0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 03:16 pm
For a girl, nimh has pretty manly sex organs McG.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 03:35 pm
Tssk Craven, do you have to share your sexual experiences with me with the whole board?

'S ok, McGentrix, I've been mistaken for a she a lot, on these forums.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 04:09 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Has anyone been keeping track of the accounting project happening in Iraq? It seems that in order to get any contracts in Iraq, a contractor had to have a lot of kickbacks that went directly to Saddam and allowed him to get around the oil-for-food embargo's.

It seems France and Russia were the leading contracters in this process.

This was on the radio last night, so I do not have a link handy. Anyone else hear about this?


Yes Exclamation From several sources over the last several days we who read and/or listen carefully have learned that France, Germany and Russia along with UN administrators were participating in this, shall I call it, skimming process; or shall I call it, corruption process.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 04:37 pm
hobitbob wrote:
I would also avoid Lewis' post 1990 works, which became polemics in support of his friend Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" theory.


As an aside:

Just because Lewis' works are in line with Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" theory doesn't discredit them, in my eyes. It certainly doesn't make them irrational polemics.

I agree with the jist of Huntingtons theory and I submit that it is the post-Cold War paradigm that most scholars and policy makers are operating on. Although, I do disagree with a few of the conclusions Huntington draws based on his theory and some of the foriegn policy moves he advocates.

In fact, I would argue that his book is one of the most important political works of the last decade.

I find the whole subject rather stimulating. I have yet to see anybody mount a convincing argument against Hutington's thesis and main points. If you want to debate the merits of his theory, then by all means, state some of you objections. I'm up to it.

Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps though, my allegations of a Muslims onslaught were a little more...overstated...than they should have been.

You are not the only one to make this mistake. It seems a popular misconception at the moment. I am just a bit surprised to see this view represented by someone who is usually a progressive.


In retrospect, I'll admit to an sloppy wording. Perhaps "constant Muslim onslaughts into Christian Europe" was too colorfull. However, my point all along remains - that there is a history of conflict between Muslims and Christians, and that for much of this time Muslims had the upper hand.

I'm intrigued by your statement "I am just a bit surprised to see this view represented by someone who is usually progressive." Pray tell, Bob, was is not progressive anout my view. My one critical observation of you would be that you sometimes tend to let political correctness and partisanship blind to to uncomfortable realities. Is this one such instance?
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 04:48 pm
ican711nm wrote:
IronLionZion wrote:
Where is the evidence of a Hussien/Al Qaida link?


The evidence exists in the same place as the evidence of almost 3,000 people killed by Terrorists in the US. The evidence exists in the same place as evidence of Hussein aiding and abetting Palestinian jihadists against the Israelies with weapons and monetary rewards to families of jihadists. The evidence exists in the same place as the evidence the US went into Afghanistan. The evidence exist in the same place as evidence the US went into Iraq. The evidence exists in the same place as evidence that there are jihadists murdering innocents in Iraq. The evidence is in the same daily news reports that have brought us all this other news.

Oh, yes the evidence of Hussien/Al Qaida links is overlooked or minimized by the self-appointed, self-annointed, experts. But the evidence is plainly there daily in the news for those capable of a modicum of independent logical thought that enables them to continually draw logically obvious implications. It's said by the self-annointed that all these jihadists in Iraq are new arrivals after Hussein's regime removal. Yeah, right Exclamation Rolling Eyes While there are many new arrivals, a large cadre of pre-regime-Saddam aided and abetted jihadists existed and exist in Iraq to welcome and organize the new comers to help them avenge the removal of their former ally, Saddam Hussein. Why are these jiadists killing innocents as well as soldiers in Iraq? They are killing innocents in Iraq as in Palestine and elsewhere to discourage innocents from joining those who want to improve their lives by destroying jihadists everywhere.


I missed the part where you provide evidence for Saddam Hussiens terrorists connections. Perhaps you could innumerate them for those as benighted as me.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 06:10 pm
You previously asked:
IronLionZion wrote:
Where is the evidence of a Hussien/Al Qaida link?


I answered your request for where:
Quote:
... The evidence is in the same daily news reports that have brought us all this other news.


Now you are apparently asking me to provide the relevant parts of those news reports:
IronLionZion wrote:
I missed the part where you provide evidence for Saddam Hussiens terrorists connections. Perhaps you could innumerate them for those as benighted as me.


The part you "missed", sir benighted, Smile was not what you previously requested.

