9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 03:07 pm
@revel,
Trying to remove a leader of al-Qaeda is not the same as trying to remove al-Qaeda.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 03:39 pm
@ican711nm,
I'm still mulling over Saddam ordering the arrest of an Al Qaida leader in 2002. I thought the anti-Bush drum beat has always been that there was no Al Qaida in Iraq before Bush (single handedly, recklessly, wantonly, illegally, maliciously, and murderously) invaded Iraq?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 03:51 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxie, The real reason you are still "mulling over Saddam ordering the arrest of an al Qaida leader in 2002" is based on your hope of hopes that you'll influence others on a2k to believe as you do. There have been many reports on this issue, but you just can't let it go.

From Wiki:

Quote:
The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission, declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."[5]


Repeat: "...there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda."

Do you understand the words "no evidence?"
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 05:33 pm
@Foxfyre,
No one has said there was no AQ in Iraq (at least I don't think so) before the war, just that the AQI in Iraq was not even called that until after the invasion. The name was Ansar al-Islam. Zarqawi didn't align himself with AQ until 2004; well after the war. Also they were located in an area outside of Saddam Hussein control. After the invasion some fighters went to Iraq into that group but then some of the fighters went other places as well, namely Pakistan.

Ican said we should go into countries where the leaders don't even try to capture AQ. Saddam Hussein tried to capture the leader of the group plus a few others in the group. (I provide proof yesterday) Pakistan has not done any such thing. So, his argument runs flat.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 06:14 pm
@revel,
No one? I recall a lot of pages in this very thread with Ican going up against several other members insisting that it was George Bush's invasion that attracted al Qaeda to Iraq and Ican patiently posting more and more evidence to the contrary. However, in the defense of those insisting al Qaeda wasn't there, they were unintentionally agreeing with President Obama:

Quote:
(CNN) -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama engaged in a pointed exchange over al Qaeda in Iraq on Wednesday.

Sen. John McCain questioned Sen. Barack Obama's way of handling the war in Iraq.

1 of 2 McCain questioned whether Obama was aware of the al Qaeda base. Obama's response was: "There was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

McCain was in Tyler, Texas, and Obama was in Columbus, Ohio.

"I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq," McCain said.

"It's a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base -- where they have already established a base."

McCain's comments come in response to remarks Obama made Tuesday night in a debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton. He was asked if the president would have the right to go back into Iraq in order to suppress an insurrection after downsizing the U.S. troop presence. Watch what Clinton and Obama said about the war »
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/mccain.obama.iraq/index.html


Quote:
Seizing on a comment from Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, Mr. McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, said that Mr. Obama’s plan to rapidly withdraw American troops from Iraq would leave the country in the hands of Al Qaeda and possibly other terrorist groups.

In response to a hypothetical question at the debate, Mr. Obama said that although he intended to withdraw American forces as rapidly as possible, he reserved the right to send troops back in “if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq.”

Mr. McCain pounced on the remark. “I have some news,” he said at a town hall-style meeting in Tyler, Tex. “Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq.’ My friends, if we left, they wouldn’t be establishing a base. They’d be taking a country and I’m not going to allow that to happen.”

Mr. Obama, in Columbus, responded soon after. “I have some news for John McCain,” Mr. Obama said at a large rally at Ohio State University. “There was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/us/politics/27cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&hp
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 07:06 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre, our foreign policy is in a state of confusion, capitulation, and contradictions. Here is a fairly good article by Michael Gerson, Washington Post, on the confusing signals, as regards to Iran, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031702938.html

"At this point, the administration is combining a policy of caution with a message of confusion. And it does not seem likely to persuade or intimidate."
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 07:33 pm
@okie,
Foreign policy of the US is never established during the first two months of any administration - you dummy!
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 08:20 pm
@Foxfyre,
Well Obama is correct, there was no such thing as AQ in Iraq until the invasion. It was called Ansar al-Islam.

Quote:
Ansar al-Islam (Kurdishئه‌نسه‌ر ئه‌ل إسلام), Supporters or Partisans of Islam) is a Kurdish Sunni Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam, close to the official Saudi ideology of Wahhabism with strict application of Sharia. The group was formed in the Kurdish-controlled northern provinces of Iraq near the Iranian border, with bases initially in and near the villages of Biyara and Tawela, northeast of Halabja.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam

revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 08:33 pm
@revel,
Also, Zargawi the leader of didn't swear allegiance to Bin Laden until 2004.

Quote:
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (CNN) -- A statement attributed to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's militant group declared allegiance to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on Sunday.

The statement, posted on Islamist Web sites, addressed bin Laden as "the sheik" and said al-Zarqawi's Unification and Jihad movement "badly needed" to join forces with al Qaeda.

