Iraq Is On Track

[Black Dog]

What are you suggesting with you're comments here, that the perpetrators of 9-11 were not clearly consumed by evil?

What does 9-11 have to do with iraq? Zilch.

I don't find it funny. I find it depressing. These values, or rather lack there of, is the force directly responsible for this destruction of this country's moral fiber.

Perhaps the nation needs to simply eat more moral oat bran.

The only thing that communists like you have in common with islamic radicals is hatred for America. It is an ironic fact however that if these forces of evil, with which you align yourself, were to succeed, it would be secular, atheists like you who would be the first to die.

First: I'm not a communist. that you would use that term indicates you've no ability to distinguish between various left-liberal ethos or you're just doing the same thing you accuse me of later...

As for the rest, wel,l I no more support "their" primitive superstisious drivel than I support the home-grown variety espoused by the likes of Fallwell, Boykin and, evidently, yourself. It's all the same crap. None of it has anything to do with values and morality and everything to do with power and control. But I digress.

First off, Boykin is not an ultra right-wing Christian

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....

[righturnonred]

What does 9-11 have to do with iraq?

Plenty, but there's really no point in trying to explain it to you.

First: I'm not a communist. that you would use that term indicates you've no ability to distinguish between various left-liberal ethos or you're just doing the same thing you accuse me of later...

I believe that you are whether you consider yourself as such or not. I can though, certainly understand why you would consider the label undesirable. To use a familiar phrase, "if it looks like a duck and walks like duck..."

As for the rest, wel,l I no more support "their" primitive superstisious drivel than I support the home-grown variety espoused by the likes of Fallwell, Boykin and, evidently, yourself.

Actually, I myself am not all that religious, meaning I don't go to church, I don't read the bible regularly, and I don't pray often. However, I acknowledge that my parents raised me in accordance with Judeo-Christian values which has had a profound inpact on the way I live my life.

While I personally don't see a need to have a "relationship with God" I can certainly understand the strength that it may give others. As most religous people will tell you, it's not the superstisious drivel that is important, to Chirstians anyway. Rather it is the values and teachings esposed in the name of such a religion.

In essence, you are correct when you say that religion is all about control. It's about self control.

Please don't think that because "you'll not be fooled" by religious dogma, that you possess some form of enlightenment not found among the religious.

[Mr Farrius]

What does 9-11 have to do with iraq?

Plenty, but there's really no point in trying to explain it to you.

Please explain it to me then. Be as brief and concise as you can.

In essence, you are correct when you say that religion is all about control. It's about self control.

This statement does not speak for all religions, especially the biggest one: Christianity. For instance, Christianity teaches to let go of self-control and let God have more of it.

[Craig Read]

It is rather incredible that some people - lost on the left or just left out it can be said - don't see the connection between 9-11 and the war on terror now proceeding apace in Iraq and Afghanistan. On this forum alone, there must be 50 posts outlining the connection.

The current situation is nothing more than the first step in a long process and a long war against Islamo-fascism and its terrorist components. This does not mean that Islam, muslims or people in affected countries are in general the enemy or evil, but that their regimes and rogue elements need to be destroyed.

Iraq is the perfect base from which to remake the Middle East. It will work and contrary to media hysteria and the unfortunate deaths of 200 soldiers since March, there is much good work going on in Iraq. The US and Britain must stay the course for the coming 5 years to reform and remodel Iraq.

If they do this, and I beleive they will, then a significant victory has been won against those elements within the world body politic that hate freedom and modernity.

[Black Dog]

I believe that you are whether you consider yourself as such or not. I can though, certainly understand why you would consider the label undesirable. To use a familiar phrase, "if it looks like a duck and walks like duck..."

Then I suggest you find a good dictionary and look up the word "communist". In the meantime I have better things to do than waste my time wrangling your malapropisms. Red baiting is just soooo '50s...

[righturnonred]

It's good to hear from you Craig.

In a nutshell, your post sums up the objectives of the war on terror.

This war is not just about Iraq. It's not just about WMD, or freedom for the Iraqi people. It's about changing the face of the middle east which includes but is not limited to promoting democracy, freedom, and liberty and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. bin Laden and Al Qaeda are not the only ones involved in terror here. There is a dangerous culture within Islam that breeds terror. That culture exists in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and a slew of other Middle Eastern nations. Obviously it is not feasable to attack and occupy every nation which breeds and finances terror. The objective is to influence their culture by injecting, into the region, some superior western values such as freedom, democracy, respect for women, and civilized jurisprudence. Every human being, by their very nature, has a natural yurning for such things. The object is not to replace Islam with Christianity but rather to help bring Islam into the 21st century.

