Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War in Iraq, is there a point?
Monk
Member (Idle past 3954 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 61 of 308 (235697)
08-22-2005 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by FairWitness
08-22-2005 7:05 PM


Re: Why we are fighting in Iraq.
If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links?
I thought this was an interesting point in your article.
But as far as evidence of the link between Sadaam and Al-Queda, I hope you realize that the only sufficient evidence to some is a document jointly signed by Sadaam and Bin Laden in which both swear to kill all Americans by nuclear bomb. Even then, they will claim the document a forgery.
No, I’m afraid we would need to get our hands on a video showing Sadaam and Bin Laden actually discussing the attack with Sadaam holding a map of New York with his finger pointing to the twin towers. That might do. Then again, probably not.
I’ve posted these before, all have been dismissed by critics. Ah well.
Mother of all connections
Papers found show link to Sadaam
Overview of the evidence linking Sadaam to Al Queda

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by FairWitness, posted 08-22-2005 7:05 PM FairWitness has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by FairWitness, posted 08-22-2005 8:49 PM Monk has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6526 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 62 of 308 (235698)
08-22-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
08-22-2005 7:37 PM


Re: Another Tack
Hey shraf, I totally agree with you. But in the name of fairness, do you think you could cite articles and relevant sources?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 08-22-2005 7:37 PM nator has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 63 of 308 (235699)
08-22-2005 7:41 PM


What are the risks?
I think the larger motive for the war in Iraq is to change the Middle East. Iraq was the easiest target. Iran probably is more important, but I think we felt Iran might change on it's own.
Many claim Iraq is a huge mistake, and if all Ben Laden and the Islamo-fascists have up their sleeve is 911-type of attacks, they could have a point.
If Islamo-fascists really are working and have a good chance of obtaining WMDs and can launch them, such as nukes, then it probably is worth the risk.
Without knowing the risks, it's a judgment call on the president's part. If Al Qaeda has nukes, then we may well not be aggressive enough.
In some respects, I think Bush's mistake was to take so long to attack Iraq. Had he moved against Saddam right after 911, it would have gone over better politically around the world.
I also think we have moved too slow to call elections and did not have a quick enough plan. In general, I think our problem is we are too slow. For example, we could have had a plan for an interim Iraq already drawn up to be implemented for 2-5 years, and let the new Iraqi Congress sort things out, and not provide so much of the security needs. If civil war erupted, we could then have a situation where one side asks for our help and so we agree to assist if they accept certain conditions.
Basically, I sort of think we don't play hardball enough with this area of the world.
I also probably would have advocated targetting Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all the rest after 911, and cleaned out Lebanon and toppled Syria first.
Maybe what we should have done is told Syria, Iran, and Iraq that they must cease all terror activities within 48 hours or we'll bomb the heck out of them until they do, and never send in large ground troops and don't help them rebuild and take a more punitive approach to ending their WMDs programs.

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 08-22-2005 7:49 PM randman has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 308 (235700)
08-22-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by FairWitness
08-22-2005 7:33 PM


Re: Why we are fighting in Iraq.
quote:
Who cares whether we've captured bin Laden or not?
I care.
Everyone I know cares.
I'll be willing to bet that all of the people who lost loved ones in on 9/11 care very much that the bastard who killed all those people be brought to justice and rot in prison.
He's the fucker who did it, and he still needs to pay.
Why did we pull all those resources out of Afghanistan and send them to Iraq when Bin Laden was the one who ACTUALLY hurt us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by FairWitness, posted 08-22-2005 7:33 PM FairWitness has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 7:54 PM nator has not replied
 Message 76 by FairWitness, posted 08-22-2005 8:54 PM nator has replied

FairWitness
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 308 (235701)
08-22-2005 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by nator
08-22-2005 7:27 PM


