Was there Al-Queda in Iraq before the US invasion?
Don't look it up or anything. Just post. There is a right answer.
This is in relation to the Obama-McCain attacks.
Yes
No
Was there Al-Queda in Iraq before the US invasion?
Was there Al-Queda in Iraq before the US invasion?
Don't look it up or anything. Just post. There is a right answer.
This is in relation to the Obama-McCain attacks.
those damn insurgents ate all the cereal
no..at least no real proof.
They may be there now...They may have been there before...Who knows...But my answer is still.. NO.
BeFF <beef>
GECKOSQUAD
Just a guess, I voted yes because i doubt they can form their group that large in a couple years.
I wouldnt doubt that. I voted noOriginally Posted by G35Cam
So far the majority is right...
where is the "I dont know WTF ur talking about" option.
negative...there hasn't been any evidence to support the contrary....we went to war under false pretenses (bush should be impeached for that..but the neoconservative evangelical system of government he has created won't let that happen)...now we have an another Al-Qaeda stronghold to contend with while we abandon Afghanistan...
Val RIP
the funny thing is we know where osama bin laden is
brits n other allies are sittin in afgan
Its just a bodykit
the only f*cking question that matters in this debate is:
Why did we take most of our troops away from searching for Osama and 'liberate' Iraq?
yes saddam was a bad guy but we have more important things than him (aka Osama).
Val for President
This poll was conducted after I saw this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JNEEEXKGiE&NR=1
I mean just read the comments, its like they thought Al-Queda was in Iraq before the US invasion!
FYI
Saddam despised terrorism, there were absolutely NO terrorist cells in Iraq during his "iron fist" rule. It was only true when the US invaded, this created a power vacuum mixed with Anti-America ideology with the already unpopular perception of the US in the Middle East.
But away, the sheer existence Al-Queda is still America's fault. If we didn't abandon Afghanistan after used them in the proxy war against the U.S.S.R. there would be no Al-Queda today. Instead of cutting and running, we should have invested our interests in bettering Afghanistan for bleeding the USSR out of money; ending the cold war.
In a sense this is kinda like Karma, we used Afghanistan to bleed the U.S.S.R. out to bankruptcy and dumped them when they were no use to us. Now they are doing the same they did to us as they did to the Soviets.
For every 1 dollar Bin Laden spends, the US has to spend 1,000,000. Bin Laden said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "As soon as the US declares victory over Al-Queda, I will send 2 Mujahideen to the furthest point East. They will plant a flag 'Al-Queda', and the US will be obliged to come"
Its sad when you think about it, because its true. It costs Bin Laden pretty much nothing to send a few guys out to start a "terrorist training camp", but for the US to pursue them, the US must spend Millions; sending air plane carriers, recon teams, risking American lives, etcetera...
Bin Laden stated that his goal is to bankrupt America, and as of now he is succeeding.
Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/me...ape/index.html
Don't even get me started on Iran...
Its important to know why they hate us.
where the hell did you get this information....? and who gives a flying **** about saddam and his opinions about terrorism..... its GENOCIDE and MASS murders thats the problem.
EF SQUAD FTMFW!!!!
take the information you get from the mass-media with a grain of salt.... theyre the reason why theres so many stupid sheep.... i mean people.... in this country. its all fabricated or biased or flawed information. you are told what they want you to be told.... not necessarily whats actually happening
EF SQUAD FTMFW!!!!
Do you think Our Gov't gives a sh.it about a Genocide happening on the other side of the world? Hell no
It comes down to U.S. interest and what will only benefit us (by us I mean the corrupt politicians).
2006 Evo IX - Bolt ons
Al-Qaeda not in Iraq before US envasion....LOLOL
The Guardian
February 6, 1999
Saddam link to Bin Laden
By Julian Borger
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.
News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...314700,00.html
Associated Press
February 13, 1999
Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown
Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday.
Taliban authorities in the militia's southern stronghold of Kandahar refused to either confirm or deny reports that bin Laden had left the country.
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities.
The Taliban did promise that bin Laden would not use Afghanistan as a staging arena for terrorist activities.