For example, one of the most important aspects of any culture is the role which women play in society. Women are, universaly, a very moderating force in society. However, in most Islamic cultures, women have no freedom of expression, no influence within the familiy, and are essentially enslaved in bondage. This has a very negative effect on men in these societies. We're not suggesting that the West force Brittany Spears down there throats as an example of appropriate roles for women in society. On the contrary, she's a horrible influence on even our culture.

My point here is that there are some serious deficiencies with Islamic cultures and the situation will not improve without a swift kick in the ass.

Usually is it pointless to make this case because the conclusions are instantly rejected by those on the left and replace by your favorite conspiracy theory.

Christianity teaches to let go of self-control and let God have more of it.

Christianity teaches nothing of the sort. Once again, you have effectively demonstrated the transparency of your ignorance.

[Mr Farrius]

Once again, it is you that must have the honor. Don't you dare presume to tell me what my religion teaches me. I, a Christian am taught, as all Christians are taught to give up control of our lives to Jesus. This is not Catholicism. If you want some kind of source, there's a book called Purpose Driven Life written by a Christian pastor addressing all Christians, which might help you greatly.

[righturnonred]

Christians are taught to give up control of our lives to Jesus

Tone it down pal. I still disagree with you. Catholicism, or other sects of Christianity do not mandate the forfeiture of ones own autonomy to God, in fact, one of the central notions of Christianity is that all people, good or evil, possess free will. I don't think you know what your talking about.

Tell me, what do you mean when you say Christians are taught to "give up control of our lives to Jesus."? Does this mean that Jesus makes decisions for you? Does this mean that Jesus controls you like a marionette?

If you've read the book, you should be able to explain it to me.

[Morgan]

Mr. Farrius and Black Dog,

You asked what Saddam had to do with 9/11. Here are a few points which amplify on what Craig posted earlier today.

1. Saddam may have helped bank roll the 9/11 conspiracy . Atta met with an Iraqi high level diplomat several times in Prague before 9/11 and Czech officials think the two men made arrangements for Saddam's money to be directed to the hijackers in the USA. In a signed statement dated 24 February, 2003, Hynek Kmonicek, the Czech ambassador to the UN, says his government can confirm that during the stay of Mohamed Atta there was contact with Mr al-Ani, who was ultimately expelled from the Czech Republic on April 22, 2001.

The Praque Connection Re-visited, by Edward J. Epstein, Slate, Nov.18/03

This month, I went to Prague to meet with Czech officials who had directly handled the pre-9/11 expulsion of a senior Iraqi diplomat, a case that would became known as the Prague Connection. Because it goes to the heart of the issue of whether Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the attack on the World Trade Center, this controversy has continued to rage, without any satisfying conclusion, for more than two years…The Czechs reviewing these visits in retrospect further assumed that Atta's business in Prague was somehow related to his activities in the United States, given that large sums of laundered funds began to flow to the 9/11 conspiracy in June 2000, after Atta left Prague...some part of the mechanism behind the activities of hijacker-terrorists may have been based in Prague at least until mid April 2001.

2.Excerpts from an independent Iraqi newspaper detail how Saddam provided for the training of 100 Al Qaida terrorists. One group of Al Quaida were trained in Salaman Pak on the hi-jacking of planes and using knives, and after leaving Iraq, they went on to stage 9/11 just 2 months later . The other group trained in Al-Nahrawan and are now fighting coalition forces. The training of the 2 groups was supervised by the Fedayeen Command. Btw,on Sunday, April 6, 2003, soldiers of the 7th Marine Regiment found a rusted shell of an old passenger jet with its tail broken off in an empty field, along with a fire engine, a wreck of a double-decker bus, and three green and red train cars stuck in the dirt, suggesting that the terrorists were training on how to take over a bus or train cars as well as a plane.

Iraqi weekly Al-Yawm Al-Aakher reveals details on the training of Al-Qa'ida in Iraq 2months prior to 9/11

3. Richard Miniter has a good article in Tech Central that summarizes all the links between Iraq and Al Quiada, including 9/11 collaboration. Mr. Farrius, fyi, Miniter's summary is very concise, based on evidence that's public record -- government reports, congressional testimony,and newspaper accounts. Miniter is a contributing journalist to Wall Street Journal and is the author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror."