Re: Another Tack
Let's see what you have to say about these.
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Saturday, April 17, 2004 2:10 p.m. EDT
King Abdullah: Al-Qaida WMDs Came From Syria
Jordan's King Abdullah revealed on Saturday that vehicles reportedly containing chemical weapons and poison gas that were part of a deadly al-Qaida bomb plot came from Syria, the country named by U.S. weapons inspector David Kay last year as a likely repository for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
"It was a major, major operation. It would have decapitated the government," King Abdullah told the San Francisco Chronicle. Jordanian officials estimated that the death count could have been as high as 20,000 - seven times greater than the Sept. 11 attacks.
King Abdullah said that trucks containing 17.5 tons of explosives had come from Syria, though he took pains not to implicate Syrian President Bashir Assad in the al-Qaida plot, saying, "I'm completely confident that Bashir did not know about it."
In his testimony before Congress last year, weapons inspector Kay said U.S. satellite surveillance showed substantial vehicular traffic going from Iraq to Syria just prior to the U.S. attack on March 19, 2003.
While Kay said investigators couldn't be sure the cargo contained weapons of mass destruction, one of his top advisers described the evidence as "unquestionable."
"People below the Saddam-Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse," said James Clapper in comments reported by the New York Times on Oct. 29. Clapper heads the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
Israeli intelligence has long believed that after the U.S. delayed invasion plans to allow U.N. weapons inspectors time to search for Iraq's WMDs, Saddam moved the banned weapons to Syria, the only other country ruled by the Ba'ath Party.
On April 1, Jordanian officials announced the arrest of several terrorist suspects, saying they were still hunting for two cars filled with explosives.
Five days later, the State Department revealed that the attackers were linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-based terrorist considered to be one of al-Qaida's most dangerous. One of Zarqawi's targets was the U.S. Embassy in Amman.
By Saturday morning European news services were quoting an unnamed Jordanian official, who revealed that the al-Qaida plotters planned to use weapons of mass destruction in the foiled attack.
"We found primary materials to make a chemical bomb which, if it had exploded, would have made nearly 20,000 deaths ... in an area of one square kilometre," the official told Agence France-Press.
Another operation planned by the network was to use "deadly gas against the US embassy and the prime minister's office in Amman," he added.
A car belonging to the al-Qaida plotters, containing a chemical bomb and poisonous gas, was intercepted just 75 miles from the Syrian border.
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Saddam Confidant Linked to al-Qaida Group
NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Oct. 30, 2003
WASHINGTON — A top aide to Saddam Hussein is believed to be working with an al-Qaida-linked terrorist group to coordinate attacks in Iraq, says a senior defense official.
Two captured members of Ansar al-Islam have identified Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri as a force behind some of the attacks, the official said Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity.
It is the first solid evidence of links between remnants of Saddam's regime and the non-Iraqi fighters responsible for at least some of the attacks on U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies, the official said.
Pentagon officials say Ansar al-Islam, which operated in northern Iraq before its camp was destroyed during the war, poses one of the greatest threats in Iraq. Military commanders have said they believe hundreds of non-Iraqi fighters from Ansar have entered Iraq to fight the U.S.-led occupation, many of them through neighboring Iran.
Al-Douri is No. 6 on the most-wanted list of 55 Iraqis and was vice chairman of Saddam's Revolutionary Command Council. He was one of Saddam's few longtime confidants and his daughter was married to Saddam's son Odai, who was killed in a raid by U.S. forces in July.
NBC News first reported the al-Douri link to Ansar al-Islam Tuesday night. Asked Wednesday about the report, Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said he did not know anything about it.
Attacks on American troops have surged this week to about 33 a day, up from 26 per day last week and 15 per day in early September. A series of car bombings in and near Baghdad this week killed more than three dozen people.
The New York Times reported Thursday that President Bush wanted to speed plans for putting Iraqi security forces on the streets of Baghdad and other areas where Americans have come under attack. The report, attributed to unidentified military and administration officials, said plan would mean arming 18- and 19-year-old Iraqis for security duty after only a few weeks of training.
U.S. officials have been searching for months for suspected links between Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters such as Ansar members. Bush and other U.S. officials have said they believe the bombings in Baghdad Monday were the work of Saddam loyalists, foreign fighters or both.
Pentagon officials say the Baghdad bombings, four explosions in different parts of the city in less than an hour, showed a level of sophistication they had not seen before. Di Rita said the bombings indicated coordination "at least at the regional level."
The defense official who discussed the al-Douri link said he did not know if the al-Douri-Ansar alliance was responsible for the Baghdad bombings. He said military officials don't know to what extent al-Douri was coordinating attacks with Ansar.
Earlier this month, American forces captured a top associate of al-Douri in the town of Baqouba north of Baghdad.
U.S. officials have said for at least two months they suspect al-Douri of coordinating attacks on Americans but had not previously linked him to Ansar.
Biowarfare
U.S. officials say Ansar al-Islam has links to al-Qaida and has experimented with producing crude biological and chemical weapons. The group operated in a small section of northern Iraq surrounded by Kurdish-controlled areas which were outside Saddam's control.
Kurdish officials have long alleged that Saddam's government helped Ansar, but U.S. officials have said they haven't yet found definitive proof of that.
2003 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Is America prepared for the next war?
Al-Qaeda
War on Terrorism
Bush Administration
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
GOP lawmaker: Saddam linked to 9/11
N.C. representative says 'evidence is clear'
NEW YORK (CNN) -- A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.
Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."
Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said that Saddam was a dangerous man, but when asked about Hayes' statement, would not link the deposed Iraqi ruler to the terrorist attacks on New York, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.
"I haven't seen compelling evidence of that," McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN.
On Tuesday night, President Bush mentioned the September 11 attacks five times during his address on the war in Iraq, prompting criticism from congressional Democrats. (Full story)
The 9/11 commission, appointed by Bush, presented its final report a year ago, saying that Osama bin Laden had been "willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq" at one time in the 1990s but that the al Qaeda leader "had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."
The 520-page report said investigators found no evidence that any "contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."
"Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States," it said.
President Bush said in September 2003 that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."
Nevertheless, Hayes insisted that the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam and "folks who work for him" has been seen "time and time again."
"Nobody disputes 9/11," Hayes said. "They would do it again if not prevented."
Find this article at:
Error
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 08-22-2005 7:27 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 66 of 308 (235702)
08-22-2005 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by randman
08-22-2005 7:41 PM


