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

So now it can be told: the real story of why we went to war in Iraq. Hold onto your hats all you vegetarians. Its a grissly roller-coaster ride of castor beans, apple pips and cherry stones. (and a packet of cigarettes).

This is the story of Saddam Husseins fruit and veg of mass destruction. It all began several years ago when the CIA helped to install Saddam Hussein as military dictator of Iraq, infamous for its export of dates...

0 Replies

Quote

"According to a study by Al-Shahib and Marshall, in many ways "dates may be considered as an almost ideal food, providing a wide range of essential nutrients and potential health benefits." The sugar content of ripe dates is about 80 percent; the remainder consists of protein, fat, minerals and vitamins including copper, sulfur, iron, magnesium and fluoric acid. Dates are also high in fiber and an excellent source of potassium. A kilogram of dates contains around 3,500 calories and as such is highly valued by Muslims when breaking their fast during Ramadan.

Iraq was previously famous for its date palms and dates counted amongst the country's major exported products. Under Saddam Hussein's regime the number of date palms decreased from 14 to 4 million."

I think we are finally getting somewhere. It was all about the world shortage of essential dates under Saddam. And the castor beans were to make castor oil, which keeps you regular if you eat too many. So this finally proves it, it was about oil all along.

McTag. Share your disgust at the misuse of troops the lies and deceptions and the illegal and immoral invasion. But don't all governments act like this when the "national interest" as they see it, is at risk?

0 Replies

Actually, this debate is quite pointless. We did invade Iraq and we did overthrow Saddam, who is now in parison and subject to Iraqi justice. The strength and endurance of the Baathist/Islamist insurgency surprised us, but it too is on the wane.

The prospect of a new situation and a changed direction for the Middle East is emerging, significantly aided by our action in Iraq and our parallel actions in Israel/Palestine - i.e. ignore Arafat and demand a replacement before we would take the Palestinians seriously; and insist on Israeli withdrawl from settlements in Palestinian dominated territory.

Oddly we have not seized the Iraqi oil, but I'm sure Steve and others of his ilk will explain that.

Was some Machiavellian deception involved in the political process leading up to the war? Probably there was - certainly the rationale offered to the hapless UN was distorted (to emphasize WMD) to play to the only reason that dysfunctional body would accept. Overall the political deception involved was trivial compared to that done by President Roosevelt to conn the American people into a war to save Britain and France in 1940 - or that done to the British and French people by Chamberlain and Dladier at Munich as they gave the unfortunate Czechs to Hitler with the promise of "Peace in our Time" at Munich.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Oddly we have not seized the Iraqi oil, but I'm sure Steve and others of his ilk will explain that.

Right, there are still some questions to be answered:

Quote:

Even once the cabinet is in place, however, Iraq's new government will probably need more than a year to address and clarify the legal and regulatory questions about resource ownership required for big foreign oil companies to enter the market.

source: Financila Times as of 15.04.05 via Occupation Watch Information Center

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Overall the political deception involved was trivial compared to that done by President Roosevelt to conn the American people into a war to save Britain and France in 1940.

Well, if that was the reason ...

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Actually, this debate is quite pointless. We did invade Iraq and we did overthrow Saddam, who is now in parison and subject to Iraqi justice. The strength and endurance of the Baathist/Islamist insurgency surprised us, but it too is on the wane.

Oh really!

Quote:

Source

Quote:

April 17, 2005 1:35 PM

Iraq braced for hostage rescue bid

By Thaier al-Sudani and Majid al-Hameed

NEAR MADAEN, Iraq (Reuters) - Hundreds of Iraqi troops backed by U.S. forces raided parts of a town south of Baghdad on Sunday to tryto rescue Shi'ite hostages from Sunni insurgents threatening to kill them, witnesses said.

Source

Quote:

Sify Home >> News & Info >> News >> Fullstory
sms news

At least 17 killed in Iraq attacks
Saturday, 16 April , 2005, 21:39
Baghdad: At least 17 people were killed, including two US soldiers and a Turkish trucker, in attacks around Iraq late Friday and Saturday, while two Filipinos were wounded as they headed to work at Baghdad airport, police said.

Source

Quote:

Home > News > World > Middle East

Iraq's northern capital stalked by suicide bombers
By Patrick Cockburn in Mosul

15 April 2005

Anybody who believes Iraq has turned the corner and violence is diminishing should pay a visit to its northern capital, though they must be extremely careful when doing so. A suicide bomber detonated explosives in his car outside an army post in Mosul yesterday, creating a cloud of smoke and dust that hovered over the city.

