quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Links between Iraq and Al Qaeda Here You may think the source is funny, but they give connections in a list form, rather than having me list seperate sources for each one.

I've read a similar list somewhere else, but suffice to say, none of those "links" provide the definitive proof necessary to sugest that Al Qaeda and the state of Iraq have had any sort of formal, long-lasting relationship. It's basically a long series of meetings between people "affiliated" with the Iraqi administration and people "affiliated" with Al Qaeda or one of its splinter networks. This doesn't prove that there were high-level ties between the Iraq administration and Al Qaeda, all it proves is that some individuals met (met for what reason? Do these meetings necessarily imply there was a discussion of terrorist activity, terrorist financing or terrorist training?) in spite of the mutual hatred the two parties they are affiliated with feel for each other.

The article also fails to point out that many of the alleged "ties" were declared by sole informants/eyewitnesses, not by intelligence agencies (part of the reason why, as I mentioned before, the US and British intelligence agencies dismissed the "evidence" linking Al Qaeda to Iraq). The "evidence", in many cases, wouldn't hold up in a court of law, yet apparently it was good enough to launch a war over? Also, I'm still amazed that people such as this Richard Miniter (the title of his book, given at the end of the article, betrays his political bias) would continue to cite the "terrorist training camps" in Northern Iraq as evidence of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. These camps lay beyond Saddam's reach in a part of the country that was:

a) Under semi-autonomous Kurdish control.

and

b) Under the auspices of the UN, the US and the UK.

If there are terrorist training camps in northern Iraq, it would make more sense to blame the Kurds, the UN or the other two nations than it would Saddam Hussein. If he even knew about these camps, there would have been little he could have done to stop them. Any Iraqi plane found flying over that area would have been shot-down within minutes.

Then again, even if we were to take all this "evidence" at face value (a series of seemingly disconnected rendezvous between low-level members of two otherwise unrelated organisations) it still in no way justifies going to war with Iraq as opposed other nations that have had proven links with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, at the highest levels of government and that have demonstrably funded and supported the activities of these organisations, sheltered members of these organisations and have had much stronger, deeper and sustained links with these organisations than Saddam's Iraq ever did. I'm talking specifically - but not exclusively - about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The former even had highly probable ties to the September 11 attacks (although with Bush's classification of the part of the Sept 11 report concerning Saudi Arabia, I guess we'll never no for sure), something even the US government admit that Saddam had nothing to do with. So, in spite of all this, why did we go after Iraq and not the Saudis or the Pakistanis? Oh that's right, sorry, I forgot - they're our "friends" aren't they?

In any case, you failed to address the four points I raised in my previous post that, disregarding everything I've written here, already call into question the points raised in the article you provided above. Either explain them away or provide more damning evidence, otherwise your case makes little sense.

quote:

So now it takes WMD to pose a threat? Since when were airliners considered WMD? It doesn't take WMD to be a threat.

So now, perhaps, we should go after every nation that happens to own an aeroplane - you know, just to be safe? Nice logic.

Iraq was not a threat to the US, nor any of its neighbours. It certainly posed a threat at one point (the invasions of Kuwait and Iran demonstrate this quite nicely) but without large weapons or access to modern technology, the days of Iraq as an aggressive, dangerous nation were behind it long before the US-led invasion. Sanctions, weapons inspections and 12 years of sustained, almost daily bombing operations (led, once again, primarily by the US - see here for an extensive listing of bombings undertaken between 1999 and 2003 alone) destroyed Iraq's WMDs, its WMD programs and - in most cases - any chance of regaining access to either. It possessed nothing but rudimentary weapons (many of the larger pieces of its artillery - missiles, tanks etc. - are 20+ year old reminents of the former USSR military) and a poorly trained, poorly committed infantry (as evidenced by the ease with which the US were able to take Baghdad). If Saddam had so much as looked the wrong way at another nation, he knew his entire army would be routed within weeks.

Saddam may have been a threat to his own people, but - since 1991 - had posed no threat to any other nation. He barely had the means to defend his own nation, let alone attack someone elses.

quote:

Wonderful in theory, but after 10 years of empty threats and no action by the UN, 30 more days would have done nothing. Saddam had mastered evading the UN, and more so, the UN refused to ratify any declerations in those 10 years promising definitive action within any set time frame. More politics by both sides, no action.

