Jump to content

What al-Quaida really wants


Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

quote:

Let's not minimize.

Let's also not spend half a trillion dollars fighting Israel's war. These suicide bombers were not targeting us.


They aren't, then what do you call 19 hijackers that rammed planes into buildings and killed 3000 of us?

They were motivated by the SAME hatred and agenda as the homicide bombers in Israel.

Israel's terrorist problems were a symptom of the overall sickness, and if it had been stopped BEFORE it got out of hand, instead of rewarded, as they are NOW doing, then terrorism would NOT have gotten as far as it has.

Israels problems are OUR problems, because we ARE a target, because terrorists have figured out that terrorism works, LOOK AT SPAIN, look at what is going on in Israel right now.

You think that this is going to STOP terrorism, NO, it is going to EMBOLDEN them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

They aren't, then what do you call 19 hijackers that rammed planes into buildings and killed 3000 of us?

Saudis... not Iraqis. You know - the guys whom Bush loves holding hands with.

bushprince20xe.jpg

bushprince13zy.jpg

15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself."

ÔÇö George W Bush

Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

(I guess that explains the 'why' of the issue...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...According to the State Department's May 21, 2002 "Patterns of Global Terrorism," the Abu Nidal Organization, the Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, the Kurdistan Worker's party, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization and the Palestinian Liberation Front all operated offices or bases in Hussein's Iraq. Hussein's hospitality towards these mass murderers placed him in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited him from giving safe harbor to or otherwise supporting terrorists.

Coalition forces have found alive and well key terrorists who enjoyed Hussein's hospitality. Among them was Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Manhattan retiree who Abbas's men rolled, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (259 killed on board, 11 dead on the ground), also lived in Baathist Iraq.

Before fatally shooting himself four times in the head on August 16, 2002, as Baghdad claimed, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal had resided in Iraq since 1999. As the AP's Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization said he entered Iraq "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities." Nidal's attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 others. Among other atrocities, ANO henchmen bombed a TWA airliner over the Aegean Sea in 1974, killing all 88 people on board.

Coalition troops destroyed at least three terrorist training camps including a base near Baghdad called Salman Pak. It featured a passenger-jet fuselage where numerous Iraqi defectors reported that foreign terrorists were instructed how to hijack airliners with utensils. (The Bush administration should bus a few dozen foreign correspondents and their camera crews from the bar of Baghdad's Palestine Hotel to Salman Pak for a guided tour. Network news footage of that ought to open a few eyes.)..."

Taken from an article by Deroy Murdock, National Review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/696twoqc.asp

No 1 - On March 28, 1992, the Iraqi Intelligence Service compiled a 20-page list of terrorists the regime considered intelligence assets. Atop each page was the designation "Top Secret." On page 14 of that list is Osama bin Laden. The Iraqi Intelligence document reports that bin Laden "is in good relationship with our section in Syria." The document has been vetted and authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency. The existence of the document was first reported on CBS's 60 Minutes. It has been widely ignored.

No 2 - Saddam Hussein hosted regular conferences for terrorists in Baghdad throughout the 1990s. Mark Fineman, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, reported on one such gathering in an article published January 26, 1993. "There are delegates from the most committed Islamic organizations on Earth," he wrote. "Afghan mujahideen (holy warriors), Palestinian militants, Sudanese fundamentalists, the Islamic Brotherhood and Pakistan's Party of Islam." One speaker praised "the mujahid Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers. Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state."

No 3 - Abdul Rahman Yasin is an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the bomb used in the first World Trade Center attack on February 26, 1993. We know this because he has confessed--twice to the FBI and once on national television in the United States. He fled to Iraq on March 5,1993, with the help of an Iraqi Intelligence operative working under cover in the Iraqi Embassy in Amman, Jordan. A reporter for Newsweek interviewed Yasin's neighbors in Baghdad who reported that he was living freely and "working for the government." U.S. soldiers uncovered Iraqi government documents in postwar Iraq that confirm this. The documents show Yasin was given both safe haven and financing by the Iraqi regime until the eve of the war in Iraq.

No. 4 - Later that same month--March 1993--Wali al Ghazali was approached by an Iraqi Intelligence officer named Abdel Hussein. Ghazali, a male nurse from Najaf, met another IIS agent named Abu Mrouwah who gave him an urgent mission: assassinate former President George H.W. Bush on his upcoming trip to Kuwait. On April 14, Kuwaiti police found Ghazali and other Iraqi Intelligence assets with two hundred pounds of explosives in a Toyota Landcruiser. Ghazali, the would-be assassin, told a Kuwait court that he had "been pushed by people who had no mercy." He said: "I fear the Iraqi regime, the Iraqi regime pushed me."

No 5 - According to numerous press reports, the deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, Faruq Hijazi, met face-to-face with Osama bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden asked for anti-ship mines and al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. There is no indication that Iraq made good on his requests.

No 6 - That same year, according to internal Iraqi Intelligence documents authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community and reported in the June 25, 2004, New York Times, a Sudanese government official met with Uday Hussein and the director of Iraqi Intelligence to facilitate the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

No 7 - According to the New York Times, the same Iraqi Intelligence document said that bin Laden earlier "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative" and that "presidential approval" had been granted to the Iraqi Intelligence service to meet with him. Bin Laden "also requested join operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. At bin Laden's request, Saddam Hussein also agreed to broadcast on Iraqi television sermons of an anti-Saudi cleric.

No 8 - The Clinton administration cited an "understanding" between Iraq and al Qaeda in its 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden. "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

No 9 - The 9/11 Commission reports that Iraq and al Qaeda had a series of "friendly contacts" that did not appear to have developed into a "collaborative operations relationship." The final report provides details of meetings between senior Iraqi Intelligence officials and al Qaeda terrorists throughout the spring and summer of 1998 and indicates that "Iraqi official offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq."

