THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

We went into Afghanistan to get al-Qaeda leadership. Bush in his speech to the Joint Session of Congress Sept. 20, 2001 specifically named Usama bin Laden as the leader of Al-Qaida. In that speech he outlined his demands to the Taliban of Afghanistan. The very first demand was:

"Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al-Qaida who hide in your land."

The evidence available indicated that Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda as Bush stated, hid in their land.

In his statement to the press on Oct. 7, 2001, Bush announced the beginning of the war against Afghanistan and gave the reasons thereof: the demands given to the Taliban--e.g. the handover of al-Qaeda leaders, of which Osama bin Laden, as pointed out by Bush, is THE leader--were not met.

We went into Afghanistan to get al Qaeda's number one, Osama bin Laden.

The amalgam to which I refer is is killing Iraqis and Americans and other foreigners in the name of ousting us, the Americans, the foreigners, the occupying invaders, from Iraq. The more we try to kill them, the more they'll kill, and recruit killers to kill, to get us out. Our self-assigned role in Iraq is a self-perpetuating paradox.

Al Qaeda declared it's intention to continue mass murdering Americans. The "al Qaeda that "harbored" in Iraq, whom the 9/11 commission specifically referred to as Ansar al-Islam was a Kurdish group who's beef was with Saddam, not Americans. The 9/11 commission doesn't even mention Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist that Powell referred to in his UN speech.

In this I agree with you, ican: Powell ALLEGED--i.e. he asserted without proof, without proving; he brought forward as a reason or excuse--Saddam was harboring al Qaeda in Iraq. Powell, by making these allegations to the world through his UN speech, propagandized his allegations.

What exactly are you disagreeing with in what I wrote:

"Evidence" produced by the government amounts to "indications" of "tolerance," and "indications" that he "may have even helped" "al Qaeda in Iraq. "Al Qaeda" in Iraq amounted to a local group of Islamist extremists bent on the ouster of Saddam from Iraqi Kurdistan, and the creation of an Islamic Kurdish nation. The evidence indicates that an al Qaeda affiliated terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, fell in with this group of Kurds.

And then, as a repudiation I suppose, you wrote this:

The 9-11 Commission (see page 368 here, post No. 1040760, E1) alleges that the al Qaeda suffered major defeats at the hands of the Kurds. I infer that means the Kurds did not want al Qaeda there.

The major defeats that ANSAR AL-ISLAM suffered were at the hands of Kurdish groups including the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), members of whom are a source of evidence that I've brought up in my posts.

You are right in your inference, the Kurds largely did not want ANSAR AL-ISLAM, a group composed largeley of fanatical terroristic KURDS there, in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The 9/11 commission does not repudiate the evidence I've posted that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi fell in with ANSAR AL-ISLAM, a KURDISH GROUP. The 9/11 commission, as I've already pointed out, doesn't even mention Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the entirety of it's report.

ican, you, given your propensity to adhere to propagandized ALLEGATIONS are a poor witness of anything concerning the issues at hand. You'll have to try harder to discredit David Kay than to present YOURSELF as a witness of anything concerning any of the issues at hand.

We didn't go into Iraq to get Saddam because of alleged thousands of munitions dumps. What, was he going to fire mortars at us from the borders of Iraq? Shoot AK-47's at us from the highest mountain in Iraq? You are grasping at straws.

We didn't go into Iraq to get Saddam because of oil-for-food frauds. Americans were involved in these frauds as well. Do you advocate an invasion and occupation of the US thereof? You are grasping at straws.

We didn't go into Iraq to get Saddam because of your allegations that he financed terrorists. The evidence indicates that he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide-bombers. You are grasping at straws.

The entirety of the evidence that Saddam harbored terrorists that we based our decision to invade and occupy Iraq amounts to the words "indications" "tolerance" "may even have helped." How damning.

The "additional terrorist camps south of Baghdad" to which you refer weren't referred to by Franks as "terrorist camps" in his memoirs. He said, "And they had also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Libya who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. These foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all."

These volunteers fought against the invading and occupying coalition forces. You stretch the definitions of words, and misrepresent the statements of others to suit your game of straw grasping, ican. Get a grip.

"The current purposeful mass-murder-of-civilians remnants of his regime, et cetera," wouldn't have been "current purposeful mass-murder-of-civilians remnants of his regime, et cetera," had the US not invaded and occupied Iraq. It is against this, our invasion and occupation of Iraq that "the current purposeful mass-murder-of-civilians remnants of his regime, et cetera" are "purposefully mass-murdering civilians" and Americans, and others that are allied to the occupying foreigners. Our self-assigned role in Iraq is a self-perpetuating paradox.

