This is why we went to war

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
This is why we went to war
41
Fri, 02-06-2004 - 10:06am
SADDAM IN 'TERROR TAPE'



New footage has been released purporting to show Saddam Hussein paying large sums of money to a terrorist group.

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Nicholson says the footage is "incontrovertible proof" of the former Iraqi dictator's links to international terrorism.


It appears to show the former Iraqi President plotting crimes and paying money to members of an international terrorist group.

Baroness Nicholson says the group of men in the footage looked after Saddam's chemical and biological warfare.

The footage given to Sky News was reportedly looted from one of Saddam's palaces.

There has been no independent confirmation of the tapes and Sky News cannot verify their veracity.

However, Baroness Nicholson says there is no doubt the footage highlights Saddam's links to terrorism and chemical weapons.

"This is incontrovertible proof of Saddam Hussein's involvement in international terrorism," she said.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12986177,00.html

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2003
Tue, 02-10-2004 - 12:16am
really, we went to war for regime change.

though with statements from Cheney like this:

>>Should all his ambitions be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East and the United States and for the peace of the world.

The whole range of weapons of mass destruction then would rest in the hands of a dictator who has already shown his willingness to use such weapons and has done so, both in his war with Iran and against his own people.

Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror and a seat at a top 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors, confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth. <<

and

>>What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thanking or willful blindness. We will not simply look away, hope for the best and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve. As President Bush has said, "Time is not on our side."

Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network or a murderous dictator or the two working together constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action. <<

I'm not sure how you *couldn't* think the danger was imminent.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 02-10-2004 - 11:43am
<>

Yes, he said Iraq was not a imminent threat, but then in the same breath he said that by the time it is an imminent threat there will be a mushroom cloud over NY. My objection is that Bush has always IMPLIED that Iraq was an imminent threat. By juxtaposition he linked Saddam with WMD, 9/11 and al Qaeda. Why do you think so many people believe that Saddam was connected with 9/11. Remember sometimes it's not the facts but how they are presented--Bush is a master of implication. There is always room for him to wiggle out, kinda of like saying, I didn't say that--it's your fault you misunderstood.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Tue, 02-10-2004 - 11:55am
<>

Agreed. Do believe the policy is called "pre-emptive war" or "preventative war". Justification never before used, and a violation of what I see as equal to killing a person because he "intends" to attack you. Totally unsound.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Tue, 02-10-2004 - 3:30pm
Ah...I see. Now you want to debate what the definition of 'imminent' is. Fine. It means something that is going to happen momentarily. To use it in context, one might say, 'The dog is in imminent danger of being run over,' which we all realize means that there is a car bearing down on it, not that it might get run over, or that it will get run over some day if it continues playing in the street.

'Imminent' is NOT being able to put something off until the next administration if you think you might be able to get away with it or or waiting until Saddam has built up his arsenal of WMD.

"What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thanking or willful blindness. We will not simply look away, hope for the best and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve."

"Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror and a seat at a top 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 02-11-2004 - 11:05am
<>

NO. You missed my point entirely. What I am saying is that Bush mislead by juxtapositioning statements that were not properly linked. He and Cheney are still doing the same thing. While not directly lying, he is giving a false impression. Presentation counts and he knows it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 02-11-2004 - 1:11pm
You have to remember one thing......we have never lived through times such as these before, and hopefully will not have to endure them for long.

Kay's findings were that the President did the right thing by going into Iraq and removing Hussein, but his argument was based on bad intelligence. Kay even said that Iraq was a far more dangerous place than we had originally thought it to be.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 02-11-2004 - 1:14pm
Tenet said the President did not lie.

Kay said the President did not lie.

Dick Gephardt said that based on the intelligence that he saw (not from the White House, but what he got from directly speaking with George Tenet) he thought it justified to go into Iraq.

John Kerry said basically the same thing, but now only spins this to try to garner votes. When his methodology of voting for this comes to light in debate, he is going to look foolish. He saw exactly the same information that the President did, as did all other members of Congress. Tenet and Kay have stated this fact.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 12:52pm
<>

I don't understand, are you talking about global terrorism or the war in Iraq. I see these as too distinctive problems. The US was attacked by Japan, and we have gone to war before. What have we never lived through before?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 1:29pm
We have never had a terrorist act on our soil in this manner or magnitude before, which has a lot of peoples eyes wide opened now.

We used to live in a sort of cocoon, feeling safe and secure from the outside world, seeing terrorist attacks on TV, but not realy knowing what it was like to live through something of this nature.

Oklahoma City gave us a glimpse but on a much smaller scale than what happened on 9/11.

When we were attacked by Japan, we were already in the midst of a war with Germany, so while it was a shock, it was not a total shock in the same way 9/11 was. 9/11 kicked us into reality, where Pearl Harbor increased the nations resolve to win the war. Both events were extremely tragic, but in different ways.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 02-12-2004 - 3:12pm

>"We have never had a terrorist act on our soil in this manner or magnitude before, which has a lot of peoples eyes wide opened now.


We used to live in a sort of cocoon, feeling safe and secure from the outside world, seeing terrorist attacks on TV, but not really knowing what it was like to live through something of this nature."<


Agreed. Safe guards should be in place at..... airports, docks, power stations, water supplies, police, FBI, border patrol etc. coordination..... but the general population living in fear is unnecessary & unproductive. You're more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than by a terrorist.


>"When we were attacked by Japan, we were already in the midst of a war with Germany,"<


Who's this "we"?

 


Photobucket&nbs