But the US needs foreign help to deal with the situation in iraq and afghanistan?
To make it appear official, yes. Does the US REALLY need help? No.
InfraBlue wrote:Tarantulas,
your claims of an Iraq/al Qaeda link directly contradict what the Bush Administration and Tony Blair have declared, that there is no such link. "Intelligence," and more importantly, the nation's emotions were manipulated by the administration's propaganda campaign. Bush, Blair and the international "intelligence" community have made chumps out of you and the other believers, and you are in denial. Deal with it.
Deal with this. Read and learn.
Quote:Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
InfraBlue wrote:Where are the WMD that were such an imminent threat to the safety of the US of A that a war of invasion and occupation was of utmost necessity?
Quote:Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations";
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Quote:Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
InfraBlue wrote:Claiming simultaneous support for a "war of revenge" and a "war of humanitarianism" is doublethink.
WAR IS HUMANITARIANISM is also doublethink.
So you're saying that removing a brutal dictator from power is not a humanitarian effort?
InfraBlue wrote:Saddam's "power" did not emanate from the Republican Guard or the Fedayeen Saddam.
Millions of Iraqis with dead friends and family members as a direct result of action by both of those groups would vehemently disagree with you. Without the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen, Iraqi citizens would have torn Saddam to pieces in a heartbeat.
InfraBlue wrote:It would have been nice had the US acted on genuine regard for the plight of the people of Iraq and approached "intelligence" with a clear and lucid eye perhaps avoiding the necessity for this "war of revenge/wmd/humanitarianism."
But then again, the plight of the people of Iraq had the lowest priority in the Bush Admin.'s agenda.
Bull.
Quote:Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Public Law 107-243 was passed by Congress. It is not an isolated policy of George Bush or his adminstration. It received broad bipartisan support. Including support by Democrats. Deal with it.
Tarantulas,
the authorization of war against Iraq by the US congress does not prove the existence of a link with al Qaeda or WMD. Authorization of war did not prove anything other than the US' paranoia and rabid lust for war.
Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. The al Qaeda "operative" that you allude to, Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, operated beyond the control of Saddam, and the New York Times reported that two al Qaeda captives said the group did not cooperate with Saddam. Saddam was a secularist, al Qaeda are fanatical Islamists. The CIA and the Bush admin. have closer links to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, respectively, than those two had with each other. Is the US going to bomb itself therefor?
Bipartisan congressional support for this war notwithstanding, where are the WMD? Congress got bipartisanly chumped also, along with you and the majority of the US public.
Killing thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings for the sake of one dictator is not humanitarian. Killing thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings in the name of humanitarianism is grossly hypocritical.
So, if the Republican Guard is so bad, why is the Bush Admin. considering reinstating its servicemen and high officers to the Iraq military?
I reiterate, the majority of the people of the US and its government, paranoid and rabid for war and revenge after 9/11, gladly and willingly swallowed manipulated "intelligence" to rationalize an unnecessary war that has lead to the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings and has lead to the specter of civil war in Iraq, and destabilization in the Middle East. Can you deal with it?
Destablization is already occurring in the Middle East and Arab countries. The State Department in its annual report on terrorism has said that incidents of terrorism have increased in the Middle East and Arab countries since 2002. Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey have suffered terrorist attacks. Jordan foiled a terrorist plot there in April. In Saudi Arabia the targets were Western oil workers.
That's all they are, foxyfyre, suggestions of a link. Some of those articles are older than the Bush administration's statements declaring no link between al Qaeda and Saddam.
The Bush administration has said no link exists between al Qaida and Saddam? I don't think so. They did say once that no verifiable link has been found tieing Saddam to 9/11. Not quite the same thing.
And I think terrorist attacks and instablility are not the same thing either. Iran is slowing undergoing its social and cultural revoltuion these days but their government is quite intact as are the governments of Morroco, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. I'm not seeing either revolution or coups teetering on the brink in any of these places.
Well look a bit closer, especially at saudi arabia and you may see that there is more to it than that meets the eye.
You're right about links between Saddam and al Qaeda not being the same as links between Saddam and 9/11, foxfyre. But, all the same, the links are merely suggested, and the links that are being implied between Saddam and al Qaeda are contradictory, like the one between him and al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi had ties with Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish Islamist terrorist group who operated beyond the control of Saddam. They operated in the Kurdish controlled Northern No-fly Zone that the US was patrolling. Ironically, their activities were enabled by US and UN intervention in Iraq.
You are right about, terrorist attacks and instability not being the same thing. Instability can be created by means other than terrorism. The instability I referred to is being created through terrorism.
Yilmaz,
would you elaborate on what you've alluded to concerning Saudi Arabia?