I bet you realize I cannot satisfy your specific request without going to the various news sources with dollars in hand (e.g., NYT, WSJ, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, etc.) for transcripts, DVDs, or video tapes of the relevant news they published or broadcast. I cannot even do that for any of the other items I previously cited, that you already probably agree happened, without making the same investment of time and money. I'm not going to do that for either.

So I'll try some questions on you.

QUESTIONS
Why were so many UN members concerned about Saddam's alleged WMD, or as I prefer to designate them, WMM (i.e., Weapons of Mass Murder, e.g., toxic chemical agents, toxic bacterial agents, delivery vehicles of same)?

Did they anticipate that Saddam would use the WMM himself on other nations, or did they anticipate Saddam would distribute these WMM to terrorists, or both?

Why did they think either was a likely possibility?

Had Saddam given some terrorists any other ordinance?

It took 8 months for US troops to find Saddam cringing in a hole in Iraq. How long is a reasonable time to find materials for disassembled WMM that neither breath or eat, hiding in a hole in and/or outside of Iraq?
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 08:37 pm
McGentrix said:

"It seems France and Russia were the leading contracters in this process"

That knowledge was "outed" quite some time ago, and to my knowledge, neither country has denied it. Germany was in on some too.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 08:47 pm
Sorry, everyone, I re-entered the discussion on an older email update notice.

And ILZ, I can't help you with your other question. That would be privileged information in any case.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Mar, 2004 08:52 pm
While we are on the general subject of inter-national dealings, there is a new book just out called "The French Betrayal of America".

In the material at the link below there is a summary (probably from the publisher) of some of the author's key points, a few of which are new to me. If anyone cares to take a gander at it, the link, at least in one form, is:

http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/crownforum/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=1400053668#bio

Very interesting stuff indeed.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 10:35 am
What? I walk into this room and everyone splits?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 11:18 am
sumac wrote:
What? I walk into this room and everyone splits?


Not everyone. I whistle "Yankee Doodle" and clap. Laughing
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 11:35 am
sumac,

Have you encountered any good leftist explanations for why the jihadists have expanded their presence in Iraq after Saddam's removal. And, having done that, why do these jiadists continually murder innocent Iraqi people?

Is that their way of helping their fellows? If so, who among their fellows are they helping and how does this help their fellows? Is that their way of encouraging the American military to leave Iraq? Is that their way of punishing innocent Iraqi people for failure to prevent the Americans from removing one of the jihadist's major sponsors?

To borrow a now trite but appropriate expression, "it doesn't compute!" Confused
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 11:46 am
ican711nm wrote:
sumac,

Have you encountered any good leftist explanations for why the jihadists have expanded their presence in Iraq after Saddam's removal. And, having done that, why do these jiadists continually murder innocent Iraqi people?

Several reasons:
1) The US has played into OBL's hands by invading an oil rich ME country. We have now proven we are every bit as evil as he said we were.
2)AQ views all of Islam that isn't it as apostate, and are taking their war to the "infidel" Shia and Sunni Muslims who don't agree with them.
3) With no stable government in Iraq, chaos exists. Terrorist orghanizations thrive on chaos. Iraq is sort of like Disneyland for the "kill'em'all" set.

Quote:
Is that their way of helping their fellows? If so, who among their fellows are they helping and how does this help their fellows?

By definition,t heri "fellows," are other Sunni findamentalists, so dead Shia and non fundy Sunni are merely icing on the cake.


Quote:
Is that their way of encouraging the American military to leave Iraq?

Yup, and it is probably going to work.

Quote:
Is that their way of punishing innocent Iraqi people for failure to prevent the Americans from removing one of the jihadist's major sponsors?

What are you smoking? AQ and the "jihadists" you are ranting about hated Hussein. We did them a favour. Please do the research before you post.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 11:46 am
Jihadists? I thought, it were al-Qaida fighters and Baathists?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 11:49 am
When you have already made up your mind and know you are right, they are the same.
What do we know anyway, eh? You are from Old Europa, and I'm a towelhead. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 11:53 am
Sorry, you are so right, hobitbob, shame and no-Marshal-plan-anymore on me Sad
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 01:29 pm
Well, now then. That is certainly the tone and texture of the IV thread we know and love.

As far as I see it, jihadists are the most extreme position that any tribe, or sect, or subsect within the general domain of Muslim folk that any true "true believer" can take. It is the only correct position vis-a-vis the entire world, Muslim included. However, I may be totally off the mark in my grasp of the complexities here.