No 10 - The offer of asylum was also included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's unanimous, bipartisan review of prewar intelligence. From p. 335 of the Senate report: "A [CIA Counterterrorism Center] operational summary from April 13, 1999, notes four other intelligence reports mentioning Saddam Hussein's "standing offer of safe haven to Osama bin Laden."

No 11 - This, from p. 316 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report: "From 1996 to 2003, the [iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel. The CIA summarized nearly 50 intelligence reports as examples, using language directly from the intelligence reports. Ten intelligence reports, from multiple sources, indicated IIS 'casing' operations against Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in Prague began in 1998 and continued into early 2003. The CIA assessed, based on the Prague casings and a variety of other reporting, that throughout 2002 the IIS was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against U.S. interests."

No 12 - Page 331 of the Senate report: "Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's CBW [chemical and biological weapons] efforts."

No 13 - Abu Musab al Zarqawi traveled to Iraq in May 2002. He lived in Baghdad with the knowledge--and perhaps sponsorship--of the Iraqi regime. A passage from p. 337 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report cites a CIA report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism: "A variety of reporting indicates that senior al Qaeda terrorist planner al Zarqawi was in Baghdad [redacted]. A foreign government service asserted that the IIS knew where al Zarqawi was located despite Baghdad's claims it could not find him." More, from p. 338: "Al Zarqawi and his network were operating both in Baghdad and in the Kurdish-controlled region of Iraq. The HUMINT reporting indicated that the Iraqi regime certainly knew that al Zarqawi was in Baghdad because a foreign government service gave that information to Iraq."

No 14 - More recently, Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, told Agence France Presse that the Iraqi regime worked closely with al Qaeda in Iraq before the war. "Saddam Hussein's regime welcomed them with open arms and young al Qaeda members entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," he said in an interview published August 29, 2004. Azzam added that al Qaeda fighters "infiltrated into Iraq with the help of Kurdish mujahideen from Afghanistan, across mountains in Iran" and that once they arrived, Saddam "strictly and directly" controlled their activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...CNS enlisted its own cast of expertsÔÇöa former weapons inspector with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counterterrorism official with experience in Iraq, and a former Clinton advisor on IraqÔÇöto review the documents prior to publication. CNS reporter Scott Wheeler received the data from an unnamed "senior government official" who is not a political appointee. The source said the documents have not been made public because Bush administration officials have "thousands and thousands" of similar documents waiting to be translated and "it is unlikely they even know this exists."

Former Clinton advisor Laurie Mylroie, who taught at Harvard and the U.S. Naval College and authored two books on Iraq under Saddam Hussein, told CNS the find represents "the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism."

Bruce Tefft, the retired CIA official, described the documents as "accurate." He cited as particularly significant the Iraq link to al-Jihad al Tajdeed. Tajdeed is allied with Mr. al-Zarqawi. Its website currently posts Mr. al-Zarqawi's speeches, messages, and videosÔÇöincluding images portraying the Jordanian terrorist actively participating in the beheading of American Nicholas Berg and, just last month, the beheading of U.S. engineer Eugene Armstrong. At 37, Mr. al-Zarqawi is considered the main instigator behind suicide bombings, assassination attempts, and beheadings in Iraq. The connections "are too close to be accidental," Mr. Tefft told CNS, suggesting "one of the first operational contacts between an al-Qaeda group and Iraq."

Mr. al-Zarqawi is often portrayed as a lone ranger, a cult figure running a nascent uprising in response to so-called U.S. imperialism. Yet these latest documents, along with other emerging reports, reveal Mr. al-Zarqawi's "authority stemmed from specific instructions and guidance" received from Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. According to terror expert Yossef Bodansky in his new book, The Secret History of the Iraq War, intelligence data shows Mr. al-Zarqawi entered northern Iraq from Iran shortly before the war to oversee a sophisticated guerrilla-war plan crafted in conjunction with Iraqi intelligence agents and Saddam himself.

In addition to the terror-group connections, several pages of the leaked documents also demonstrate that Saddam possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction. They describe Iraq's purchase of five kilograms of mustard gas in August 2000 and three vials of malignant pustule, a term for anthrax, the following monthÔÇöall at a time when Saddam prohibited UN weapons inspectors from working in Iraq. The purchase orders include gas masks, filters, sterilization, and decontamination equipment..."

http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/display...cle.cfm?id=9762

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weekly Standard is actually run out of

1211 Avenue of the Americas

New York City, NY

As an interesting side-note, that is the EIB building where Rush Limbaugh broadcasts his show.

(A simple WHOIS check combined with Google will tell who/what has registered domain names.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your worldmag article has also had several key sections (most notably the WMD section) proven false by actual government sources.

Please quit copy/pasting what might as well be tabloid trash.

If there are solid links - the White House would have them emblazoned in size 72 font across whitehouse.gov.

You are trying to justify Bush's actions by running to Republican sychophants in order to build a case that isn't there using obviously biased information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

If there are solid links - the White House would have them emblazoned in size 72 font across whitehouse.gov.


Uh, NO, they wouldn't....

I won't bother explaining why, because it would fall on deaf ears, you are convinced, and no amount of facts is going to change your mind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I won't bother explaining why, because it would fall on deaf ears, you are convinced, and no amount of facts is going to change your mind...

Sorry Jag, I'm desperate to hear real evidence of Saddam Hussein and Iraq financing or supporting attacks against the United States.

I do not view 'ties to terrorism' as nearly adequate to justify the half-trillion dollars we will be spending in Iraq. Unless those ties are:

1.) To an organization that is carrying out attacks against the United States.

2.) To direct funding for said organization in financing said attacks.

3.) Providing real material support to the same.

You cannot justify a half-trillion dollars being spent just because someone has 3 or 4 terrorists (one of whom had been pardoned under Reagan I believe) inside their country.

And because we stopped those 4 isolated terrorists... Iraq is now having suicide bombs going off on every street corner, sharia is falling on southern Iraq, the kurds are threatening civil war if not allowed to secede...

