What Should Have Been Done About Iraq?

[daniel]

Craig:

I've read enough of your posts to no longer bother. Responding directly would eventually resort to name-calling on your part.

[Black Dog]

here is a 2nd which i had posted 9-23

Not one of you brainless anti-American racists can refute any of the following. So I suggest you stop your ranting and address some real issues.

Refute what? Just because you can regurjitate a bunch of allegations from google and call them facts does not make them so. Sticking feathers up your ass does not make you a chicken.

if the links between AQ and IOraq were as concrete and obvious as you claim them to be, why wouldn't that have been front and centre as the casuse for war, instead of vague accusations of "supporting terrorism"? If there is proof, why isn't it being shown? Why are U.S. officials (including the president himself) now stating there are no links between the two?

Maybe the CIA needs to get in touch with the all-knowing Craig since he can get more from 15 minutes on google than they can through years of intelligence work.

Iraq and Al Qaeda had contacts stemming from 1993 in Sudan.

-Iraq supplied AQ money funnelled through various AQ factions dating from 1993 [when the terrorists would meet in Sudan yearly at the Arab Congress]

-Iraq supplied chemical materials to AQ

-Iraq supplied fake documents and passports for AQ men

Proof? There ain't any.

"In that part of the universe, the part occupied by Muslims who hate Americans, there are bound to be some (Al-Qaeda) contacts with Iraqi agents, even some who are known as such," says Daniel Benjamin, a former National Security Council advisor on terrorism during the Clinton administration.

But Benjamin, now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, sides with many who doubt that Iraq has any meaningful role in steering Al-Qaeda‘s operations. "We were never aware of any substantial cooperation," he says.

-AQ operatives have been found in Iraq

-Training facilities in Iraq [1 sw of Baghdad, 1 near Iran], have found AQ operating manuals

-AQ documents have been found in Iraq on chemical weapons production [iraqi's are the world experts in producing Zyklon B [hydrogen-cyanide gas for the illiterate]

-Hussein and Bin Laden in 1998 before the East African embassy bombings were both releasing the same threats to the US if sanctions were not lifted against Iraq

Al-Qaeda did not work with Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime, two of the terrorist network's senior leaders have told the CIA, intelligence officials say.

Abu Zubaydah, an al-Qaeda planner and recruiter who was captured in March 2002, told interrogators last year that such co-operation had been discussed among the group's leaders, but was rejected by Osama bin Laden.

The al-Qaeda chief had vetoed the idea because he did not want to be beholden to Saddam, Zubaydah said.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qaeda's chief of operations who was captured in Pakistan on March 1, has also said in a debriefing that the group did not work with Saddam.

-NY Times, June 10, 2003

-2 US embassies in East Africa were attacked on August 7th 1998 exactly 8 years to the day that US troops first went to Saudi Arabia [a huge issue for Bin Laden]

And this has what to do with Iraq, now?

-Israeli operatives firmly believe that Iraq help fund and sponsor the 9-11 attacks and that in 2001 many meetings were held between Iraqi officials and AQ

Yeah, because Israel would have absolutely nothing to gain from Saddam's removal, right?

-Atta who lead the 9-11 attacks met with Iraqi officials many times, the last in Prague [Czech authorities are adamant the meeting took place]

This is a lie and it has been resoundingly debunked by intellegence sources, including the CIA.

-Only Iraq failed to condemn the 9-11 attacks, other Arab League members did condemn them

Well, golly gosh, that proves it! You hear that: Iraq failed to condemn 9-11! That's pretty much the same thing a sbeing responsible, i guess.

[SirRiff]

Iraq and Al Qaeda had contacts stemming from 1993 in Sudan.

i dont want to rain on your parade craig, but

the US had contacts with iraq in the 80s

the Us had contacts with iran in the 80s

the US had contacts with the pre-taliban/alqueda terrorists in the 80s

Thus, the US are supporting terrorism and should be destroyed right?

The whole idea that Bin Laden, in a loose federation of terrorists, is able to launch 9-11 style attacks without a nation state helping him is ridiculous.

do you really believe that?

because they estimate it only cost a few hundred thousand $$ in total, nothing really for an international terror group. it would actually been simple for 20 men to do the same thing spontaneously, so in truth it was very very easy to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

my god man, look at the reality of the situation. the US had just as many terror links in teh last 20 years as saddam.