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9...ghan.binladen/
Lets not forget, democrats felt the same way. To blame Bush for everything is truely ignorant.
“WE HAVE KNOWN FOR MANY YEARS THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IS SEEKING AND DEVELOPING WMD’S”. - SEN. TED KENNEDY (D, MA) 9/27/2002
“I WILL BE VOTING TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE - IF NECESSARY - TO DISARM SADDAM HUSSEIN BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT A DEADLY ARSENAL OF WMD’S IN HIS HANDS IS A REAL AND GRAVE THREAT TO OUR SECURITY.” - SEN. JOHN F. KERRY (D, MA), 10/9/2002
“WE BEGIN WITH THE COMMON BELIEF THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IS A TYRANT AND A THREAT TO THE PEACE AND STABILITY OF THE REGION. HE HAS IGNORED THE MANDATE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND IS BUILDING WMD’S AND THE MEANS OF DELIVERING THEM.” - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI) 9/19/2002
“WE KNOW THAT HE HAS STORED SECRET SUPPLIES OF BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS THROUGHOUT HIS COUNTRY.”- AL GORE, 9/23/2002
“IRAQ’S SEARCH FOR WMD’S HAS PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE TO DETER AND WE SHOULD ASSUME THAT IT WILL CONTINUE FOR AS LONG AS SADDAM IS IN POWER.” - AL GORE, 9/23/2002
“THE LAST UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS LEFT IRAQ IN OCTOBER OF 1998. WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT SADDAM HUSSAIN RETAINS SOME STOCKPILES OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, AND THAT HE HAS SINCE EMBARKED ON A CRASH COURSE TO BUILD UP HIS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE CAPABILITIES. INTELLIGENCE REPORTS INDICATE THAT HE IS SEEKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS…” - SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D, WV), 10/3/2002
“THERE IS UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IS WORKING AGGRESSIVELY TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND WILL LIKELY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS… WE ALSO SHOULD REMEMBER WE HAVE ALWAYS UNDERESTIMATED THE PROGRESS SADDAM HAS MADE IN DEVELOPMENT OF WMD’S.”
- SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D, WV), 10/10/2002
“HE HAS SYSTEMATICALLY VIOLATED, OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST 11 YEARS, EVERY SIGNIFICANT UN RESOLUTION THAT HAS DEMANDED THAT HE DISARM AND DESTROY HIS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, AND ANY NUCLEAR CAPACITY. THIS HE HAS REFUSED TO DO.”
- REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D, CA), 10/10/2002
“IN THE FOUR YEARS SINCE THE INSPECTORS LEFT, INTELLIGENCE REPORTS SHOW THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS WORKED TO REBUILD HIS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS STOCK, HIS MISSILE DELIVERY CAPABILITY, AND HIS NUCLEAR PROGRAM. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN AID, COMFORT, AND SANCTUARY TO TERRORISTS, INCLUDING AL QAEDA MEMBERS… IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT IF LEFT UNCHECKED, SADDAM HUSSEIN WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE HIS CAPACITY TO WAGE BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WARFARE, AND WILL KEEP TRYING TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS.”
- SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D, NY), 10/10/2002
“WE ARE IN POSSESSION OF WHAT I THINK TO BE COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS, AND HAS HAD FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, A DEVELOPING CAPACITY FOR THE PRODUCTION AND STORAGE OF WMD’S.”
- SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D, FL), 12/8/2002
“WITHOUT QUESTION, WE NEED TO DISARM SADDAM HUSSEIN. HE IS A BRUTAL, MURDEROUS DICTATOR, LEADING AN OPPRESSIVE REGIME… HE PRESENTS A PARTICULARLY GRIEVOUS THREAT BECAUSE HE IS SO CONSISTENTLY PRONE TO MISCALCULATION … AND NOW HE IS MISCALCULATING AMERICA’S RESPONSE TO HIS CONTINUED DECEIT AND HIS CONSISTENT GRASP FOR WMD’S … SO THE THREAT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN WITH WMD’S IS REAL”.
