0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:13 pm
In Saddam's trial (I suppose we don't know yet under what legal framework it will be held) I wonder if they can subpoena hostile witnesses and compel them to undergo cross-examination?

There's no Fifth Amendment under British law.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:15 pm
It could get very interesting and trying for the Bush and Blair Administrations as well............
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:19 pm
BillW wrote:

Where's the evidence boy Exclamation


Ok sonny, I'll play your silly game. Let us begin.

Title: Terrorist Sponsors: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China
Author: Ted Galen Carpenter
Publication: Cato Institute
Date: Nov 16, 2001
URL: http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-16-01.html

Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author or editor of 13 books on international affairs.

The United States has assembled a superficially impressive international coalition against the threat of terrorism. Many countries in that coalition, however, contribute little of significance to the fight. Even worse, the willingness of some members of the coalition to actually combat terrorism is doubtful. Indeed, given their record, some of those countries appear to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. That concern is especially acute with respect to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China.

Saudi Arabia enlisted in the fight against terrorism only in response to intense pressure from the United States following the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Even then, its cooperation has been minimal and grudging. For example, Riyadh has resisted Washington's requests to use its bases in Saudi Arabia for military operations against Osama bin Laden's terrorist facilities in Afghanistan.

Even that belated, tepid participation is an improvement on Saudi Arabia's previous conduct. The U.S. government has warned that it will treat regimes that harbor or assist terrorist organizations the same way that it treats the organizations themselves. Yet if Washington is serious about that policy, it ought to regard Saudi Arabia as a prime sponsor of international terrorism. Indeed, that country should have been included for years on the U.S. State Department's annual list of governments guilty of sponsoring terrorism.

The Saudi government has been the principal financial backer of Afghanistan' s odious Taliban movement since at least 1996. It has also channeled funds to Hamas and other groups that have committed terrorist acts in Israel and other portions of the Middle East.

Worst of all, the Saudi monarchy has funded dubious schools and "charities" throughout the Islamic world. Those organizations have been hotbeds of anti-Western, and especially, anti-American, indoctrination. The schools, for example, not only indoctrinate students in a virulent and extreme form of Islam, but also teach them to hate secular Western values.

They are also taught that the United States is the center of infidel power in the world and is the enemy of Islam. Graduates of those schools are frequently recruits for Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda terror network as well as other extremist groups.

Pakistan's guilt is nearly as great as Saudi Arabia's. Without the active support of the government in Islamabad, it is doubtful whether the Taliban could ever have come to power in Afghanistan. Pakistani authorities helped fund the militia and equip it with military hardware during the mid-1990s when the Taliban was merely one of several competing factions in Afghanistan's civil war. Only when the United States exerted enormous diplomatic pressure after the Sept. 11 attacks did Islamabad begin to sever its political and financial ties with the Taliban. Even now it is not certain that key members of Pakistan's intelligence service have repudiated their Taliban clients.

Afghanistan is not the only place where Pakistani leaders have flirted with terrorist clients. Pakistan has also assisted rebel forces in Kashmir even though those groups have committed terrorist acts against civilians. And it should be noted that a disproportionate number of the extremist madrasas schools funded by the Saudis operate in Pakistan.

China's offenses have been milder and more indirect than those of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Nevertheless, Beijing's actions raise serious questions about whether its professed commitment to the campaign against international terrorism is genuine. For years, China has exported sensitive military technology to countries that have been sponsors of terrorism. Recipients of such sales include Iran, Iraq and Syria.Even though Chinese leaders now say that they support the U.S.-led effort against terrorism, there is no evidence that Beijing is prepared to end its inappropriate exports. At the recent APEC summit, China's President Jiang Zemin was notably noncommittal when President Bush sought such a commitment. Whenever the United States has brought up the exports issue, Chinese officials have sought to link a cutoff to a similar cutoff of U.S. military sales to Taiwan -- something that is unacceptable to Washington.

