Does anybody think that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11?

Question

I mean just to clear the air, Iraq and terrorism were connected, Sadam was Fighting Islamic terrorists in Iraq, and the Kurds supported by american Air Power in the north were drinking tea with El Q you know who.

Cav study some history before you type,,, Sadam hated Islam,,, he couldn't stop it but he hated it, he was secular, that's why there were so many statues of him,,,,,
Turn off Fox, Turn off CNN Read...

Kicked b

Are you trying to insinuate something, but afraid to say it because you know I'll show you your error, Cowardly ....

tt, what are you trying to say?? That is was ok to invade a soverign dictatorship because they didn't cry about the USA getting attacked after the USA had been bombing them daily and SUPPORTING Terrorists in norther Iraq including El you know who, That's right we were protecting El Q from Saddam in northern iraq right up to 911

Robber,,

of course it had something do with the invasion of iraq, georgy used it to get permission from congress to pass the patriot act that abolished most of the consitution, and get enough power to attack

Cu Bono Who came out ahead after 911, bush he was sucking in every poll, then he was a chicken hawk hero..... Please don't cry... I am not saying he did 911, he's not smart enough, but he USED 911.... to fill halbertons pockets, and that's wrong... Time for Impeachment

Dusty finaly a bush apologist who can type more than 2 sentances, to bad you didn't study history

Isreal after planting millions of mines and deliberately unexploded ordance in lebonon in retaliation for the CAPTURE 2 war fightingsoldiers only days after blowing up a whole family of lebonise civilians is not an athority on what a terrrorist is. You cann't expect anybody to take thier word for what a terrorist is, they haven't obeyed a UN resolution ever, they are building 3000 homes on land they stole right now....

Terrorism is created when foriegn powers invade your contrey, kill your wife and children, maim you, and your relatives on FALSE premises,
Study history The US, French and British drew up the boundries of the middle east after WWII to keep the place at war,,, They did it to "divide and rule" that's the only way they could control it and it's not working as good as it used to, and you're crying about it .

Mr Methane, Are you saying the US has the right to invade any contrey that may be a possible future threat???? It is true that Saddam did send money to the families of suicde bombers, but since isreal would have bulldozed thier houses in American made Cat Bulldozers the money wouldn't have gone far. The idea that two wrongs somehow make the killing of 100 times the number of iraqis and now about the same # of americans killed on sept 11 right shows a childish level of thinking.
Consider the reverse, did Iraq have a moral right to attack American, given that Bush had made clear that he was likely to attack Iraq???? Why can't you people try to wear the other guys shoes sometimes. American used to be a nation with moral leadership, andp people respected you. Now look what your kind of thinking has done.

Answer 1

We invaded Iraq not because Saddam was strong and an immediate threat but rather he was weak, problematic and control of Iraq and it’s resources would be strategically advantageous.
The tactical reasons are obvious. The Oil and Iraq’s strategic location from the stand point of military bases in order to control oil resources in the entire region.
The political motives are more complex.
Bush Junior and his cabinet for the most part objected to Bush senior leaving Sadam in power after the first Gulf war.
Sanctions started by Bush Sr. and carried on by two terms in office by Clinton had left Iraq in a terrible state in which corrupt government continued to prosper and carry out excesses against any that would oppose them, all the while at the expense of the people who perished to the tune of 1.5 million or more( mostly children) due primarily to lack of proper nutrition , lack of potable water, and lack of proper Medical attention all of which Saddam was able to blame on the West’s policy of Sanctions.
The motivation for them to carry out the invasion when they did and the way that they did was 9/11.
“Make hay while the sun shines”
Prior to 9/11 another major military invasion into Iraq was a hard sell to make to the American people.
In the words of PNAC (the Neo Conservative “ Project for the New American Century” ) an event on the order of Pearl Harbor was needed in order to gain the public support required to do so .
So it was not so much because they thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11 but more because 9/11 enabled them to gain the public support they needed to carry out the invasion and implement the mission statement of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
Again it was the OIL and Military bases they were/are ultimately after, WMD and Alkaeda connections were used as tools of propaganda and 9/11 served to justify and bolster the propaganda . IMHO The Administration felt confident it would be easy enough to find enough Al Kaeda members in the general population and enough WMD bits and pieces scattered about to back up their rhetoric once they demonstrated to the world that a thriving and secure Iraq was setting a model of Democracy in the Mid East.

It seems to me considering what actually developed out of all this the only honorable course of action left is that of reconciliation, reconstruction, and repairing the public security as best we can without overtly taking sides or trying to micro-manage a Civil War.
Unfortunately Iraqi’s have been left with little alternative but to fight it out till it burns out and some power emerges that restores public security.
This is not a solution but rather a situation that has arisen out of circumstance.
Plans of continuing on with overt demands for Private US oil exploitation, political manipulation and usury as a Military base of operations to expand the war on into Iran and Syria and restoring public security have been severally jeopardized through shear ineptitude, dishonesty and deceit carried out by the Administration.
If ever some reasonable measure of public security can be established the most we can ethically ask of the people of Iraq at this juncture is a reasonable guarantee that they will not engage in all the terrible untrue things we accused them of engaging in as a premise to blow their infrastructure and public security to smithereens in all out rushed , “shock and aw” retaliation for 9/11, unprovoked first strike, go it alone, coalition breaking , crushing, military invasion .