We've just created a mess that ultimately will cost tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis their lives.

I'm still saying it's not worth it, and it's damned pathetic that we've fallen to being an aggressor nation instead of a defender of ideals.

(And I'll concede that it'll take more than 'facts' from Rush Limbaugh to change my mind)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No $iLk, you're just not interested.

No matter what facts that I might bring you, you will fight them, because you will not want to believe them.

No matter how true, how factually correct, no matter how much I could back them up, it would not matter, you would fight them, and convince yourself that they were untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag, ending your thought process at "DURR FREEDOM!" is the problem I have with your arguments. I look at Iraq and in 2004 there was an average of 50 attacks per day against Iraqi civilians.

I look at July of this year, and the average for 2005 is about 70 attacks per day - and these figures are produced by the Pentagon and referenced by Bill O'Reilly. At least 20k - 30k Iraqi civilians have died. During the Constitutional debates in Iraq this past week, 2 car bombs exploded right outside the ministry.

I see Iraqi women in southern Iraq having to deal with Islamic extremists. I see the Kurds wanting to separate from Iraq (and even want it written into the new Constitution).

I take a look at the 108 U.S. soldiers killed in the past two months.

I gather all these facts to set a premise that the cost of our action in Iraq is extremely damaging to the civilians in Iraq and extremely expensive not only in dollar terms, but in human costs for the United States.

I disregard any and all facts and figures dealing with "how much better the Iraqis have it" because:

A.) The lives of Iraqis under Saddam Hussein prior to our invasion was not a Constitutional concern. And when compared to other humanitarian crisises around the world - was negligible.

B.) 'Clean water' & 'New schools' does not replace the 30,000 dead Iraqi husbands,wives,brothers,sisters,sons,daughters,aunts,uncles...

C.) The humanitarian reasons were not sufficient to enter Iraq by themselves alone.

I take a look at the reasoning for entering Iraq. I compare this to prior wars in our history, and I compare the reasoning to the Constitution.

Jag, I have quoted the Founding fathers on numerous occassions who would disagree with setting up Democracy around the world.

If you agree with the neo-con principals of regime change, pre-emptive war with no clear threat, and nation building that is completely fine. But you'll have to disregard our founding fathers and the Constitution to do so. And that's sad because one half of the country had already moved beyond those two sources of wisdom. I'm watching most of the other half head down the same path - albeit for different reasons.

Half a trillion dollars.

50,000+ dead Iraqis.

3,000 - 5,000 dead American soldiers.

That will be the eventual cost of putting Saddam on trial.

It wasn't worth it. And it wasn't Constitutional. And it was a violation of agreements the United States has signed.

1.) Iraq never attacked us.

2.) Iraq never threatened to attack us.

3.) Iraq had no capability to attack us.

It is distressing to me that we can take those 3 things and manufacture justifications to still go to war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to explain my point, IÔÇÖm going to have to go off-topic, Sorry!

quote:

No $iLk, you're just not interested.

No matter what facts that I might bring you, you will fight them, because you will not want to believe them

It's the sad fact of things. What scare's me more is that most people won't even consider the primary reason we went in, even though Iraq did have training camp's and all the material's required to train terrorists, they also constantly violated UN sanctions. That right here was a red flag

Not only that, the Oil for Food scandal (which should've gotten the UN disbanded and all it's employee's responsible thrown in jail) again, no one bothered to stop that, no countries bothered to get involved

Lemme just make this clear, if Bush Senior HADN'T of stopped the war back in the 1990's, then there's a real possibility 9/11 wouldn't have occurred. So really half the blame does fall on Bush Senior, but it also fall's on Clinton as well for ignoring the intelligence, for downgrading the intelligence bearu, and also for not making a link between the CIA and FBI, but then again, you won't hear any of this in Main Stream Media because it's the cold hard truth

Reasons:

Clinton downgraded our intelligence, and thus made it more difficult to gather accurate intelligence on the problem's affecting the United State's and world's abroad

Bush Senior, during Desert Storm, stopped earlier because the UN ordered him to. If he hadn't of stopped, and had kept going, there's the possibility (hint, POSSIBILITY) that 9/11 wouldn't have occurred

Reasons:

According to the intelligence obtained during Desert Storm (which I'm going by memory here now, since this stuff is no longer in the congressional database anymore, it was listed under 106th 1999) several squad's did find evidence of training camps, but where mistaken for military training base's

Further Reasons:

A lot of people who I've talked to back at the recruiting station, and at Fort Knox, who served during Desert Storm and witnessed those site's, still believe that they where in fact the camp's used to train the terrorist's, weather this is true or not is unknown since those camp's aren't present anymore (they can easily be moved if the need arises, thatÔÇÖs why we've found so little. Our enemy is not stupid, even though many people think they are)

Reasons:

Bush Junior (our current president) entered Iraq both because of the attacks on our nation, and because of the intelligence he had AT THE TIME, which had suggested Saddam had WMD's and was harboring terrorists, again, AT THE TIME. The fact of the matter is, the intelligence was FLAWED but HE didn't know that and thus was misled by his own people. The thing is, to many people in America won't listen to that simple fact because they want to believe Bush is a traitor, where in reality, it's the intelligence bearu who betrayed Bush and thus let him astray

Further Reasons:

When Clinton downgrades the Intelligence Bearu, he also made it almost impossible for America to get accurate intelligence on patentional threats. The selling of nuclear material to China is also a violation of several agreements made with the UN, including the downgrading of nuclear weapons. Accurately, it can be said that he sold those so that China can have a better, and perhaps, clean power supply. But there are still those who wonder if China will turn against the US and use that technology against us

Reasons:

Iraq was a country already torn in half, it's dictator was a tyrannical ruler who killed because even when they voiced there opinions, if someone didn't like him, they'd be found dead in no time

