0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 03:58 pm
Was the Bush administration lying on the matter of the Niger uranium? I don't know the answer to that question. It may well have been a conscious, deliberate lie on the part of officials who knew better. Alternatively, it could have been less than that - perhaps a partisan assertion based on inconclusive evidence selectively reported for political ends; or even a possibility, also based on incomplete intelligence, that truly did figure ion the intelligence calculation about what an enemy might do. (after all intelligence failures more often involve dangers undetected than they do imagined ones.).


Democracy (as it exists in the world) is a form of government that permits the public repudiation or affirmation of policy and political leaders in a more or less orderly process. Moreover, the successful systems we know all contain elements that pit various components of government against one another as a means of limiting excesses that would otherwise likely occur. However, Democracy still involves human beings as they are. The problems of statecraft and leadership in a republic are, in their human dimensions, not much different from those in other forms of government. History bears this out.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 04:03 pm
yeah but if the people are lied to...

and act accordingly

what then of the noble republic?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 04:04 pm
The noble republic was Plato's fantasy. He was no democrat.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 04:06 pm
McTag wrote:
...
But this is not what we are concerned with here.
What do you mean "we"? It's not what you are concerned with here.
Perhaps we should be, as a side issue, it's important after all.
What you are concerned with here is a "side issue" and is "important after all."

For me, the main points in the thread are

Did Bushco lie?NO! They repeated the falsehoods they were told by the previous administration and its appointees.
Was the case for invasion of Iraq falsified??NO! See below
Is the invasion a crime??NO! An offensive self-defense is not a crime.
Has the invasion improved matters in the ME??NO! Not yet.
How can stability be restored in Iraq??Next, ENABLE IRAQIS TO HOLD THE DECEMBER ELECTIONS THEY VOTED TO HOLD, while continuing to help them exterminate malignancy in their midst.


The original, fundamental, and sufficient reason for invading Iraq as well as Afghanistan was stated three times by President Bush in September and October of 2001. President Bush declared that the USA shall fight a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda, that will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them, in order to eliminate terrorism as a threat to our way of life.

From www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
September 20, 2004, final report

The night of 9/11[/2001], the President broadcast to the nation:
Quote:
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.


Thursday, September 20[, 2001], President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress. President Bush said:
Quote:
Tonight we are a country awakened to danger.

Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

This is civilization's fight.


Quote:
The pre-9/11 draft presidential directive on al Qaeda evolved into a new directive, National Security Presidential Directive 9, now titled "Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States." The directive would now extend to a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda. It also incorporated the President's determination not to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them. It included a determination to use military force if necessary to end al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan. The new directive -- formally signed on October 25[, 2001], after the fighting in Afghanistan had already begun -- included new material followed by annexes discussing each targeted terrorist group. The old draft directive on al Qaeda became, in effect, the first annex. The United States would strive to eliminate all terrorist networks, dry up their financial support, and prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The goal was the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life."


Twenty-three whereases (i.e., reasons) were stated in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 by Congress October 16, 2002. However, only six of Congress's reasons (shown below in boldface), reflect the one reason (i.e., President Bush declared that the USA shall fight a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda, that will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them, in order to eliminate terrorism as a threat to our way of life.) declared by President Bush a year earlier. Consequently, Congress's additional seventeen reasons constitute supplementary reasons for invading Iraq, and as such are not needed to justify the Iraq invasion regardless of whether any one or more of those seventeen have been subsequently shown to be either true or false.

Quote:
www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
Oct. 16, 2002
(H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
(1) Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

(2) Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

(3) Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

(4) Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

(5) 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';

(6) 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;

(7) 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;

(8) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

(9) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;


(10) 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;

(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

(12) Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

(13) 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;

(14) Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

(15) Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

(16) Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

(17) Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

(18) Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

(19)Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;


(20) Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(21) Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(22) Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

(23) Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
50 USC 1541 note.


In this their resolution, did Congress lie and knowingly state falsities, or did Congress not lie and did not knowingly state falsities?

I cannot find any evidence that in this their resolution Congress lied and knowingly stated falsities. Therefore, in this their resolution, I believe Congress did not lie and did not knowingly state falsities.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 04:24 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Thre is an un-named state in the south that has 9 million people, oddly enough there are only 17 last names.


I don't know that state. Is it part of the State of Confusion? That one is a global state that has 6.3 billion people who have only two last names: homo sapiens.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 10:35 pm
georbeob wrote:
I believe that both Blair and Bush were motivated by more fundamental (and correct) strategic considerations.