This argument really irked me - 30 days would have made no difference? If so, why were the US so vehemently opposed to allowing this resolution through when it would have legitimised their war within the international community? It would have been a UN led war backed by almost the entirity of the global community - surely a more preferable scenario to the unilateral action undertaken by the hastily cobbled coalition? The very point of the US refusal to air this "compromised" solution is precisely because it may have made a difference. If Iraq - as they were close to doing before the break-down in diplomacy (for which the US and the US solely is responsible) - had come completely in line with the responsibilities meted out to them by Resolution 1441 and this subsequent resolution, then the war the US wanted would have been virtually unattainable.

The fact is, though, the US weren't going to war as an absolute last resort (the only scenario in which any war may be justified) but rather as the most preferable resort. The US had made it perfectly clear that they were going to go to war with or without UN approval, with or without evidence of WMD programs or links to terrorsim, and that the Powell-led, 6 month long psuedo-diplomatic circus was only ever an incidental, obligatory pretense in the context of the looming war.

The answer is simple: if the US were truly concerned about reaching diplomatic consensus or about fleshing out a more peaceful solution, then you're quite right - 30 days may not have made any difference. The fact that this compromised alternative was never even considered, though, says more about the true intentions of the US than the impotence of adding another 30 days to the diplomatic process.

Say what you like about the French or their reasons for opposing the war, but this speech from French ambassador Dominique de Villepin in front of the UN at the onset of war expresses brilliantly why I opposed the US-instigated derailment of the diplomatic process and why it was such a dangerous path to take:

http://special.diplomatie.fr/article_gb163.html

(It was worth nothing that this speech generated significant applause from those in attendence - a great rarity in the UNSC.)

quote:

Again, it does not take WMD to be a threat to peace. I've listed in the article above several ways in which Iraq was helping Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells. Although WMD were at the forefront of the debate, this has always been a "war on terrorism" and Iraq posed a very real threat.

For reasons listed above, Iraq was no threat to global peace (quite in contrast to the US under its current government) and - due to the lack of substaintiated ties to terrorism - to suggest that the war on Iraq has in any way assisted the War on Terror (especially given the opportunities - that otherwise wouldn't exist - it has granted to terrorist groups for almost daily attacks against US citizens) is almost insulting. If, indeed, it were to be classified solely as a specific operation within the more general War on Terror, then - given what has (or, more to the point, what hasn't) been acheieved there - then it stands as an $87 billion diversion and nothing more. Think of all the ground level intelligence - the real path to winning this largely ficticious war - that could have been funded for that much money: we'd be breaking up terrorist cells all over the place. As it stands, though, far more US citizens are dying in terrorist attacks as a result of this war, than would have been saved had this war not taken place.

quote:

The problem with the UN and its resolutions is in its language. Instead of 1441 outlining responses for non-cooperation by Iraq it simply threatened "severe consequences."

The amiguity of the Resolution merely further necessitates the need for a UNSC reconvention, though, rendering less legitimate the US led war as a result. I'm not saying that the inherent ambiguity of the resolution is a "good thing" merely that it weakens the case presented by the US that such a passage as "serious consequences" necessitates the need for military action.

quote:

Along with that was the unclear interpretation of "material breeches" also found in 1441.

No matter which way you look at it though, Iraq was not in "material breach" of the resolution as it possessed no illegal weapons (aside from those tidbits discovered during the inspections). Define this phrase however you like, Iraq was - quite simply - not in material breach of Resolution 1441.

(There may be a case made for "procedural breach" of 1441 - as I said - but this has more to do with Saddam's stubborn stupidity than any physical breach legitimising the need for a military invasion.)

quote:

While the US and UK found that after Iraq's submitted report was in fact lacking many weapons in question and was therefore in breech, Mohammed ElBaradei stated there had to be a pattern, not just one episode to be considered in breech of the resolution. That in my opinion is rediculous. considering the pattern Iraq had shown for the past 10 years.