Other than the UN Sanctions that he violated oh so many time's, and the Oil for Food scandal, it could also be said that we went in because the President felt the US was threatened (he FELT keep that word in mind) having felt threatened, he decided to take action against what many consider a meager threat, but the fact of the matter is, those rumored WMD's might've existed, thing is, many photo's where passed through the net and even picked up by the Media that those 'wmds' had been transferred out of Iraq and possibly into Syria, and maybe Iran, it's a good bet there in one of those two country's epically since the evil of the two has been causing us problem's

Further Problems:

Osama Baladin, claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9/11 and the deaths of countless civilians, 3000 to be exact, amongst them are two friend's who where at the wrong place at the wrong time, but besides that. He claimed responsibility and showed, through his video's, that he was in Afghanistan

Unfortunately, Afghanistan refuse's to turn him over, and yet OB was the main person involved in those attacks and is our number one target, further more, we haven't heard a word from him for over a year now

My personal belief is that he's dead, and died on Torabora (I believe that's how it's spelled) Mountain when we carpet bombed it

However, there is still the slight chance he IS alive. Maybe he is and is planning his next move

The fact of reality is this, America has been around for over 200 year's, not even ROME lasted that long. America is long over do for an era change, and the terrorist's believe there the answer to that. Who knows? Maybe they'll succeed:

My belief in this is because of America itself, our nation is DIVIDED, we are NOT UNITED. My basis on this fact is because of all 'facts' that people have thrown around about the president and about the war, no one has any idea what is fact and what is a lie, that's the main problem *I* see here on both this board, and off

Truth and Fact's are rarity, and the thing is, are hard to come by, even the CD (Congressional Database, which is very hard to navigate, but then again it's a government run site, go fig!) has some fact's related to Iraq and the attack's there-in. However, there is no further basis for those facts, current Main Stream Media website's don't report facts anymore, they create the news to fit there schedule

Reasons:

The main stream media has always operated as our first line of information about current events related around the world. The problem with the MSM is that after Clinton was elected, and thus opened up the white house and the Lincoln bedroom (which is sacrilege) unfortunately, as time went by, the news shifted from reporting the facts, to reporting what the government wanted the people to know (yes, you heard it from me) none of the news outlet's can be trusted anymore, not even the newspapers now. Honestly only the Wall street Journal and one other can really be trusted

But honestly, the only way to find accurate and truthful information is to go to 'other' sources and no I won't name my source's, since you need to register on there site

Other than that, no news can really be trusted anymore. Proof of this was present during the elections, where Bush's war record was released to the public because the media demanded, but yet they never demanded Kerry to release his, it's called Favorism and thus has caused many of the news company's to loss popularity

In fact, it can be said that most people don't even listen to the news anymore, the only one's who do are those diehard fan's and those who do nothing but sit in front of the TV drinking beer and not caring one bit about the world around them

Reasons:

The main reason behind this mentality range's from many area's. One can be said it's from our schools, which I believe it is, don't forget I just graduated and saw a lot of stuff that I'm actually sure none of you adults saw.

Thing is, this is hard to prove and even I don't have the cold hard evidence to show you people, only my word as a teenager who was in a government school for 10 year's (spent 3 year's in a private school)

Government run schools don't have any restrictions on what they can teach. This is problematic because the teachers don't teach what they are suppose to teach

Teachers are required to teach a student, in Elementary school; the basics required to pass into the 6th grade (or for me, 7th)

Middle school is still listed as "Elementary Level" but student's there are taught Intimidate skills for passing into High School

High School is where students learn advanced skills and advanced studies

However:

This is not always the case, as witnessed on another board I am on (and this person was banned after he said this) who stated that at his school they advocated protest's against the government and against the current crisis

DonÔÇÖt' discount this; there are school's out there that do in fact advocate these things. Although you won't hear about it in the news basically because it's 'not important' at least not in the eye's of the MSM

The Wall street journal had that story roughly 2 year's and had a line that said the student's had been informed by there teacher's that there was going to be an event, that event turned into a riot in that state (which I think it was Massichusis *sp*)

Further Problems:

The Main Stream Media won't report these cases because there considered "unimportant" and because the schools in question are run by the government

Another problem:

If this act had been done by a privately run school, it'd have been splashed across the news papers

So, in the way of a conspiracy, it's possible, because so much stuff is NOT being reported to the people. I can almost assure you that it's BOTH SIDE'S playing the fence here

Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are in on such a farce and, thus far, it's worked. Because no one's the wiser to the two "parties"

This is why my belief that we need a new person in office stems from. We need someone who will actually defend our country, close our borders, and win this war. Someone who isn't afraid of pushing a few diplomatic buttons

This is the basic of my post:

NO ONE can be trusted to give accurate and sustained information that they might claim is truthful, even so, it's up to the person who reads it in order to decipher it and also to research it. If you're a true debater, then you'll try hard to find the facts, even if it take's days to find it. I know of a few people who do just that, and they spend a lot of time on the net trying to find those facts

Secondary Basis of post:

Who knows what the future has in store for us, for all we know we could be on the path to destruction (which I do believe we are)

Who do I blame?

I blame everyone for this, the US in general, because people aren't making the right choice's on who they want

My point:

We donÔÇÖt know what will occur in the next ten or fifteen yearÔÇÖs, hell, we donÔÇÖt even know if this war on terror can truly be won. Only that the United StateÔÇÖs is on a downward spiral (everyone is on it, not just the RepublicansÔÇÖ, but also the Democratic Parties)

Furthermore:

WhatÔÇÖs been done is done; we canÔÇÖt change the past, only look forward to the future. This is why a lot of us here no longer wish to debate these type of things, because weÔÇÖve done to the realization that itÔÇÖs in the past and that thereÔÇÖs nothing we do to change it

Anywho, again, sorry for going off-topic, but I felt I had to explain thingÔÇÖs a bit clearer in order to get my point across

What Al-Quaida wants: Is to keep this Nation divided and against the government and the war, as long as we let that continue, they WILL win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Prez:

Plus you know your argument is baseless when you have to nitpick at one of the smaller points I made while ignoring the plethora of points and facts I listed.

