdad. Allegations aren't proof, I know. There is probably some basis in fact. Perhaps showing proof would compromise an intelligence source. A traitor in Iraq must keep a very low profile. Opinion: Al-Qaeda will take Iraq's money and finance terror. What's the saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I do agree though that if we are going to start killing another countries citizens, we had better lay our cards on the table and show just cause. Why? Because we're the good guys!
jdrabinski Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 08-16-2002
Posts: 794
usahog,

There is no motivation for and no evidence of a connection. My 'proof' is that there is nothing to suggest the connection.

The Germany/Japan analogy doesn't wash: neither had plans on overtaking the other.

I am the last person to defend Hussein. Tyrant, terrible murderer. But we can't defend the war initiative with the al-Qaeda connection. It isn't there.

Sorry if that isn't enough, but, frankly, I suspect you wouldn't accept anything as 'facts' from me. I've given you the facts of the situation, in my first post, and you don't seem to register them as important or instructive. Don't know what to say. Try these links for facts:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/01/bushiraq021101

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/time.iraq/

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kpbs/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=448549

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59403-2002Sep9?language=printer

None of these people interviewed, high-ranking members of the intelligence community, could be conceived of as 'leftwing'; far from it, they are mainstream all the way.

Again, this doesn't impact the big question of war in Iraq. It just impacts that part of the 'argument.'

John
usahog Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Mainstream is all in the wording... I can see where you are not getting your Facts from... CNN and the likes... they throw out Gibberish CR@P to keep people watching.. and also fear in allot of folks...
i like up to the minute facts on things especially when it comes to my way of living and or my life... or the lives of my Countrymen....I'll give you a little bit of connections and you connect the dots...

Hog
jdrabinski Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 08-16-2002
Posts: 794
SMOOOOOOOOTCH!

I love you, hog.

I do need facts.

John
jdrabinski Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 08-16-2002
Posts: 794
p.s., hog

By 'mainstream,' I did not mean the news organizations. I meant the people from the intelligence community who gave statements.

Just to be clear.

John
usahog Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Gibberish = Jibberish

and I know what you meant by Mainstream.. and do you honestly think these people are going to stand up and give out all the information they have just to satisfy the curiosidy (sp) of the world? and risk giving up to much information that may threaten the security of this nation and its people... the most people who are talking are the ones who are FORMER or RET. So and So
and all they can do is speculate whats going on...
so then the media to finish out there Hour long Post.. toss in there Liberal .02 cents worth of Jibberish and speculation... it boils down to Martha Get your Boots on... the News is ON!!!!!!

Hog
usahog Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Military-Intelligence Exclusive
Saturday night, February 8, in the Iraqi-Kurdish city of Suleimaniyeh, al Qaeda and Iraqi military intelligence fired their first shot of the US-Iraq war - by assassination. They used their shared surrogate, the extremist Kurdish Ansar al-Islam of northeast Iraq, to eliminate the top command of the pro-American Patriotic Union of Iraqi Kurdistan’s fighting militia.

The three-way collaboration between Baghdad, al Qaeda and the Kurdish fundamentalist terrorists provided a live and incontrovertible smoking gun. The price was heavy, a grave setback for US war plans.

this time, they pretended to be defectors.

Ansar al Islam, which has been fighting the PUK for two years and whose members trained in Afghanistan, used double agents to convince the Kurdish commanders of this strategic northeastern corner of Iraq that top Ansar commanders were willing to defect. The defectors, it was promised, would bring fresh evidence of the collaboration between Iraqi military intelligence and al Qaeda.
The offer came just after secretary of state Colin Powell spoke of this collaboration at his Security Council presentation of America’s case against Iraq on February 5

thats about all I can give you right now... lets wait until Iraq is liberated and then you will see more...