What are these "more fundamental and correct strategic considerations"?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2005 10:58 pm
Yeah, funny how those "more fundamental and correct strategic considerations" have resulted in more world terrorists and terrorism, the loss of over 2,000 of our men and women in uniform, and upwards of 100,000 innocent Iraqis dead - with no end in sight.

How many more are we willing to sacrifice for this "fundamental and correct strategic considerations?"
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 02:01 am
georgeob1 wrote:
The noble republic was Plato's fantasy. He was no democrat.

I agree. I am just somewhat bemused by the odd priorities the American body politic is reveling here. When a president has oral sex with an intern and lies about it under oath, a grand jury investigates whether he should be impeached. When thugs associated with people associated with the president break into the opposition's headquarters and the president covers it up, he eventually resigns, knowing that he would be impeached if he didn't. But when presidents go to war on a casus belli they lied about, then harrass the people who expose their lies, as both Johnson and Bush did? Ah well, no republic is perfect, and hardball politics will be hardball politics. It almost appears as if some presidential conduct is too bad to be worthy of impeachment.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 04:41 am
Well said, Thomas.

To me it seems like a horrible macro-re-enactment of "The King's New Clothes". Sorry about the language and the simile, but it's difficult for me to express the enormity of it.

We sent bombers to smash a country on the basis of a lie, a series of lies, and the perpetrators have lied about it ever since, so far escaping justice.

Bush still grins and shrugs, and Clinton meanwhile was universally condemned for having sex with a willing adult and then lying about it.

Truly it's the politics of the madhouse.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 07:12 am
georbeob wrote:
I believe that both Blair and Bush were motivated by more fundamental (and correct) strategic considerations.


oil

and as that was clearly illegal, they had to lie, and they will continue to lie
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 07:14 am
So then, nothing new there, eh?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 07:30 am
nope
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 08:00 am
Wondering where you've been, set. I guess there is nothing new to say but still we keep on saying it over and over again.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 08:06 am
And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on
Drums keep poundin' a rhythm to the brain
Ladeedadeedah
Ladeedadeedye . . .



Had some vision problems, Boss, which limit my time in front of a CRT . . .
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 08:50 am
we're all glad to have you back set.

limited contribution from you is worth much more than average a2ker.

my contributions limited to typing with left hand only at moment thats my excuse...
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 09:07 am
Setanta wrote:
Had some vision problems, Boss, which limit my time in front of a CRT . . .


I assume you know LCD screens have no flicker and less glare, and thus cause less eye strain than a CRT. If you've not done it already, get a flat panel LCD monitor.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 09:37 am
Setanta wrote:
Had some vision problems, Boss, which limit my time in front of a CRT . . .

... but you should see the other three guys, revel. They won't be picking a fight with Setanta anytime soon.

(Translation: Glad you're doing better.)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 09:38 am
Grazie, Boss . . .
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 10:40 am
Setanta wrote:
So then, nothing new there, eh?


For your eyes only. :wink:

In 1996, 1998,
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm
[scroll down to find them both]
and 2004
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00035.html
al Qaeda declared war against all Americans and all worldwide non-believers in al Qaeda’s religion.


In its 1996 fatwah al Qaeda stated:
Quote:
Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.


In its 1998 fatwah al Qaeda stated:
Quote:
~when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped", Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

~to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.


In its 2004 fatwah, al Qaeda stated:
Quote:
Once again, we repeat our call and send this clear message to our Muslim brothers, warning against fellowship with the Crusaders, the Americans, Westerners and all idols in the Arab Gulf. Muslims should not associate with them anywhere, be it in their homes, complexes or travel with them by any means of transportation.

Prophet Muhammad said "I am free from who lives among idols".

No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.

Everything related to them such as complexes, bases, means of transportation, especially Western and American Airlines, will be our main and direct targets in our forthcoming operations on our path of Jihad that we, with Allah's Power, will not turn away from.


-------

Saddam's regime, while lacking government civil control of northeastern Iraq in the autonomous region, was not lacking military ground control.

Quote:
From Encyclopedia Britannica, IRAQ
www.britannica.com
In April 1991 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France established a “safe haven” in Iraqi Kurdistan, in which Iraqi forces were barred from operating. Within a short time the Kurds had established autonomous rule, and two main Kurdish factions—the KDP in the north and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in the south—contended with one another for control. This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force. The Iraqi military launched a successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil in 1996 and engaged in a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing in areas directly under its control—particularly in and around the oil-rich city of Karkuk—that were inhabited predominantly by Kurds and other minorities.