You support the invasion and occupation of Iraq because insurgents are killing innocents because of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

You are arguing support for a war based on ex post facto pretexts. Yours is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Yeah, you can disagree with me that Powell propagandized the claim that Saddam possessed WMD's deliverable to US targets in 45 minutes, and that a lot of people believed this, and that he was wrong; but your disagreement doesn't negate these facts. Your disagreement is irrelevant.

You can disagree with me that Powell propagandized the claim that Saddam possessed mobile bio-weapons laboratories, and that a lot of people believed this, and that he was wrong; but your disagreement doesn't negate these facts. Your disagreement is irrelevant.

You can disagree with me that Powell propagandized the claim of a "nexus" between Saddam and al Qaeda, and that this was his weakest claim, and some people believed it, and a lot of people did not, and that given his propensity to propagate wrong information about Saddam as indicated by the examples listed above, and putting these propagandistic claims to the light of the available, un-propagandized, un-ideologized evidence (see PUK evidence above).

Given Powell's falsities about WMD's in Iraq, Powell's credibility is discredited. This includes his credibility as regards his claims about Ansar/Saddam links.

1998's Operation Desert Fox was launched in response to Saddam's ouster of UN weapons inspectors. Its mission was to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. Its goals were to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction, diminish Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors, and to demonstrate to Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international obligations.

As regards WMD in Iraq, Duelfer's report further demonstrates the superfluousness of our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The kind of operations that Clinton tried against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sudan were aimed at destroying al Qaeda TARGETS. The kind of operation that Bush has tried in Afghanistan didn't destroy al Qaeda there. Why should any rational person think it will work in Iraq?

What has rendered the risk of "fatality" to virtually negligible in the US has been the bulwarking and strengthening of homeland defenses. What has rendered from our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq is a record level debt, thousands of dead Americans, thousands upon thousands of dead Afghans and Iraqis, and no end in sight to our occupations of those countries.

I may be a griddle, but what is particularly unctuous about you, ican, is that you support destruction, violence and killing based on pretexts that amount to "ALLEGATIONS," "INFERENCES," "CONJECTURES," and post hoc, ergo propter hoc rationalizations.

0 Replies

Infrablue rocks.
.

Joe

0 Replies

Whoa ..... get down blue!!

Joe, would you beleive 25,575 casualties ....