Yes, but the reports presented by Blix and El Baradei - on behalf of UNMOVIC and the IAEA - were instrumental to the application of 1441, whether you like it or not. If you're in any doubt, go back and read the link I provided - a report of non-compliance was necessary for the council to reconvene and for any case for war to be made. Though the reports prevented by both agencies were ocassionally disparaging in parts, there was never any intimation that the inspections were becoming unworkable or that progress was not being made. In this sense, there was no breach of 1441 (as it was up to the inspectors - as part of the resolution - to determine whether the breach existed. It was not up to the US or any other nation to decide this).

quote:

As far as inspections go, UNSCOM, the original Iraq inspection organization was unable to completely remove Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs before it was kicked out of Iraq in 1998. UNMOVIC was also severely limited in their ability to search by both the Iraqi government as well as the UN, who allowed "presidential sites" to be ommitted from inspection.

As I have said countless times before, both on this forum and within this post, I agree unequivicolly that more should have been done to deprive Saddam of his WMDs. The UN, the US and all the other nations of the world were far too meak in their handling of Saddam's weapons programs, and the fact that Saddam was able to hinder the UN inspection teams during the seven years they were there and then to exist without inspection teams in Iraq for the next four years is obscene. I agreed with the US on their insistence of the need to return inspection teams to Iraq, the need for them to have unrestricted access to all sites of interest and the need to back this up with the threat of credible force which was to be engaged in only as a last resort, in the event of the two needs being left irreparably unfulfilled. The constant assertion that those who opposed the war were merely being complicit to Saddam's whims is as inaccurate as it is tiresome. I - like virtually every other sane person on the planet - wanted to see Saddam brought in line. I, however - again like the majority of sane thinking people on the planet - did not think that this war was the right way to go about it.

In any case, the assertion that "UNMOVIC was [...] severely limited" is, quite plainly, wrong. Yes they were, to an extent, impeded by the Iraqi government during the inspection process - and the world would have been completely right to demand that these limitations be removed - but it is still wrong to insinuate that the inspections were in any way ineffectual. Much progress was made during the inspections and that is why I welcomed their resumption in late 2002.

Rather than copy and paste what I have already written and sourced time and time again (mainly in the build-up to the war - before you were around) I'll merely direct you to what I had to say in this topic about Saddam's "WMD stash" - about what he may or may not have and about what was or wasn't destroyed. If you want more evidence about how successful the original inspections were (or about how much had been destroyed over 12 years of bombings) just ask and I'll dig it up for you.

quote:

In September of 2002, the US and UK submitted a plan that would set undeniable consequences for Iraq's continued failure to permit inspections. This resolution circulated for 8 weeks, and there was no progress. In fact it was during these 8 weeks that France said they would veto this resolution regardless of the compromises. These 8 weeks in my opinion were plenty of extra time (besides the 10 years following the gulf war) for Iraq to comply. It is rediculous that after that, France wanted to submit their own bill giving 30 additional days...a wonderful bit of politics.

If my memory hasn't failed me, France's proposed compromise didn't come until February or March 2003 at the earliest, long after Resolution 1441 (which was written up in September 2002 I believe) was voted for. In no part of any resolution provided by the US/UK resolution did it say anything about "8 weeks" and France's "30 day" resolution was brought about in opposition to the coalitions "war" resolution, not the 1441 "inspection" Resolution.

If you think I'm wrong, then I'm going to need to see some sources.

quote:

The UN is weak in that it is filled with definitions that can be interpreted differently by many and no real backing to its resolutions, not to mention the exteme politics that occur within its walls. The UN tried in vain for 10 years to make Iraq follow its wishes using diplomacy backed with no might. After these ten years, in the volatile situation surrounding 9/11, the UN continued to stumble, trying to use more politics then reason to deal with the Iraq situation. The US had just been the victim of a terrorist attack, and the removal of a clear ally to those terrorists, after ample time had been given to do so diplomatically, was warranted in my opinion.

I don't think I can say anything in response this that I haven't already said:

1) Yes, Saddam was treated far too lightly by the UN and the globe at large.
2) Yes, the UN can sometimes be ineffectual (largely because of the egotism of the veto-wielding 5 at the UNSC - especially, over the past 25 years or so anyway, in the case of the US and it's inability to comprehend the concepts of "diplomacy" or "compromise").
3) No, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, nor did the Iraqi invasion in any way meaningfully assist the broad goals of the "war on terror".