Source

Where do you get your news?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And and re that 3-liter car? Are you the one who drives a fancy French sports car?

Indeed, had one, couple of years ago... Then got rid of it when I went to work for a project in Latin America, and when I came back to Europe I realized I didn't really need a car.

0 Replies

Walter,

But it is the Iraqis who will make these decisions about their oil assets. One could hope, however, that the new government will abrogate the contract Saddam signed with Chirac for the development of the oil fields in northern Iraq,

In the years leading up to WWII we had our own strategic reasons to oppose the imperialistic expansion of the Japanese Empire, but very little national interest at stake in Europe. Many here saw the Nazi regime as a tolerable check on the Soviets. In the years before the Nazi/Soviet non aggression pact it was only the far left wing in American politics that opposed Germany, The non-aggression treaty threw all that into turmoil, but in the end the historical record makes it very clear that Roosevelt conspired with Churchill to get America into the war (even as he campaigned on a platform of neutrality in the 1940 election), and that was the driving consideration that drove our policy with respect to Japan as well.

0 Replies

If the US does not have ultimate control (I keep using that word and everytime its mis interpreted as seized or stolen or theft), repeat control over Iraqi oil, how is it that Iraq's oil is now charged in dollars, whereas before the invasion Iraq was selling its oil for euros?

I hope very much that Iraq will become a peaceful place again, with a democratic sovereign government. But how long would such a government last if it announced the re-nationalisation of all oil assets in the country, and gave the US a time table to quit its bases?

One minute? An hour? Longer than that...? OK 1 month maximum.

As for my ilk George, well I'm not sure what you mean by that, except

"ILK is part of the Computational Linguistics and AI section of the Faculty of Arts of Tilburg University (The Netherlands)."

....so I'm quite proud to be associated with it, whatever it is.

0 Replies

George wrote "Roosevelt conspired with Churchill to get America into the war (even as he campaigned on a platform of neutrality in the 1940 election), and that was the driving consideration that drove our policy with respect to Japan as well."

This sounds very much like conspiracy theory stuff. I never put you in the same category as Gore Vidal George, do you think there is something in the speculation that Roosevelt encouraged the Japs to attack Pearl Harbor?

0 Replies

That Roosevelt conspired with Churchill to get the United States into the war alongside Britain is no conspiracy theory. It is amply proven in the historical record of their rather lengthy correspondence and in the records of our then State, Navy and War Departments. Indeed we had been in a naval war with the Germans for over a year prior to Pearl Harbor.

With respect to Japan the record is mixed. There are those who believe that Roosevelt deliberately provoked Japan by cutting off oil and steel exports, and then went on to cover up indications of the forthcoming attack on Pearl Harbor. My faith in human incompetence is great enough for me to discount the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory, but I cannot imagine anyone not recognizing the desperate condition into which we put Japan by the oil/steel embargo.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

... Not really in the mood to do any research or pointing out the fact that you would have to provide a source proving that Zarqawi was the leader of the Ansar al-Islam camps. ...

So you really did mean to use the word proof and not just the word evidence.

A MATTER OF DEFINITION

If you define proof as I do, no one (including me) in the long history of this thread has provided proof of anything. They have merely provided evidence ... once in a while they have provided persuasive evidence.

As I define it, a proof consists of sufficient evidence to demonstrate the certain truth or certain falsity of an assertion. I bet proving something to a certainty is impossible without assuming at least one thing that is not provable to a certainty.

However, if by proof, you really mean providing persuasive evidence, then I am willing to bet that is achievable by some for some, but not for all.

BACK TO THE DISCUSSION

I doubt that either of us can provide persuasive evidence to the other for our respective assertions about Zarqawi. I assert that Zarqawi was the leader of the Ansar al-Islam camps. You assert that Zarqawi was not the leader of the Ansar al-Islam camps.

I've repeatedly provided some evidence that Zarqawi was the leader of the Ansar al-Islam camps. This some evidence consists of Colin Powell's assertion to the UN to that effect, and General Tommy Franks's assertion in his book to that effect.

I do recall some evidence from you that Zarqawi was not the leader of the Ansar al-Islam camps. Your some evidence is an alleged quote you provided from Mullah Krekar. I think Krekar's alleged quote is not a reliable piece of evidence--see below.