http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/

0 Replies

BAGHDAD Common wisdom holds that if U.S. troops withdraw anytime soon, Iraq will descend into civil war, as Lebanon did in the late 1970s. But that ignores a question posed by events of recent weeks:.
Has a civil war already begun?.
Iraq is no Lebanon yet. But evidence is building that it is at least in the early stages of ethnic and sectarian warfare..
• Armed Iraqi groups have made ever more deadly and spectacular assaults against fellow Iraqis in bids to assert political and territorial dominance. This fighting is generally defined by ethnic and religious divisions: rebellious Sunni Arabs clashing with Shiite Arabs and Kurds. On Friday, in Baghdad, mortar attacks on a police station and the suicide car bombing of a Shiite mosque left at least 27 dead..
• Some academic and military analysts say the battle lines have been hardened by the U.S. policy of limiting the power of the minority Sunni Arabs, who dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule and make up most of the rebellion. .
The Americans have handed the bulk of authority to the Shiites, who represent a majority of Iraqis, and a lesser share to the Kurds, who are about a fifth of the population. .
This redistribution of power has increased the influence of the two major groups that were brutally suppressed by Saddam, and raised the fears of Sunnis. .
• Some of the country's most prominent Sunni Arab leaders are expressing indifference or opposition to taking part in the elections for a constitution-writing legislature, while the Shiites and Kurds are eager to participate. Iraqi electoral officials and President George W. Bush insist the vote will take place as scheduled, despite calls from Sunni leaders for a significant delay. .
• The Americans have added to the alienation of the Sunnis by relying heavily on Shiite and Kurdish military recruits to put down the Sunni insurgency in some of the most volatile areas. The guerrillas, in turn, reinforce sectarian animosities when they attack police recruits or interim government officials as collaborators. Many of these recruits are Shiites or Kurds, and the loss of life reverberates through their families and communities..
• In recent weeks, at least one new Shiite militia has formed - not in opposition to the Americans, but to exact revenge against the Sunnis..
U.S. officials pin their hope of ultimately bringing peace to Iraq on the success of the January elections and the formation of an elected government, and they do not think a full-scale civil war is inevitable. They say Iraqi society is an elaborate mosaic where groups have coexisted for a long time. They point out that not all Sunnis are in open rebellion or reject the elections. Just last week, Ghazi al-Yawar, the president of Iraq and a leader in a powerful Sunni tribe, said his new party would compete in the elections. And some Americans predict that, once Sunnis see the elections going ahead as planned, most will resign themselves to taking part..
Still, continuing violence creates pressure for animosities to build. Assaults by Iraqis on other Iraqis have taken grisly and audacious turns lately. In October, insurgents dressed as policemen waylaid three minibuses carrying 49 freshly trained Iraqi soldiers - most or all of them Shiites traveling south on leave - and killed them. Pilgrims going south to the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala have also been gunned down..
In response, Shiite leaders in the southern city of Basra began telling young men last month that it was time for revenge. .
They organized hundreds of Shiites into the Anger Brigades, the latest of many armed groups that have announced their formation in the anarchy of the new Iraq. The stated goal of the brigades is to kill extremist Sunni Arabs in the north Babil area, where many Shiite security officers and pilgrims have been killed..
"The Wahhabis and Salafis have come together to harm fellow Muslims and have begun killing anyone affiliated with the Shiite sect," Dhia al-Mahdi, the leader of the Anger Brigades, said in a written statement. "The Anger Brigades will be dispatched to those areas where these germs are, and there will be battles.".
It is unclear whether the Anger Brigades have made good on their threats yet, but their very formation hints at how much the dynamics of violence have shifted in Iraq..
James Fearon, a professor of political science at Stanford University, pointed to the creation of such groups as "part of the civil-war-in-the-making we see now." He also said that the history of colonial rule teaches that civil conflict can result when an occupying power favors some local groups over others and uses its favorites as military proxies, a common strategy among imperial powers..
Within the new Iraqi security forces, Kurds, and to a lesser extent Shiites, have proved to be the most effective fighters against the Sunni-led insurgency, and the U.S. military and the interim Iraqi government are drawing heavily from the militias of the big Kurdish and Shiite political parties..
.
In the past, the U.S. military command has often emphasized the role of foreign mujahedeen in the rebellion. Recently, it has acknowledged that Iraqis form the vast majority of the insurgents, but it continues to use the term "anti-Iraqi forces" to describe all rebels..

0 Replies

On NPR this morning (the closest I came to real news all weekend) there was a discussion of how much worse the war is going for us right now...

The most telling statistic, for me, was that the US soldiers/Iraqi forces were seeing around 400 attacks per month at this time a year ago, and now are facing 1800-2400 seperate attacks per month. That's a 5-6 fold increase; not a good sign....

Does anyone actually believe that there will be elections in Janurary still? Think about how easy they would be to disrupt....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, the increase in attacks is probably because of the upcoming elections, which they don't want to happen. The last thing that should happen is for their goal of postponing elections to be realized.

0 Replies

The elections may or may not happen. Knowing the Bush administration I imagine it will be held even if the world ended that day.

But I just can't imagine how it will be an accurate true result if half the places can't even hold elections because of the violence. Or if most people can't physically get to the polls because of the violence.

0 Replies

Ticomaya
And are those elections supposed to be the panacea that will put everything right. Or will they merely be the opening shot in the possibly impending Iraqi civil war? Which by the way some believe is already underway.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Well, the increase in attacks is probably because of the upcoming elections, which they don't want to happen. The last thing that should happen is for their goal of postponing elections to be realized.

Of course, that's not just the goal of insurgents and terrorists. It's the goal of many non-terrorist Sunnis that would otherwise be disenfranchised unless a miracle happens in Fallujah and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle. If we justify a January election date on the fact that insurgents oppose that date, then we are just as surely allowing them to dictate our decisions as we would in the opposite scenario. The date should be based on whether Iraq has the infrastructure and stability to handle a January election -- we should ignore the preference of violent insurgents, giving that group no voice either way.

