THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

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)

You forgot to mention that the USA (Powell) also said that he lead al-Qaeda operations in France, Britain, Spain and other European countries.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

And that is relevant to this discussion how?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

You posted that list, didn't you?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Yes, but the discussion was re al-Zarqawi's relationship to al-Qaida and Iraq. Whatever allegations re relationship to Europe was not pertinent or relevant and I saw no reason to go into that. I also left much more of al-Zarqawi's bio out of the 'list' as it also was not pertinent to the discussion.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

So Powell's comment that the USA had informations about al-Qaeda operations in France, Britain, Spain and other European countries under al-Zarqawi is not pertinent or relevant in your opinion.

Thanks.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Not so far as his relationship to Iraq goes, no. Any allegations of European connections are not relevant to that in my opinion. At least not necessary to make the point I was making.

If we were discussing al-Zarqawi's biography in general or we were discussing Colon Powell's testimony, then it would be pertinent.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

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.

Yes but he or the group was not called AQ before the invasion; so Obama still stands correct. Also the very fact that Saddam Hussien sought his arrest is evidence that Saddam Hussien did not in fact have a relationship with Zarqawi.

1 Reply

@revel,

revel, What I find so amusing about Foxie is that she's able to miss the simplest concepts that runs contrary to her own beliefs. She seems to have a mental block on many issues that leans towards her own perception of what truth is, and swims around all the available facts. It must take a special kind of brain to do that!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

It is relevant as the arugment being made is that the mere fact Zarqawi had a operation in Iraq was reason enough to invade when Zarqawi had operations in European countries as well and we didn't invade those countries.

2 Replies

@revel,

The European governments were, are, and will be trying to remove all of al-Qaeda from their countries. Therefore, there is no reason to invade them. On the otherhand, the Iraq and Afghanistan governments before our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, were not trying to remove all of al-Qaeda from their countries.

0 Replies

@revel,

No it isn't relevant as I am unaware of any European countries who are courting terrorists or exporting terrorism or who have threatened the USA or any Americans or who have shot at our peace keeping troops and otherwise violated UN requirements hundreds of times after agreeing to those requirements in return for cessation of hostilities. If any did fit into that category, however, then you might have a point. And we didn't invade Iraq because of one rogue terrorist either. Right or wrong there were multiple arguments made for cause and that was just one of the many.

1 Reply

Since the U.S. invasion in 2003, at least 88 journalists have been murdered in Iraq, with no convictions. Source

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Probably now, almost all the murderers of all those 88 journalists are either dead themselves or have fled Iraq. If true, I bet that would make it somewhat difficult to indict and convict them!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

No it isn't relevant as I am unaware of any European countries who are courting terrorists or exporting terrorism or who have threatened the USA or any Americans or who have shot at our peace keeping troops and otherwise violated UN requirements hundreds of times after agreeing to those requirements in return for cessation of hostilities

Saddam Hussein didn't court any terrorist or export terrorism either except for the Palestine suicide bombers. In that case the threat was to Israel and not us. And he was complying with the UN weapons inspections at the time of the invasion. And if we invaded every country who breaks UN resolutions, we would be invading a lot of countries including Israel.

Quote:

And we didn't invade Iraq because of one rogue terrorist either. Right or wrong there were multiple arguments made for cause and that was just one of the many.

Yea, and none of them added up to an imminent threat which required immediate action. We could have continued the weapons inspections and went from there rather than cutting it short and invading before they were completed. But the Bush administration knew they didn't have to votes so they rushed to war on flimsy evidence some of which they knew to be untrue when they uttered them. (such as the tubes being used only for nuclear weapons and such)

You guys might like to rewrite the whole Iraq invasion history, but there is still proof out there on google or other search engines for anyone to read.

2 Replies

@revel,

Revel I could post all the stuff again to show you how wrong you are. But I simply don't have the energy to do that. Whether there was sufficient jsutification for the USA to invade Iraq is certainly open for debate. Whether sufficient justification was found once we got in there, I have no reservations of any kind that the invasion was far more humane than not invading.

I accept that you disagree. Lets just let it go at that. Okay?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Revel I could post all the stuff again to show you how wrong you are. But I simply don't have the energy to do that.

Been there and have already done that.

Quote:

Whether sufficient justification was found once we got in there, I have no reservations of any kind that the invasion was far more humane than not invading.

We are not the world's police, nor do we try to be or else we would invade a whole lot more countries. Again, North Korea comes blaring to mind.

Quote:

I accept that you disagree. Lets just let it go at that. Okay?

OK, I'll accept that you disagree with me as well.

1 Reply

@revel,

revel, I would suggest you keep count of how many issues you discuss with Foxie will end up this way. A merry go round comes to mind - over and over and over...

0 Replies

wow! revel is rockin' it hard these days. yesss! Very Happy

0 Replies

@revel,

THE USA'S OBJECTIVES IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ

(1) Stop al-Qaeda from growing in Afghanistan and in Iraq;

(2) Remove al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and from Iraq;

(3) Replace the governments in Afghanistan and in Iraq with governments that will not tolerate/allow al-Qaeda to again obtain sanctuary in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda and its affiliated middle-eastern mass murdering terrorist groups perpetrated the following mass murders of Americans:

1. 12/1992 -- murdered 241 Americans at US Marine Corps Headquarters in Beirut;
2. 02/1993 -- murdered 6 Americans at WTC in NYC;
3. 11/1995 -- murdered 5 Americans and 2 other civilians at Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh;
4. 06/1996 -- murdered 19 Americans at Khobar Towers in Dhahran;
5. 08/1998 -- murdered 12 Americans + 201 other civilians at American Embassy in Nairobi;
6. 08/1998 -- murdered 11 other civilians at American Embassy in Dar es Salaam;
7. 12/2000 -- murdered 17 Americans at Aden in the Destroyer Cole;
8. 09/2001 -- murdered about 1,500 Americans + about 1,500 other civilians at the WTC in NYC, at the Pentagon in D.C., and at a field in Pennsylvania;

Each and every one of those mass murders PLUS the failures of the Afgahnistan and Iraq governements to try to remove al-Qaeda from their countries, are reason enough to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to remove al-Qaeda from those countries.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

AP Exclusive: Secret tally has 87,000 Iraqis dead
At least 87,215 Iraqis have been killed in violence since 2005, according to a previously undisclosed Iraqi government tally obtained by The Associated Press. Combined with tallies based on hospital sources and media reports since the beginning of the war and a review of available evidence by the AP, the figures show that more than 110,000 Iraqis have died in violence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

1 Reply

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know