Awaiting emotional 'rape room' and 'plastic shredder' arguments along with 3 more copy/pastes that can be traced back to Rush Limbaugh or Media Matters using WHOIS and Google.

Irony being that it's easy for me to use readily available resources to tie links from Conservative biased sources to news stories - yet you seem unable to use those same resources to develop reliable links from Saddam to attacks against the U.S.

For every "Iraqis have more clean water" story you can throw up, there are 30,000 Iraqis who will miss out on weddings, birthing of children, growing up, or various other things that they would have experienced, even under Saddam.

There was a better way to handle this than a full-blown invasion and occupation.

Instead of tit-for-tat break down my post and show me where I'm wrong or where the facts I outlined are justified by putting Saddam on trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Kalshion:

I voted for President Bush in 2000 & 2004. There is no 'agenda' I have to placate. I'm arguing based on undeniable facts, common sense, and my own understanding of the Constitution & International law.

There is no axe to grind between myself and the President beyond Iraq. I disagree with other things, but the only thing which I squarely peg on him is his choice to invade Iraq.

There was intelligence available that said that Saddam had no WMD's. In the summer of 2001 the administration held up that intelligence. After 9/11 all of a sudden Iraq was an 'imminent' threat and we had to invade.

Huge leaps of logic have been swallowed by pro-Bush supporters in the same manner as liberals swallow the B.S. from Moveon.org.

Think for yourself. Look beyond the jingoistic terms 'fighting for freedom' and look at the true cost of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

It's the sad fact of things. What scare's me more is that most people won't even consider the primary reason we went in, even though Iraq did have training camp's and all the material's required to train terrorists, they also constantly violated UN sanctions. That right here was a red flag

Not only that, the Oil for Food scandal (which should've gotten the UN disbanded and all it's employee's responsible thrown in jail) again, no one bothered to stop that, no countries bothered to get involved...


Excellent post Kalshion. Of course, it will fall on deaf ears as usual.

Silk-

quote:

Plus you know your argument is baseless when you have to nitpick at one of the smaller points I made while ignoring the plethora of points and facts I listed.

I just picked ONE MORE area where you are deliberately misrepresenting the truth to enforce your own agenda.

Your facts are not facts. Sell them as such all you want, but they are no more fact than what you dismiss as "tabloid rubbish". Ironic, that.

quote:

For every "Iraqis have more clean water" story you can throw up, there are 30,000 Iraqis who will miss out on weddings, birthing of children, growing up, or various other things that they would have experienced, even under Saddam.


And up to 400,000 will also not experience any of it because of Saddam that you dismiss as "neglible", I might add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Please point out exactly where we are mandated by the United States Constitution to topple other countries who aren't doing what we like.


Yet another misrepresentation. The constitution does not lay out an all inclusive list of "good" reasons for war. Congress authorized the use of force as per the Constitution. Not the use of harsh language, the use of FORCE!!!!! The Commander in Chief constitutionally did as he saw fit given that power.

LEGISLATIVE POWERS

"...Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;..."

EXECUTIVE POWERS

"...Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FACT: THREE terrorist camps were found in Iraq, one being a hijacker school intended for the purpose of training hijackers to carry out attacks IDENTICAL to the 9/11 attacks.

FACT: No less than 3 internationally wanted terrorists were knowingly harbored, concealed, and treated like kings by Saddam.

FACT: Al-Zarqawi was allowed into Baghdad and harbored upon his flight from Afghanisatn.

FACT: Saddam has offered cash rewards to families of Palestinian terrorists for suicide attacks, the ONLY world leader to do so.

FACT: The terrorist resposible for the first WTC attack in 92 was Iraqi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Huge leaps of logic have been swallowed by pro-Bush supporters in the same manner as liberals swallow the B.S. from Moveon.org.

And from the Mass Media, Micheal Moore, George Soro's... kinda convient that you didn't mention those three, which are the main reason why this nation is divided

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even more ironic, is that Silk has no qualms about the enormous leaps in logic he has made in his PNAC theory...

Or his logic used when posting pictures of Bush being respectful to a world leader, thus unequivocally proving he is a terrorist-lover, I'm sure.

Of course, if instead of maintaining relations, Bush decided to invade Saudi Arabia for its terrorist ties, I guess we'd hear more wailing about illegal invasions and such. Oh, the paradox...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Your facts are not facts. Sell them as such all you want, but they are no more fact than what you dismiss as "tabloid rubbish". Ironic, that.

Prove it. I can readily source anything you question (and have every time in the past that you've questioned it).

You are making a baseless accusation after attacking a strawman which is a logical fallacy.

quote:

And up to 400,000 will also not experience any of it because of Saddam that you dismiss as "neglible", I might add.

Compared to the hundreds of thousands dying in other regions of the world... yes. Those 400,000 died over a period of nearly 20 years, while nearly that many die every year in other parts of the world.

And no - it is not our responsibility to take over and occupy countries to correct the problem.

quote:

Yet another misrepresentation. The constitution does not lay out an all inclusive list of "good" reasons for war. Congress authorized the use of force as per the Constitution. Not the use of harsh language, the use of FORCE!!!!! The Commander in Chief constitutionally did as he saw fit given that power.

LEGISLATIVE POWERS

"...Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;..."

EXECUTIVE POWERS

"...Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment..."

We never declared war, we were never attacked, and we basically had Congress pass it's responsibility to the President who misused it.

And I am mis-representing nothing. You talk about hundreds of thousands killed under Saddam and I'm asking you to find where exactly it is our responsibility under the Constitution to intervene.

I defy you to find a single quote from a single signer of the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution which would support what we are doing.