The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections by Richard Miniter, Tech Central,Sept.25/03

4. Deroy Murdock has an excellent article in National Review, Oct. 21, 2003 on Saddam's connection to several incidents of international terrorism, including 9/11, and he calls for the Bush Admin. to tell the public the truth about Saddam's possible link to 9/11 instead of staying mum on the matter.(Contrary to leftwing spin, the Bush Admin. has never associated Saddam with 9/11...in fact, it's been quite the opposite)

A summary of Saddam's links to terrorism by Deroy Murdock, Oct. 21, 2003

Coalition troops destroyed at least three terrorist training camps including a base near Baghdad called Salman Pak...While Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, ringleader of the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot, fled the U.S. on a Pakistani passport, he arrived here on an Iraqi passport...On January 5, 2000, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi airport greeter reportedly dispatched from Baghdad's embassy in Malaysia — welcomed Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi to Kuala Lampur and escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. He was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001, six days after al Midhar and al Hamzi slammed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 216 people. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered papers tying him to the 1993 WTC plot and "Operation Bojinka," al Qaeda's 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets over the Pacific at once...Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge Harold Baer ordered Hussein and his ousted regime to pay $104 million in damages to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, both killed in the Twin Towers along with 2,790 others...sufficient evidence tied Hussein to 9/11 and secured a May 7 federal judgment against him.

The following contributed to the "material evidence" supplied by the families of 9/11 victims to Judge Harold Baer:Yusuf Galan, an alleged terrorist accused of helping the 9/11 conspirators was arrested in Spain and Spanish authorities discovered documentation at his home that tied him and others to Iraqi officials.

Spain links suspect in 9/11 plot to Baghdad, The Observer, March 16, 2003

Yusuf Galan, who was photographed being trained at a camp run by Osama bin Laden, is now in jail, awaiting trial in Madrid. The indictment against him, drawn up by investigating judge Baltasar Garzon, claims he was 'directly involved with the preparation and carrying out of the attacks ... by the suicide pilots on 11 September'. Evidence of Galan's links with Iraqi government officials came to light only recently, as investigators pored through more than 40,000 pages of documents seized in raids at the homes of Galan and seven alleged co-conspirators. The Spanish authorities have supplied copies to lawyers in America, and this week the documents will form part of a dossier to be filed in a federal court in Washington, claiming damages of approximately $100 billion on behalf of more than 2,500 11 September victims.

5. Saddam's Iraqi agents might have been the masterminds behind Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing.[

Iraqis linked to Oklahoma atrocity, Evening Standard, October 21, 2002

The methodically assembled dossier from Jayna Davis, a former investigative TV reporter, could destroy the official version that white supremacists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were solely responsible for what, at the time, was the worst act of terrorism on American soil...Instead, there are serious concerns that a group of Arab men with links to Iraqi intelligence, Palestinian extremists and possibly al Qaeda, used McVeigh and Nichols as front men to blow up the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City...she has evidence that up to 12,000 Iraqis were allowed into America after the Gulf war. Some of these, she suspects, are using their status as refugees for cover. "They are here," she said. "And they are highly trained and motivated."...There is another confirmed incident that suggests something more sinister. Two of the 11 September conspirators held a crucial meeting at a motel in Oklahoma City in August 2001. The motel's owner has since identified them as ringleader Mohammed Atta and Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, who has known links with shoebomber Richard Reid. The motel is unremarkable - except for one thing. It is where a number of Davis's witnesses are sure they saw McVeigh drinking and perhaps plotting with his Iraqi friends

Jayna Davis maintains her own website with all her research regarding Saddam's link to the Oklahoma bombings. Her website has too many active links to summarize here.

Jayna Davis's personal website and her research with linked articles

[SirRiff]

You asked what Saddam had to do with 9/11. Here are a few points which amplify on what Craig posted earlier today.

does it strike anybody rather odd that if all this obvious evidence exists, the bush admin several statements clarifying saddam had nothing to do with 911 would be false?

if there is evidence, why is it being argued on a canadian message board rather then by the bush admin? especially considering it would have given them real justification for going into iraq and helped thier position in the world.

did bush just forget all this 'evidence'? were they wrong when they admitted saddam had nothing to do with 911?

please explain

sirriff

[Craig Read]

As i stated WMD is a one of many reasons to invade Iraq and use it as a base to rebuild the Middle East. The War against Terror has been in effect against the West and civilisation since the 1970s. We have finally [oops i mean the British and Americans] woken up and addressed the threat.

Trust me the Iraqis themselves want the US there and know they are better off.

JALAL TALABANI

It has been my privilege to preside over the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) during a month of momentous events. We now have an agreement for the transfer of authority between the Coalition, the liberators, and the IGC, the representatives of the liberated Iraqis. President Bush has outlined an inspiring vision for a free and democratic Middle East. Our American friends are resolutely striking back at the vicious remnants of Saddam's regime and damaging the network of Baathists and foreign Islamists attempting to destroy the Iraqi experiment in democracy. Yet these gains could easily be forfeited if we Iraqis do not bear the brunt of the fighting.

......