If we move forward with an election on purely symbolic grounds, that election may be so empty as to undermine the faith of Iraqis in democracy; it might just as probably lead to civil war as to democratic governance. As far as I can tell, whether we push the vote back depends on whether we think Iraq is becoming more or less stable under our custodianship. If it is becoming less stable, then we have nothing to lose with an early vote. If it is becoming more stable, then we should wait to ensure an election where everyone can vote, including those who have recently fled their homes in the Sunni Triangle.

I note that many of the people who believe the U.S. presence is a destabilizing force in Iraq also believe that we should delay the vote (for a later, less stable time?), while those that think the U.S. presence is a stabilizing force believe that we should keep it in January (rather than waiting for a more stable time?). I find those two positions somewhat baffling.

0 Replies

The election will come off as scheduled. Kurd, Suni, and Shiite all concur on one subject .... the Americans must leave. Only the installed officials want them in Iraq.
Sistani has issued a Fatwa to the effect that every eligible Shiite voter register and vote .... no exceptions. With a 60% majority, it would take a Karl Rove to alter the outcome. Then will come the civil war .... it is inevitable ....unless they are able to work out three separate and equal states. Something not in Bushs self interest .... a colony was what he had in mind ..... as long as American troops are there, there will be no peace as the Iraqis simply do not trust us and it is a bit late to start building trust.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti
If after the election the US is asked to leave. Will that be the point at which Bush calls for another regime change? {Tongue in cheek}
That aside would Bush after all the lives lost and treasure spent would Bush just pick up his marbles and go home.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Well, the increase in attacks is probably because of the upcoming elections, which they don't want to happen. The last thing that should happen is for their goal of postponing elections to be realized.

Of course, that's not just the goal of insurgents and terrorists. It's the goal of many non-terrorist Sunnis that would otherwise be disenfranchised unless a miracle happens in Fallujah and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle. If we justify a January election date on the fact that insurgents oppose that date, then we are just as surely allowing them to dictate our decisions as we would in the opposite scenario. The date should be based on whether Iraq has the infrastructure and stability to handle a January election -- we should ignore the preference of violent insurgents, giving that group no voice either way.

If we move forward with an election on purely symbolic grounds, that election may be so empty as to undermine the faith of Iraqis in democracy; it might just as probably lead to civil war as to democratic governance. As far as I can tell, whether we push the vote back depends on whether we think Iraq is becoming more or less stable under our custodianship. If it is becoming less stable, then we have nothing to lose with an early vote. If it is becoming more stable, then we should wait to ensure an election where everyone can vote, including those who have recently fled their homes in the Sunni Triangle.

I note that many of the people who believe the U.S. presence is a destabilizing force in Iraq also believe that we should delay the vote (for a later, less stable time?), while those that think the U.S. presence is a stabilizing force believe that we should keep it in January (rather than waiting for a more stable time?). I find those two positions somewhat baffling.

I believe I agree with you. (Second time this week if you're scoring at home.)

0 Replies

Eight Soldiers Plan to Sue Over Army's Stop-Loss Policy
By MONICA DAVEY

Published: December 6, 2004

ORRILTON, Ark., Dec. 3 - The eight soldiers come from places scattered across the country, from this small town an hour northwest of Little Rock to cities in Arizona, New Jersey and New York. In Iraq and Kuwait, where they all work now, most of them hold different jobs in different units, miles apart. Most have never met.

But the eight share a bond of anger: each says he has been prevented from coming home for good by an Army policy that has barred thousands of soldiers from leaving Iraq this year even though the terms of enlistment they signed up for have run out. And each of these eight soldiers has separately taken the extraordinary step of seeking legal help, through late-night Internet searches and e-mail inquiries from their camps in the conflict zone, or through rounds of phone calls by an equally frustrated wife or mother back home.

With legal support from the Center for Constitutional Rights, a liberal-leaning public interest group, lawyers for the eight men say they will file a lawsuit on Monday in federal court in Washington challenging the Army policy known as stop-loss.

Last spring, the Army instituted the policy for all troops headed to Iraq and Afghanistan, called it a way to promote continuity within deployed units and to avoid bringing new soldiers in to fill gaps left in units by those who would otherwise have gone home when their enlistments ran out. If a soldier's unit is still in Iraq or Afghanistan, that soldier cannot leave even when his or her enlistment time runs out.

Since then, a handful of National Guardsmen who received orders to report for duty in California and Oregon have taken the policy to court, but the newest lawsuit is the first such challenge by a group of soldiers. And these soldiers are already overseas - transporting supplies, working radio communications and handling military contracts, somewhere in the desert.