- SEN. JOHN. F. KERRY (D, MA), 1/23/2003
“ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WE ARE DETERMINED TO DENY IRAQ THE CAPACITY TO DEVELOP WMD’S AND THE MISSILES TO DELIVER THEM. THAT IS OUR BOTTOM LINE”
- PRESIDENT CLINTON, FEB 4, 1998
“IF SADDAM REJECTS PEACE AND WE HAVE TO USE FORCE, OUR PURPOSE IS CLEAR. WE WANT TO SERIOUSLY DIMINISH THE THREAT POSED BY IRAQ’S WMD PROGRAM.”
- PRESIDENT CLINTON, FEB. 17, 1998
“IRAQ IS A LONG WAY FROM (HERE), BUT WHAT HAPPENS THERE MATTERS A GREAT DEAL HERE. FOR THE RISKS THAT THE LEADERS OF A ROGUE STATE WILL USE NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL OR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AGAINST US OR OUR ALLIES IS THE GREATEST SECURITY THREAT WE FACE.”
- MADELINE ALBRIGHT, FEB 18, 1998
“HE WILL USE THOSE WMD’S AGAIN, AS HE HAS TEN TIMES SINCE 1983.”
-SANDY BERGER, CLINTON NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, 2/18/98
“(WE) URGE YOU, AFTER CONSULTING WITH CONGRESS, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTIONS (INCLUDING, IF APPROPRIATE, AIR AND MISSILE STRIKES ON SUSPECT IRAQI SITES) TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY TO THE THREAT POSED BY IRAQ’S REFUSAL TO END ITS WMD’S PROGRAM.”
-LETTER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON, SIGNED BY SENATORS CARL LEVIN, TOM DASCHLE, JOHN KERRY, AND OTHER DEMOCRATS OCT. 9, 1998
“SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF WMD TECHNOLOGY WHICH IS A THREAT TO COUNTRIES IN THE REGION AND HE HAS MADE A MOCKERY OF THE WEAPONS INSPECTION PROCESS.”
- REP. NANCY PELOSI (D, CA) DEC 16, 1998
“HUSSEIN HAS ….CHOSEN TO SPEND HIS MONEY ON BUILDING WMD’S AND PALACES FOR HIS CRONIES.”
- MADELINE ALBRIGHT, CLINTON SECRETARY OF STATE, 11/10/99
“THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT….SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS INVIGORATED HIS WEAPONS PROGRAMS. REPORTS INDICATE THAT BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL AND NUCLEAR PROGRAMS CONTINUE APACE AND MAY BE BACK TO PRE-GULF WAR STATUS. IN ADDITION, SADDAM CONTINUES TO REDEFINE DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND IS DOUBTLESS USING THE COVER OF ILLICIT MISSILE PROGRAMS TO DEVELOP LONGER-RANGE MISSILES THAT WILL THREATEN THE U.S. AND OUR ALLIES.”
- LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH, SIGNED BY SEN. BOB GRAHAM (D, FL) AND OTHERS, 12/5/2001
i believe there was Al-Queda before...but they really didnt have a name thats just my take on it
but where is he now? he is in a **** hole somewhere up in the mountains. pretty sad when you have millions of dollars and have to wipe yourself with what you wear.
ofcourse they give a **** about genocide in other countries, and your right we do have interest with what benefits us. you make that sound like its a bad thing, wouldn't you do something that would benefit yourself while helping someone else out? Come on, President Bush gets his information from somewhere (CIA). He doesn't pull **** out of his ass and goes gung ho on it. This is why I feel bad about good people running for president, by the time they get out of their presidency, they reputation has been seriously hurt.
LOL, conspiracy theories crack me up
IA Rules doesn't allow these images in sigs
- IA Mgmt
Doesn't matter how many ppl are murdered, No gov't will step in unless it benefits them (Gov't officials)
Yes, but I can not say the same about Gov't
I don't think I said anything about Bush
No such thing, not until money no longer determines who leads this country
2006 Evo IX - Bolt ons
this wasnt directed to you, and your right you have to have HUGE money to be a president
Yes, but I can not say the same about Gov't
wwII perhaps?