Only the U.S. was capable of toppling Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, a brilliantly executed campaign in which the Kurdish guerrillas, the peshmerga, were the only Iraqis to take casualties fighting with the Coalition. The defeat of the terrorists, however, must be largely an Iraqi endeavour. By taking up arms and routing the terrorists, Iraqis will own their new democracy -- nobody will be able to say that it has been handed to them.

Two measures must be taken so that Iraqis can fight side by side with your brave GIs. First, we need to use existing Iraqi patriotic forces. There are over 60,000 peshmerga who have fought alongside the Coalition and who are keen to contribute. We accept the sensitivities that preclude using Kurdish troops in Arab areas. However, the peshmerga can be used to provide backup and guard facilities, as well as protect the borders of our country, thereby freeing up Iraqi forces for operations in the Sunni Triangle.

Talabani is right - time for the Iraqi's to start to organise their affairs and share the burdens of building a state.

[Black Dog]

Iraq is the perfect base from which to remake the Middle East. It will work and contrary to media hysteria and the unfortunate deaths of 200 soldiers since March, there is much good work going on in Iraq. The US and Britain must stay the course for the coming 5 years to reform and remodel Iraq.

The objective is to influence their culture by injecting, into the region, some superior western values such as freedom, democracy, respect for women, and civilized jurisprudence. Every human being, by their very nature, has a natural yurning for such things. The object is not to replace Islam with Christianity but rather to help bring Islam into the 21st century.

Of course, imperialism has ever draped itself in the cloak of lofty rhetoric. What we see above and in the utterances of like-minded apologists is simply a rehashing of the "white man's burden" that was the driving force behind western imperialism in the past few centuries. Of course, even then the notion that "we" were saving the benighted peoples of the world from themselves was a convenient justification for the material enrichment of the mother country through the systematic exploitation of local populations and resources, while the question of whether or not such interventionism is justified or even mandated is entirely ignored. The goals of today's neo-imperialists are very much the same, albeit with some very modern twists. For example, today’s empires are more inclined to rule by proxy, as opposed to exerting direct control. Of course, that doesn’t mean the west is disinclined to utilize force when it feels it is necessary. Iraq provides an ideal example of this pattern where the Western powers supported the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein so long as he suited the political, economic and strategic needs of the west. Indeed, in 1991, New York Times diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman noted that if Saddam could be toppled without a major shift in the current power structure, "Washington would have the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein," a return to the days when Saddam's "iron fist...held Iraq together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia." In other words, Washington and its allies abroad were content to allow the Kurds and Shiites (whose suffering is often cited as prime example off why Saddam’s inhumane regime needed to be ousted) continue to languish under conditions of terror and oppression, just so long as the such an arrangement suited their needs. This included providing material and moral support to Saddam right up until the invasion of Kuwait. The subsequent denial of support to rebel factions attempting to oust Hussein and the crippling, unprecedented, militarily enforced economic sanctions which deprived the country of medical textbooks, water purification equipment, essential medicines, and many kinds of food reinforce this point.

The historical record is quite clear that, despite the continued lip-service paid to promoting abstract concepts such as “freedom” and “democracy” (with little examination of what such terms actually mean or their application), the forces of western imperialism aren’t shy about trampling the self-same concepts in the name of their own national interests and brand of realpolitik. Of course, such incidents (be it past support for repressive regimes in the name of waging the “Cold War” or the continuation of such a policy today under the guise of the war on terror) are subject to post-facto justifications that excuse any atrocity on the grounds that such action prevented a greater evil from being perpetrated. Concern, then, for human rights, for the promotion of freedom and democracy, rings hollow in light of the ongoing contempt for these concepts exhibited by the west (both in dealings abroad, as well as at home, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of the history of, for example, the labour movement could tell you).

In the instance of Iraq, the idea of that nation is to be used as a base from which to remake the Mideast in the west’s own image is patently false. Considering the close relationship enjoyed by the west with other undemocratic regimes in the region (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait come to mind), one has to wonder why such a regional reformation required subjecting the Iraqi people to brute military force when an application of economic and political pressure could, theoretically, have brought about the same results in the friendly nations of the region. Consider, for example, the case of Kuwait. In 1991, after successfully ousting Iraqi forces from the oil-rich sheikdom, the western powers (led by the U.S. and Britain) had an ideal opportunity to leverage domestic democratic reforms. Instead, the status quo was quickly restored, showing that the west’s concerns for democracy and human rights are always trumped by basic economic interests (read: oil).

To close, I find the abject faith placed in the intentions of the U.S. towards Iraq and the Mideast region to be, at best, misplaced and, at worst, naïve in light of historical precedent and current actions. The conflict between what is said and what is done is so apparent, the parallels to the past so obvious that to honestly believe this “new” war is somehow anything more than a retelling of the sordid tale of empires past takes a almost willful act of ignorance or a mind-boggling ideological blindness.