SirRiff

[Hugo]

Thus, the US are supporting terrorism and should be destroyed right?

I'm getting tired of explaining this to you, Riff. It seems that every time you come on this board it's as though someone wiped your memory. Cold War, Alliances, Communism not marching over the face of the earth... ring any bells?

[Craig Read]

Well I would say Canada and the EU supports terror.

Both export monies to the PA which are used to kill Israelis.

Both have nescient immigration policies that breed terror cells which export $ and monies back to the homeland. In fact Canada is apparently #2 according to the CIA in terror cells and money support for terrorism.

Both declined to stop the killing of 250.000 Iraqi's under Hussein.

Both have no military outside of the UK to defend themselves.

Both give money to the IMF which hands large sums over to terror groups like the PA and other countries with despotic anti-liberal regimes.

So bomb Canada, according to Riff's moronic logic.

[KrustyKidd]

I'm getting tired of explaining this to you, Riff. It seems that every time you come on this board it's as though someone wiped your memory. Cold War, Alliances, Communism not marching over the face of the earth... ring any bells?

Really.

I suppose I have to repost for Riff as well. The US deals with every country on the planet. American goods are found everywhere. Is it any wonder that among the two hundred some odd countries in the world that it deals with, some of them are dictatorships? Which ones are begnign and which ones will pose a threat thirty years from now Riff? Comon, you know exactly which ones don't you?

[Craig Read]

Riff and gang don't know anything. No sources, no evidence, just slander. This is the strength of Lie-beralism - the anti-reality squad I call them. Let's twist nationalism into fascism and rampant anti-americanism. It is racist and unnecessary. No need to fuel your self esteem through such incoherent hatred. Unless of course you a little weasel with no self worth.

[Nuclear]

Two words: GLASS FACTORY.

[KrustyKidd]

Hi Craig. The biggest guffaw I got this week was after Bush spoke at the UN. France says that Iraq shuld be governed by Iraqis sooner than the US figures and Germany says too late, they should govern themselves immediately. LOL, these guys are the ones that a month ago wouldn't recognise the Governing Council period and now they are fit to rule a country? Talk about snitty bitches that don't know whether they're comming or going.

[KrustyKidd]

US PULL OUT NOW AND LET FUNDEMENTALISTS, KURDS, TERRORISTS, FORMER REGEIME MEMBERS AND IRANIAN UNDERCOVER OPERATIVES KILL EVERYBODY IN IRAQ. THE COUNTRY IS IN DIRE NEED OF ANARCHY, NOT DEMOCRACY!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...-protests_x.htm

[Craig Read]

Yes apparently the French who supported Hussein for 30 years, would rather see another despotic moron killing people and ruining the country.

Brilliant idea - let the nation rule itself before it is ready. Not even the Governing Council wants that. And the GC does NOT want the UN involved.

At least they show a great degree of common sense in that regard.

[Black Dog]

Riff and gang don't know anything. No sources, no evidence, just slander. This is the strength of Lie-beralism - the anti-reality squad I call them. Let's twist nationalism into fascism and rampant anti-americanism. It is racist and unnecessary. No need to fuel your self esteem through such incoherent hatred. Unless of course you a little weasel with no self worth.

Blah blah blah. You are a self-important bore. Only a complete dullard would twist criticism of American policies into "racism" as you have. As for incoherent hatred, I believe you've cornered the market on that here (as anyone who would read any of your drivel on Islam knows).

US PULL OUT NOW AND LET FUNDEMENTALISTS, KURDS, TERRORISTS, FORMER REGEIME MEMBERS AND IRANIAN UNDERCOVER OPERATIVES KILL EVERYBODY IN IRAQ. THE COUNTRY IS IN DIRE NEED OF ANARCHY, NOT DEMOCRACY!!!

Yeah, that's exactly it.

Do you actually read the articles or do you just look at the headlines before assaulting your straw men?