I can readily produce the opposite.

quote:

FACT: THREE terrorist camps were found in Iraq, one being a hijacker school intended for the purpose of training hijackers to carry out attacks IDENTICAL to the 9/11 attacks.

This 'hijacker school' was the fusilage of a Russian TU-145. I say 'hijacker school' because there is no evidence that exists to say what it was used for. As a matter of fact, Charles Duelfer identified it as a 'counter terrorism' training camp which he (in his own words) assumed that it was being used for terror training.

i.e. It's all based on conjecture. Hardly 'fact'.

FACT: No less than 3 internationally wanted terrorists were knowingly harbored, concealed, and treated like kings by Saddam.

And I'll assume that it's 100% true, and still tell you that it isn't worth 60,000 lives and half a trillion dollars to stop these 3 terrorists.

FACT: Al-Zarqawi was allowed into Baghdad and harbored upon his flight from Afghanisatn.

Nitpicking - wouldn't he have had to travel through IRAN first?

FACT: Saddam has offered cash rewards to families of Palestinian terrorists for suicide attacks, the ONLY world leader to do so.

And I've said about a dozen times - I know this. I also recognize that it was not our problem. Let Israel handle it.

FACT: The terrorist resposible for the first WTC attack in 92 was Iraqi.

15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were SAUDI - and Bush still doesn't mind holding their hands nor kissing the bastards.

quote:

And from the Mass Media, Micheal Moore, George Soro's... kinda convient that you didn't mention those three, which are the main reason why this nation is divided

Not really convenient. It kind of goes without saying. Moveon.org is the only one I consider the largest threat atm - and it's funded by George Soros, and Michael Moore is involved with it as well.

quote:

Even more ironic, is that Silk has no qualms about the enormous leaps in logic he has made in his PNAC theory...

What leaps? That 3/7 members of PNAC are members of the Bush administration and were the most vocal about invading Iraq after in 1998 urging Bill Clinton to invade Iraq?

It's called common-sense. Their opinions didn't change when they finally had the chance to... tada - Invade Iraq.

Or his logic used when posting pictures of Bush being respectful to a world leader, thus unequivocally proving he is a terrorist-lover, I'm sure.

Bush KISSING and HOLDING HANDS with a world leader of a country from which 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 came from.

And which a majority of Middle East terrorism can be traced back to. Convenient you left out the details. Bush and Blair don't even kiss and hold hands.

Of course, if instead of maintaining relations, Bush decided to invade Saudi Arabia for its terrorist ties, I guess we'd hear more wailing about illegal invasions and such. Oh, the paradox...

No... some of the 'harboring terrorists' lingo might actually make sense. As I'm sure I've already advocated action against Iran by the same token in about half a dozen threads already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FACT: Iraq had never attacked the United States

FACT: Iraq had never threatened to attack the United States

FACT: Iraq had no capability to attack the United States

FACT: At least 30,000 Iraqis have died in the 2 years since the U.S. invasion

FACT: On average, 50 - 60 deadly attacks are carried out every day on Iraqi civilians

FACT: Women in southern Iraq are forced to wear the hijab or risk being beaten or stoned to death.

FACT: The Kurds in Northern Iraq (our allies) had the poorest women's rights record in Iraq prior to our invasion according to Human Rights Watch.

FACT: Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the U.S. government shall make war to enforce our view on others. Several of the founding fathers can be quoted as saying that we shouldn't.

FACT: 50+ U.S. soldiers die each month.

FACT: The War in Iraq is going to cost half a trillion dollars (at least) to conclude.

FACT: There were no WMD's in Iraq on the scale that Bush said.

BUT: Prez says it's worth it because we:

A.) Stopped 3 terrorist camps (maybe)

B.) Caught 3 terrorists

C.) Captured Saddam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warnings on invading Iraq

Written August 15, 2002 by Phyllis Bennis

quote:

Nelson Mandela was right when he said that attacking Iraq would be "a disaster." A U.S. invasion of Iraq would risk the lives of U.S. military personnel and inevitably kill thousands of Iraqi civilians; it is not surprising that many U.S. military officers, including some within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are publicly opposed to a new war against Iraq.

Such an attack would violate international law and the UN Charter, and isolate us from our friends and allies around the world. An invasion would prevent the future return of UN arms inspectors, and cost billions of dollars urgently needed at home. And at the end of the day, an invasion will not insure stability, let alone democracy, in Iraq or the rest of the volatile Middle East region, and will put American civilians at greater risk of hatred and perhaps terrorist attacks than they are today.

Purported Links to Terrorism

It is now clear that (despite intensive investigative efforts) there is simply no evidence of any Iraqi involvement in the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The most popular theory, of a Prague-based collaboration between one of the 9/11 terrorists and an Iraqi official, has now collapsed. Just two weeks ago, the Prague Post quoted the director general of the Czech foreign intelligence service UZSI (Office of Foreign Relations and Information), Frantisek Bublan, denying the much-touted meeting between Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, and an Iraqi agent.

More significantly, the Iraqi regime's brutal treatment of its own population has generally not extended to international terrorist attacks. The State Department's own compilation of terrorist activity in its 2001 Patterns of Global Terrorism, released May 2002, does not document a single serious act of international terrorism by Iraq. Almost all references are either to political statements made or not made or hosting virtually defunct militant organizations.

We are told that we must go to war preemptively against Iraq because Baghdad might, some time in the future, succeed in crafting a dangerous weapon and might, some time in the future, give that weapon to some unknown terrorist group -- maybe Osama bin Laden -- who might, some time in the future, use that weapon against the U.S. The problem with this analysis, aside from the fact that preemptive strikes are simply illegal under international law, is that it ignores the widely known historic antagonism between Iraq and bin Laden.

