Could this have accelerated the decision to go to Iraq?

[Titan]

Russian President said that he had warned Bush about several attacks on the US by Saddam and his regime. Maybe this could have accelerated the decision to go to war, to prevent these attacks.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html

I believe it did and I believe our intelligence knew about it as well.  

On a related note the media for the most part doesn\'t listen to what people say apparently.  The 9/11 Commission found no ties between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks - however they did say that there are ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.  Most media outlets have choosed to ignore this and reword the commissions finding to say there were no links between Iraq and terrorism.

Amazing...  I have not heard the President or anyone in the administration say there was a direct link between Iraq and the events of 9/11 yet apparently, the media seems to think they did.

Well, Giga, how can the media move their agenda forward without twisting the truth?

[Titan]

Its interesting to think about. How many civilians\' lives were saved by going into Iraq early. Puts the war in a new perspective for me. I thought we went in too early, but still believed in the cause and the people. Now that I think about it, if we didn\'t go in early, we could have been attacked which caused many deaths.

[clips]

i don\'t think that information made the u.s. go to war faster, bush made no such comments about that up to the point of war and he was reachin for any excuse to go to war. i believe the info. was probably transferred to them but the u.s. prob. took it with a grain of salt...

you also have to figure would saddam really have pulled off an attack on the u.s.? highly unlikely, the u.s. & britain were bombing the hell out of him during the sanction years..

You have to love the way it works here.  I wonder how they will spin Putin\'s admission that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks on the US?

Originally posted by clips

you also have to figure would saddam really have pulled off an attack on the u.s.? highly unlikely, the u.s. & britain were bombing the hell out of him during the sanction years..

Huh?  We aren\'t talking about a conventional attack here... Putin stated he was planning terrorist attacks against the US and on US soil.  By the time the committees held their hearings and the fact finding groups gathered all their evidence it would have been 3 years until we knew who hit us.

[clips]

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Huh?  We aren\'t talking about a conventional attack here... Putin stated he was planning terrorist attacks against the US and on US soil.  By the time the committees held their hearings and the fact finding groups gathered all their evidence it would have been 3 years until we knew who hit us.

i doubt that. when 911 occured i said to myself.."how the hell are they gonna find out who did that?" and within hours they started connecting the dots...and do you know how many threats the u.s. receive on a daily basis? i guess we should just invade any country we happen to receive a threat from...:rolleyes:

Yes I think we should invade any country that is planning any kind of attack on us.  I am the biggest supporter of preemptive strikes.

"Iraqi Special Forces" aka Al Qaeda

[clips]

that\'s funny cause last i heard n.korea was ready to bring death to us...should we invade them?..your response.."hell no..they have nuclear weapons! let\'s have a debate with them!" :rolleyes:

the u.s. can\'t go around invadin countries because they feel they are bein threatned..and when they are bein threatned to their face they just say "oh n.korea\'s bullsh*tting,..we\'ll have a summit with china & straighten that out!" that\'s pure garbage!

Originally posted by clips
that\'s funny cause last i heard n.korea was ready to bring death to us...should we invade them?..your response.."hell no..they have nuclear weapons! let\'s have a debate with them!" :rolleyes:

the u.s. can\'t go around invadin countries because they feel they are bein threatned..and when they are bein threatned to their face they just say "oh n.korea\'s bullsh*tting,..we\'ll have a summit with china & straighten that out!" that\'s pure garbage!

At least quote me correctly.  I said that other countries in the region need to put pressure on N. Korea.  N. Korea is forcing somewhat of a detant by possessing nuclear weapons.  Iran knows this so why do you think they are trying to hide their program.  It is much easier to nip the problem at the bud then wait until they have a nuclear weapon.

The US has every right to defend itself in whatever way "it" feels necessary.  If that means striking an enemy before they can attack you then so be it.

N. Korea relies heavily on the goodwill of other countries in the region such as S. Korea, China and Japan.  They have more to lose by provoking an attack than they do by working something out.  I think the danger the project is the the ability to sell weapons to terror groups.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
The US has every right to defend itself in whatever way "it" feels necessary.  If that means striking an enemy before they can attack you then so be it.

I have to state that I feel this is deeply wrong.  It\'s the same idea as throwing people into jail before they commit a crime, simply because "we know they\'re bad men."  In this example I\'m not saying they are NOT bad men; but it\'s a poor reflection on us when we ignore international law by preemptively invading whatever country we choose.  We feel bound to the rule of law with regards to individual crimes within our borders, but in international law, we can do whatever we damn well please?  It\'s a very dangerous path you\'re suggesting.

You may say it\'s a great idea because it will prevent such-and-such terrorist attacks, but doesn\'t our behavior CREATE more hatred of us, and create more terrorists?  It\'s a spiraling feedback loop.  You can\'t argue that this is an effective deterrent against terrorism because we all know how irrational and zealous arab terrorists are in their beliefs.  A potential terrorist in Syria won\'t stop and consider: "hmmm... my comrades in Iraq were planning to blow up DisneyWorld, but then Iraq was invaded before they could buy buy their tickets to Orlando.  I guess we should rethink our plans to release nerve gas in Las Vegas, or Syria might be invaded!"  No, I think their thought process is more like "AMERICANS MURDERED MY COUSIN IN BAGHDAD!  FILTHY AMERICANS!  KILL! KILL! KILL!"

