Originally Posted by Baggi
Well, except for his paying the family of Terrorists bombers and allowing terrorists to live and train in Iraq, yeah, no involvement whatsoever.
The suicide bombers didn't blow themselves up because Saddam was giving them money and if the Terrorists being given shelter by Saddam were that serious then they would have dealt with him in 2001 not 2003.
Anyway, I was talking about the level of terrorist activity that the US government claimed that Saddam was involved prior to the war such as he was potentially involved in 9/11 and he could give WMD's to terrorists.
It's not that complicated. An army with soldiers and tanks against another army, that's conventional warfare and Saddam posed no threat in that regard. Using 19 people to hijack planes and fly them into civilian buildings, that's unconventional. We knew, before 9/11, all about the first. After 9/11, we realized that Saddam could no longer be contained by being able to easily defeat his conventional military.
Right.....but as I already mentioned there isn't any substaintial evidence that he was involved in unconventional warfare after 9/11. That is why the case to invade Iraq was built upon Saddam's WMD capability. They didn't say that they were invading because he was planning terrorist attacks on the United States.
As I said before, if they seriously thought that they couldn't contain Saddam and they had evidence that he could attack using unconventional methods, then they would have invaded in 2001 not 2003.
This is your belief and you're welcome to it, but let's not pretend like you have any evidence to support this belief.
Well, I do have evidence and I have already mentioned it. You just choose to ignore it or not accept it. Not my problem.
Clearly they were quite honest before 9/11 about attacking Saddam, they saw no need, and they were in agreement with you. Then 9/11 happened and they changed their mind.
Yeh, because they saw they could use the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq. That is why on the day of 9/11, even though they knew it was probably an Al Qaeda attack they were looking at ways to link it to Saddam.
You might like it to be erroneous but it's not. It's incredibly relevant. It shows the maturity of both Rice and Powell.
It is erroneous. Whether they agree with me or not , doesn't change the fact that their statements prior to 9/11 agree with my point of view. You are not even disputing that point. You just keep on repeating that it isn't. I don't care whether they are more mature, more crazy and etc. That doesn't change the concept that their statements prior to 9/11 agree with what I said.