The UN, US and Iraq IV

Saddam's "support" for Palestinian terrorists is a rhetorical move and he often didn't pay.

In any case he was not funding terrorism, he was making noise about giving money to families who have lost a member and often their homes (because Israel destroys homes of suicide bombers leaving the rest of the family homeless as punishment).

It's just as fair to say that Saddam was helping reconstruct destroyed homes as it is to say he was supporting terrorism. It was all a bluff and can be interpreted many different ways and used as fodder for many different arguments.

The most fair statement was that Saddam was trying to curry Arab favor and was making not a whit of a difference either way.

0 Replies

Ci -- You keep a smart, informed eye on the economy. Let me try something here: The economy has started to grow at 6% and with that will come inflation (though no panic buttons are being pressed). The Fed has agreed, nonetheless to keep the interest rates down. For how long, one analyst asked? No answer... dodged question. I'd like to guess that the interest rates will be kept down, or low, through next October. People who played the market, felt rich, came out of the pre-Bush boom years with debt, debt which has grown and which they haven't paid off during the recession, perhaps increasing debt because interest rates are low and jobs are scarce. To edge the interest rates up now is to make a whole lot of people with debt mad and insecure. Keep 'em from getting nervous until the election.

Good point about Saddam and "funding terrorism," Craven!

0 Replies

Let me ramble on for a minute here...

Although nothing can be proven by either side of this debate, it seems that there is room for discussion. I believe that there is a link between Arafat, a well known terrorist and leader of Palestine and Osama Bin Laden, obviously a big jerk we need to capture. I am not alone in this and if you do a quick search you will find a few stories stating such. Like this one and this one.

It can also be proven that Arafat and Saddam have quite the little thing going as well. Saddam supports the anti-Israeli actions of groups such as Hamas and the PLO. Such articles as this one add credence to the idea that Saddam aids terrorists. Now, you can believe that the money went towards rebuilding homes and such if you like, I don't. I haven't seen the evidence that is where the money went. I can't deny the fact either, so again, we are left with what we believe. Attacks on Israel are attacks on American Interests. Maybe not American soil, but definitely American citizens and American interests.

So, If Saddam helps Arafat, and Arafat helps Osama, then there is a connection, whether saddam wanted to help Osama or not is immaterial. I also found another interesting link but I don't trust the source very much. Read it with a bit of skepticism.

0 Replies

Drawing by a Iraqi school child from the Al-Assail Primary School in Baghdad (AFP/HO)

AFP/10-16-03

Is this the good news Bush was spinning about schools being reopened in Iraq?

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/iraqi%20child%20drawing.jpg

0 Replies

I send a donation every year to the International Red Cross, and the International Red Cross sends part of that to the Red Crescent, and the Red Crescent was the original owner of the kidney dialysis machine which is used by bin Laden, so.... ohmigod....

0 Replies

Saddam's PR moves in the Mid-East conflict are reprehensible but it's a stretch to say he's funding terrorism.

What he is doing is capitalizing on the Palestinian terror to generate publicity, the money did not go to the planning and execution of the attacks, it went to families of the bombers and the families often did not have any complicity in the act (though they often laud their lost loved one as a hero, as humans are prone to).

He certainly gave moral support, but nobody has shown that it made a bit of a difference and nobody has shown that the money he pays funded terror except in a motivational way.

Reprehensible yes, but hardly justification for the notion that invading Iraq was an anti-terror move.

Even the most ardent of supporters of the war will cede that Sadaam's grandstanding will make no difference in the terrorism of the region.

0 Replies

I don't agree with you McG, but you've stated your case in a reasonable manner. May we all emulate your restraint.

0 Replies

McGent, Wake up and smell the rose! The majority of Muslim/Arab countries are against the US for our support of Israel. Where have you been all these years?

0 Replies

Craven, how do you know where the money went? There have been quite a few more suicide attacks since the payouts from saddam.