"You should know I'm not against the war," said David W. Qualls, one of the plaintiffs and a former full-time soldier who signed up in July 2003 for a one-year stint in the Arkansas National Guard but now expects to be in Iraq until next year.

"This just isn't about that. This is a matter of fairness. My job was to go over and perform my duties under the contract I signed. But my year is up and it's been up. Now I believe that they should honor their end of the contract." Some military experts described the soldiers' challenge as both surprising and telling, given the tenor of military life, where soldiers are trained throughout their careers to follow their commanders' orders.

These soldiers' public objections are only the latest signs of rising tension within the ranks. In October, members of an Army Reserve unit refused a mission, saying it was too dangerous. And in recent months, some members of the Individual Ready Reserve, many of whom say they thought they had finished their military careers, have objected to being called back to war and requested exemptions.

Mr. Qualls, 35, who says he sometimes speaks his mind even to his superiors, is the only one among the eight whose real name will appear on the lawsuit against the Army's military leaders. The rest, who fear retribution from the Army - including more dangerous assignments in Iraq - are described only as John Does 1 through 7.

Aside from the shared expectation that they would have gone home by now, these soldiers' situations could not be more varied, as interviews with their families made clear.

One is a member of an Army band, ordered to travel Iraq this year performing music. Another is an Army reservist in a New Jersey transportation company with 18 years of service behind him. Another is an Arizona National Guardsman in his 20's, whose wife says he sounded subdued, even tearful, when she spoke to him in recent days on a phone line from Kuwait.

"The whole morale in his unit is on the floor," she said on the condition that she not be named, to avoid revealing her husband's identity.

Although Army officials said they could not comment on a lawsuit, particularly one they had not yet seen, they described the stop-loss policy, which was first instituted during the first Persian Gulf war more than a decade ago, as a crucial lesson learned in Vietnam, where troops were rotated out just as they had become acclimated to a treacherous environment.

"If someone next to you is new, it can be dangerous," said Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman. "The bottom line of this is unit cohesion. This way, the units deploy together, train together, fight together and come home together."

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Gelisgesti
If after the election the US is asked to leave. Will that be the point at which Bush calls for another regime change? {Tongue in cheek}
That aside would Bush after all the lives lost and treasure spent would Bush just pick up his marbles and go home.

There is no way of recouping the cost of the 'war' and congress is not about to indefinatly extend his credit. To completely dominate the insurgents would require at least an additional 150,000 troops for an indefinite period of time with a steadily increasing death toll on both sides. Democracy at the point of a gun ... a mind convinced against it's will is of the same opinion still. These people do not forget and will wait generations for revenge. Just as they absorbed the Mongol hordes they will absorbe the 'coalition'
Will Bush leave? That brings to mind an image of Bremmer minutes after turning over the keys to his office, sprinting to an awaiting chopper in an apparent mad dash to get out of Dodge. Will Bush leave? Yes, he would jump at the chance ...... unfortunatly for everyone involved his next stop will take him next door to Iran.
After all he is a self proclaimed 'war President' .... that's what he does.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

We went into Afghanistan to get al-Qaeda leadership.

I agree that Bush gave those reasons among several others for going into Afghanistan. However, Bush's primary reason for invading both Afganistan and Iraq was: "The United States would punish not just the perpetrators of the attacks but also those who harbored them." Please see 9-11 Commission Report, Chapter 10.2 Planning for War, the paragraph referencing note 34. I bought that reason. I did not buy the additional reasons he gave as sufficient justification for going to all that expense in our troop's lives and in US resources to capture bin Laden. I thought that silly. To me the price for removal of the harborers and their replacement by democratic governments that are unlikely to harbor al Qaeda is sufficient justification all by itself.

InfraBlue wrote:

The amalgam to which I refer is is killing Iraqis and Americans and other foreigners in the name of ousting us, the Americans, the foreigners, the occupying invaders, from Iraq. The more we try to kill them, the more they'll kill, and recruit killers to kill, to get us out. Our self-assigned role in Iraq is a self-perpetuating paradox.

I understood and understand what you meant by amalgam. Let's say we break the paradox by leaving. What do you think the future consequences of that will be to the another amalgam, say the one done in the name of ousting Americans in America?

InfraBlue wrote:

Al Qaeda declared it's intention to continue mass murdering Americans. The "al Qaeda that "harbored" in Iraq, whom the 9/11 commission specifically referred to as Ansar al-Islam was a Kurdish group who's beef was with Saddam, not Americans. The 9/11 commission doesn't even mention Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist that Powell referred to in his UN speech.