Hog
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
usahog
"it is not my place to show you facts because you were the one blatingly telling others there's no connection."

that's a bull **** argument. you are talking about us taking overt action, by going to war based on the facts. what facts have you seen that show saddam is ready to strike us. korea is a real threat, but again they didn't try to kill his daddy and they don't have oil. if george is so pissed at saddam, why doesn't he fly a jet that he was "trained" to fly and blow saddam's ass to kingdom come.



i forgot, when he missed his physical, he was suspended from flying status.
Homebrew Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
There is much more of a connection between the Al-qaeda and the royal family of Saudi Arabia. I would suggest that we bomb them before Iraq.
Just a thought
Homebrew
tarheel4lyf Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 09-23-2002
Posts: 2,543
Why is there so much ignorance in this forum? I'm sorry, but this deal with Iraq is not at all about Al Qaeda. We are fighting a war on terrorism, not a war on Al Qaeda. Iraq has participated in terrorist activities on way too many occasions to count. We are trying to stop them from taking their terrorism to global levels before it is too late. N. Korea is only looking for publicity and worldwide acknowledgement. They do not pose an immediate threat to the world. They make various statements to say to the world "Don't forget I am here." We have not forgotten them or put them aside. We are just focusing our attentions on the more immediate threat to global peace. Just my 2 cents.
jdrabinski Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 08-16-2002
Posts: 794
tarheel,

Why is there so much ignorance in YOUR post? We aren't proposing to go to war with Iraq because it supports terrorism. We are proposing to go to war because of violations of UN resolutions, conditions of the cessation of war in 1991. The disarmament of Iraq is tied to the Gulf War, not terrorism.

The UN resolutions in question have nothing to do with terrorism. If we are going to war for that reason, terrorism, Bush hasn't said it and needs to say it. And the consequences would be insane...who's next, the IRA? Bomb Palestinian refugee camps? Bomb the Michigan Militia? They're all terrorists.

Don't accuse others of ignorance and then make an ignorant statement. That's just bad manners.

John
jdrabinski Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 08-16-2002
Posts: 794
Rick,

I thought you were taking a week off, brother!

John
tarheel4lyf Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 09-23-2002
Posts: 2,543
Jabroni,

What do you think the UN resolutions are about? Weapons of Mass Destruction. In other, smaller words for you, bad stuff. Bad stuff that Iraq has and could end up in other terrorists hands. Terrorists do have a knack of finding and helping each other when they find a common ground. That is where the allusion to Germany and Japan comes to play. They were not united, until they found a common ground on which to help each other. We are trying to avoid a terrorist ****storm by disarming Iraq.

Have you forgotten that our War On Terrorism isn't just in the Middle East? The USA has ships and Troops all over the world fighting the same War On Terrorism. We have folks in Africa, Phillipines, hell, even in New York, fighting this War. Let's not forget that we were once AMERICANS, united in Freedom. Why must you whiney, let's love everyone, people forget that?
Homebrew Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Hey Tarheel,
Only people with losing arguements have to result to name-calling and debasing their debating opponents.
You can ruin a perfectly good argument that way.
Lends credability to the other side.
Sorry to point that out.
Later
Homebrew
Charlie Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Iraq has shown enough reason to have Saddam removed because of broken and unfilled UN resolutions! I have no proof that they had any involvement in 9/11! It irritates me to see people "defend" this Terrorist and then wrap themselves in our great Flag!

He needs to be dealt with and the only inspections that are going to work are those done from Abrams tanks!

Charlie
jdrabinski Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 08-16-2002
Posts: 794
Charlie,

Who has ever 'defended' Saddam Hussein? Opposing the war in Iraq does not mean defense of Hussein. That is a serious charge, to say that someone is defending a person like Saddam Hussein. So you shouldn't make it lightly.

That said, I am glad you see the difference between war in iraq and war on terrorism. Separate issues, but many people don't seem to see the difference.