[SirRiff]

its funny when people assert that the US had no idea those nice men in afganistan, iran, and iraq would turn out to be bad.. considering 1) the US always does the dirty work in secret, and only years later does it come to light, and 2) the US specfically supported afgan rebels, saddam, and iran in WARS.

oh gee, yeah we sent $3 billion in weapons and training to osama and his crew in afganstan, but we thought they would just shoot targets, we didnt know they beat their women, we have no reason to believe they would turn on each other, and we knew they had moderat religious views.

uh no, the US knew in Chile, Afganistan, Iran, and Iraq they were dealing with brutal murderers, they supported them anyways in secret, then washed their hands of the situation and in all cases abandoned the poor innocents they claim to love so much.

not the actions of an empathetic leader of freedom.

so lets all stop with the "they didnt know they were evil" bit, because we all know its not true. else they have shipped textbooks instead of stingers to afganistan.

SirRiff

[KrustyKidd]

Yes Black Dog, I actually read the article before I published the link. The sarcasm is warrented as realisticly, what would replace the US if they left tommorow? Death, Islamic Fundementalism, Warlords, starvation. Do you, like these people say that somehow Iraq would just somehow fall into order and harmless benevolence if it were left in a vacum Tuesday morning? The people of Iraq must be able to at least control their own streets. Right now they cannot even do it with the Americans help so how would you expect them to extablish any kind of order in which democracy can stand a chance of taking root? Unless of course you think they should not have democracy, is that the case and if so why not, and what goevernment should these people make for themselves? As well, scince the only forms of governments these people have been exposed to in the last thousand years are ones where might is right how would they hold a democratic vote to determine this? And how would they stop the numerous tribal factions, religious factions, political fatcions, terrorist factions, and nationality factions from trying to hijack any vacum left by the US?

IT WOULD BE A BLOODBATH BLACK DOG. I would, just off the top of my head estimate a million dead in a year or so with the finished product making Afganistan, Somalia and Liberia left looking like first world nations.

Here, scince I'm not sure if you read the article I have quoted a couple of lines.

"I think they should hand Iraq back to the Iraqis and get the troops out."

Demonstrators, including those in London, also added the Palestinian cause to their campaign.

Some 3,000 people marched in Paris, where a wide banner read, "American Imperialism: Take your bloody hands off the Middle East." Others held posters that read "Wanted: George W. Bush — War Criminal."

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

The Western world did indeed go to Aghanistan to oust the taliban, wanting Bin Laden's head, rallying behind the US after 9/11. Most everyone believed it was the right course of action.

The present action by the US in Iraq is, in the minds of most, a totally different situation.

The UN needs to be drastically overhauled, but in doing so could easily fill any 'world power vacuum'.

The world does need a 'police force' but it cannot be, nor serve the interests of, only one country.

In one of my previous 'signatures', a quote from Adolf Hitler I found to be very apropos. Basically it said every nation must cede a little bit of it's self-interest to the common community,(such as the UN) to guarantee the rights of all those in that community.

It seems that the US has no interest other than it's own, which is fine as long as they are willing to risk being one of the 'pariah' nations.

[Craig Read]

Prove it. 35 nations are free due to US efforts. The US underwrites the global community receiving benefits but putting up with the free rider problem as well. Without US economic leadership multi-lateral trade and the WTO would not exist, and without NAFTA or the reduction in world wide tariffs Canada would be a far poorer little land. The US shielded the free world from Communism, saved Europe from Hitlerism, and now is waging a war on IslamoFascism. Without the US the war on terror would not be a war but a series of savage attacks on Western targets while the Canadians and EU watch stupefied asking about 'root causes'. And the UNO your merry World Government would not exist due to a lack of money and support. The US not only pays most of the UN's bills [25 %] but also pays the great majority of indirect costs in peacekeeping, additional [non-budgeted] programs and human relief. I don't see the EU giving Africa $15 billion to fight aids.

So what is your point, other than the fact that you are proving again, that you have no idea what you are talking about and just like to engage in RACISM. US policy can be criticised [especially on international economics, which i have posted on another thread] but your racist drivel must end.