Saddam may have helped bank roll the 9/11 conspiracy . Atta met with an Iraqi high level diplomat several times in Prague before 9/11 and Czech officials think the two men made arrangements for Saddam's money to be directed to the hijackers in the USA. In a signed statement dated 24 February, 2003, Hynek Kmonicek, the Czech ambassador to the UN, says his government can confirm that during the stay of Mohamed Atta there was contact with Mr al-Ani, who was ultimately expelled from the Czech Republic on April 22, 2001.

How many times has this been debunked already?

PRAGUE, Oct. 20 — The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, has quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohamed Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague just months before the attacks on New York and Washington, according to Czech officials.

Mr. Havel discreetly called Washington to tell senior Bush administration officials that an initial report from the Czech domestic intelligence agency that Mr. Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, in Prague in April 2001 could not be substantiated.

Czech officials did not say precisely when Mr. Havel told the White House to disregard the reports of the meeting, but extensive interviews with leading Czech figures make clear that he did so quietly some time earlier this year in an effort to avoid publicly embarrassing other prominent officials in his government, who had given credibility to the reports through their public and private statements in the months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.-New York Times Oct. 20, 2002

As for the rest, links between Iraq and 9-11 has been denied at the White House level on down.Now, apparently, their words not good enough for you? As for links between Iraq and Al Q'aaeda, I would expect that the administration, which claims to have "solid evidence" of such links (evidence it has failed to produce), would certainly play up such an angel, especially in the face of growing uncertainty over America's involvement. Instead, the possible connection between the religious extremist bin Laden and the Stalnist Hussein are treated as throwaway lines, which merely casts more doubt on the claims and the credibility of the administration as a whole.

[Morgan]

As for the rest, links between Iraq and 9-11 has been denied at the White House level on down.Now, apparently, their words not good enough for you?

Black Dog,

1. Bush denied any direct link of 9/11 to Iraq in September because the USA has no "hard evidence." Cheney had been raked over the coals just the week before for suggesting that link in an interview with Tom Russet. Material and logistical support by Saddam is not enough to say Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. Even Richard Woolsey, who was the CIA Director appointed by Clinton, says the ongoing co-operation between Saddam and Al Quaeda is obvious, and it's arguable but there's no hard evidence to link Saddam with 9/11.

Clinton's ex-CIA Chief, Woolsey, says Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda are a "slam dunk", Nov.18/03

Commenting on a memo issued by the Defense Department to the Senate Intelligence Committee and revealed by the Weekly Standard late Friday, Woolsey told CNN's "Late Edition," "Anybody who says there is no working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early '90s, they can only say that if they're illiterate." "This is a slam dunk," the Clinton-era CIA chief contended, noting that his successor, George Tenet, had said the same thing in briefings last year.

"It's a different question whether Iraqi intelligence had something to do with 9/11," said Woolsey. But he added, "That is certainly arguable."

2. Read "Catastrophe" by Posner, a registered Democrat Wall Street lawyer, who suggests it would be a big can of worms for the Bush Admin. to get too close to linking Saddam with 9/11. It would cause Americans to not be able to sleep at night, knowing that bureaucrats in the intelligence agencies and State Dept. as well as politicians in Congress were failing them with regards to national security, promoting personal interests instead. As well, Bush's war on terrorism would be compromised if he linked 9/11 to Saddam because in so doing it would be also revealed that so-called "allies" in moderate Muslim countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia were not that far removed from Saddam in their support of terrorism.

[righturnonred]

Of course, imperialism has ever draped itself in the cloak of lofty rhetoric.

On the contrary, while the justifications for imperialistic ventures in the past have often been cloaked in lofty rhetoric, historical occurences of imperialism have always been transparent and self-evident. No matter how strong your inclination, the fact ramains that you are hard pressed to offer any evidence that the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has occured for any reason other than those stated by our leaders.

simply a rehashing of the "white man's burden" that was the driving force behind western imperialism in the past few centuries.

That may be the way you view it but the driving force here is clearly the fight against terrorism and the desire to protect our sacred values.

The goals of today's neo-imperialists are very much the same, albeit with some very modern twists. For example, today’s empires are more inclined to rule by proxy

Provide a present example of America's rule by proxy.

Iraq provides an ideal example of this pattern where the Western powers supported the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein so long as he suited the political, economic and strategic needs of the west.

Alliances with other soverign nations are not evidence of imperialism.

Indeed, in 1991, New York Times diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman noted that if Saddam could be toppled without a major shift in the current power structure

Indeed, how did he propose accomplishing that small miracle?