It always seems to me that one personality trait conservatives share is a limited range of responses to aggression.  The most common response is:  "You hit us, and we\'re going to hit you back twice as hard."  All faith is put into the efficacy of retaliation above everything else.  No other response is seriously considered, because "we\'re tough men, and we godda kick der ass."  In reality, I think that is simply an emotional response that does not always serve our interests.

Originally posted by Coredweller
I have to state that I feel this is deeply wrong.  It\'s the same idea as throwing people into jail before they commit a crime, simply because "we know they\'re bad men."  In this example I\'m not saying they are NOT bad men; but it\'s a poor reflection on us when we ignore international law by preemptively invading whatever country we choose.  We feel bound to the rule of law with regards to individual crimes within our borders, but in international law, we can do whatever we damn well please?  It\'s a very dangerous path you\'re suggesting.

You may say it\'s a great idea because it will prevent such-and-such terrorist attacks, but doesn\'t our behavior CREATE more hatred of us, and create more terrorists?  It\'s a spiraling feedback loop.  You can\'t argue that this is an effective deterrent against terrorism because we all know how irrational and zealous arab terrorists are in their beliefs.  A potential terrorist in Syria won\'t stop and consider: "hmmm... my comrades in Iraq were planning to blow up DisneyWorld, but then Iraq was invaded before they could buy buy their tickets to Orlando.  I guess we should rethink our plans to release nerve gas in Las Vegas, or Syria might be invaded!"  No, I think their thought process is more like "AMERICANS MURDERED MY COUSIN IN BAGHDAD!  FILTHY AMERICANS!  KILL! KILL! KILL!"

It always seems to me that one personality trait conservatives share is a limited range of responses to aggression.  The most common response is:  "You hit us, and we\'re going to hit you back twice as hard."  All faith is put into the efficacy of retaliation above everything else.  No other response is seriously considered, because "we\'re tough men, and we godda kick der ass."  In reality, I think that is simply an emotional response that does not always serve our interests.

First of all terrorists don\'t prescribe to international law so fighting them with "law" is pointless.  If we do nothing we look weak to those terrorists and it only encourages them to attack us again - sooner rather than later.  

I should point out that liberals tend to want to discuss things rather than act.  They lack the stomach to follow through with force when it is called for.  Unfortunately terrorists don\'t like to sit down at tables to settle their problems.  The faith I have in our military power is much more solid than my faith in diplomacy.  Diplomacy does not work with terrorists and it certainly didn\'t work with Saddam.

I would hardly call invading Iraq an emotional response.  A diplomatic solution was attempted, but it failed.  In times such as these we need people in power who are decisive and will act if we are attacked or if there is an immenent threat to our country.

[clips]

Originally posted by Coredweller
I have to state that I feel this is deeply wrong.  It\'s the same idea as throwing people into jail before they commit a crime, simply because "we know they\'re bad men."  In this example I\'m not saying they are NOT bad men; but it\'s a poor reflection on us when we ignore international law by preemptively invading whatever country we choose.  We feel bound to the rule of law with regards to individual crimes within our borders, but in international law, we can do whatever we damn well please?  It\'s a very dangerous path you\'re suggesting.

You may say it\'s a great idea because it will prevent such-and-such terrorist attacks, but doesn\'t our behavior CREATE more hatred of us, and create more terrorists?  It\'s a spiraling feedback loop.  You can\'t argue that this is an effective deterrent against terrorism because we all know how irrational and zealous arab terrorists are in their beliefs.  A potential terrorist in Syria won\'t stop and consider: "hmmm... my comrades in Iraq were planning to blow up DisneyWorld, but then Iraq was invaded before they could buy buy their tickets to Orlando.  I guess we should rethink our plans to release nerve gas in Las Vegas, or Syria might be invaded!"  No, I think their thought process is more like "AMERICANS MURDERED MY COUSIN IN BAGHDAD!  FILTHY AMERICANS!  KILL! KILL! KILL!"

It always seems to me that one personality trait conservatives share is a limited range of responses to aggression.  The most common response is:  "You hit us, and we\'re going to hit you back twice as hard."  All faith is put into the efficacy of retaliation above everything else.  No other response is seriously considered, because "we\'re tough men, and we godda kick der ass."  In reality, I think that is simply an emotional response that does not always serve our interests.

:werd:  and giga i wasn\'t tryin to quote you excatly..notice the sarcasm? alot of this cowboy rootin tootin policies bush has has actually made more enemies...

Originally posted by clips
:werd:  and giga i wasn\'t tryin to quote you excatly..notice the sarcasm? alot of this cowboy rootin tootin policies bush has has actually made more enemies...

And what enemies might those be?  The French?