THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

@cicerone imposter,

Your own link says exactly what I said...

Quote:

However, despite the rhetoric, Republicans requested 40 percent of the earmarks and ranked among the highest pork barrel spenders.

I said that the repubs asked for 40% of the earmarks, and your link says that exact same thing.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

But you are ignoring what it really says:

Quote:

Quote:

However, despite the rhetoric, Republicans requested 40 percent of the earmarks and ranked among the highest pork barrel spenders.

1 Reply

The true AND sufficient reason for invading Afghanistan October 20, 2001 was the failure of its Taliban government to remove al-Qaeda from Afghanistan.

The true AND sufficient reason for invading Iraq March 20, 2003 was the failure of its Ba'ath government to SAY IT WOULD TRY TO RID Al-Qaeda from Iraq.

Al-Qaeda established sanctuary in Afghanistan in May, 1996. A little more than 5 years later al-Qaeda mass murdered almost 3,000 non-murdering Americans.

Al-Qaeda established sanctuary in Iraq in December, 2001. How many non-murdering Americans would al-Qaeda have mass murdered a little over 5 years later, IF WE HADN'T INVADED IRAQ?

The false allegation made by the Bush Administration that Iraq possessed WMD was simply a false supplementary reason for invading Iraq.

=============================

The no-fly zone over Northeastern Iraq was not a no-drive, no-run, or no-walk zone. In fact, Saddam's troops entered that area on the ground in 1996 to help one Kurd faction fight another.

While al-Qaeda established their sanctuary in Northeastern Iraq after fleeing from our invasion of Afghanistan, there is little or no evidence they did that with the help or actual agreement of Saddam Hussein.

Al Qaeda also fled into Pakistan after we invaded Afghanistan. The government of Pakistan, unlike the government of Iraq, said it would try to rid al-Qaeda from Pakistan. They have not succeeded yet, but then the new government of Afghanistan hasn't yet been able to rid Afghanistan of al-Qaeda.

1 Reply

Ican, you entire post is just filled the same repeated junk, this gets so tiresome, I don't know why I respond. Nevertheless, We had control of the northern part of Iraq, Saddam Hussein did not. In fact he wanted to do something about the AQ in the north but could not. The Bush administration could have very well done something about the AQ in the north if they wanted to, but they did not because they wanted to go to war. If AQ started to build up and get out of hand and if it was proven that Saddam Hussein was connected to them, I would have been for the war in Iraq. But that was not case, the Bush administration didn't even make a convincing case and the case they did make was a bunch of misleading sexed up cherry picked statements designed to fool the American public.

There is AQ everywhere, but we don't go into every country where they operate using that as an excuse to invade a country. Moreover, in Pakistan, they didn't help us with AQ, it was just Pakistan telling us one thing and doing another which is why AQ was allowed to flourish there while we wasted time in Iraq.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican, You continue to repeat falsehoods as if your repeating them make them true. Bush attacked Iraq, because he said Saddam had WMDs and was connected to al Qaida. None, NONE, turned out to be true.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I didnt ignore that, nor did I ever say otherwise.
However, since the dems are responsible for 60% of the pork, then they are responsible for most of the pork Barrel spending.
To say that the repubs "ranked among the highest pork barrel spenders" also means that the dems were included in that also.
You seem to be arguing that the dems dont count in the equation.

But again, your own link confirms what I originally said.

0 Replies

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Gamble_T2009031920090317072304.jpg

0 Replies

@revel,

Revel, what I repeat are my truthful rebuttals to your repeated false rebutals.

Saddam did in fact invade the northern part of Iraq in 1996 in support of one Kurd group against another. That means he was not only able to go into northeastern Iraq, he did in fact go into northeastern Iraq. Saddam could have tried to do that again when we requested him to do that. But Saddam chose not to at least try to do that.

The USA did not control northern Iraq until we invaded Iraq. Before we invaded Iraq, Saddam governed the southern part of Iraq, and the Kurds governed the northern part.

For the USA to do something about the al-Qaeda build up in northeastern Iraq, the US would have had to invade northeastern Iraq. I doubt we could have done as good a job as our invasion plus surge did in greatly reducing al-Qaeda in Iraq, if we had only invaded northeastern Iraq. Had we done that, al-qaeda would have certainly fled northeastern Iraq for other locations, just as they did when we invaded Afghanistan.

We should go into every country whose government does not at least try to remove al-Qaeda from its country.

I agree that to date, the Pakistan government's efforts to rid itself of al-Qaeda have proven to be unsuccessful.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, Bush did falsely claim that Saddam had WMD. But what Bush also said was true:

Quote:

1. 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.

2. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

3. Tonight we are a country awakened to danger. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES BEFORE:
The primary reason for the USA invading Afghanistan, Saturday, October 20, 2001, was that al-Qaeda possessed sanctuary in Afghanistan, and the Afghanistan government did not try to remove them from Afghanistan. The primary reason for invading Iraq, Thursday, March 20, 2003, was that al-Qaeda possessed sanctuary in Iraq, and the Iraq government did not try to remove them from Iraq.

The undeniable fact that Bush said several other things--no matter how many--that were not true is irrelevant. He said three things that were true, and were sufficient justification all by themselves for invading Iraq.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Yes, the kurds governed the northern part of Iraq, but with our continued support. So we knew what was happening there.

As for AQ. Saddam had tried to arrest Zarqawi in 2002 because he was a threat to his regeme.

Quote:

document found in Iraq and released yesterday by the Pentagon further weaken the administration’s position.