The subsequent denial of support to rebel factions attempting to oust Hussein and the crippling, unprecedented, militarily enforced economic sanctions which deprived the country of medical textbooks, water purification equipment, essential medicines, and many kinds of food reinforce this point.

Such support of rebel factions following the Iraqi withdrawl from Kuwait was not possible due to the limited scope of the UN mandate. US military commanders, on the other hand, recognized a golden opportunity to follow Saddam back to Baghdad and end the threat once an for all.

militarily enforced economic sanctions which deprived the country of medical textbooks, water purification equipment, essential medicines, and many kinds of food reinforce this point.

Lets be accurate here about who was responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people. Economic sanctions were tailored to restrict military and duel use technologies and materials. Provision were made to provide food and medicines to the Iraqi population. Saddam, and to some extent UN bureaucrats, abused the Oil for Food program in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the Iraqi people.

The historical record is quite clear that, despite the continued lip-service paid to promoting abstract concepts such as “freedom” and “democracy”

Your historical record is revisionist and tainted by an inaccurate definition of imperialism. The United States is simply trying to play the same game as everyone else.

application of economic and political pressure could, theoretically, have brought about the same results in the friendly nations of the region.

Where's the evidence of that? If history shows anything, its that economic and political pressure placed upon the leadership of nations has been, at best, ineffective at enacting democratic reforms in other countries. The point here is that the people must taste democracy and freedom in order for us to achieve our objectives in the region.

to honestly believe this “new” war is somehow anything more than a retelling of the sordid tale of empires past takes a almost willful act of ignorance or a mind-boggling ideological blindness.

I find it far more unbelievable your conspriacy theory that the war on terror is nothing more than a clandestine land, oil, and money grab. While I would not neccessarily condsider you ignorant in a general sense, your learned hatred for America is certainly blinding your judgement.

[Black Dog]

On the contrary, while the justifications for imperialistic ventures in the past have often been cloaked in lofty rhetoric, historical occurences of imperialism have always been transparent and self-evident. No matter how strong your inclination, the fact ramains that you are hard pressed to offer any evidence that the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has occured for any reason other than those stated by our leaders.

Time will tell, but given the massive(untendered) reconsruction contracts being handed out to administration cronies, the slow pace of the turnover in power (still no constitution)

That may be the way you view it but the driving force here is clearly the fight against terrorism and the desire to protect our sacred values

That may be the way you view it, but if you read the content of the posts I was responiding too, the comparasons become apparrent.

Provide a present example of America's rule by proxy.

The Phillipines.

Indeed, how did he propose accomplishing that small miracle?

Beats me, I'm just the messanger. But I think you're missing the point.

Your historical record is revisionist and tainted by an inaccurate definition of imperialism. The United States is simply trying to play the same game as everyone else.

At last some honesty. In other words, the U.S. is playing the geopolitics game, which means they will seek to protect and expand their interests by any means available and necessary. That's understandable. However, it's the characterization of the U.S. as being somehow, by it's very existence, the sole arbiter and emodiment of all that is pure and right in this world that grates. Truth is, the US is just as amoral as any other government. problem is, their reach is so much longer.

While I would not neccessarily condsider you ignorant in a general sense, your learned hatred for America is certainly blinding your judgement

Where do I indicate any hatred for America. Actually, what does that even mean? Seems to me it's the same old tired line that equates criticism of government policy as hatred for the concept of a nations existence. I have said before, but will say it again for your benefit: I don't hate America, but feel more dissapointed in the way that a nation founded on the highest ideals has been hijacked by the forces of greed, corruption , ignorance and hate.

[righturnonred]

Time will tell

Fair enough.

the slow pace of the turnover in power (still no constitution)

I can assure you, the US would prefer to hand this thing off as soon as possible, however to do so before the new government can stand on its own would almost certainly mean the return of the previous regime. The delays we are witnessing are due to the endless bickering among members of the Iraqi Governing Council. That is why Bush has instructed Bremmer to take a more active role is churning out a constitution and a bill of rights.

The Phillipines.

The Philippines were ceded by Spain to the US in 1898 following the Spanish-American War. They attained independence in 1946 after Japanese occupation in World War II. The 21-year rule of Ferdinand Marcos ended in 1986, when a widespread popular rebellion forced him into exile. In 1992, the US closed its last military bases on the islands. The Philippines has had two electoral presidential transitions since the removal of Marcos.

Where is the rule by proxy here?

the US is just as amoral as any other government.

This statement is completely false. Do you seriously contend that one can equate the morality of the US government with governments such as Iraq, Syria, Iran, N. Korea, Saudia Arabia, Palistine, China, etc. These governments are despotic. I also think its a stretch of the imagination to compare US morality to even France, Germany or many other European nations.