The Iraq war was never justified, and in the now apparent absense of WMDs or substantiated links to Al Qaeda, the Iraq war has become only more illegitimate as time has passed and new information has come to light. You, however, are still free to believe what you want to believe.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Neophono

GIVE IT UP... THERE ARE NO CREDIBLE LINKS TO ALQAEDA THAT IRAQ HAD....

If we are going to use the trivial ones that were listed in that ridiculous article you posted, then we can say that the US had more ties with Al-qaeda's then Iraq...seeing that the Bush family had business relations with the house of Saud/bin Laden family.

If Iraq was such a threat, why werent Iran and Kuwait complaining....they are right beside this "agressive" nation.

You know, its sad individuals like you that beleive all the bullshit your iliterate president spews out in order for him and his rich buddies to get richer...

I wont be surprised if you vote for this waste of cum next year.


P.S Renegade is raping your ass...stop before you cant control the shit thats already coming from your mouth.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

I actually do sleep somewhat easier at night post us going into iraq.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...19/193910.shtml

Additionally some guy was on cnn(which still absolutly apposes this war) and said he had reports that stated the only payload these missles could deliver was serin gas.

Come on we know he had them four years ago, was there any reason to think he didn/t have them now?

quote:

Originally posted by Nadi I actually do sleep somewhat easier at night post us going into iraq. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...19/193910.shtml Additionally some guy was on cnn(which still absolutly apposes this war) and said he had reports that stated the only payload these missles could deliver was serin gas.

Those weapons (the empty warheads and the Al Samoud missiles) were uncovered by the inspectors and willingly handed over/surrendered by the Iraqis. An empty warhead is no use to anyone without chemical or biological agents (in which case, where are they?) and the Al Samoud missiles - as Scud B missiles - would have been legal had they not been able to travel beyond the 150km limit.

These are weapons we already knew about. It does not change the scenario we're discussing.

quote:

Come on we know he had them four years ago, was there any reason to think he didn/t have them now?

Apart from the fact that we've been there (between the UN and the coalition) for about a year now without finding a goddamn thing?

Come on, think about it rationally: we could find Saddam is a tiny hole, but we can't find even one object that could classify as a WMD? Saddam is far smaller and far more mobile than any WMD cache and his whereabouts undoubtedly far more secretive: perhaps only a few people knew where he may have been hiding, but it's far more difficult to keep the location of WMDs that secretive. Even if the Iraqi military did a particularly good job of hiding the weapons, think of all the people involved in their transport: the military, the scientists, the truck-drivers, the townpeople who must have seen large military convoys driving by - are you telling me that not one of these people would have been found by now? That they wouldn't be able to tell the coalition how these weapons were transported, in what quantity and where these weapons may be now? To transport chemical and biological weapons, you need fairly sophisticated vehicles: even if these, at the very least, were uncovered I may be more willing to believe that these weapons exist. Where are the mobile chemical labs? Where are the refrigerated trucks necessary to protect biological weapons from the heat of the Iraqi sun? Why is it that, seemingly, not one scientist, Baathist party member, Iraqi policeman or member of the Iraqi military had anything to do with the transportation or concealment of these weapons? Surely at least one of the people involved in the transportation or development of WMDs would have willing to talk by now? Or did Saddam just run around carrying these weapons on his own?

No matter what you or the US government say, if Saddam was able to hide the weapons that the US have accused him of possessing without even one falling through to the US inspection teams (which once numbered 1400, now whittled down - as mentioned in my OP - to 40, in an implicit admission that the weapons probably aren't there) then he is a far greater magician than Houdini ever was. They should forfeit the war-crime tribunals and allow him to perform at kids parties - I know I'd pay good money to see how he made those WMDs disappear.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