Again, that is money that we KNOW of... It can also be said, albeit not proven either way, that he may have also been funneling money directly into the hands of the terror organizations. If he is willing to pay for martyrdom, it would seem he would be willing to also pay for terror.

No one can prove anything either way. If you want to look at saddams actions as something other than supporting terror, you are welcome too.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Craven, how do you know where the money went? There have been quite a few more suicide attacks since the payouts from saddam.

I've never claimed to know where the money went. What I did claim is that you can't demonstrate that it has funded a single attack.

I state this because I and others have searched for such a connection and it hasn't been found.

Now it's surely possible that some money trickled into the hands of terrorists. But if you pay taxes to America I can make the connection between your taxes and terror too (not in the "America is a terrorist" argument but in the "America has given money to Palestinians and some has gone to terror" one).

Quote:

Again, that is money that we KNOW of... It can also be said, albeit not proven either way, that he may have also been funneling money directly into the hands of the terror organizations.

Well, he has shown no real interest in helping Palestinians. He often claimed that if he could he'd send Iraq's army over to help them. Nothing was stopping him except for the fact that he'd get his ass kicked and that he was just bluffing for PR anyway.

It's surely possible that he was funding Palestinian terror secretly but I find that unlikely. His actions in regard to Palestine have always been of the public relations variety. I simply doubt that he was motivated to do anything other than try to curry favor by public bluster.

Quote:

If he is willing to pay for martyrdom, it would seem he would be willing to also pay for terror.

I'm sure he was willing, but he was not stupid. His donations were carefully considered. It is not a direct contribution to terrorism but it's a contribution to the "cause" in a losse way. He did this to play both sides against the middle and I don;t think he was funding Palestinian terror directly because I don;t think he cared about them much.

Quote:

No one can prove anything either way. If you want to look at saddams actions as something other than supporting terror, you are welcome too.

I've already said he was "supporting" terror. He was providing moral support if nothing else.

What I challenge is the notion that this support had any significance. Whether his removal from power makes a single bit of difference in Palestinain terror.

I have contended that it doesn't.

What Saddam's donation show is that he is a bad guy willing to capitalize off of terror to generate publicity, that he lends moral support to the families of terrorists.

What is not illustrated is that his actions ever amounted to more lives being taken through Palestinian terror.

Don't you agree, that his donations were largely PR moves that made little to no strategic difference?

0 Replies

Yes, I would agree that it was mostly a PR move, but disagree that it made little strategic difference. It showed a willingness to support terrorism and that even with the sanctions that were imposed and the eye of the world on him he continued to make bad moves that showed the world the need for his removal. It was one of the many reasons that led the US to finally remove him from power.

0 Replies

I don't think it played any part in our decision to go to war but I can at least agree that he needed to be removed from power.

The usual disclaimers about how we disagree on the how and such.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I don't think it played any part in our decision to go to war but I can at least agree that he needed to be removed from power.

The usual disclaimers about how we disagree on the how and such.

0 Replies

Quote:

McGent, Wake up and smell the rose! The majority of Muslim/Arab countries are against the US for our support of Israel. Where have you been all these years?

c.i., this is cited so often that it is almost "known." Arabs and Islamists put it near the top on their list of reasons to hate the US. It is not our "support" of Israel so much as our unswerving and uncritiical support that allows others to see us as polarized.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't think it played any part in our decision to go to war but I can at least agree that he needed to be removed from power.

Craven, how many others are in the category of "needing to be removed from power"?

I heard a long discussion on NPR late afternoon about what is up with our policy v. North Korea. I am persuaded by containment, just the sort of thing that was working in Iraq until Bush set the cat amongst the pigeons.

0 Replies

We reserve the right to pick who we are going to invade, for instance a country we know do not have WMD's. Er...

0 Replies

Ge brought up the idea of a theocracy, asking Is that is what the Iraqis might want.

The issue would not be out there if we had not invaded and colonized Iraq. But we did. That, to me, changes the ground rules. We have taken over this country, and we have decided to impose a government there.