John
DrMaddVibe Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
I don't understand your point of view Ski. You don't think Saddam supports terrorism, and is untouchable. Are you aware that he cuts a check to the families of those "patriots" that strap a bomb on themselves and pull the ripcord in a civilian target? If that isn't supporting terrorism I don't know what is! The mere fact that a world renowned terorist like Abu Nidal is assinated in Iraq(which his own guys say was retribution for Abu switching sides and planning an assination attack on Saddam!)after being allowed to "camp out" there. I think you just want to ignore facts, and reach for any measure to atack the current administration's hardline stance against terrorism. The trace to Iraq,Iran and even North Korea are there, and it doesn't take much to see them.
usahog Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Doc, thats the Facts.. he wants to Ignor all the facts... along with other's there views are simply more important to them then what is factual... I had a History teacher like this once...I WON...
as will the US on the war on Terror...
Hog

btw. when the USA declaired a war on Terror the IRA came forward and announced they were disbanning... and turned over a new leaf... Get out more Jdr... and of course open your mind to the facts around you...
Homebrew Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2003
Posts: 11,885
Whatever happened to that Saudi Princess who was tied to the 911 terrorists through her check book. While we are going after terrorists lets take her out as well.
just a thought
Go USA
Homebrew
jdrabinski Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 08-16-2002
Posts: 794
Let me say, again (!), Bush is not proposing that we go into Iraq because of support of terrorism. It is in response to the UN resolutions that have not been met.

Abu Nidal was not al-Qaeda, by the way. That was the Lockerbee tragedy, linked to the Palestinian cause. Palestinians are not al-Qaeda. Again, Middle East 101: Palestinian leaders are secular, not fundamentalist, for the most part.

Hussein supports Palestinian terrorism. Yes. So do all countries in the region, so that isn't reason to go to war with Iraq alone.

Further, to reiterate: Bush does not present that as his case. He mixes sentiment (terrorism is bad) with policy (Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions). That's just rhetoric, just an attempt to persuade. Very dangerous mixing of issues. They aren't the same policy. Bush is not going into the UN under the banner of terrorism. Why don't y'all get that?

And where, Dr. Vibe, did you get the idea that I think Hussein is not so bad, or whatever you said? I never said anything about that, did I? So don't accuse without a basis. To say I am sympathetic with someone like Hussein offends me. It couldn't be further from the truth.

John
DrMaddVibe Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
How you can't see the FACTS when they're as plain as the nose on your face baffles me! Spin away, but I don't want to hear you waffle about "takin' 'em down" when we start up!

You've made YOUR bed...lie in it!
tarheel4lyf Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 09-23-2002
Posts: 2,543
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail.

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America.
tarheel4lyf Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 09-23-2002
Posts: 2,543
So you see, the President HAS made his case linking Iraq with the War On Terror.
usahog Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
yes but Tar... he did not directly sayyyyyyyyyyyy
Al Quida... see its a figure of Speech for the Professor and terminology that John is looking for... it doesn't matter.... I Work WEAPONS and when CALLED ON I would be Honored to Shove one up Saddam's A$$ along with all the 50 other Terrorist Organizations Out there that have not stepped forward and resigned from there threats.... Example: PIRA or IRA.. stepped forward and announced they were done... Knowing full well the Wrath of a pissed off Nation....
lets bring N. Korea on .... in the end they will get there's also...but as in the past they are known for being blow hards and always saber ratteling!!!!

as for this post... John it was a nice try with a play of words... but even givin the facts you will still not agree with anything that is actually going on... as I have stated many times before there are many like yourself on this board... Until it lands on your front door... you cannot see it... thats ok there are millions like myself who will step up there and try and keep the theory of it landing on your doorstep from happening....

Have a Nice Day and keep your eye on CNN they'll have the latest Breaking News!!!!

Hog
tarheel4lyf Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 09-23-2002
Posts: 2,543
You can count me in, Hog.

Brothers In Arms
usahog Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
"Brothers of the Leaf" Also Tar!!!!!!

"Keep The Leaf Burning"

I think WHEN we make Iraq the 51st State we should give it a different name all together what do you think?? Ohhh am I Thread Jacking??? LMAO!!!!!!

Hog
tarheel4lyf Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 09-23-2002
Posts: 2,543
Let's turn it into a Super WalMart.....


here are some facts for you: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/18/74151.shtml
tarheel4lyf Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 09-23-2002
Posts: 2,543
how does the American Empire sound to you?
usahog Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
How Bout.. "The Promised Land" ??

Users browsing this topic
Guest