I don't think I said anything about Bush
No such thing, not until money no longer determines who leads this country
still stand by my answers
yea... boy we sure liberated them...
if by liberated, you mean bombed the **** out of the landscape they call home, and made their daily lives even more difficult.
We don't have **** on Bin Laden, and we never will. He's an entity that was created purely to remind the American people that we have something to fear. From what I can tell there's been nothing but Bull**** coming out of the Bush administration, and 9/11 is no exception.
I used to not know where I stood on this issue, but I now firmly believe that our president, and his shady cohorts had far more to do with the greatest terrorist attacks ever seen in the modern world, than Bin Laden ever did.
He's the conceptual ghost, that keeps conservative, and uneducated Americans scared enough to allow something like the Patriot Act to be passed.
If McCain, or any other war mongering piece of ****, uber conservative republican is elected I will be dropping whatever I am doing, and leaving this ****ing country until our leaders can facilitate the change necessary, to once again make America a role model for the rest of the civilized, and educated world.
Pardon my apparent extremist view point, but I think it's disgusting that so much of what the corrupt Bush administration has already done, has gone so unchallenged. It's as though within this country, nobody even cares, or wants to admit that 9/11 doesn't make any ****ing sense.
Wow, I am actually now considering a vote for McCain instead of Paul.
Sadam did violate human rights, and he rightly should have been tried for it.
But America has no right to declare war, or murder people under false pretenses.
If they want to keep slaughtering each other in the names of their respective religions, they have every right to do so. But we don't have the right to declare war, simply because we want to protect, or be closer to an asset upon which this country depends.
Paul's been out of the race.
Which really sucks, the man has some great ideas.
Are you packing yet?
Not yet... as even if McCain were elected, he'd probably die in office shortly there after anyway. Plus I still have faith in the big O.
They Were..
PIC TOO BIG
qft, +1. I share this oppinion.
Learning everyday.
I swear, some people spend way too much time watching Micheal Moore movies and not paying attention to reality.
1. If we went to Iraq for oil, why are prices so high? Oh yea I remember now, wall street controls oil prices, not the president.
2. Why would anyone NOT on welfare vote for a democrat? Dont they know that dependence on govt is not a good thing?
back on subject.
Al-Queda was not in Iraq before the police action. Al-Queda came after the the Iraqi army was steamrolled.
back off subject.
The answer to why we havent found Bin Laden yet is simple. All you need to do is look at the terrain and know why. Then you add in the 100's of miles of caves Al-Queda has mapped out and its nearly impossible to find anyone. You could have 10k troops per square mile in that country and not find a soul.
And before anyone asks, yes I have been to Afghanistan, and I have been in those mountians. Here is a pic of Bagram Air Base.
Oh plllease, don't call me a sheep. I know whats going on, if you knew what's good for you, you should stop fighting and do as I do. BECOME THE ELITE, RULE OVER THE POPULUS, JOIN US!
I mean do you REALLY wanna just live a "free" life when and be "average" or would you rather aspire to become the upper class, to become the rulers, to dominate over everyone else. The real conspiracy is the fact that you actually don't like the elite. Learn to love them and you will be favored. **** every one else, do whats best for you, you cant make every one happy. There will always be poor people, there will always be rich people. There will always be people with power, there will always be people with out. America is a sinking ship, better jump off the fail boat before it sinks.
Yep.
You need to wake up Dr.G35.
Bush has not only already eliminated the borders between Canada, Mexico, and the US; but given himself dictatorial powers in a "state of emergency", a state of emergency which doesn't have to be defined by congress.
You can quote the propaganda puppets all you want, but the fact of the matter is Osama Bin Laden is, always has been, and was always intended to be a phantom threat.
You're not a sheep, you're a simply a traitor in the purest sense of the word.
Your right, we could suck ****, and kiss ass, and hope that we don't get walked all over; but along time ago a lot of smart people did a lot of fighting, and a whole lot of dying so we could have something called the constitution.
You're a coward if you're unwilling to fight for it, and what it means to this country.