But, no, I have not read, or heard, any explanation from the left or right. But if my understanding above is at least partly correct, then those who have taken up the call for a jihad, are taking everything to its (according to their logic) rational conclusion.

To wit, if the jihad is everything, then nothing else is of sufficient importance to stand in its way, not even the lives and welfare of fellow Muslims. Besides, there could be said to be the added benefit that Iraqis and others in the region will eventually get sufficiently upset by the killings to turn on the infidel invaders and join in the fight to get them out of the area. Being used as surrogate fighters to the benefit of the cause. They are not important fighters to be sure, as only the jihadists are important fighters.

At least that is as far as I can go with my imperfect western mind.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 07:52 pm
hobitbob wrote:
Several reasons:
1) The US has played into OBL's hands by invading an oil rich ME country. We have now proven we are every bit as evil as he said we were.


This is a fantasy reason, not a good reason. The first objective of the US invasion of Iraq was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The second objective was replacement of Sadam's regime with a rational and secure democracy. The third objective was to prevent Saddam from sponsoring and arming terrorists of both the secular and jihadist forms. The fourth objective was enabling the people of Iraq to profit from their own oil wealth. These are all, each and every one, noble objectives whether or not we Americans also benefit directly or indirectly.


hobitbob wrote:
2)AQ views all of Islam that isn't it as apostate, and are taking their war to the "infidel" Shia and Sunni Muslims who don't agree with them.


This too is a fantasy reason, not a good reason. You have repeatedly claimed that Saddam was a secularist and not a believer and did not agree with the AQ. So why didn't the AQ go after Saddam and his gang before the US did? The answer is obvious! Saddam was one of their sponsors!

hobitbob wrote:
3) With no stable government in Iraq, chaos exists. Terrorist orghanizations thrive on chaos. Iraq is sort of like Disneyland for the "kill'em'all" set.


This too is a fantasy reason, not a good reason. If AQ in general and bin Laden in particular make Iraq their murder playground and innocent Iraqi citizens their murder toys, they will be distracted from achieving their primary objective, killing every American and Israeli whereever they can find them.

hobitbob wrote:
By definition,t heri "fellows," are other Sunni findamentalists, so dead Shia and non fundy Sunni are merely icing on the cake.


Again, this too is a fantasy reason, not a good reason. If AQ in general and bin Laden in particular make Iraq their murder playground and innocent Iraqi citizens their murder toys, they will be distracted from achieving their primary objective, killing every American and Israeli whereever they can find them.

hobitbob wrote:
Yup, and it is probably going to work.


Finally, you provide a good reason. They do it to try and drive Americans out of Iraq. However, my bet is they won't succeed. They won't succeed because all of the the innocent Iraqies will soon understand that they too are probable victims. They will soon realize, if they don't already, that they must help the Americans destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda and all the other Muslim nut cases (i.e., the jihadists) or they will be murdered by those same jihadists.

hobitbob wrote:
What are you smoking? AQ and the "jihadists" you are ranting about hated Hussein. We did them a favour. Please do the research before you post.
Laughing

I do not smoke. I do not imbibe alcoholic drinks. I do not imbibe so-called recreational drugs. However, I am compelled to confess to imbibing root beer candy. Shocked

I did the research and found your mantra demonstrably false! Like the Saudies, Saddam also sponsored the AQ murderers in an attempt to achieve his own goals admittedly different from those of AQ. As long as the AQ were going after the Americans and/or the Israelies, they were serving Saddam's interests. Saddam probably thought he was in "hog heaven" when the AQ murdered 3,000 on 9/11.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 08:11 pm
ican711nm wrote:
hobitbob wrote:
Several reasons:
1) The US has played into OBL's hands by invading an oil rich ME country. We have now proven we are every bit as evil as he said we were.


This is a fantasy reason, not a good reason. The first objective of the US invasion of Iraq was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The second objective was replacement of Sadam's regime with a rational and secure democracy. The third objective was to prevent Saddam from sponsoring and arming terrorists of both the secular and jihadist forms. The fourth objective was enabling the people of Iraq to profit from their own oil wealth. These are all, each and every one, noble objectives whether or not we Americans also benefit directly or indirectly.

You just keep believeing that....


Quote:
2)AQ views all of Islam that isn't it as apostate, and are taking their war to the "infidel" Shia and Sunni Muslims who don't agree with them.