I know that it is the scope of American power and our willingness to apply it that erks you. But that's the way it and that's the way it's going to be. If you don't like it, you can run for office on a platform of isolationism and unilateral disarmament but I don't think that approach will resonate with voters.

Where do I indicate any hatred for America? a nation founded on the highest ideals has been hijacked by the forces of greed, corruption , ignorance and hate.

Your hatred and contempt for America is evidenced in your own words. The fact that you describe America as a greedy, corrupt, ignorant, hateful nation says as much. Conservatives, the true patriots and protectors of this nation regard your description of America as the antithesis of reality. We are not perfect as a nation, there are some ugly blemishes upon the history this country, but we remain above contempt on behalf of the countless despotic regimes around the world not to mention the collection of one party "republics" through out Europe.

[Mr Farrius]

Catholicism, or other sects of Christianity do not mandate the forfeiture of ones own autonomy to God, in fact, one of the central notions of Christianity is that all people, good or evil, possess free will. I don't think you know what your talking about.

Tell me, what do you mean when you say Christians are taught to "give up control of our lives to Jesus."? Does this mean that Jesus makes decisions for you? Does this mean that Jesus controls you like a marionette?

Can you read? I believe I have made it blatantly clear that this does not apply to Catholicism. This is not an issue of free will, but of control. Since you are not deeply religious as you have stated, let me attempt to explain. The issue of free will in Christianity applies to whether the person decides to accept Jesus or not. When you accept Jesus as your personal Savior, you have made the choice. That is the free will that you probably understand. Second, giving up control of our lives most definitely doesn't mean Jesus controls us like we're puppets. It does not mean that Jesus makes decisions for us. Rather it means that we give up control of our lives to Jesus so that we trust that He'll make sure things turn out right for us in the end. In other words, he controls our lives, not our physical beings. If according to the Christian belief, God created us, would it make sense for Him to give us brains to make our own decisions if He's going to physically make our own decisions for us and control us like we're dolls...?

The mundane aspects of life, such as getting a job, or starting a business become trivialized because everything is under God's control and not ours. We do not try to control everything, because obviously we're not God.

Catholicism, to be blunt, is a corrupt form of Christianity that barely follows even the basic teachings of the Bible, not to deeply offend any Catholics on this forum but it is true and no Catholic has been able to adequately explain why.

I apologize if this digresses from the topic at hand but it was merely in response to rightturnonred.

[SirRiff]

oddly nobody addressed my very targeted question as to why the US gov isnt citing all this so called evidence...i will repost the questions that need to be answered before anybody could even consider the arguments put forward..

does it strike anybody rather odd that if all this obvious evidence exists, the bush admin several statements clarifying saddam had nothing to do with 911 would be false?

if there is evidence, why is it being argued on a canadian message board rather then by the bush admin? especially considering it would have given them real justification for going into iraq and helped thier position in the world.

did bush just forget all this 'evidence'? were they wrong when they admitted saddam had nothing to do with 911?

please explain

sirriff

[Craig Read]

I have listed sources from the past - 1990s - including Clinton, the UNO and European sources and one from CSIS. Do a search on this site. As well i quoted extensively from Kay's latest submission. That is on this site as well.

WMD exists, will be found and until the terror in Iraq is halted will take more time than originally forecasted [6 months was the original estimate].

As I also stated, I am part of the 'who cares' about WMD group. Bush made a mistake [i said this just after the invasion on this site] in emphasising WMD. Iraq is the front line of the war on terror. That should have been the party line. In any event we [or at least the boys with balls, sans les grands canadiens], are there, so we have to get Iraq organised within 5 years.

This is a notable and needed first step in the war against terror.

Stop crying about WMD.

[Craig Read]

As well i should add [again] that the UNO [not my favorite jamboree], has again emphasized that Al Qaeda has WMD.

Terrorism is going to get uglier and bloodier before it is defeated. Another good reason to be in Iraq, Afghanistan and soon, hopefully, other countries. If we have to, we will need to fight door to door to win this.

Some members of al Qaeda most likely possess portable surface-to-air missiles and may use them to target military transport planes, a U.N. report says.

The threat was among several findings detailed in the report by the United Nations' al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee which also cited a shifting of the terror network's strategy, a move towards "softer" targets and a warning the group was working towards a biological or chemical attack.

[Morgan]

Sir Riff,

Fyi, I answered your "targeted" question about the Bush Admin. not trumpeting that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11. It's about 5 messages back.

[Mr Farrius]

WMD exists, will be found and until the terror in Iraq is halted will take more time than originally forecasted [6 months was the original estimate].

As I also stated, I am part of the 'who cares' about WMD group. Bush made a mistake [i said this just after the invasion on this site] in emphasising WMD.

This is a notable and needed first step in the war against terror.

Stop crying about WMD.