Except for the non-specific mention of Zarqawi (which is irrelevant), this is false because it is incomplete. Please see page 368 of this forum, my post no. 1040760.

InfraBlue wrote:

In this I agree with you, ican: Powell ALLEGED--i.e. he asserted without proof, without proving; he brought forward as a reason or excuse--Saddam was harboring al Qaeda in Iraq. Powell, by making these allegations to the world through his UN speech, propagandized his allegations.

All intelligence, good and bad, accurate and inaccurate, almost always consists of allegations and not proof. If we were to wait until we had proof (that is, evidence that is sufficient to establish certainty), we would all be dead certain and certainly dead. All you have presented and are presenting here in defense of your beliefs consists of your allegations. By your logic that is sufficient to establish that all you post consists of your propaganda.

InfraBlue wrote:

The 9/11 commission does not repudiate the evidence I've posted that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi fell in with ANSAR AL-ISLAM, a KURDISH GROUP. The 9/11 commission, as I've already pointed out, doesn't even mention Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the entirety of it's report.

So far the only thing you have posted other than your own opinion is Kay's report about what he alleged was Saddam's incapacity to renew development of WMD after UN sanctions were lifted. That particular opinion is contradicted by the Duelfer Report. David Kay himself has proven to contradict himself before the 9-11 Commission.

InfraBlue wrote:

We didn't go into Iraq to get Saddam because of alleged thousands of munitions dumps. ...
We didn't go into Iraq to get Saddam because of oil-for-food frauds. ... We didn't go into Iraq to get Saddam because of your allegations that he financed terrorists. ...

Again, our primary reason for going into Iraq was "The United States would punish not just the perpetrators of the attacks but also those who harbored them." Please see 9-11 Commission Report, Chapter 10.2 Planning for War, the paragraph referencing note 34. I bought that reason.

As a consequence of going into Iraq, we learned of additional suffiicient reasons for going into Iraq. We found over 1000 munitions dumps some of which contained such high explosives that only small amounts are required to destroy large buildings and kill large assemblages of people. That's another sufficient reason for going into Iraq. The oil-for-food scandal reveals funds available to Saddam for financing whatever evil enterprises he chose including, but not limited to, denial of adequate food for Iraqis, financing of terrorists, and bribery for elimination of UN sanctions so he could resume development of WMD. Each of those are additional sufficient reasons for going into Iraq.

InfraBlue wrote:

"The current purposeful mass-murder-of-civilians remnants of his regime, et cetera," wouldn't have been "current purposeful mass-murder-of-civilians remnants of his regime, et cetera," had the US not invaded and occupied Iraq. It is against this, our invasion and occupation of Iraq that "the current purposeful mass-murder-of-civilians remnants of his regime, et cetera" are "purposefully mass-murdering civilians" and Americans, and others that are allied to the occupying foreigners. Our self-assigned role in Iraq is a self-perpetuating paradox.

It's hard to believe you think what you claim here is rational to believe. The only subjugation of Iraqis we seek is to establish a government which will not harbor al Qaeda and other terrorists. The current purposeful mass-murderers of civilians and Americans, and others that are allied to the occupying foreigners (i.e., evil scum) are attempting to regain a power that if regained will be deadly to our existence. Regaining this power is not even in the evil scum's enlightened self-interest any more than it is in ours. Upon gaining such power, these evil scum set themselves up for their own arbitrary murders by their own fellow evil scum.

InfraBlue wrote:

You support the invasion and occupation of Iraq because insurgents are killing innocents because of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Read more carefully. That is but one of many sufficient reasons for justifying our invasion that I have presented.

InfraBlue wrote:

You are arguing support for a war based on ex post facto pretexts. Yours is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

You are wrong. Evidence gathered before and after a consequence is valid evidence of the consequence.

I am arguing for a war based on all we thought we knew before our invasion and now know we know after our invasion. Your piecemeal reasoning is at best a joke.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your disagreement is irrelevant.

What Powell mistakenly alleged is what is irrelevant. What is relevant is what we have discovered is true after our invasion. What we discovered after the invasion is that al Qaeda were encamped in Iraq and had access to enormous supplies of deadly ordinance and money to facilitate their continuation of their declared war on Americans. The absence of WMD in Iraq was discovered to be only a temporary condition, which was planned to be eliminated after various profiteers were sufficiently bribed to cause UN sanctions to be eliminated. All of this was discovered as a direct consequence of our invasion. Our invasion was a direct consequence of our recognition that our national security was dependent on Bush's primary reason and decision for invading both Afganistan and Iraq: "The United States would punish not just the perpetrators of the attacks but also those who harbored them."

