2
   

Debunking the Reasons to stay in Iraq.

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 01:04 am
The events of 1996 in Iraqi Kurdistan are more complex than what you've quoted from Britannica, ican, as I have already pointed out to you elsewhere on A2K. The two major political parties in Iraqi Kurdistan, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) had been at odds with each other since 1994 when there was an outbreak of fighting between their respective forces.
The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) captured Arbil from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in 1996 with the enlisted help of Saddam's Republican Guard. The KDP invited the support of Saddam. That is the major reason the US did not get involved in the conflict. It was a Kurdish affair. There was intermittent fighting until Washington brokered a peace agreement between the two sides in September of 1998.

KDP Ankara Press Statements 1996
Iraqi Kurdistan Dispatch
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 01:22 am
Gen. Tomy Franks wrote:
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.


Franks should have said, "These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi was purported to have had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons," because no evidence has been found that chemical weapons were ever present there.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 08:10 am
ican711nm wrote:
Do you have anymore hypotheses you would like to discuss?

No. You've pretty well convinced me that you will take uncorroborated stories, baseless suppositions, and confirmed falsehoods to support your conclusions. I don't see the profit in continuing a discussion on that basis.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 10:02 am
InfraBlue wrote:
...The KDP invited the support of Saddam.[/b] That is the major reason the US did not get involved in the conflict. It was a Kurdish affair. There was intermittent fighting until Washington brokered a peace agreement between the two sides in September of 1998.


Your hypothesis is duly noted and duly expected. For the duration of this post of mine I shall assume your hypothesis is valid.

Three sentences in your post make my point that Saddam chose to tolerate the establishment of Ansar al-Islam with the help of al Qaeda in Iraq in December 2001, instead of deferring to our request to him to extradite their leadership:

1. "The KDP invited the support of Saddam."
2. "That is the major reason the US did not get involved in the conflict."
3. "There was intermittent fighting until Washington brokered a peace agreement between the two sides in September of 1998."

The US invited Saddam to extradite the leadership of Ansar al-Islam. Saddam ignored the request. Saddam did not request US help to extradite that leadership. Had Saddam requested such help he would have surely received it. The US therefore chose to try to remove that leadership by itself. In order to prevent another re-establishment of al Qaeda in Iraq after the current one was removed and the US had left Iraq, the US had to also remove the government that tolerated the establishment of al Qaeda in Iraq in the first place.

Thank you!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 10:10 am
InfraBlue wrote:
...
Franks should have said, "These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi was purported to have had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons," because no evidence has been found that chemical weapons were ever present there.


Regardless, the al Qaeda camps were there!

By the way, training in the use of WMD does not require that ready-to-use WMD be present. Non-ready-to-use ingredients of WMD were found!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 10:11 am
joefromchicago wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Do you have anymore hypotheses you would like to discuss?

No. You've pretty well convinced me that you will take uncorroborated stories, baseless suppositions, and confirmed falsehoods to support your conclusions. I don't see the profit in continuing a discussion on that basis.


Your hypotheses posted here are duly noted and duly expected.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2021 at 10:04:46