Answer 2

i've got heard some interesting, some loopy, and a few in basic terms undeniable wierd conspiracy theories in the previous yet.... these days i've got save listening to this conspiracy concept approximately President Bush that he replace into at the back of the 9/11 assaults so as that he would have an excuse to invade Afganistan. So my question is.... does every person certainly have confidence this C+ college student, who has difficulty saying each and every 5th word, a technique or the different engineered the crime of the century, and as properly to that have been given a minimum of 10-20 different well matched conservative religious republicans human beings to pass alongside with it , killing 3,000+ individuals, value his own u . s . a . hundreds of Billions, all so he would have an excuse to invade a rustic that has extremely not something (not even oil), yet airborne dirt and dirt and a set of damaging muslims? (Afganistan) . and as properly to above, he did it so properly that the only data of that's a set of VERY shaky, oftentimes shown fake coincidences? Now extremely, does this make any experience what-so-ever? and you call Bush stupid?

Answer 3

No but Sadam hated the United States and routinely funded Hammas suicide bombers families ($25,000.00 to the family) when one of their members blew himself to bits. Sadam was a pay me now or pay me later situation. We were going to have to deal with him sooner or later.

PS: He did prior to 9-11 give safe harbor to certain AlQaeda members and there were links but I do not believe he was directly involved.

Answer 4

I think 9 - 11 had to do with Iraq's invasion.

Answer 5

Unfortunately, you are incorrect, on almost ALL statements. Fact: Saddam Hussein supported Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas, PLO, PLF, Islamic Jihad, Abu Nidal, and others. In fact, Israel has equated their involvement as "Mega-Terrorism".

As far as Saddam fighting ''Islamic terrorists" in Iraq, that would also be incorrect; Saddam Hussein was deeply involved in training Islamic radicals, as well as supporting radicals such as Ansar Al Islam.
More proof: Saddam Hussein's regime was placed on the "Nations Supporting Terrorism" list in 1973.

To further expand my explanation into more strategic senses, we first must understand terrorism. Terrorism is created by a lack of Freedom (Liberties). Saddam Hussein's (And the Baathist party in general)'s foreign and domestic policies allowed and forced other Middle Eastern states to strangle their own liberties, and thus, creating a climate in which extremists can be fostered by radicals. So, Saddam Hussein's policies = Allows and forces other Middle-Eastern states to clamp down on liberties, thus creating terrorism.

----------------------

IN response to author's statements: "sreal after planting millions of mines and deliberately unexploded ordance in lebonon in retaliation for the CAPTURE 2 war fightingsoldiers only days after blowing up a whole family of lebonise civilians is not an athority on what a terrrorist is. You cann't expect anybody to take thier word for what a terrorist is, they haven't obeyed a UN resolution ever, they are building 3000 homes on land they stole right now...." Irrelevant. As i've shown, Saddam Hussein WAS supporting the groups I mentioned above, which by any means objective, ARE terrorist groups. You trying to blame Israel for defending itself is merely an Anti-Semitic remark from the ever growing anti-semitic left.
Obeying UN mandates? Like Resolution 242? The one in 1967 in which Israel was defending itself? That one, in which Israeli land was strafed by Syrian Mig-19's? Try again. The ''land'' of which you speak was originally Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, and Jordanian land, all of which was won in outright war in 1967. Israel was attacked in '67, as well as in 2006, and won both times. Try again.
Continuing further: Terrorism is created when foriegn powers invade your contrey, kill your wife and children, maim you, and your relatives on FALSE premises," INcorrect, once again. I've given several websites that give the direct relationship between Freedom and Terrorism, something you've ignored. Why is this?
As far as your statement above, that would be incorrect. We hadn't ''invaded'' anybody in 2001....did we? Who did we invade to deserve 9/11? how about the embassy bombings? USS Cole? WTC 1 in February 1993? How about the bombing of the Pan-Am flight 103? How about those?

Trying to blame the US on the Middle East's current culture is trying to blame one neighbor for the other neighbor's temper problems. False pretenses? Like the one's I've shown with legitimate research?

"Study history The US, French and British drew up the boundaries of the middle east after WWII to keep the place at war,,, They did it to "divide and rule" that's the only way they could control it and it's not working as good as it used to, and you're crying about it ."
Oh my goodness. You tell ME to study history? Friend, the great disassembly of the Middle East occurred after WORLD WAR 1, after the Ottaman Empire was defeated (along with Germany). The victorious powers of WW1 divided up the Ottoman empire because the Ottoman's lost, and the West didn't want to see the Ottoman's continue to pull from such a vast area for people, resources, and to create legitimate boundaries within the area that had long been ignored by the Ottoman empire. For example, we have Iran, which is Persian, no longer forced to be friends with the Arab states, along with the Palestinian population which has always been seen as the red-headed step children of the Middle East.

Answer 6

I don't think Saddam was involved but I don't think he was very broken up about it either.

Answer 7

if not complicent then saddam prolly knew or abetted in soem way

Answer 8

no connection at that time