InfraBlue wrote:

1998's Operation Desert Fox was launched in response to Saddam's ouster of UN weapons inspectors. Its mission was to strike military and security targets in Iraq that contribute to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. Its goals were to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction, diminish Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors, and to demonstrate to Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international obligations.

That degradation, but not elimination, of Saddam's capability and desire to redevelop WMD and WMD delivery capability succeeded. And would have continued to succeed until UN sanctions were lifted or at least insufficiently enforced. That lifting or insufficient enforcement was on its way until we invaded. However, do not forget that the murder of thousands of Americans was accomplished without WMD and could be repeated with either box cutters etc. or the high explosives discovered in those Iraqi munitions dumps.

InfraBlue wrote:

As regards WMD in Iraq, Duelfer's report further demonstrates the superfluousness of our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

No it doesn't! It demonstrates the contrary.

Quote:

Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
Regime Strategic Intent
Key Findings

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

 Saddam totally dominated the Regime's strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq's strategic policy.

 Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections--to gain support for lifting sanctions--with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

 The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Bagdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

 By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of the sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability--which was essentially destroyed in 1991--after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop nuclear capability--in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks--but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

 Iran was the pre-eminate motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerattions, but secondary.

 Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of feeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

 The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

InfraBlue wrote:

The kind of operations that Clinton tried against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sudan were aimed at destroying al Qaeda TARGETS. The kind of operation that Bush has tried in Afghanistan didn't destroy al Qaeda there. Why should any rational person think it will work in Iraq?

Clinton's aims are irrelevant. Did he succeed in destroying al Qaeda in Afghanistan? You know he didn't. Bush invaded Afghanistan to accomplish that and is making progress. The continuation of that progress is encouraging. That's why a rational person should think it will also continue to progress in Iraq.

InfraBlue wrote:

What has rendered the risk of "fatality" to virtually negligible in the US has been the bulwarking and strengthening of homeland defenses. What has rendered from our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq is a record level debt, thousands of dead Americans, thousands upon thousands of dead Afghans and Iraqis, and no end in sight to our occupations of those countries.

It is incredibly naive to think bulwarking and strengthening homeland defenses (despite our still porous borders) is what is restraining al Qaeda. What's restraining them is what we are doing to them and threaten to do to them in Afghanistan and Iraq.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is incredibly naive to think bulwarking and strengthening homeland defenses (despite our still porous borders) is what is restraining al Qaeda. What's restraining them is what we are doing to them and threaten to do to them in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Actually, Ican, it is this statement which is incredibly naive, as the US is doing everything in it's power to forward the goals of AQ by creating a showdown between 'cultures'....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

It is incredibly naive to think bulwarking and strengthening homeland defenses (despite our still porous borders) is what is restraining al Qaeda. What's restraining them is what we are doing to them and threaten to do to them in Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ce691e98-47a8-11d9-a0fd-00000e2511c8.html

Al-Qaeda's Red Sea surprise
By Roula Khalaf, Middle East editor
Published: December 6 2004 17:05 | Last updated: December 6 2004 17:05
World / Middle East & Africa Print article | Email article

(part of the article the rest is at the link)

Al-Qaeda's Red Sea surprise
By Roula Khalaf, Middle East editor
Published: December 6 2004 17:05 | Last updated: December 6 2004 17:05

Quote:

Until Monday the al-Qaeda branch in Jeddah was considered by residents as largely "ineffective." Unlike the capital Riyadh or the Eastern Province, attempts to stage attacks in the Red Sea port had largely been successfully foiled by security forces.

But it is in Jeddah that militants sought to wage their most spectacular assault in their two-year violent campaign, taking the Saudi government and the US off guard.

Yesterday's storming of the US consulate compound was the first attack against a diplomatic mission and it targetted one the most heavily guarded buildings in the kingdom.

It also came without the warnings and alerts that have usually preceded other large-scale al-Qaeda attacks in Saudi Arabia. Western diplomats in Riyadh said there had been no intelligence report suggesting an attack was imminent.