Re: What are the risks?
quote:
In some respects, I think Bush's mistake was to take so long to attack Iraq. Had he moved against Saddam right after 911, it would have gone over better politically around the world.
Wow, how do you figure?
Right after 9/11 we were correctly obsessed with Bin Laden.
Iraq was, and is, unrelated, or at best barely, distantly, tangentially related to Islamic terrorism in general, and probably not to 9/11 at all.
Since most of the hijackers were Saudi, including Bin Laden, why didn't the Administration take a hard look at that nation and why didn't they have anything to say about the radical imams in that country, the birthplace of radical islamic terrorism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 7:41 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 7:56 PM nator has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 67 of 308 (235705)
08-22-2005 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
08-22-2005 7:43 PM


Re: Why we are fighting in Iraq.
Why did we pull all those resources out of Afghanistan and send them to Iraq when Bin Laden was the one who ACTUALLY hurt us?
Good point. One explanation is he was in Pakistan, and to go into Pakistan would have entailed Pakistan falling to the terrorists or better terms Islamocists.
I'd say it was either that, or the conspiracy folks on the far left are right.
We also don't know yet exactly where all the nukes are in the world. Pakistan's top nuclear scientists was assisting North Korea and other states in their nuclear ambitions and seemed to have an alliance with hard-core communist nations against us.
Keep in mind the Taliban was the creation of the Pakistani's version of the CIA.
So we in the public don't know what's going on. My concern is neither does the administration. As hard as this is to swallow, the real trouble is with our so-called allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They seem to be front and center in the war against the US.
I also think we are underestimating the nuclear and other secret weapons of WMD's likelihood of being able to cripple the US.
Our nation, for example, is depandant on the power grid which can easily be knocked out, and maybe kept off-line, and it's not clear we could recover easily.
I think we are more vulnerable than people realize, and we could be facing a war on our own soil with WMDs deployed here in the States, and a lot of them, not just nukes but some more exotic weapons systems of the type Sec of Defense Cohen warned against in the 90s.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 08-22-2005 7:43 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 08-22-2005 8:06 PM randman has replied
 Message 72 by mick, posted 08-22-2005 8:23 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 68 of 308 (235707)
08-22-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by nator
08-22-2005 7:49 PM


Re: What are the risks?
Certainly, there are lots of complex issues at stake. I suspect we felt going after the Saudi regime would destabalize world oil prices, and result in an economic, global recession which may have been Ben Laden's goal all along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nator, posted 08-22-2005 7:49 PM nator has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 69 of 308 (235709)
08-22-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
08-22-2005 7:54 PM