According to the New York Times, "Shortly after Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait in 1990, Osama bin Laden approached Prince Sultan bin Abdelaziz al-Saud, the Saudi defense minister, with an unusual proposition. ... Arriving with maps and many diagrams, Mr. Bin Laden told Prince Sultan that the kingdom could avoid the indignity of allowing an army of American unbelievers to enter the kingdom to repel Iraq from Kuwait. He could lead the fight himself, he said, at the head of a group of former mujahadeen that he said could number 100,000 men."

Even if bin Laden's claim to be able to provide those troops was clearly false, bin Laden's hostility towards the ruthlessly secular Iraq remained evident. There is simply no evidence that that has changed.

The Human Toll

While estimates of casualties among U.S. service personnel are not public, we can be certain they will be much higher than in the current war in Afghanistan. We do know, from Pentagon estimates of two years ago, the likely death toll among Iraqi civilians: about 10,000 Iraqi civilians would be killed. And the destruction of civilian infrastructure such as water, electrical and communications equipment, would lead to tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of more civilian deaths, particularly among children, the aged and others of the most vulnerable sectors.

We can anticipate that such targeted attacks would be justified by claims of "dual use." But if we look back to the last U.S. war with Iraq, we know that the Pentagon planned and carried out attacks knowing and documenting the likely impact on civilians.

In one case, Pentagon planners anticipated that striking Iraq's civilian infrastructure would cause "Increased incidence of diseases [that] will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/ distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks." The Defense Intelligence Agency document (from the Pentagon's Gulflink website), "Disease Information -- Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad" is dated 22 January 1991, just six days after the war began. It itemized the likely outbreaks to include: "acute diarrhea" brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect "particularly children," or by rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly children." And yet the bombing of the water treatment systems proceeded, and indeed, according to UNICEF figures, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, "particularly children," died from the effects of dirty water.

The most recent leaked military plan for invading Iraq, the so-called "inside-out" plan based on a relatively small contingent of U.S. ground troops with heavy reliance on air strikes, would focus first and primarily on Baghdad. The Iraqi capital is described as being ringed with Saddam Hussein's crack troops and studded with anti-aircraft batteries.

The report never mentions the inconvenient fact that Baghdad is also a crowded city of four to five million people; a heavy air bombardment would cause the equivalent human catastrophe of heavy air bombardment of Los Angeles.

The U.S. and Our Allies

There is no international support, at the governmental or public level, for a U.S. attack on Iraq. Our closest allies throughout Europe, in Canada, and elsewhere, have made clear their opposition to a military invasion. While they recognize the Iraqi regime as a brutal, undemocratic regime, they do not support a unilateral preemptive military assault as an appropriate response to that regime.

Yes, it is certain that if the U.S. announces it is indeed going to war, that most of those governments would grudgingly follow along. When President Bush repeats his mantra that "you are either with us or with the terrorists," there is not a government around the world prepared to stand defiant. But a foreign policy based on international coercion and our allies' fear of retaliation for noncompliance is not a policy that will protect Americans and our place in the world.

In the Middle East region, only Israel supports the U.S. build-up to war in Iraq. The Arab states, including our closest allies, have made unequivocal their opposition to an invasion of Iraq. Even Kuwait, once the target of Iraqi military occupation and ostensibly the most vulnerable to Iraqi threats, has moved to normalize its relations with Baghdad. The Arab League-sponsored rapprochement between Iraq and Kuwait at the March 2002 Arab Summit is now underway, including such long-overdue moves as the return of Kuwait's national archives.

Iraq has now repaired its relations with every Arab country. Turkey has refused to publicly announce its agreement to allow use of its air bases, and Jordan and other Arab countries have made clear their urgent plea for the U.S. to abjure a military attack on Iraq.

Again, it is certain that not a single government in the region would ultimately stand against a U.S. demand for base rights, use of airspace or overflight rights, or access to any other facilities. The question we must answer therefore is not whether our allies will ultimately accede to our wishes, but just how high a price are we prepared to exact from our allies? Virtually every Arab government, especially those most closely tied to the U.S. (Jordan and Egypt, perhaps even Saudi Arabia) will face dramatically escalated popular opposition.

The existing crisis of legitimacy faced by these undemocratic, repressive, and non-representative regimes, monarchies and president-for-life style democracies, will be seriously exacerbated by a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Region-wide instability will certainly result, and some of those governments might risk being overthrown.

The U.S. and International Law

We claim to be a nation of laws. But too often we are prepared to put aside the requirements of international law and the United Nations Charter to which we hold other nations appropriately accountable.

When it comes to policy on Iraq, the U.S. has a history of sidelining the central role that should be played by the United Nations. This increasingly unilateralist trajectory is one of the main reasons for the growing international antagonism towards the U.S. By imposing its will on the Security Council -- insisting on the continuation of economic sanctions when virtually every other country wants to lift them, announcing its intention to ignore the UN in deciding whether to go to war against Iraq -- the U.S. isolates itself from our allies, antagonizes our friends, and sets our nation apart from the international systems of laws that govern the rest of the world. This does not help, but rather undermines, our long-term security interests.

International law does not allow for preemptive military strikes, except in the case of preventing an immediate attack. We simply do not have the right -- no country does -- to launch a war against another country that has not attacked us. If the Pentagon had been able to scramble a jet to take down the second plane flying into the World Trade Center last September, that would have been a legal use of preemptive self defense. An attack on Iraq -- which lacks the capacity, and has not for a decade or more shown any specific intention or plan or effort to attack the U.S. -- violates international law and the UN Charter.

The Charter, in Article 51, outlines the terms under which a Member State of the United Nations may use force in self-defense. That Article acknowledges a nation's "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." [Emphasis added.] The Charter does not allow military force to be used absent an armed attack having occurred.

Some administration spokespeople are fond of a sound byte that says, "the UN Charter is not a suicide pact." Others like to remind us that Iraq (and other nations) routinely violate the Charter. Both statements are true. But the United States has not been attacked by Iraq, and there is simply no evidence that Iraq is anywhere close to being able to carry out such an attack. The U.S. is the strongest international power -- in terms of global military reach, economic, cultural, diplomatic and political power -- that has ever existed throughout history. If the United States does not recognize the UN Charter and international law as the foundation of global society, how can we expect others to do so?