Security forces yesterday rapidly took back control of the consulate. Officials close to security services argued the attack was being treated as a suicide mission: the militants who shot their way through the gates were expecting to die so they could not have been easily prevented from storming the compound.

But the high-profile attack will renew concerns over the kingdom's ability to contain the al-Qaeda threat.

Since the May attack on an oil company complex in the eastern city of Khobar and the subsequent killing of Muqrin, the presumed al-Qaeda leader, militants have been on the defensive.

"No one thought the security problem had been solved but there have been clashes with suspects almost daily, so security forces were getting on top of it," said one western diplomat.

The consulate attack appeared designed to grab the limelight as much as refocus the violent campaign on a target likely to draw sympathy from ordinary Saudis.

Many Saudis, including independent clerics who have condemned al-Qaeda's campaign against foreign nationals in the kingdom, are more willing to acquiesce to attacks against American targets.

"It's clear al-Qaeda has been losing. By striking at a target that's even better protected than the royals' palaces it's trying to improve its image," said Abdelaziz al-Qassim, a legal expert and religious scholar in Riyadh.

Last month, more than 25 religious scholars, some of whom have a dedicated following, issued an edict supporting jihad, or holy war, against US forces in Iraq.

Analysts in Riyadh said the fatwa was driven by rising anger in Saudi Arabia at US military offensives in Iraq's Sunni Arab towns. The Saudi government, meanwhile, told Iraqi diplomats that it had asked other clerics to speak against the insurgency.

It is not very wise to think we have "restrained" AQ. Bin Laden planned for a lot of years for 9/11 before actually carrying it out. Also there is added anger with even moderate Arabs and Muslims over the Bush policies and actions. We may be winning the war but we are not winning any hearts and minds.

0 Replies

It would seem outgoing Sec. of Health and Human Services: Tommy Thompson cannot be accused of naivety. I parahase: "I cannot for the life of me understand why the terrorist have not yet attacked our food supply"

This wonder holds for all other extremely vulnerable infrastructure areas, containerized cargo, subway stations, night clubs... the list is endless. Heightened security efforts and other Homeland Security procedures deserve credit. But Islamic terrorist, when targets "become hardened", gravitate to "softer targets". What softer target then one where the terrorist need only board a bus, cross an extremely porous border, and blow up some people whose uniforms have been supplied by westerners? An Iraqi police station does rather nicely. Or perhaps a remote controlled agression against American troups via a road side bomb? Hell no courage needed, just a cell phone, some C-4, and a nice view of the road from as far away as possible.

As distasteful as it may be, many of the jihadist extremists seem content to concentrate themselves in Iraq where they strive to "liberate" an Iraq from those who already have. Their intense hatred for westerners, Iraqi citizens who merely want to participate in their own government, or anybody that might even think about living a life free of their control, affords them the excuse of murder in the name of God. The terrorist are incensed that the greater majority of Iraq's citizens would chose any government rather then the same ole same ole (read: Sunni Hegemony).

Ican's argument that the terrorist now have a less tasty but easier and more accessiable bone to chew on has been afforded validity. Afghanistan is not exactly a model of democracy but it is run by Afghans who insist on choosing not only their leaders but their way of life. I wonder why Al Zarqawi hasn't tried to spread his cancerous criminality to Afghanistan?

JM

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

the US is doing everything in it's power to forward the goals of AQ by creating a showdown between 'cultures'....

No! The AQ have been and are forwarding their goals by creating a showdown between 'cultures'. If it weren't for the AQ there would not be an AQ problem. We would accelerate AQ progress toward their goals by declining to resist (say, passively resist) their efforts.

Why do you think active resistance (e.g., counter attack) promotes the intensification of the efforts of evil scum, while passive resistance doesn't?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Roula Khalaf wrote:

Al-Qaeda’s Red Sea surprise
...
Last month, more than 25 religious scholars, some of whom have a dedicated following, issued an edict supporting jihad, or holy war, against US forces in Iraq.
...

What follows is allegedly a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is allegedly a well known leader in prison ministry. Only the bold face is added by me. Can anyone provide evidence that the bold faced statements are either true or false?

Rick Mathes wrote:

Allah or Jesus?
By: Rick Mathes

Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their belief systems.

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.

When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: "Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?"

There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, "Non-believers!"

I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?"

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes."

I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Billy Graham ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!" The Imam was speechless.

I continued, "I also have a problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?"

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the 'Diversification' training seminar were not happy with Rick's way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim's beliefs.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know