• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney Says There Was No Iraq Link to 9/11 Attacks

Until you provide a link to a cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, I am going to assume you are lying.
That there was a cease-fire on 3-3-91 is a matter of historical record.
You can assume I am lying about that, but that just points to dishonesty on your part.

You aren't even able to outline what these threats were, instead resorting to saying "I already said it, but I'm not showing you where!"
My post is clear, as are the desctiptions of the threats.
Now, if you want to put your fingers in your ears and yell "I can't hear you!" -- well, there's not much I can do about that.
 
That there was a cease-fire on 3-3-91 is a matter of historical record.
You can assume I am lying about that, but that just points to dishonesty on your part.

Harshaw already covered this one by further elaborating on my assertion:

The terms were set forth in Res 686 and signed by the US, et al, and Iraq on 3/3/91. It was formalized in Res 687 in April.

You made the claim that the US and Iraq have signed a separate cease-fire agreement outside of UNSCR687 (and 686, if you want to get fussy); this is obviously false.

Do you want to concede now?

My post is clear, as are the desctiptions of the threats.
Now, if you want to put your fingers in your ears and yell "I can't hear you!" -- well, there's not much I can do about that.

Actually, I'm asking you to formulate your own argument instead of posting a list of quotes, but you are apparently unable to do that.
 
Harshaw already covered this one by further elaborating on my assertion:

The terms were set forth in Res 686 and signed by the US, et al, and Iraq on 3/3/91. It was formalized in Res 687 in April.

You made the claim that the US and Iraq have signed a separate cease-fire agreement outside of UNSCR687 (and 686, if you want to get fussy); this is obviously false.

Do you want to concede now?
Theres no concession necessary, as we're both right.

So, thus far, you dont have a thing to support your idea that the war is illegal.

Actually, I'm asking you to formulate your own argument instead of posting a list of quotes, but you are apparently unable to do that.
False premise, that I need to do so, and that the quotes I provided do not illustrate the threat, as expressed by those who were aware of the information regarding same.
 
Theres no concession necessary, as we're both right.

No, you were wrong. You claimed that there was a separate cease-fire agreement between the US and Iraq. There was no separate cease-fire agreement. Hence, you are wrong.

Goobieman said:
You've been shown that a cease-fire was signed between the earring parties directly, seperate from any UN action to that effect.

This is the statement in question.

So, thus far, you dont have a thing to support your idea that the war is illegal.

It was a violation of both UNSCR687 and the UN Charter. Thus, it was a violation of international law. Call that whatever you want.
 
Last edited:
No, you were wrong. You claimed that there was a separate cease-fire agreement between the US and Iraq. There was no separate cease-fire agreement. Hence, you are wrong.
There was, and I am not. When the cease-fire was signed on 3-3-91, it was directly between the warring states, not the warring states and the UN.

It was a violation of both UNSCR687 and the UN Charter. Thus, it was a violation of international law.
Aside from the fact that you haven't shown that UNSCR687 was still the relevant, controlling insturment...
It was NOT in violation of OTHER international law, however, and therefore NOT illegal.
 
There was, and I am not. When the cease-fire was signed on 3-3-91, it was directly between the warring states, not the warring states and the UN.

Where is this independent cease-fire that you keep referring to? If there was a cease-fire agreement signed that is unrelated to UNSCR686 then you are going to have to provide it, or you don't have a leg to stand on.

Like I've said, you can keep repeating your claim that it's true, but until you give us some form of substantiation it's going to remain speculation.

Aside from the fact that you haven't shown that UNSCR687 was still the relevant, controlling insturment...
It was NOT in violation of OTHER international law, however, and therefore NOT illegal.

Let's focus on one thing at a time, as you are clearly unable to handle too much input.
 
Where is this independent cease-fire that you keep referring to? If there was a cease-fire agreement signed that is unrelated to UNSCR686 then you are going to have to provide it, or you don't have a leg to stand on.
Falsse premise -- that it might not be available on the web in no way means it doesnt exist, and a link from the internet is not the only way of proving that it does exist.