-----
Soon after the USA invaded Iraq, USA military forces attacked the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists in northeastern Iraq.

Quote:
"American Soldier in Chapter 12 A CAMPAIGN UNLIKE ANY OTHER, CENTCOM FORWARD HEADQUARTERS 21 MARCH 2003, A-DAY, page 483, General Tommy Franks.
The Air Picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges and a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another TLAM [Tomahawk Land Attack Missle] bashing. Soon Special Forces and SMU [Special Mission Unit] operators leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted.


-----

When the USA military forces attacked the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists in northeastern Iraq, their leaders escaped.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
When the US invaded, it attacked AI [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] training camps in the north, and the organization's leaders retreated to neighboring countries. When the war in the north settled down, the militants returned to Iraq to fight against the occupying American forces.


-----

By the time of the invasion of Iraq, Ansar al-Islam had grown significantly.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam (i.e., Supporters or Partisans of Islam) is a Kurdish Sunni Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war. At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.

AI [I.E., Ansar al-Islam] is believed to be responsible for several suicide bomb attacks in Iraq, mostly in the north. The first such was at a checkpoint on February 26, 2003, before the war [March 20, 2003].


-----

Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001, a year and three months prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
It [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] 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. 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.


-----

In the 5 years 5 months from May 1996 to October 2001 (when the USA invaded Afghanistan), al Qaeda in Afghanistan trained 10,000 or more terrorist fighters: an average of about 1,846 per year. In the 1 year 3 months from December 2001 to March 2003 (when the USA invaded Iraq), I estimate probably 1,000 or more terrorist fighters were trained by al Qaeda in Iraq. As of now, far fewer than 11,000 such fighters have been killed or captured in Iraq. Until these 11,000 have been killed or captured, one cannot rationally claim that our invasion of Iraq increased the total number of al Qaeda trained terrorists.

Quote:
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 67, note 78.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
The Taliban seemed to open the doors to all who wanted to come to Afghanistan to train in the camps. The alliance with the Taliban provided al Qaeda a sanctuary in which to train and indoctrinate fighters and terrorists, import weapons, forge ties with other jihad groups and leaders, and plot and staff terrorist schemes. While Bin Ladin maintained his own al Qaeda guesthouses and camps for vetting and training recruits, he also provided support to and benefited from the broad infrastructure of such facilities in Afghanistan made available to the global network of Islamist movements. U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of fighters who underwent instruction in Bin Ladin-supported camps in Afghanistan from 1996 through 9/11 at 10,000 to 20,000.78


-----

Al Qaeda in1996 is not pacified by USA withdrawals. In fact in 1996 (more than 5 years before 9/11 and almost 7 years before the USA invaded Iraq) al Qaeda ridiculed such withdrawals.

Quote:
From al Qaeda’s 1996 fatwah
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm
[scroll down to find it].
Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in less than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.


-----

Osama's deputy Turabi had ties to Iraq and through him provided Osama a connection to Iraq. Osama helped form Ansar al-Islam.

Quote:
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.4, page 61, note 54".
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi [Bin Laden's Sudanese deputy] reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54


-----

Osama’s deputy Zawahiri had ties to Iraq and through him also provided Osama a connection to Iraq.

Quote:
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 66, note 75.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.


-----

More than once, the USA requested Saddam to extradite the leadership of Ansar al-Islam, but Saddam ignored those requests

Quote:
Secretary of State, Colin Powell's speech to UN, 2/5/2003, on sinister nexus.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
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.

Now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large, to come and go.


While Saddam's regime denied Powell's claims about the regime being an accomplice to 9/11 or possessing ready-to-use WMD, Saddam's regime never confirmed or denied the USA requested the Saddam regime extradite the terrorist leadership in Iraq. Instead the Saddam regime ignored these requests.

-----

Saddam was planning to re-commence development of WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted.

Quote:
Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
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 enhance 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.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2005 10:44 am
Bite me, Ican . . . i lost all interest in your obsessive fantasies a long time ago . . . you ought properly to be embarrassed not to have realized the extent to which you are despised here for your delusions and your obsessive repetition of crap which has never convinced anyone here . . .
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 0.05 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 02:34:57