THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Was the Taliban's regime more of a threat to America than was Saddam's regime? ANSWER:Hell no! Neither regime was itself a threat to America. What then is the difference between the two that makes the Iraq invasion an illegal invasion and the Afghanistan invasion a legal invasion? ANSWER: Nothing!

You're wrong. The taliban openly supported Al Qaeda, Saddam didn't support them in any fasion.

Cycloptichorn

Taliban's regime was not itself a threat to America. It supported al-Qaeda by allowing al-Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan. Saddam's regime supported al-Qaeda in Iraq by not even attempting to extradite it when invited in 2002 to do so by America. On the otherhand, when invited in 1996 by a Kurdish group to invade Irbil in Kurdish controlled northeastern Iraq, Saddam's regime did comply.

The Taliban did far more than just allow AQ sanctuary, they were entwined together. This is very different from Saddam's situation, as you well know.

Cycloptichorn

Oh my God! The Taliban were entwined together with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. And Saddam's regime was only what together with the al-Qaeda in Iraq.

...
[10th]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;

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

...
I don't even know why I bother discussing things with someone who ... can't even see the difference between two completely different situations.

I see the difference clearly. It is a trivial difference having nothing to do with whether or not Taliban's regime was a serious threat to America. It wasn't. It did not train the 9/11 terrorists anymore than Saddam's regime did. Taliban did not finance al-Qaeda anymore than Saddam's regime did. One more time, Taliban did not finance al-Qaeda anymore than Saddam's regime did. Taliban did not equip, transport, train to fly, or arm the 9/11 terrorists anymore than Saddam's regime did. The one thing they both did that was a significant threat to America was fail to comply with America's demand that they remove al-Qaeda from their country or face the consequences.
...
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
I don't even know why I bother discussing things with someone who ... can't even see the difference between two completely different situations.

I see the difference clearly. It is a trivial difference having nothing to do with whether or not Taliban's regime was a serious threat to America. It wasn't. It did not train the 9/11 terrorists anymore than Saddam's regime did. Taliban did not finance al-Qaeda anymore than Saddam's regime did. One more time, Taliban did not finance al-Qaeda anymore than Saddam's regime did. Taliban did not equip, transport, train to fly, or arm the 9/11 terrorists anymore than Saddam's regime did. The one thing they both did that was a significant threat to America was fail to comply with America's demand that they remove al-Qaeda from their country or face the consequences.
...
Cycloptichorn

Relationship with Osama bin Laden

In 1996, Osama bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. When the Taliban came to power, bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. The Taliban and bin Laden had very close connections, which were formalized by a marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. During Osama bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he had helped finance the Taliban.[11]

After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Osama bin Laden and several al Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court.[12] The Taliban protected Osama bin Laden from extradition requests by the U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing" in Afghanistan[13] or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free man."[14]Evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony and satellite phone records but no physical 'proof' at the time linked bin Laden to allegations made by US intelligence and government channels.[15][16]

The Taliban continued to harbor bin Laden after the September 11, 2001 attacks, protesting his innocence...

Besides, the following countries all have an Al Queda presence in them:

Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, Xinjiang in China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, Mindanao in the Philippines, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Jammu and Kashmri, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia, as also in parts of the West Bank and Gaza. ( Source:South Asia Intelligence Review)link

Yes, I think this is probably true. What is your point? Is it: if we cannot invade them all at once we should only invade one at a time? Or is it: if we cannot invade them all at once we should invade none to avoid discriminating against those not invaded?

Bombs away?



It really defies any sort of rationality not to be able to see the difference between

a) the relationship between the Taliban regime and Al Queda
and
b) the relationshio between the Saddam regime and Al Queda.

It really defies any sort of rationality not to be able to see that the significance of their differences are trivial with respect to their threats to the security of America, and the significance of their similarities are major with respect to their threats to the security of America. Al-Qaeda found large sanctuaries for the training of their recruits in both Afghanistan and Iraq. That's a similarity major enough to justify invading both.

Joe(get help)Nation

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_dc
Dozens of al Qaeda killed in Anbar: Iraq police By Waleed Ibrahim and Ibon Villelabeitia
Thu Mar 1, 3:17 PM ET [2007]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi security forces killed dozens of al Qaeda militants who attacked a village in western Anbar province on Wednesday, during fierce clashes that lasted much of the day, police officials said on Thursday.

Sunni tribal leaders are involved in a growing power struggle with Sunni al Qaeda for control of Anbar, a vast desert province that is the heart of the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq.

Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul Karim Khalaf said foreign Arabs and Afghans were among some 80 militants killed and 50 captured in the clashes in Amiriyat al Falluja, an Anbar village where local tribes had opposed al Qaeda.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/10/iraq.main/
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A purported audio recording by the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq vows to step up the group's fight against the United States, saying, "We haven't had enough of your blood yet."

The recording was posted Friday on an Islamist Web site and the speaker is identified as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al-Muhajer is also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri.
...
Much of the Iraqi insurgency has been blamed on al Qaeda in Iraq, whose former chief al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S.-led airstrike in June.

The speaker on the tape vows that al Qaeda in Iraq will not stop its jihad "until we sit under the olive trees in Rumiya after we blow up the wicked house known as the White House." He says the first phase of the jihad is now over, and that the next phase -- building an Islamic nation -- has begun.

"The victory day has come faster than we expected," he says. "Here is the Islamic nation in Iraq victorious against the tyrant. The enemy is incapable of fighting on and has no choice but to run away."

The speaker claims his al Qaeda army has 12,000 soldiers -- with 10,000 more waiting in the wings to join them.
...

I'll post any number of documents which are not germane to the conversation, however many it takes, until people stop questioning my point of view.

I parefer to rely on the UN Secretary General than ican.


Iraq war illegal, says Annan


The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

ican will never figure out why.