It is extremely interesting, that WMDs and the "protection of the American people" were used primarily to justify the war. Now that intelligence like the CIA proves constantly that there is barely chance of WMD's in IRAQ, and nobody is finding anything, "who cares." Extremely interesting indeed.

[Craig Read]

Well interesting to you, who does not bother to read the posts on the topic or information sources other than the French or Cdn media which propagates the 'all is woe' theory.

Attacks on U.S. troops have fallen by 70% in Baghdad since the U.S. launched a new offensive against insurgents nearly two weeks ago, a top U.S. Army commander said Thursday.

Brig. Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the Army division overseeing Baghdad, said U.S. forces were gathering more intelligence and focusing their raids on discrete areas of the capital believed to be harboring the insurgents.

He also suggested that much of the progress made has come from lower profile raids and arrests than on the spectacular bombing runs against mainly empty buildings.

There is debate within Washington about the guerrillas' level of organization and ability to continue to challenge U.S. forces. Gen. Dempsey offered a mixed picture, saying that the insurgents themselves didn't appear to be particularly well-trained. "It's very primitive, unsophisticated stuff," Gen. Dempsey said. "When they shoot those rockets, I can assure you they have very little idea where they're going."

Iraq will be secured and WMD will be found.

Huge stockpiles of weapons and ammunition are being uncovered weekly.

[Morgan]

I stumbled across these amazing 1945 NYT headlines that were posted on a political news blogspot called CounterRevolutionary. The posting thread is named "Ghosts of Occupations Past-Marshall lied" and can viewed by scrolling down from Nov. 20 through Nov.03.

There are also live links to other threads re: WW II news headlines postings at the end of the Nov. 17 message ie. Ghosts of occupations past-trouble brews as well as Ghosts of occupations past-the peace is lost.

NYT headlines from 1945 and their relevance today

For now I'll just highlight what the blogger said on Nov. 20 under the "Marshall lied" thread of NYT 1945 headlines:

While researching the Allied occupation of Germany, I discovered a shocking truth -- WWII was illegitimate! You see, Germany had no atomic weapons program even though the US government insisted that it did...For emphasis, let me repeat a paragraph from the story:"Chairman McMahon, Democrat, of Connecticut, suggested that General George C. Marshall, former Chief of Staff, had been wrong in speaking of a race between Germany and the Allies in developing the weapon. Dr. Goudsmit said apparently we knew as little about Germany's progress as they did about ours."I know, I stretching here -- WMD was not a reason that the US attacked Germany. But by today's sensibilities -- nothing else that Hitler did would have mattered. After all, Hitler never attacked the US. Our war against him was pre-emptive. If we use today's standards, his aggression against his neighbors, his genocide or even his abuse of his own people would not have mattered. And he had no WMD to boot! Are we left with any reasons that justified fighting Hitler that are not passé today?So when we look back at WWII we should remember how savagely the so-called "Greatest Generation" attacked, without provocation, the harmonious people of the German Co-operative ("Reich" is such a loaded term), whose utopia stretched all the way from Brittany to Bergen-Belsen....PS I hear it was all due to an Anglican cabal in FDR's cabinet...

I think these headlines from WWII shed valuable "truths" about we must eventually stand up to evil in our midst...and even though the usual suspects in the international community and the doom and gloom talking heads in the media may disagree, their opinions do not make the action of removing evil any less right...

[KrustyKidd]

It is extremely interesting, that WMDs and the "protection of the American people" were used primarily to justify the war. Now that intelligence like the CIA proves constantly that there is barely chance of WMD's in IRAQ, and nobody is finding anything, "who cares." Extremely interesting indeed.

So which is it? CIA gives good intelligence or bad? When I point our Kay's report you deem him a pupet of the CIA and when you say a general statement it is from the same source we are to take it as chisled in stone.

Farris, I went over this in another thread. I'll condense for you. WMD were an excuse to take Saddam out. That's it. Your first heads up was when the US started talking about "Regieme Change" rather than "Disarmament."

I know your whole argument on whether the US is good or bad hinges on them not finding WMD but that was not the reason for the action in the first place. However, if you are intent on persuing the WMD thing then be aware that Kay has found enough to vindicate the US action. Yes, Saddam was not allowed to have anything and so far all sorts of things have turned up. You don't accept that evidence as it comes from Kay?

Why is Kay in Iraq? To secure the material so that it is not reconstituted. Not trying to save Bush from a bunch of ponytailed Socialist/Islamic Fundementalist peace activists.

In short seeding Democracy was the objective. To make a prosperous Iraq a symbol of what democracy can bring to the Middle East and stop terrorism from having a place to grow. An example. Other than the American Civil war, when was the last time a democracy declared war on another democracy?