I'm guessing that you obtained that quote from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Here are some relevant excerpts from that encyclopedia some of which support your assertions, and some of which support my assertions (boldface added by ican):

Quote:

...Mullah Krekar. Krekar is alleged to be the leader of Ansar al-Islam. He has lived in Norway, where he has refugee status, since 1991. On March 21, 2003 his arrest was ordered by Økokrim, a Norwegian law enforcement agency, to ensure he did not leave the country while accusations that he had threatened terrorist attacks were investigated.

Ansar al-Islam has been accused by the United States of providing a safe haven to al-Qaeda associates, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. According to the US, they had established a camp for the production of poisons, including ricin. The US has also claimed that Ansar al-Islam has links with Saddam Hussein, thus claiming a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. The claims were rejected by Krekar, and a presentation by Colin Powell to the UN on February 5, 2003 was met with widespread scepticism (see United Nations actions regarding Iraq).

...

The Islamic Movement in Kurdistan is an Iraqi political party. It is a Sunni Islamist and Kurdish party based in the city of Halabjah in northern Iraq. The party was founded in the late 1980s by Sunni clerics opposed to the rule of Saddam Hussein. Its first leader was Shaykh Uthman Abd-Aziz. The group cooperated with Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. After the Gulf War the IMK became involved in the violent clashes for control of Iraqi Kurdistan. Despite these early tensions the IMK later participated in the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan government. It continued to receive support from Iran, and also Wahhabi groups in Saudi Arabia. The movement ruled Halabjah and Irbil, but did not impose strict Islamic law leading to internal divisions. Some more radical members joined the al-Queda aligned Ansar al-Islam.

...

Ansar al-Islam (Arabic: انصار الاسلام, Supporters or Partisans of Islam) is an Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war. At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border. It has been in conflict with other groups such as the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. ...

It was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar. Krekar is alleged to be the leader of Ansar al-Islam.

...

Ansar al-Islam has been accused by the United States of providing a safe haven to al-Qaeda associates, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. According to the US, they had established a camp for the production of poisons, including ricin. The US has also claimed that Ansar al-Islam has links with Saddam Hussein, thus claiming a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. The claims were rejected by Krekar, and a presentation by Colin Powell to the UN on February 5, 2003 was met with widespread scepticism.

...

On October 21, 2004, Zarqawi officially announced his allegiance to Al Qaida; on December 27, 2004, Al-Jazeera broadcast an audiotape of bin Laden calling Zarqawi "the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq" and asked "all our organization brethren to listen to him and obey him in his good deeds."

Despite the absence of clear evidence, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is widely regarded as the leader of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad (Monotheism and Holy Struggle Movement), an insurgent network operating in Iraq. ...

0 Replies

ican comments in blue

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

If the US does not have ultimate control (I keep using that word and everytime its mis interpreted as seized or stolen or theft), repeat control over Iraqi oil, how is it that Iraq's oil is now charged in dollars, whereas before the invasion Iraq was selling its oil for euros?

The US invaded Iraq.

I say the US invaded Iraq to prevent Iraq from continuing to contain al Quada camps used to train terrorists to murder more US residents by the thousands.

I say my evidence for this consists of two speeches by President Bush in September 2001, and the evidence from Chapter 2.4 of the 9/11 Commission Report that al Qaeda possessed training bases in Iraq.

You say the US invaded Iraq to obtain control of Iraqi oil.

You say your evidence for this is that after the invasion the US switched the sale of Iraqi oil from payment in euros to payment in dollars.

I say the Iraqi oil revenues are now being used to pay for Iraq reconstruction and defense, some of which is being performed by Americans. At this time, dollars are more convenient to the US than euros. I bet the US won't care after the US leaves whether Iraqis oil is sold in euros, rubles, franks, marks, or pesos.

I hope very much that Iraq will become a peaceful place again, with a democratic sovereign government. But how long would such a government last if it announced the re-nationalisation of all oil assets in the country, and gave the US a time table to quit its bases?

Iraqi oil is currently nationalized and cannot now be re-nationalized until it is first un-nationalized. Some in the Bush&Adm proposed that Iraqi oil be privatized. This proposal was rejected by Bush&Adm. The US oil industry was among those opposing the privatization of Iraqi oil.

Frankly, I think it would be better for the Iraq government to eventually privatize their oil industry by selling its several units to competing private companies. Government run industries are usually quickly crippled by corruption and/or incompetence. While private companies have been corrupt and/or incompetent too, generally, the private oil industry motivated by free competition does a pretty good job when not shot at or sabotaged.