I can show you more substancial evidence to show that we went into Iraq due to oil than anyone can show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.I swear, some people spend way too much time watching Micheal Moore movies and not paying attention to reality.
1. If we went to Iraq for oil, why are prices so high? Oh yea I remember now, wall street controls oil prices, not the president.
2. Why would anyone NOT on welfare vote for a democrat? Dont they know that dependence on govt is not a good thing?
back on subject.
Al-Queda was not in Iraq before the police action. Al-Queda came after the the Iraqi army was steamrolled.
back off subject.
The answer to why we havent found Bin Laden yet is simple. All you need to do is look at the terrain and know why. Then you add in the 100's of miles of caves Al-Queda has mapped out and its nearly impossible to find anyone. You could have 10k troops per square mile in that country and not find a soul.
And before anyone asks, yes I have been to Afghanistan, and I have been in those mountians. Here is a pic of Bagram Air Base.
The cost of oil has risen because demand has gone up.. contrary to belief the U.S has no control over how much we pay at the pump. We are dependent on OPEC and we are at their mercy.
By the way a good portion of Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, which is where Bin Laden is believed to have been as well. We recently killed Al Qaeda's #3 official in Pakistan..
1. I would lvoe to see this evidence
2. OPEC does have some control, but just as much control is held by the futures traders on wall street.
3. I know there is alot of activity in Pakistan. My squadron was giving air support to the border control points on a daily basis. The border with pakistan is only about 40 miles from Bagram.
Just off the top of my head and this doesn't even dip into what I have researched, this is just logic.
Can you say yes to these two question; As long as there are scarce resources there will be war.
Is oil a highly valued scarce resource?
There are plenty of countries with dictators, we happen to choose the one that is the second largest oil producer in the world. Furthermore our invasion in Iraq came on the heels of Sadam announcing that he would be switching his oil reserves from the U.S dollar to Euro's.. I don't necessarily see that as just a coincidence since the value of the dollar is heavily backed by oil. By switching the second largest oil reserve in the world to Euro's the value of the dollar drops dramatically.
Now since we have invaded Iraq those reserves remain in dollars AND bring in about $9 Billion in revenue a month.. of which nobody can account for. There is ZERO intelligence that can place "WMD's" in Iraq, Saddam had no affiliation with Al Qaeda and actually held the same position we did. Again this is just off the top of my head without any in depth analysis of the situation.
Want to know the other countries that have considered switching oil reserves from the Dollar? Venezuela, Iran, and I believe China.. either China or Russia but amazingly all of these countries suddenly have a conflict with the U.S, is that coincidence as well? Iran is on the list big time although Iran was an ally of ours going into Afghanistan after the Taliban.
At this point, 5 years, $400 Billion dollars and 4000 brave soldiers gone there is no other logical answer as to why we use a great portion of our military force to stay in Iraq. It doesn't benefit us in any way BUT an U.S friendly government in Iraq.
I have to research this some more to find exact dates, but I dont believe Iraq was "allowed" to sell their oil on the open market by UN trade sanctions so changing it to Euros would do them no good.
This is the first I've heard of the 9B in unaccounted for revenue. Do you have a link to this info. Also who is collecting this revenue? I remember something from a few years ago about the US using some money from Iraqi oil to pay some of the costs of the war.
Iraq openly funded several terrorist groups, but would not allow them to operate within the Iraqi borders. He was also working with Al-Queda to aquire nuke material. I actually saw on another forum today that someone said Sadaam already had nuke material and sarin gas warheads, but I havent researched it yet.
the US has not had formal relations with Iran since the early 80's. They are openly anti american and definately NOT allies now, or even in 01.
Hugo Chavez is openly anti American and we have had issues with him since before 9/11. The only difference now is that it makes the news.
Russia has been a fair weather ally for the last 10 years. They still favor the German and French though and are as closet anti american as they are.
Only about 3600 Americans dead to combat. The other 800 or so killed themselves doing something stupid.
Stability in that region is most definately beneficial to the US for the same reasons you stated above. Oil runs countries and they are sitting on alot of it.
Jimmy... you are right... HOO fukn RAH... what branch?
PIC TOO BIG
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