This too is a fantasy reason, not a good reason. You have repeatedly claimed that Saddam was a secularist and not a believer and did not agree with the AQ. So why didn't the AQ go after Saddam and his gang before the US did? The answer is obvious! Saddam was one of their sponsors!

You are jumping to a false conclusion there rocket doggy. the advantage of a totalitarian state like Iraq had been is that it is nearly impossible for outside forces to sneak in and cause trouble. AQ issued numerous fatwa calling for Hussein's death.

Quote:
3) With no stable government in Iraq, chaos exists. Terrorist orghanizations thrive on chaos. Iraq is sort of like Disneyland for the "kill'em'all" set.

This too is a fantasy reason, not a good reason. If AQ in general and bin Laden in particular make Iraq their murder playground and innocent Iraqi citizens their murder toys, they will be distracted from achieving their primary objective, killing every American and Israeli whereever they can find them.

Again, you fail to unerstadn the AQ is not a beaurocracy, led from above, It is a loose confedearcy of like minded organizations with no central control. AQ can run as many seperate operations as it needs to. It is nearly impossible to "tie down" such an entity.

Quote:
By definition, their "fellows," are other Sunni findamentalists, so dead Shia and non fundy Sunni are merely icing on the cake.

Again, this too is a fantasy reason, not a good reason. If AQ in general and bin Laden in particular make Iraq their murder playground and innocent Iraqi citizens their murder toys, they will be distracted from achieving their primary objective, killing every American and Israeli whereever they can find them.

See my response above.


Quote:
Yup, and it is probably going to work.

Finally, you provide a good reason. They do it to try and drive Americans out of Iraq. However, my bet is they won't succeed. They won't succeed because all of the the innocent Iraqies will soon understand that they too are probable victims. They will soon realize, if they don't already, that they must help the Americans destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda and all the other Muslim nut cases (i.e., the jihadists) or they will be murdered by those same jihadists.

Actually, the Iraqi partisans are likely to continue killing the invaders simply because they are there.

Quote:
What are you smoking? AQ and the "jihadists" you are ranting about hated Hussein. We did them a favour. Please do the research before you post.

Laughing

I do not smoke. I do not imbibe alcoholic drinks. I do not imbibe so-called recreational drugs. However, I am compelled to confess to imbibing root beer candy. Shocked

I did the research and found your mantra demonstrably false! Like the Saudies, Saddam also sponsored the AQ murderers in an attempt to achieve his own goals admittedly different from those of AQ. As long as the AQ were going after the Americans and/or the Israelies, they were serving Saddam's interests. Saddam probably thought he was in "hog heaven" when the AQ murdered 3,000 on 9/11.

Please, if you have evidence Hussein was involved with AQ, turn it over the the US government, since even the Bush admin is no longer following this line. I, and others, have repeatedly asked for your "proof" AQ and Hussein were involved, and you have yet to provide it. Either produce it, or admit you are lying.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 09:18 pm
hobitbob wrote:
Please, if you have evidence Hussein was involved with AQ, turn it over the the US government, since even the Bush admin is no longer following this line. I, and others, have repeatedly asked for your "proof" AQ and Hussein were involved, and you have yet to provide it. Either produce it, or admit you are lying.


You make assertion after assertion about Saddam and the Al Qaeda and offer zero evidence to support your assertions. Does that mean your assertions are untrue? Of course not!

I cannot prove Saddam:
1. used toxic chemical agents to kill many thousands of his own citizens.
2. funded families of Palestinian jihadists.
3. attacked Iran.
4. was driven out of Iran.
5. attacked Quwait.
6. was driven out of Quwait.
7. lost the 1st Gulf War.
8. was found in a hole after an 8 month search.
9. was hated by the Al Qaeda.

Does that mean that none of these assertions are true? Of course not!

I cannot prove:
1. disassembled rockets and empty toxic agent containers were discovered by UN inspectors in Iraq.
2. Saddam was a distributor of weapons, ordinance and money to terrorist groups.
3. Saddam was incapable of preventing jihadists from entering his country after the 1st Gulf War.
4. Saddam was one of several sponsors of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups after the 1st Gulf War.

Does that mean that none of these assertions are true? Of Course not!

What you and I are incapable of proving about Saddam or Al Qaeda is irrelevant. What is true about Saddam is what is relevant.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/09/2025 at 08:55:51