The Iraqi government will specify a timetable for the US to leave when it decides that its time for the US to leave. The US will quickly comply with that time table for already evident self-interest reasons: It's already costing the US too damn much to stay.

...

0 Replies

Quote:

...Mullah Krekar. Krekar is alleged to be the leader of Ansar al-Islam. He has lived in Norway, where he has refugee status, since 1991. On March 21, 2003 his arrest was ordered by Økokrim, a Norwegian law enforcement agency, to ensure he did not leave the country while accusations that he had threatened terrorist attacks were investigated.
That's what I said, as far as I remember.

Ansar al-Islam has been accused by the United States of providing a safe haven to al-Qaeda associates, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. According to the US, they had established a camp for the production of poisons, including ricin. The US has also claimed that Ansar al-Islam has links with Saddam Hussein, thus claiming a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. The claims were rejected by Krekar, and a presentation by Colin Powell to the UN on February 5, 2003 was met with widespread scepticism (see United Nations actions regarding Iraq).

This is interesting. Let's do a quick analysis. "Ansar al-Islam has been accused by the United States of providing a safe haven to al-Qaeda associates". What do we learn from this part of the sentence? That Ansar al-Islam has been accused of something. Accused of providing a safe haven. Not even accused of turning over the leadership of their camps. Okay, let's continue. "... al-Qaeda associates, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi". Good. So the accusation is that Zarqawi was the leader of al-Qaeda associates. Might be true. Of course, there's been some evidence that Zarqawi was not associated with al-Qaeda in 2003.
...

The Islamic Movement in Kurdistan is an Iraqi political party. It is a Sunni Islamist and Kurdish party based in the city of Halabjah in northern Iraq. The party was founded in the late 1980s by Sunni clerics opposed to the rule of Saddam Hussein. Its first leader was Shaykh Uthman Abd-Aziz. The group cooperated with Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. After the Gulf War the IMK became involved in the violent clashes for control of Iraqi Kurdistan. Despite these early tensions the IMK later participated in the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan government. It continued to receive support from Iran, and also Wahhabi groups in Saudi Arabia. The movement ruled Halabjah and Irbil, but did not impose strict Islamic law leading to internal divisions. Some more radical members joined the al-Queda aligned Ansar al-Islam.

"al-Queda aligned Ansar al-Islam" is of course a little bit vague, but I wouldn't claim the contrary to be true.

...

Ansar al-Islam (Arabic: انصار الاسلام, Supporters or Partisans of Islam) is an Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war. At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border. It has been in conflict with other groups such as the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. ...

Yes. At the beginning of the 2003 invasion, Ansar al-Islam controlled about a dozen villages. We can probably agree on that one...

It was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar. Krekar is alleged to be the leader of Ansar al-Islam.

Yes. So Krekar is alleged to be the leader of Ansar al-Islam. Not Zarqawi. Krekar.

...

<erased. had that before>

...

On October 21, 2004, Zarqawi officially announced his allegiance to Al Qaida; on December 27, 2004, Al-Jazeera broadcast an audiotape of bin Laden calling Zarqawi "the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq" and asked "all our organization brethren to listen to him and obey him in his good deeds."

This is very interesting, too. For some reason, Zarqawi called his network "al-Tawhid" until October 2004. As the insurgency gained momentum, following the invasion of Iraq, he obviously affiliated himself with al-Qaeda, and bin Laden obviously recognized him as the leader of his organization in Iraq.
So, technically, Zarqawi became an al-Qaeda leader because of the invasion of Iraq, even though what you're saying is that Iraq was invaded because Zarqawi was an al-Qaeda leader who led the camps in northern Iraq.

Despite the absence of clear evidence, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is widely regarded as the leader of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad (Monotheism and Holy Struggle Movement), an insurgent network operating in Iraq. ...

yep.

0 Replies

Forgive the obscure source and also forgive the not so big deal of a news story.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/107/world/Britain_s_Straw_expects_troops:.shtml

Britain's Straw expects troops to leave Iraq within two years
By Associated Press, 4/17/2005 11:47

LONDON (AP) Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Sunday he expected British troops to leave Iraq within the next two years.

In recent months, more than a dozen countries have announced they will pull out or scale back their troop presence in Iraq. But Britain, which has 8,000 soldiers based in southern Iraq in the second-largest contingent in the U.S.-led coalition, has remained steadfast.