It is time for China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to prove by their deeds, not just their words, that they are serious about contributing to the campaign against international terrorism. In China's case, that means ending all militarily relevant exports to regimes that have sponsored terrorism. In the cases of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, it means defunding terrorist organizations and the extremist "schools" that provide them with recruits. It also means severing ties with such terrorist movements as the Taliban and the Kashmiri insurgents. The world is watching the actions of all three countries.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:23 pm
Last I checked, Sadam didn't rule any of those countries - got another obfuscation Question
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:33 pm
FROM COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Quote:
Iraq

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
(AP Photo/Iraq News Agency)
and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. The State Department lists Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question of Iraq’s link to terrorism grew more urgent with Saddam’s suspected determination to develop weapons of mass destruction, which Bush administration officials feared he might share with terrorists who could launch devastating attacks against the United States.

Was Saddam involved in the September 11 attacks?
There is no hard evidence linking Saddam to the attacks, and Iraq denies involvement. Many commentators noted that Baghdad failed to express sympathy for the United States after the attacks.

Does Iraq have ties with al-Qaeda?
The Bush administration insists that hatred of America has driven the two closer together, although many experts say there’s no solid proof of such links and argue that the Islamist al-Qaeda and Saddam’s secular dictatorship would be unlikely allies.

What evidence does the administration offer?
Some Iraqi militants trained in Taliban-run Afghanistan helped Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq. The camps of Ansar fighters, who clashed repeatedly with anti-Saddam Kurds, were bombed in the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.N. Security Council that Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected al-Qaeda affiliate and chemical and biological weapons specialist. Powell said al-Zarqawi had both planned the October 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and set up a camp in Ansar al-Islam’s territory to train terrorists in the use of chemical weapons. Powell added that senior Iraqi and al-Qaeda leaders had met at least eight times since the early 1990s.

Czech officials have also reported that Muhammad Atta, one of the September 11 ringleaders, met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague months before the hijackings, but U.S. and Czech officials subsequently cast doubt on whether such a meeting ever happened. Al-Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have reportedly hid in northern Iraq, but in areas beyond Saddam’s control.

What type of terrorist groups has Iraq supported?
Primarily groups that can hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel, including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. A secular dictator, Saddam tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say.

Have U.S.-Iraq relations always been hostile?
No. In the 1980s, following the Iranian revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis in Tehran, the United States saw Saddam as a useful regional counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini. Indeed, when Iraq launched a long, brutal war against Iran in 1980, the Reagan administration provided Saddam’s regime with arms, funds, and support.

When did relations sour?
U.S.-Iraq relations ruptured in August 1990, when Iraq invaded its tiny, oil-rich neighbor of Kuwait. That prompted the United Nations to impose economic sanctions and eventually authorize war. In the winter of 1991, a U.S.-led coalition drove Iraq out of Kuwait but stopped short of ousting Saddam. After the war, the U.N. Security Council maintained economic sanctions on Iraq; established two “no-fly” zones patrolled by U.S. and British planes to protect Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south; and imposed international weapons inspections to prevent Saddam from rebuilding his arsenals of weapons of mass destruction.

The Clinton administration sought to contain Saddam with a mixture of sanctions and arms inspections but ultimately concluded that Saddam had to go., Bush administration officials took up the anti-Saddam cause, especially after 9/11. Officials characterized Saddam’s regime as an immediate threat to America—because of its history of attacking its neighbors, using chemical weapons, supporting terrorist groups, defying U.N. Security Council resolutions, and seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. In his first State of the Union address after September 11, President Bush said Iraq belonged to an “axis of evil.”

Has Iraq ever used weapons of mass destruction?
Yes. In the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi troops repeatedly used poison gas, including mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin, against Iranian soldiers. Iranian officials also accuse Iraq of dropping mustard-gas bombs on Iranian villages. Human Rights Watch reports that Iraq frequently used nerve agents and mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds living in the country’s north. In March 1988, Saddam’s forces reportedly killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja with chemical weapons
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:37 pm
Where's the evidence, without evidence there is not war - with lying about the cause for a war Bush is a criminal --------------------------------period.

Lies and the Lying Liars
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:43 pm
BillW wrote:
Last I checked, Sadam didn't rule any of those countries - got another obfuscation Question


Billy try again. This time try to read with a modicum of understanding.

From Capenter's (at Cato) article:
Quote:
For years, China has exported sensitive military technology to countries that have been sponsors of terrorism. Recipients of such sales include Iran, Iraq and Syria
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:48 pm
Fool me once,shame on you - fool me twice and go to jail.