Iraqi documents collected by US intelligence during the Iraq war and released by the Bush administration show Saddam Hussein’s regime was investigating “rumours” that 3,000 Iraqis and Saudis had travelled unofficially to Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks to fight US troops.

The documents, the first of thousands expected to be declassified over the next several months, were released last night via a Pentagon website at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.

Many were in Arabic " with no English translation " including one the administration said showed that Iraqi intelligence officials suspected al Qaida members were inside Iraq in 2002.

However, one of the documents, a letter from an Iraqi intelligence official, dated August 17, 2002, asked agents in the country to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another unnamed man whose picture was attached.

source

Whereas Bush passed up several chances to take out zarqawi in 2002.

Quote:

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself " but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

source

Quote:

I agree that to date, the Pakistan government's efforts to rid itself of al-Qaeda have proven to be unsuccessful.

I haven't seen any evidence Pakistan has tried to curb AQ in the borders of Pakistan and Afhganistan.

1 Reply

@revel,

revel wrote:

Quote:

I haven't seen any evidence Pakistan has tried to curb AQ in the borders of Pakistan and Afhganistan.

I agree; I would also like to see some evidence to the contrary.

0 Replies

For the USA to do something about the al-Qaeda build up in northeastern Iraq, the US would have had to at least invade northeastern Iraq. If we had only invaded northeastern Iraq, I doubt the USA could have done as good a job as our invasion plus surge in Iraq did in greatly reducing al-Qaeda in Iraq. Had we only invaded northeastern Iraq, al-Qaeda would have certainly fled northeastern Iraq for other locations. That is exactly what al-Qaeda did when the USA invaded Afghanistan.

Saddam had more than a year to capture Zarqawi after Dec 2001. Had he only captured Zarqawi during that time, al-Qaeda would have substituted another leader.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

What's your point? Al quida grew in Iraq after our invasion.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Al-Qaeda fled Afghanistan to Northeastern Iraq in December 2001, and grew rapidly thereafter. After we invaded Iraq in March 2003, they spread throughout Iraq as well as some fled to Pakistan and Syria. After our Surge in Iraq, the al-Qaeda in Iraq were reduced to a much smaller group.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
Documented civilian deaths from violence 91,077 " 99,452 from the beginning of the war to February 28, 2009 (since March 20, 2003)

Monthly table
.....2003.....2004.....2005.....2006....2007.....2008.....2009
Jan.....3.......568.....1035.....1430.....2806.....742.....275
Feb.....2.......604.....1201.....1449.....2536.....1007.....281
Mar.....3976.....957.....786.....1789.....2611.....1538
Apr.....3437.....1256.....1025.....1590.....2422.....1260
May.....545.....619.....1226.....2103.....2734.....759
Jun.....593.....833.....1215.....2426.....2086.....669
Jul.....650.....762.....1444.....3159.....2536.....583
Aug.....790.....823.....2165.....2743.....325.....591
Sep.....553......943.....1330.....2408.....1221.....535
Oct.....493.....947.....1201.....2924.....1185.....527
Nov......478.....1533.....1208.....2969.....1043.....472
Dec.....529.....906.....996.....2662.....903.....521
Year.12,049...10,751...14,832...27,652...24,408...9,204...556

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quit talking about the "surge" as if it was Bush's good idea. Before he started the war, General Shinseki told Bush we needed upwards of 400,000 soldiers on the ground to secure the country, but Bush and his henchmen said that was wrong.

Quit trying to rewrite history. Bush was five years late with the surge.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I showed where Saddam put out an arrest for the leader of the AQ in Iraq, he tried but was unsuccessful. Saddam did not have a corroborating relationship with AQ and he put out an arrest from them.

Quote:

For the USA to do something about the al-Qaeda build up in northeastern Iraq, the US would have had to at least invade northeastern Iraq.

Which is exactly what we should have done (if we felt it necessary considering AQ in Iraq only has ever represented a small number; more was in Pakistan and the border mountainous regions) rather than an all out invasion. But the Bush administration was all about regime change and the facts didn't matter in the least.

I am off this merry go round till the next time I guess.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I did not talk "about the Surge as if it was Bush's good idea."

Truth is, I don't care whose idea the 'surge' was.

Let's assume it was John Kerry's, Al Gore's, or .... yes ... Barack Obama's good idea. What the hell has that got to with what I said about what the surge accomplished?

Fact is, it was the Surge that reduced al-Qaeda in Iraq. AND that greatly reduced the spread of al-Qaeda in Iraq. AND, that greatly reduced the mass murders of Iraqi non-murderers in Iraq.

Quit trying to rewrite what I write!

0 Replies

@revel,

Bully for Saddam! He put out an arrest warrant for the leader of AQ in Iraq. Poor baby, he tried but was uncuccessful. A piece of paper, an arrest warrant, is not equivalent to removing al-Qaeda from Iraq. But he tried, he said and you say.

AGAIN:
If we had only invaded northeastern Iraq, I doubt the USA could have done as good a job as our invasion plus surge in Iraq did in greatly reducing al-Qaeda in Iraq. Had we only invaded northeastern Iraq, al-Qaeda would have certainly fled northeastern Iraq for other locations. That is exactly what al-Qaeda did when the USA invaded Afghanistan.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Ican wrote:

Quote:

Bully for Saddam! He put out an arrest warrant for the leader of AQ in Iraq. Poor baby, he tried but was uncuccessful. A piece of paper, an arrest warrant, is not equivalent to removing al-Qaeda from Iraq. But he tried, he said and you say.

Ican wrote:

Quote:

We should go into every country whose government does not at least try to remove al-Qaeda from its country.

source

1 Reply

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know