Straw indicated he did not expect a withdrawal this year.

''I hope it will be next year or some time the year after,'' he told ITV television. ''We are already rebuilding the Iraqi security forces. They have taken over security in many regions of the country.

''When the Iraqi government says to us `We want you to go,' we will go and I think it will be some time in the next two years,'' Straw said.

A majority of Britons opposed the Iraq war, but a poll released this week showed that only 3 percent of voters said Iraq was the most important issue in the May 5 national election.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

...So, technically, Zarqawi became an al-Qaeda leader because of the invasion of Iraq ...

"Technically?" All that's been confirmed is that Zarqawi was/is an al-Qaeda leader after the invasion of Iraq, and Zarqawi self-declared this after the invasion, and Zarqawi was allegedly endorsed as such by bin Laden after the invasion.

Quote:

On October 21, 2004, Zarqawi officially announced his allegiance to Al Qaida; on December 27, 2004, Al-Jazeera broadcast an audiotape of bin Laden calling Zarqawi "the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq" and asked "all our organization brethren to listen to him and obey him in his good deeds."

Nothing is said here about what connection Zarqawi had, if any, with al Qaeda before the US invasion of Iraq. We're both free to make our own probabilistic inferences. You infer probably a no connection before the invasion; I infer probably a yes connection before the invasion.

old europe wrote:

... even though what you're saying is that Iraq was invaded because Zarqawi was an al-Qaeda leader who led the camps in northern Iraq.

Sorry, I'm not saying that. I am saying the following three things:

1. Iraq was invaded by the US because al Qaeda was training terrorists in camps in Iraq with the declared intention (fatwah 2004) to murder thousands more American residents like it did in 2001, and Saddam chose not to attempt to remove their leadership.

2. The US believed Zarqawi was a leader of those al Qaeda camps in Iraq, and asked Saddam to extradite Zarqawi, and Saddam chose not to respond to that request.

3. The US believed that Saddam's regime had to be replaced to reduce the probability that the camps would be reconstituted under new al Qaeda leadership after the leadership of those camps was removed by the US.

I guess that you are saying that if Zarqawi was not a leader of those al Qaeda camps, then our failure to name the actual leader for extradition, justified Saddam's non-response to our request, and therefore Saddam's non-response was not an adequate justification for our invasion of Iraq.

If that is what you are saying, I disagree with what you are saying.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Britain's Straw expects troops to leave Iraq within two years
By Associated Press, 4/17/2005 11:47

Quote:
LONDON (AP) Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Sunday ...''When the Iraqi government says to us `We want you to go,' we will go and I think it will be some time in the next two years,'' Straw said.

I think Straw's position, ''When the Iraqi government says to us `We want you to go,' we will go," is identical to Bush&Adm's position.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

I guess that you are saying that if Zarqawi was not a leader of those al Qaeda camps, then our failure to name the actual leader for extradition, justified Saddam's non-response to our request, and therefore Saddam's non-response was not an adequate justification for our invasion of Iraq.

If that is what you are saying, I disagree with what you are saying.

Hey, ican -

I assume you, too, didn't find any persuasive evidence that Zarqawi was the leader of those camps. No worries, though. If Powell can admit to having been mistaken about some details when delivering his UN speech, it shouldn't be a problem for you neither. Right?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
I guess that you are saying that if Zarqawi was not a leader of those al Qaeda camps, then our failure to name the actual leader for extradition, justified Saddam's non-response to our request, and therefore Saddam's non-response was not an adequate justification for our invasion of Iraq.

If that is what you are saying, I disagree with what you are saying.

Hey, ican -

I assume you, too, didn't find any persuasive evidence that Zarqawi was the leader of those camps.

I found persuasive evidence that persuaded me that Zarkawi was a leader of those al Qaeda camps.

One piece of persuasive evidence is that Saddam after hearing Powell's 2/5/2003 speech did not respond with something--something, anything--in an attempt to dissuade the US invasion. Perhaps something like: Fool! Zarkawi is not a leader of those al Qaeda camps. I can't extradite from those camps what ain't in those camps. Get off my back!

I think it highly probable that Saddam did not do that and stood silent because Zarqawi was a leader of those camps, and because Saddam didn't want to choose to extradite any al Qaeda leaders in Iraq.

You of course remember that Powell said to the UN:

Quote:

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Propaganda, both false and true, is often repeated endlessly.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know