I fully understand - Lies and the Lying Liars

I don't listen to no Rush Limbaugh bullshit, I am a patriotic not a patsy...............
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:49 pm
MORE FROM THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Quote:


Iraq

Did Iraq use weapons of mass destruction in the Gulf War?
No. During the Gulf War, Iraq fitted 25 Scud missiles with warheads that could deliver anthrax or other germs and prepared bombs and aerial sprayers that could be used in biowarfare. But Iraq never used them—perhaps because U.S. officials had warned that such an attack would have devastating consequences.
Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?
Probably, although we don’t know what. That’s because throughout the 1990s, Saddam resisted the U.N. weapons inspections mandated by the Gulf War cease-fire. Former U.N. weapons inspectors and other Iraq watchers think that Iraq certainly has chemical weapons, probably has biological weapons, and is working to get nuclear weapons.

At the end of the Gulf War, Iraq agreed to dismantle its extensive chemical and biological weapons programs and destroy its stockpiles of sarin, VX, mustard gas, anthrax, botulinum toxin, and other deadly agents. Many experts suspect it squirreled some of these weapons away. In the mid-1990s, defectors’ disclosures and U.N. inspections forced Iraq to admit that it had restarted its chemical and biological weapons programs. A round of intrusive inspections in late 2002 and early 2003 turned up no conclusive proof of large arsenals of weapons of mass destruction.

Still, some U.N. inspectors say that it would take Saddam a matter of weeks or months to restart full-scale production of deadly gases, and U.S. officials say Iraq has built biological weapons laboratories that are mobile, subterranean, or housed in nonmilitary factories.

Does Iraq have nuclear weapons?
We don’t know, but Saddam has tried for decades to get a nuclear bomb. His atomic ambitions were set back for years in 1981, when the Israeli Air Force destroyed a nuclear reactor at Osiraq, outside Baghdad. In 1996, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iraq had all the materials for a bomb except for the fissile material itself—either plutonium or highly enriched uranium. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, told the U.N. Security Council on March 7 that the most recent round of inspections had produced “no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.”

How might Iraq deliver chemical or biological weapons?
Most experts think that Iraq still has a small stockpile of Scud missiles that can be fitted with germ or chemical warheads. Scuds are not that accurate and can’t reach the United States, but Saddam could try to use them to bombard Israel or Saudi Arabia. Other ways to spread deadly germs or gases include shorter-range rockets, artillery shells, unmanned low-flying drones, and sprayers mounted on fighter jets or helicopters. Moreover, Iraq could pass deadly agents to terrorists, who could use them against civilians.

Could Iraq give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists?
Perhaps. Bush administration officials cite this fear as one principal reason to topple Saddam, before he gets nuclear weapons. But some experts doubt that even Saddam would be reckless enough to pass doomsday weapons on to terrorists.

Is there a consensus on targeting Iraq as part of the U.S.-led war on terrorism?
No. Some U.S. officials argue that any serious campaign against global terrorism should treat Iraq as a top priority; they say that Saddam’s belligerent history, deadly arsenals, and support of terrorism make him an immediate menace, and that the United States had to act before Saddam got a nuclear bomb.

Others argue that there’s no clear connection between Saddam and September 11 and that containing Saddam has been effective and is less risky than an invasion, which could provoke regional instability or Iraqi attacks on Israel, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia. Still others say the U.S.-led invasion to disarm Iraq sets a worrisome international precedent and that Iraq is a distraction from the real menace to American lives, the battered but still active al-Qaeda network.

Do many other countries support an invasion of Iraq?
No. The issue has bitterly divided the United Nations Security Council. While most of the world would be happy to be rid of Saddam, most foreign leaders don’t see Iraq as a clear and present danger or the logical next step in the fight against global terrorism. Since the end of the first Gulf War, U.S. policies on Iraq, especially the continued economic sanctions, have been widely unpopular in Europe and in the Arab and Muslim world. In the run-up to the 2003 war in Iraq, most European leaders, other than British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Spanish counterpart, Jose Maria Aznar, advocated containment, or at least giving U.N. weapons inspections more time.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 04:53 pm
BillW wrote:
Fool me once,shame on you - fool me twice and go to jail.
I fully understand - Lies and the Lying Liars I don't listen to no Rush Limbaugh bullshit, I am a patriotic not a patsy...............