"We will listen to your orders," it said. "If you ask us to join the war, we will do it and we will listen to your instructions. If you stop us from doing something, we will abide by your instructions."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/17/al.zarqawi.statement/





0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 09:12 pm
@revel,
I'm not the one who said Saddam wanted to arrest the al Qaeda leader. You did. And then you said nobody was saying Al Qaeda wasn't there. Make up your mind already.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 09:16 pm
@revel,
revel wrote:
Well Obama is correct, there was no such thing as AQ in Iraq until the invasion. It was called Ansar al-Islam.

"A rose by any other name is still a rose."

Many of the 300 men who entered northeastern Iraq in December 2001, were al-Qaeda. They fled the USA invasion of Afghanistan. This has been confirmed multiple times. For example:

Congress wrote:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Congress's Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

[7th]Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of the civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi cirizens wrongfully detained in Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait.
...
[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;


Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 09/08/2006, wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq

General Franks, describing the Iraq invasion he led in March 2003, wrote:

American Soldier, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

page 483:
"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-Isla 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 [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile] bashing. Soon Special Forces and [Special Mission Unit] operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted."

page 519:
"The Marines] also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Lybia who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. Those foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all.
"

Wikipedia wrote:

Ansar-al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001.
...
Ansar al-Islam comprised about 300 armed men, many of these veterans from the Afghan war, and a proportion being neither Kurd nor Arab. Ansar al-Islam is alleged to be connected to al-Qaeda, and provided an entry point for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other Afghan veterans to enter Iraq.

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 09:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
"Never" is a very, very, ... very long time.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 09:46 pm
@ican711nm,

Quote:
"A rose by any other name is still a rose."


True but not all flowers are roses.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 07:14 am
@okie,
Perhaps Hillary ought to remember she lost the primaries.

Quote:
WASHINGTON " President Barack Obama is reaching out to the Iranian people in a new video with Farsi subtitles, saying the U.S. is prepared to end years of strained relations if Tehran tones down its bellicose rhetoric.

The video released Friday was timed to the festival of Nowruz (no-ROOZ), which means "new day" and marks the arrival of spring. It's a major holiday in Iran.

"So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders," Obama said in the video. "We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community."

Obama has signaled a willingness to speak directly with Iran about its nuclear program and hostility toward Israel, a key U.S. ally. At his inauguration, the president said his administration would reach out to rival states, declaring "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."



source

McCain ought to do the same.

Quote:
There's one as yet unremarked constituency increasingly disturbed by some Republican senators' efforts to block the confirmation of former North Korea envoy Christopher Hill to be the next U.S. ambassador to Iraq: the U.S. military.

Sources tell The Cable that Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus, top Iraq commander Gen. Raymond Odierno, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are frustrated by the delay in getting a U.S. ambassador confirmed and into place in Iraq, and support Hill's confirmation proceeding swiftly.

Opposition to the Hill appointment has been led by Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Brownback has called Hill's past dealings with Congress over North Korea "evasive and unprofessional." In a joint statement last week, McCain and Graham wrote that Hill had a "controversial legacy" on North Korea, and added, "The next ambassador should have experience in the Middle East and in working closely with the U.S. military in counterinsurgency or counterterrorism operations. Mr. Hill has neither."




source

When asked who McCain admires most, Petraeus was among the top three.

Quote:
WARREN: This first set of questions deals with leadership and the personal life of leadership. The first question, who are the three wisest people that you know that you would rely on heavily in an administration?

MCCAIN: First one, I think, would be General David Petraeus, one of the great military leaders in American history, who took us from defeat to victory in Iraq, one of the great leaders (inaudible).



source
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Mar, 2009 07:17 am
@Foxfyre,
Obviously I was mistaken that no one has said there was no AQ before the invasion.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Mar, 2009 04:41 pm
@revel,
Yes revel, not all flowers are roses! Likewise. all warrants to arrest are not supported by police actually trying to capture the one for which the warrant had been issued.

However, even if Saddam had actually tried to capture Zarqawi, that is not the same thing as Saddam trying to remove al-Qaeda from Iraq.

After Zarqawi was eventually killed by the coalition, al-Qaeda simply replaced him with an equivalent terrorist gangster.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2009 06:48 am
@ican711nm,
weak Ican; it don't even make sense.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Mar, 2009 12:22 pm
@revel,
No, revel, on the contrary it is not only strong, it is very strong.

Read it until you understand it! You can do that if you persist with it!

Here it is again with EXTRA STATEMENTS.

Even if Saddam had actually tried to capture Zarqawi, that is not the same thing as Saddam trying to remove al-Qaeda from Iraq.

After Zarqawi was eventually killed by the coalition, al-Qaeda simply replaced him with an equivalent terrorist gangster.

