“1.) Saddam did NOT actively “look the other way”; in fact he had a death warrant out on Zarqawi.”

How do you explain that he was treated in a Baghdad hospital and laid up for some time after he was wounded in Afghanistan?

“…because without Zarqawi there was NO link and no case and thus he could not sell his phony little war.”

I don’t remember ever hearing the Bush administration ever trying to link Zarqawi to terrorist activities inside Iraq as a push to take out Saddam.

“Why was it chosen?”

Saddam was already weak militarily and Iraq provided an opportunity to change the region politically toward democracy, not to mention to get a strategic foot hold on on the western border of Iran. It’s no coincidence that Iran is BETWEEN Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran, I think has always been to main problem with their support of multiple terror groups in the region.

Although officially informed of human rights violations the USA continues to torture prisoners that have never been charged with a crime.

Canada and her allies should have taken a stand to protect the Iraqis from the illegal invasion by America. Canada as a peacekeeping force should have stationed troops in Iraq to protect the citizens from US aggression. Had this been the case, then when US troops were caught bombing schools, it would have been an act of war against Canada and her NATO allies.

Canada has an obligation to enforce the United Nations proclamations. The USA was repeatedly informed that an invasion of Iraq violated the international rules of war. Instead Canada did nothing, to her great shame, unlike the second world war when Canada took a lead in fighting the illegal invasions by the Nazis.
It is my hope that Canada will join Italy and other countries to enforce the arrest warrants issued for the Americans accused of war crimes.

And you should do this every time anyone uses the word Democrat when it should be Democratic.

You make good points. But while some of your premises are correct, your conclusions do no follow.

You [correctly] point out that Zarqawi was in a No-Fly-Zone area (in the northern region — essentially Kurdistan) outside Saddam’s control. The U.S., U.K., U.N, and — oh, yeah — the Kurds had more control over that area than Saddam. Yet you blame Saddam — not the U.S., U.K., U.N., or the Kurds — for not going after Zarqawi.

You [somewhat correctly] imply that, since Saddam hated the Kurds having autonomy (and, you know, trying to overthrow him and stuff) he probably didn’t care much if they were attacked — whether by Zarkawi or anyone else. (Actually, this is probably half-true; he wouldn’t care, provided it helped his regime gain/maintain power in some way.)

The cliche “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” can be useful to think about — but it only supports your statements if used very selectively. The U.S. supported Stalin, then hired ex-Nazis, supported the most vicious of dictatorships around the world (including Saddam, of course) and the Mujihideen (i.e., Al Qaeda and The Taliban), etc. etc. etc. — apparently all based on the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

That aside, two points:

1.) Saddam did NOT actively “look the other way”; in fact he had a death warrant out on Zarqawi. Why? Because Saddam was “fighting terrorism”? Of course not. Because Zarqawi (like Bin Laden) despised Saddam (the feeling was mutual) and wanted him overthrown.

2.) Remember that it was reported in that Left-Wing Rag the Wall Street Journal how we had several opportunities to kill Zarqawi BEFORE the Iraq invasion — but the Bush administration CHOSE not to, because without Zarqawi there was NO link and no case and thus he could not sell his phony little war. (I don’t believe the Journal used those exact words. :) )

The over-arching point:

Iraq was the one country in that region that had little (I would argue NO) ties to terrorism. Why was it chosen? Why not Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt…? Why not Somalia, Indonesia, Chechnya?….

Looking forward to your response.

dustin

If you would actually educate yourself by first start by actually reading my #26 post and comprehending what was stated you will find that I made it clear that Saddam wasn’t friends with the Kurds. Duh…

Here is one….

“Al-Zarqawi, a wanted terrorist for attacks against American’s and Israeli’s in 1999, and his associates Ansar al-Islam had connections to Saddam because they were actively engaged in fighting the PUK…which obviously Saddam had no problem with for obvious reasons.”

What is/was the PUK? That should help.

Oh here is another one…

“Members of Saddam’s Republican Guard have been seen in two villages run by militants from Ansar al-Islam inside Iraqi Kurdistan, an area which is otherwise controlled by anti-Saddam factions.”