ITEM 2: Geostrategy-Direct Intelligence Brief: U.S.: Al-Qaida Now Leads Insurgency in Iraq:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37727

Quote:
GEOSTRATEGY-DIRECT INTELLIGENCE BRIEF
U.S.: Al-Qaida now leads insurgency in Iraq
Bin Laden's network has taken control from Saddam loyalists

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted: March 25, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
BAGHDAD – U.S. military intelligence has drafted a flow chart of the Sunni insurgency linked to al-Qaida and associated groups, U.S. officials said according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

Al-Qaida-inspired groups have taken over most of the insurgency from loyalists of Saddam Hussein, they said.

The Sunni insurgency network has spread throughout Iraq, including Shiite areas of the south. Insurgency strongholds along Iraq's borders with Saudi Arabia and Syria have supported the cells.

Officials said the groups adopt different names to confuse the U.S. military. But many cells have been identified with the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi movement or with Ansar Al Islam. Ansar was believed to be linked to Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi, regarded as the most lethal Sunni insurgent in Iraq.

[On March 17, at least 30 people were killed when a huge bomb destroyed a major Baghdad hotel. U.S. military commanders attributed the attack to Al Zarqawi.]

At a March 10 briefing, Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, commander of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division, gave the first public details of the military's chart of the Sunni insurgency. Swannack, whose area of responsibility includes the Sunni Triangle, said al-Qaida-inspired groups are composed of small cells in such cities as Fallujah, A-Ramadi and Qaim.

"I believe that the foreign fighters and terrorists have a cellular organization," Swannack said. "I would estimate out in Al Anbar province there are somewhere between eight to 10 cells, predominantly in the larger cities – Fallujah, A-Ramadi, out by Husaybah, Al Qaim region. Probably the cells have somewhere between five to eight individuals in the cell."

Swannack said foreign Muslim fighters have faced difficulty in maintaining a presence in the Sunni Triangle and western Iraq.

The general said Iraqi civilians, however, usually have reported the arrival of suspected volunteers.

"I think it's been very difficult for the terrorists to establish these cells because the Iraqis don't want them here," Swannack said. "We get very, very good tips and sources to tell us when there are foreign fighters or terrorists in their area, and so that's the predominant means through which we go ahead and systematically, with precision efforts, take down the terrorist organization.

"So what I've told you is probably 50 to 80 foreign fighters or terrorists organized and about eight to 10 cells out there in Al Anbar."


More tomorrow night for you to decide!
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:03 pm
Rocket doggy, what you posted invalidated your own position! Laughing
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:06 pm
More obfuscation - that isn't evidence of going to war, that is evidence of why not go to war. They weren't there before, but now they damn sure are now............. Cool
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:08 pm
hobitbob wrote:
Rocket doggy, what you posted invalidated your own position! Laughing


Some of it contradicts my position and some supports it. You of course are not use to balanced reporting. But get use to it. you shall see more, much more. Laughing
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:15 pm
BillW wrote:
More obfuscation - that isn't evidence of going to war, that is evidence of why not go to war. They weren't there before, but now they damn sure are now............. Cool


AQ were everywhere! They are now concentrating in one place. Super!

Why are AQ concentrating in Iraq now, when they could have done the same easier after the 1st gulf war when Sadam was still in power?

Who are AQ murdering in the largest numbers?

AQ could have murdered more of them if the Americans had never come!

Shame, shame on US for interfering with their favorite sport.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:31 pm
How could AQ (which didn't exist yet, but we will ignore this little problem) have "done the same after the first Gulf war?"
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:33 pm
ican711nm wrote:


AQ were everywhere!

Oh no, there's one right behind you! Run! Laughing
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:39 pm
You can help some, others are destined to be lost...........
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 05:43 pm
All in favour of giving AQ rocket doggy's co-ordinates?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 06:30 pm
hobitbob wrote:
How could AQ (which didn't exist yet, but we will ignore this little problem) have "done the same after the first Gulf war?"


AQ existed in February 1998. OBL's Fatwa of that date makes that plain. We didn't enter Iraq until ... ???? a few minutes later???? Laughing

1998 came after the 1st gulf war ended. Sooooo, AQ could have had plenty of time to rattle Saddam's cage, before US.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 06:33 pm
hobitbob wrote:
All in favour of giving AQ rocket doggy's co-ordinates?


Is hobitbob an AQ sponsor Question Shocked
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 0.11 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 04:53:12