AL-QAEDA WAS NOT REMOVED FROM IRAQ BY ZARQAWI'S DEATH.
CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT AL-QAEDA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY ZARQAWI'S CAPTURE. THEREFORE, IT HAS BEEN NECESSARY TO INVADE IRAQ TO REMOVE AL-QAEDA FROM IRAQ. WE CONTINUE TO MAKE PROGRESS ON THAT.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Mar, 2009 06:22 am
@ican711nm,
What you don't understand is that was not an actual AQ in Iraq until after the fall of Taliban and AQ dispersed through out the area with some of them coming to Iraq. The group you are referring to was Zarqawi's group who did not swear allegiance with Bin Laden until 2004. Not only did Saddam seek to arrest Zarquawi but he sought to arrest others in the group. So your whole assertion that we should go into countries that did not at least try to get rid of AQ (even though it wasn't AQ at the time but for arguments sake we'll just call it that.) rings hollow because Saddam did at least try. Whereas the leaders in Pakistan did not even try to get rid of Bin Laden (doing little more than just lip service) and yet you do not assert we should have invaded Pakistan after the fall of taliban. Who by the way have regrouped in Afghanistan while we have been wasting time and lives in Iraq.

In any event, I have proved my case with links in other posts and I am tired of discussing it with you for now.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Mar, 2009 09:15 am
@revel,
He may not have called himself al-Qaida until 2004, but his association and links to Bin Laden go back to 1999 and he was actively involved with al-Qaida before the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq.

A timeline of events in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's life as leader of al-Qaida in Iraq:

Oct. 20, 1966: Born Ahmad Fadhil Nazzal al-Khalayleh in Jordan, part of Bani Hassan Bedouin tribe.

1980s: Embraces Islamic militancy, makes first trips to Afghanistan to fight Soviet invasion.

Mid-1990s: Returns to Jordan, is arrested, solidifies radical ideology in prison. Shares cell block with militant cleric Isam Mohammed al-Barqawi, known as Abu Muhammed al-Maqdisi. Adopts extremist strain of Islam that brands enemies as "infidels" worthy of death.

1999: Returns to Afghanistan after prison release. Forms links with al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden.

Late 2001: Flees Afghanistan during U.S.-led ouster of Taliban. Passes through Iran to Iraq.

Oct. 2002: U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley slain in Jordan, believed to be first terror operation by al-Zarqawi followers.

Feb. 2003: Secretary of State Colin Powell, in presentation to U.N. Security Council, cites al-Zarqawi presence in Iraq as proof of link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. U.S. counterterrorism officials later cast doubt on connection.

(Although Zarqawi had still not declared bayat to bin Laden, he met with al-Qaeda's military chief, Muhammad 'Ibrahim Makawi, aka Saif al-Adel, in March 2003. Zarqawi agreed to coordinate the entry of al-Qaeda operatives into Iraq from Syria. This essentially made Zarqawi the terrorist 'Emir' of Iraq.15)

March 20 - Invasion of Iraq

Aug. 2003: Al-Zarqawi group, called "Monotheism and Jihad," stages suicide attacks on U.N. headquarters in Baghdad and Shiite shrine in Najaf, seen by many as start of Iraqi insurgency.

April 2004: Beheads U.S. hostage Nicholas Berg, posts videotape of killing on Internet.

May 18, 2004: Car bomb by al-Zarqawi followers assassinates president of now-disbanded Iraqi Governing Council.

July 2004: United States sets $25 million bounty for al-Zarqawi.

Sept. 2004: Beheads U.S. hostage Eugene Armstrong, posts videotape of killing on Internet.

Oct. 2004: Vows fealty to bin Laden, changes name of group to "al-Qaida in Iraq."

Feb. 2005: Suicide bombing against Iraqi security recruits in Hillah kills 125. Claimed by al-Qaida in Iraq, is single deadliest attack of insurgency.

Nov. 9, 2005: Triple suicide bombing against hotels in Amman, Jordan, kills 60, mostly Sunni Muslims. Attack draws criticism from fellow Islamic militants.

Jan. 5, 2006: Al-Zarqawi fighters blamed for string of suicide bombings against Shiites in holy city of Karbala and police station north of Baghdad, killing at least 130. Attacks came weeks after parliament election.

Jan. 2006: Announcement that Al-Zarqawi movement joining umbrella organization of Iraqi insurgents called the Shura Council of Mujahedeen. Seen as attempt to give Iraqi face to al-Qaidi in Iraq, believed to be mainly non-Iraqi, Arab fighters.

June 7: Al-Zarqawi and several aides killed in targeted U.S. air strike. Followers vow to continue holy war.

Source: http://www.pwhce.org/zarqawi.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800299.html

 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 07:33:36