[KrustyKidd]

Good post Lonius. I agree, however scince the UN truely is ineffective and a fire was started by terrorists who are in every country in the Middle East, America needed to clean house. Saddam was outstanding business. Nothing was being done about it and he was a legitimate target. Not only that but he provided a great example for the rest of the rotten governments in the area. There is a price for flaunting the international community and now is a real bad time to rattle sabres with the USA. Providing a stable democratic government in the center of the ME will provide another example of how prosperity is accomplished, that has a dividened not only for the US and the weszt but all people of the Earth. Shape up and don;t mess with them as was another lesson in that Saddam was given many chances to come clean but wanted to become leader of the Arab world. Did he have contacts with terrorists? Yes. Did he have WMD that he could give these terrorists? Unknown but he did have them and had the ability to make them once the heat was off.

As for the US picking up the tab in money and manpower within the UN my analogy is that if I am the designated driver by default I damm well take whatever route I want. You want a say, start paying the gas and take your turn at the wheel.

[Black Dog]

So what is your point, other than the fact that you are proving again, that you have no idea what you are talking about and just like to engage in RACISM. US policy can be criticised [especially on international economics, which i have posted on another thread] but your racist drivel must end.

The U.S.A is not a race.

[SirRiff]

Unknown but he did have them and had the ability to make them once the heat was off.

most large high school labs in north america could make crude toxic products with some internet help.

its like saying everyone with a gun is a threat to you potentially so we gotta take them all out.

his intent was pretty well contained dont you think? considering he was beat like a bitch in the first war, most of his country was patrolled daily, he NEVER attacked saudi arabia or israel during the sanctions, and even when attacked didnt use these massive stockpiles of WMDs.

yes, i would argu he was contained. saddam was a survivor, not a suicide bomber, hence the rich lifestyle.

SirRiff

[nova_satori]

Anyone can produce chemical weapons. It's called the Anarchist's Cookbook, here's another link, Cookbook 2.

A simple basic knowledge of Chemistry is helpful too. Working at a science dept at a college grants you access to much of the needed chemicals and means to produce them.

If you wanted to produce a large amount of napalm, it would be extremely easy.

Using parts of a laptop and clay, and a few household objects and tools, you can produce a decent size bomb.

Anyone can be a chemical/explosive terrorist if they wanted to. It's not hard.

Now with that said, do we go after everyone who MIGHT just be angry at us?

[Hugo]

Don't forget, Saddam has also actually used WMD before, on enemy soldiers and on his own civilians. He has also launched wars of aggression and invasion without international sanction, and repeatedly declared his intent and desire to destroy the US, Israel and their allies.

Add this to the fact that if he wanted to develop WMD it would be pretty easy, and if he wanted to use said WMD against the US or Israel all he'd have to do would be to make a gift of it to Hamas or Al-Queda, and you have a pretty strong case for pre-emptive action, I'd say.

Not that this is really pre-emptive action at all. Saddam has committed crimes that he was never held accountable for. Just think of Gulf II as unfinished business from Gulf I if it helps.

[snowbelt35]

I would like to add something to Hugo's point. We can't forget this problem has been inherited. Two prior administrations made the same claims. Clinton signed into law the "Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998" which specifically calls for "Regime Change". If this adminstration has lied than at least two other administrations lied. I find this to be illogical. I think that if you are a person with commonsense you know that Iraq posed a threat. Directly or indirectly.

Another point I'd like to make is the members of the UN didn't disagree that Hussein posed a threat. They most certainly didn't disagree when it came to Iraq's reputation on lack of human rights. The question was how to handle him and the situation. We obviously had tried diplomacy on more than one occassion. I'd say numerous occasions since that is what all of the resolutions represent. We were at a crossroad, so to speak.

I think the US had and continues to show tremendous restraint. We've had years of terrorist attacks and I think enough should be enough. Those countries who knowingly help are just as guilty as the perpetrators.

Please check out www.threshold-55.com

It is a very well researched political blog and they publish new articles weekly.

[Craig Read]

the "Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998" which specifically calls for "Regime Change". If this adminstration has lied than at least two other administrations lied. I find this to be illogical. I think that if you are a person with commonsense you know that Iraq posed a threat. Directly or indirectly.

Snow, great post, thanks for posting it. Yes Clinton did admit many times in speeches even, that Hussein had to be removed.

It is rather disingenous now for liberal supporters to claim otherwise when their patron saint himself knew the threat to be real. This makes his inaction indefensible.