Re: Why we are fighting in Iraq.
Good point. One explanation is he was in Pakistan, and to go into Pakistan would have entailed Pakistan falling to the terrorists or better terms Islamocists.
I'd say it was either that, or the conspiracy folks on the far left are right.
We also don't know yet exactly where all the nukes are in the world. Pakistan's top nuclear scientists was assisting North Korea and other states in their nuclear ambitions and seemed to have an alliance with hard-core communist nations against us.
Keep in mind the Taliban was the creation of the Pakistani's version of the CIA.
Does any of that have anything to do with Iraq?
Even if everything above were true (and I think they are at least highly likely) how would that logically lead to invading Iraq?
Are you saying that it was too destabilizing to invade Saudia Arabia or Pakistan so we had to invade Iraq?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 7:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 8:09 PM jar has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 308 (235712)
08-22-2005 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jar
08-22-2005 8:06 PM


Re: Why we are fighting in Iraq.
That was a response to why we did not put more forces in Afghanistan to get Ben Laden. If he was across the border, those forces would do no good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 08-22-2005 8:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 08-22-2005 8:17 PM randman has not replied
 Message 112 by nator, posted 08-23-2005 8:33 AM randman has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 71 of 308 (235714)
08-22-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
08-22-2005 8:09 PM


Re: Why we are fighting in Iraq.
Puting more forces in Afganistan might have helped stabilize Afganistan. It would have helped stabilize the border area between Afganistan and Pakistan, an area that is still wide open all these years later.
No, it looks like the current administration had more plan in Afganistan than they do in Iraq.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 8:09 PM randman has not replied

mick
Member (Idle past 5016 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 72 of 308 (235716)
08-22-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
08-22-2005 7:54 PM


dangers of wmd (a,k.a americans living in a dream world)
randman writes:
I also think we are underestimating the nuclear and other secret weapons of WMD's likelihood of being able to cripple the US.
Are those the same wmds that don't actually exist in the third world?? Because even the US government is now accepting there were no wmds in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Top global producer of wmds? USA
Top global exporter of wmds? USA
Top global investor in "new" wmds (i.e. bunker-busters etc.)? USA
Top global investor in the military? USA (equal to the combined investment of the rest of the world)
Major threat to world peace??? Can't be the USA can it?
Mick
This message has been edited by mick, 08-22-2005 08:27 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 7:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 8:49 PM mick has not replied
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 08-22-2005 8:54 PM mick has replied
 Message 125 by Tal, posted 08-23-2005 10:20 AM mick has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 73 of 308 (235722)
08-22-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by mick
08-22-2005 8:23 PM


Re: dangers of wmd (a,k.a americans living in a dream world)
In general I agree that we spend too much on the military and should cut spending.
In time of war though, I am not so sure how that works.
I do think we should think of ways to project force more cheaply, such as punitive action without nation-building to coerce Islamic nations with high numbers of terrorists into not developing WMD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by mick, posted 08-22-2005 8:23 PM mick has not replied

FairWitness
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 308 (235723)
08-22-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Monk
08-22-2005 7:40 PM


Re: Why we are fighting in Iraq.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil ... until they fly jets into more buildings, then what will they say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Monk, posted 08-22-2005 7:40 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Monk, posted 08-22-2005 9:19 PM FairWitness has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 75 of 308 (235726)
08-22-2005 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by mick
08-22-2005 8:23 PM


Re: dangers of wmd (a,k.a americans living in a dream world)
Top global producer of wmds? USA
Top global exporter of wmds? USA
Top global investor in "new" wmds (i.e. bunker-busters etc.)? USA
Top global investor in the military? USA (equal to the combined investment of the rest of the world)
Major threat to world peace??? Can't be the USA can it?
Oh wow, the guy with the power but benign motives is the threat, not the guy with the murderous motives and just barely enough power to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Typical leftist (un)reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by mick, posted 08-22-2005 8:23 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by FairWitness, posted 08-22-2005 9:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 79 by mick, posted 08-22-2005 9:09 PM Faith has replied
 Message 89 by randman, posted 08-22-2005 9:52 PM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024