How Do We Get Serious About Military Sanctions?

Denying Iraq access to weapons is not sufficient, nor can it be maintained as long as Iraq is surrounded by some of the most over-armed states in the world. An immediate halt on all weapons shipments to all countries in the region would be an important step toward containing military threats.

We should expand our application of military sanctions as defined in UN Resolution 687. Military sanctions against Iraq should be tightened -- by expanding them to a system of regional military sanctions, thus lowering the volatility of this already arms-glutted region. Article 14 of Resolution 687 recognizes that the disarmament of Iraq should be seen as a step toward "the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons."

What About Negotiations?

We are told we must attack Iraq preemptively so that it can never obtain nuclear weapons. While we know from IAEA inspectors that Iraq's nuclear program was destroyed by the end of 1998, we do not know what has developed since. We do know, however, that Iraq does not have access to fissile material, without which any nuclear program is a hollow shell. And we know where fissile material is. Protection of all nuclear material, including reinstatement of the funding for protection of Russian nuclear material, must be a continuing priority.

We should note that U.S. officials are threatening a war against Iraq, a country known not to possess nuclear weapons. Simultaneously, the administration is continuing appropriate negotiations with North Korea, which does have something much closer to nuclear weapons capacity. Backed by IAEA inspections, the model of negotiations and inspections is exactly what the U.S. should be proposing for Iraq.

Inspections

There has been no solid information regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction since UNSCOM and IAEA arms inspectors left Iraq in December 1998 in advance of the U.S. Desert Fox bombing operation. Prior to their leaving, the inspectors' last report (November 1998) stated that although they had been stymied by Iraqi non-compliance in carrying out some inspections, "the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation."

The IAEA report was unequivocal that Iraq no longer had a viable nuclear program. The UNSCOM report was less definitive, but months earlier, in March 1998, UNSCOM chief Richard Butler said that his team was satisfied there was no longer any nuclear or long-range missile capability in Iraq, and that UNSCOM was "very close" to completing the chemical and biological phases.

Since that time, there have been no verifiable reports regarding Iraq's WMD programs. It is important to get inspectors back into Iraq, but U.S. threats have made that virtually impossible by setting a "negative incentive" in place. If Baghdad believes that a U.S. military strike, as well as the maintaining of crippling economic sanctions, will take place regardless of their compliance with UN resolutions regarding inspections, they have no reason to implement their own obligations.

If the United States refuses to abide by the rule of international law, why are we surprised when an embattled and tyrannical government does so?

Throughout the 1980s Baghdad received from the U.S. high-quality germ seed stock for anthrax, botulism, E. coli, and a host of other deadly diseases. (The Commerce Department's decisions to license those shipments, even after revelations of Iraq's 1988 use of illegal chemical weapons, are documented in the 1994 hearings of the Banking Sub-Committee.)

It is certainly possible that scraps of Iraq's earlier biological and chemical weapons programs remain in existence, but there is no evidence Iraq has the ability or missile capacity to use them against the U.S. or U.S. allies. The notion that the U.S. would go to war against Iraq because of the existence of tiny amounts of biological material, insufficient for use in missiles or other strategic weapons and which the U.S. itself provided during the years of the U.S.-Iraq alliance in the 1980s, is simply unacceptable.

What About the Opposition?

General Zinni has described an opposition-led attack on Iraq as turning the country into a "Bay of Goats." Nothing has changed since that time. Almost none of the exile-based opposition has a credible base inside the country. There is no Iraqi equivalent to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to serve as ground troops to bolster a U.S. force. Some of the exile leaders closest to the U.S. have been wanted by Interpol for crimes in Jordan and elsewhere. The claim that they represent a democratic movement simply cannot be sustained.

What Happens After �Regime Change�?

There is no democratic opposition ready to take over. Far more likely than the creation of an indigenous, popularly supported democratic Iraqi government, would be the replacement of the current regime with one virtually indistinguishable from it except for the man at the top. In February 2002, Newsweek magazine profiled the five leaders said to be on Washington's short list of candidates to replace Saddam Hussein. The Administration has not publicly issued such a list of its own (though we should note they did not dispute the list), but it certainly typifies the model the U.S. has in mind. All five of them were high-ranking officials within the Iraqi military until the mid-1990s. All five have been linked to the use of chemical weapons by the military; at least one, General al-Shammari, admits it.

Perhaps we should not be surprised by Washington's embrace of military leaders potentially guilty of war crimes; General al-Shammari told Newsweek he assessed the effect of his howitzer-fired chemical weapons by relying on "information from American satellites."

We must challenge the legitimacy of going to war against a country to replace a brutal military leader with another brutal military leader, and knowingly promoting as leaders of a "post-Saddam Iraq" a collection of generals who have apparently committed heinous war crimes.

Whoever may be installed in Baghdad by victorious U.S. troops, it is certain that a long and likely bloody occupation would follow. The price would be high; Iraqis know better than we do how their government has systematically denied them civil and political rights. But they hold us responsible for stripping them of economic and social rights -- the right to sufficient food, clean water, education, medical care -- that together form the other side of the human rights equation. Economic sanctions have devastated Iraqi society -- and among other effects, the sanctions have made the U.S. responsible for the misery of most of the Iraqi population.

After 12 years, those in Washington who believe that Iraqis accept the popular inside-the-Beltway mantra that "sanctions aren't responsible, Saddam Hussein is responsible" for hunger and deprivation in Iraq, are engaged in wishful thinking. The notion that everyone in Iraq will welcome as "liberators" those whom most Iraqis hold responsible for 12 years of crippling sanctions is simply naive. Basing a military strategy on such wishful speculation becomes very dangerous -- in particular for U.S. troops themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...