How can we not impose (and we must impose something, in this vacuum,) a democratic government? We believe -- and I use We loosely and generally -- that democracy or a democratic republic is the type of government that allows the ultimate freedom of expression for individual citizens in a country. If we are to be seen as benign, or altruistic, or lightly touching or imposing ourselves on a country that we have invaded, then surely this type of government is what we would hope to install. The arrogance of our invading another country and imposing any form of government upon it is not the issue at this point.

I have seen writings by pundits, scholars, religious, etc., where it is posited that Islam can exist with and within a democratic form of governance. There is a school in Iran that puts forth this idea and has published exegeses in this direction. I hope this is true because I cannot see Iraq without a strong Islamic influence in its government. Everything we read tells us that Islam plays a key role in this country.

How can we deny that religion plays such a role in our government, after what I read today about George Bush saying that God annointed him as Prez? Every day we read more about the conflict in this country between religion and rule, in the courts and in the Congress. The challenge in Iraq will be to write the constitution so as to guarantee the citizens rights under the rule of law and to accord the role of Islamic law to a subservient -- important but in many ways symbolic -- hand in governance.

What do you think, Gelisgesti?

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

Craven, how many others are in the category of "needing to be removed from power"?

Quite a few. Would you like to remove Bush from power? If so, what was the question about?

0 Replies

Religious Extremists
Could it be that Amerika is run by a few of those, hoping to dominate the world? Rolling Eyes

Is Amerika on a Crusade with God on Our Side? Allah is a false idol, right?

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

blatham wrote:
Gel

You said something earlier, here or on another thread, with which I do not agree. You suggested we ought to let Iraqis choose a theocratic state if that is their wish.

This is a tricky issue, no question. But let me explain why I think that not a good idea.

Your argument rests upon the premise that it is morally unacceptable to determine for others what sort of government they should have, that the principle of free choice through autonomy ought to trump other considerations. That is an argument based on a moral principle, and it is a principle which I too hold.

But there is one exception, in my mind, and that exception applies where the consequences will defeat the initial principle.

For example, I hold that any group ought to be able to form a political party in my country, because I believe the classic Millian argument for liberty through freedom of any multiplicity of ideas, and expression of those ideas.

But what of a party whose policy is that, once in power, it will immediately act to criminalize all other parties and all expressions of opposing ideas?

Theocracy, particularly of the sort that seems likely, or at least possible, to arise in the present circumstances in Iraq, something of the Taliban variety, is anaethma to the sort of liberty which founds your and my principles.

Mornin eh to the great white North ....

Well said. Also in the quoted post I spoke of the 'homogenization' of mankind. I know ...... what the hell is that? Given enough time and the opportunity this spinning dirtball will give birth to a (at the risk of redundancy) race free race. I look upon interracial children as a special indication of this unstoppable process ..... once race is eliminated what is left but the philosophical implications of 'how to live' that will keep us apart but in that same act of keeping us apart, give us room to grow .... grow and realize our destiny, whatever that may be.

I don't believe that we are wise enough to take the helm at any point soon so free choice must be upheld, let each decide.

One thing I am sure of, this war has two properties, blood and oil, and only one is necessary for life.

I hope this makes sense, it did when I wrote it.

Morning B., Blatham already grilled me on this one Smile

To expound.... Two things separate the 'featherless bipeds' each from the other, our skin keeps us 'distinct', and our minds keep us 'unique'. The two are combined only in the soul. This is and should remain sacrosanct as separation of one from the other would be the demise of both.

Having said that .....
The notion of killing a man for not subscribing to ones 'distinct' values, has 'unique' origins .... this is the genesis of a war, in the mind of one then, like a virus, the notion spreads. There are antigens built into the species that are 'unique' in composition .... freedom of thought .... the exercise of that which keeps us unique.
To subjugate that freedom by insisting the Iraqis subscribe to our 'western values' is an insult to their 'uniqueness' and, I feel, arrogance that is ill afforded as our system is far from perfect or we would not have the lack of leadership we are now suffering.

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know