Ansar al-Islam was a Sunni faction in an are controlled primarily by the Kurds.

BTW I cited Telegraph.co.uk….do you have a problem with the accuracy of the quote?

Debunk the information then. I know it take some effort on your part….but don’t let that stop you. BTW very weak…even more lame the JPark’s responses.

Step up and debuk items in my post. If not you need not respond as weakly as you did previously.

I sure wish we had a system of government where the people of the United States could hold a “no confidence” election and throw the bum out. I’m sure that when the founding fathers gave Congress the ability to fire a president, they had no idea of what would happen to congress (becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of American corporations). If they had known that, I suspect they would have given the power to the people.

ROTFL

All House Members ‘Except One Voted To Send Our Troops Into Iraq’

So that makes it OK. Yes, if the whole world one day says that there is no gravity and after a careful research we come to the conclusion that, well, there is a force called gravity, we could say, oh, but the whole world thought there wasnt, so I look less stupid.

This is funny just like WMDs “justification” of going into Iraq…the French, the Russians…everybody thought (yeah, sure) there were WMDs, so a country is destroyed and it is OK. BTW, everybody could have thought that, but just one country broke international law.

Walt: It is really hard to keep track of you talking like that. :)

“Everyone voted for a lie”, would be more honest.

the pressident manufactured data in order to get even the republicans to go along with the war

WHY DO DEMOCRATS FALL DOWN ON THAT POINT?

when EVER a republican CLAIMS a democrat “voted” for the war, SOMEBODY should point out;

DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE WAR IF THEY SAW THE EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT WITHELD?

DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE WAR IF THEY SAW THE BRITISH MINUTES DOCUMENTING THE PRESIDENT WAS AMNUFACTURING THE DATA TO FIT HIS POLICY?

what kind of MORONS want to claim “democrats voted for the war”?

• The U.S. CENTCOM looked the other way when Gen. Schwartzkopf gave Hussein use of his military helicopters and he used them to commit genocide against the Marsh Arabs.

“Al-Zarqawi was already responsible for planning to kill Americans and Israelis in Jordan in 1999…”

When Bush put Ustad Allawi into power, he ignored the fact that Allawi had bombed movie houses and taxicabs in Baghdad, and the fact that on the day he took power, he strode up to six uncharged detainees and shot them pointblank with his own pistol, saying “This is how you do it.”

• The Coalition of the Willing deployed at least 130,000 mercenaries with a total legal waiver. Googling the name ‘Strydom’ and ‘Iraq’ will show you proof that these mercenary outfits hired South African terrorists, and it is known that terrorists from Indonesia, Argentina, and Guatemala (as well as others) have been deployed into Operation Iraqi Freedom.

• Posada Carriles, a known terrorist who blew up the first airliner in the W. Hemisphere, and who was arrested in Panama in possession of C-4, is out walking around in the U.S.

“Upon his release from prison in 1999, Zarqawi was involved in an attempt to blow up the Radisson SAS Hotel in Amman, where many Israeli and American tourists lodged”

• We now know that the U.S. tank officer who fired at the Baghdad hotel with the journalists, kililng one man, was under orders to do so, and knew the noncombatant status of the hotel, and that the claim it was after being fired upon has been fully debunked.

“In other words H.J.RES.64, in which every member of congress voted for except one, didn’t limit all necessary action strictly to al Qaeda.”

That’s a good thing, because when Bush deployed 1,500 troops to Tora Bora, he let Bin Laden and his crew escape.

“In fact the resolution was in response to ALL terrorist organizations that might attack the U.S., it’s allies, or it’s interests in the future.”

Terrorist organizations who were enabled by Bush to loot “tens of thousands of tons” of materiel, including the artillery shells and C-4 used for the IEDs that are killing our troops and the population of major cities in Iraq. This act of invading Iraq with insufficient troops to control the materiel in that country, which we knew about before we invaded in great detail — this single act was Bush’s response to all terrorist organizations that might attack us.

• BUSH ARMED OUR ENEMIES.