LOL you armchair politicians are too funny with your stances on on subjects which by the post I've been reading, you have no clue what you are talking about. Another thing I find quit humorous is the impeach statements are being made by foriegners.
For those of you who dont know me, I used to whore these boards with the best of them until last January when my reserve unit was called into action. I just got back from Iraq on the 19 of this month and let me tell you. We the soldiers are proud of what we are doing over there and we know what we are doing is making a difference because we see it everyday.
I know the reason we went to Iraq wasnt only for WMD's, this seems to be threwn around as the only the reason we went and it wasnt. Saddam had to be removed and was. He killed 10 of thousand of people for no reason. Until you have sat in the streets of Bahgdad and had civilians crying and thanking you for freeing them you have no idea what is going on. There is soooo much I could tell you guys and whether or not it changes your mind I honestly dont give a rats ass, because while most you are sitting in your homes watching TV we were there doing what needed to be done.
The war is over, so the anti war league needs to move on. Your focus now should be on being productive to the current situations and help Iraq become the country it needs to be, not sitting there complaining,crying or whining about how you think this war was wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Apart from the fact that we've been there (between the UN and the coalition) for about a year now without finding a goddamn thing? Come on, think about it rationally: we could find Saddam is a tiny hole, but we can't find even one object that could classify as a WMD? Saddam is far smaller and far more mobile than any WMD cache and his whereabouts undoubtedly far more secretive: perhaps only a few people knew where he may have been hiding, but it's far more difficult to keep the location of WMDs that secretive.

WRONG!
The size of things we are looking, atleast my unit ranged in size from 55 gallon drums to coffee can size.( very easy to hide)
You should really stop listening/reading the news, those guys are morons and are clueless as to what they are talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by juzfugen WRONG! The size of things we are looking, atleast my unit ranged in size from 55 gallon drums to coffee can size.( very easy to hide)

The size is irrelevant. It still takes people to manufacture, transport and bury these weapons, so where are they now? All it would take is one person (out of the thousands possibly privy to such an operation) to provide some semi-reliable intelligence and the US would have their smoking gun. If you can think of a good reason to believe that these weapons exist when not one has been found in 12 months, then I'd like to hear it.

quote:

You should really stop listening/reading the news, those guys are morons and are clueless as to what they are talking about.

I'll take the word of the BBC ahead of the word of anyone from the Bush administration, thanks very much. If you want an example of "morons [that] are clueless as to what they are talking about", you need only look at some of the things your government said about the reasons we went to war with Iraq (and no, it has nothing to do with humanitarian reasons):

http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html

Just admit that you were lied to about your reasons for being there. It doesn't make you any less of a soldier or any less of a patriot.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

This one's for anuneventrade:

Polish heroes in Iraq

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

ahhhh yes snipets taken out of context. Typical political move....
were we lied to to go to war? No we sure werent and there is no proof that we were. As far as taking the word of the BBC versus the bush admin, I'd rather take my word since I was there for 11 months.
I know for a FACT what is happening over there while you can only speculate from the stories you have heard.
As I stated above, the war is over so get over the being lied, this is wrong stance. Your arguemnet is moot.

Renegade, I was in the process of writing my reply to your rebuttal on my last post, but I think the last several posts kind of sum up why we are still arguing, and that is who you believe.

I fall into the same category as juzfugen, and I tend to believe the American media/government. You on the other hand tend to believe media sources outside of the US. While I will admit that I do not believe that the American media/government is totally without bias or corruption, I would say the same thing about other news media.

In the last 30 years news has been tranformed from the Kronkite-esque straight-shooting news reporting to one in which facts have to be mined from fluff that is aimed at entertainment and increasing viewers, more than delivering any sort of "unbiased" news. Although the government is trying to put a positive spin on what they do and do not tell us, they are not fighting for advertising dollars, nor must they succumb to the wishes of a paying advertiser. Prior to 1991 I would have argued that the BBC also falls into the category of not having to bow down to advertisers, as they were funded almost soley by the television license fee. However, after 1991 they opened themselves up to advertising, and I believe they have fallen into the same boat as any other news corporation. They now fight for dollars and viewers by giving the news in the way they feel viewers want to hear it and they news they feel views want to see. To say the BBC is any more trustworthy than any other news service in the western world no longer holds any merit in my opinion. In fact, I would venture to say that one of their biggest endeavours is to "find" stories that contradict those from other news sources to bolster their viewership. It's not an all-together bad approach to news reporting, as it can give the other side of the story on occaion, but it only makes them unique, not better or any less biased.

quote:

Originally posted by juzfugen There is soooo much I could tell you guys and whether or not it changes your mind I honestly dont give a rats ass, because while most you are sitting in your homes watching TV we were there doing what needed to be done.

regardless to this debate or any political argument for that matter, i'm really interested in hearing some of your stories

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.