FACT: There was a cease-fire agreement between the warring states (not the UN and the warring states) on 3-3-91, more than a MONTH before there was a UN cease-fire, as indicated by at least two sources, and the fact that the fighting stopped on 3-3-91.

Let's focus on one thing at a time, as you are clearly unable to handle too much input.
Ah -- trying to avoid the issue. Nice try.
I guess you arent as bright as you'd like to think.
-You have NOT shown that UNSCR687 was still the relevant controlling insturment, as you claim;
-You have NOT shown that the war was illegal under the OTHER tenets of international law, previously noted.
 
It doesn't matter if it turned out to be factual or not. It only matters what the IC believed at the time and what they were telling our leaders.

I hate the Iraq war, and I think it was a poor decision in light of what Bush knew at the time, but I agree with sazerac that there was some evidence that Hussein was a threat to the U.S. in at least some capacity.

I'm glad to hear that it matters to you that when one of our intelligence agencies warn the president about threats to our country that those threats should be taken very seriously. They should be looked into and vetted as much as possible.

There was no proof that Hussein truly wanted to attack us or that he had the capability to do it. That much is fact. End of that story.

However, how do you excuse Bush from ignoring all the warnings he had about Osama Bin Laden intending to attack us prior to 9/11? He was warned about OBL when he took office by Bill Clinton. His responce? "I'll put Iraq as our #1 priority. Thank you." ??? Based on what???

He was repeatedly warned by General Richard Clark. He fired Clark for his patriotism and persistence.

The CIA went down to the President's so-called ranch in Crawford, Texas to presnt him with that classified and very timely report entitled, "Bin Laden Determined To Attack US". What was Bush's response after the CIA was done speaking? "Ok, you guys have now covered your asses." What???

After all those, and many more, warnings Bush didn't take one single action to protect our country, his #1 responsibility as POTUS! That stupid, illiterate, intellectually lazy cowboy didn't do anything to protect us - in spite of plenty of warnings!

So, I'm curious? You defend him for invading an innocent country based on transparent threats of a buffoon. How do you excuse him for not acting on much more evidence of threats that could have prevented the 9/11 attack?
 
Yes it was debunked. Wish I had more time right now, like I said, later I'll post up.

No it wasn't debunked by a long shot, the Pentagon Review of DOCEX proves conclusively that Saddam was sponsoring terrorist attacks against the U.S. right up until the fall of Baghdad including AQ affiliates. Not to mention his numerous high level contacts with AQ proper including harboring Abdul Rahman Yasin who along with Ramzi Yousef (nephew of KSM) bombed the WTC in 1993 and his offer of safe haven to OBL after 9-11.
 
But why Iraq, Right? Go back and remember the time... the URGENCY, the NEED to get in there ASAP. It just doesn't jive, especially since troops were already in Afghanistan, the right place to be. Not even the most left tree-hugging hippies disagreed with that.

When I first heard the mention of Iraq, my first through was "WTF? What did that come from?" The notion was sold on a mourning population who rightly wanted revenge on those who committed and planned 9/11. The timing had to be right, and the Bush Administration succeeded.

Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted):

Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism
 
We always knew Iraq posed a threat (Gulf War???). We also know Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Saudia Arabia, China, and Russia pose a threat.

The point is are the threats worth acting on? Previous leaders didn't think so. Bush and his admin felt evidence had presented itself that the known threat of Saddam was NOW worth acting on. Or they just required less evidence to attack people then the Democrats do.

Democrats don't even need congressional approval to attack people the elite are above the law. ;)
 
Nice to know your President told you the "truth"
Bush's little bitch Blair lied, he said it was dangerous for Iraq to still be there because of WMD's which has resulted in the death of 158 soldiers ... for what? A pack of bull**** lies. We should have been in Afghanistan not Iraq.

Well such a shame what happened to Saddam can't happen to the duo :roll:

Saddam was sponsoring terrorism against the United States right up until the fall of Baghdad, it is no longer debatable.
 
I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you liking letting Bush's tax cuts expire to invading Iraq?

Democrats don't even need congressional authority to invade and occupy (for more than a decade) foreign lands let alone evidence that they are a threat. Kosovo anyone?
 
Back
Top Bottom