Who Supports the War(s)

[hermit22]

Ok, I'll agree with that. And I apologise, I did make an error in lumping all Palestinians together.

I see your point though, and I concede it. But I must ask: would it be justification for you if he was tied to al-Qaeda?

[jaguar]

Am I to infer what he meant? All I have to go on are his words, and his words very clearly implied that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and "recent Islamic terrorism". I very clearly pointed out that there was. I don't care that it's not al Qaeda - he didn't say that.

All depends who you want to call a terrorist really. Secondly Palestinian terrorism (and yes, it is terrorism) is about the state, it is *Palestinian terrorism* first, and its members happen to be Islamic. Whereas Al Queda is Islamic terrorism.

Ill concede my point was at best, inarticulate, on the other hand, yours is moot. Touché.

So if he has no links to Al Queda, and the CIA thinks he is in their own words "low" risk. Why exactly should Iraq be invaded? I mean considering how successful Afghanistan is an all. (can anyone say America's Chechnya?)

Still waiting for slang's OKC/Iraq smoking gun, i could use a good laugh.

Hermit's last point, whether that would be justification is an interesting one. If it could be proven, and it was serious, the answer for me i think would be yes.

[wolf]

Originally posted by jaguar

Still waiting for slang's OKC/Iraq smoking gun, i could use a good laugh.

You won't be laughing long, Jaguar ...

http://www.jaynadavis.com/

[jaguar]

Well from her bio i get the impression shes a bitter old hack with an axe to grind. Furthermore the whole thing implies government coverup, which makes no sense at all considering their desperation for anything linking Iraq to well...anything they can use as a flashpoint to excuse an invasion. I see lots of circumstancial evidence, no proof, no documents, no evidence at all. Looks like someone has a big theory and is playing a loose, fast game of connect the dots.

Originally posted by hermit22
would it be justification for you if he was tied to al-Qaeda?

Kinda depends on the level of ties, I think. For example, if he was largely behind the "Holy Tuesday" operation, or provided funding for it knowing what the mission was... then I think that evidence should be made widely available and I imagine that pretty much the entire world would support an effort to topple him and probably put him on trial. And if that was the case, and the evidence was clearly presented and irrefutable... then yeah, I think I'd support action similar to what I described above.

If the linkage is weak - something like "Saddamn telephoned bin Laden afterward and said 'fight the power, brother'"... well, I wouldn't consider that an "actionable" offense.

As I've said before, I'm still not sold on the War on Iraq. If weapons inspectors go in there and find boatloads of nukes/bio-bombs and Saddamn refuses to relinquish them... well, then we probably need to do something about that.

[hermit22]

I think that's a pretty rational approach, and I think I mostly agree with it. But I don't feel like googling right now.. what was Holy Tuesday again?

[tw]

Originally posted by dave
If weapons inspectors go in there and find boatloads of nukes/bio-bombs and Saddamn refuses to relinquish them... well, then we probably need to do something about that.

If that was found, then the world would certainly support operations to remove those weapons. That is a given. The problem remains that the world, who has spies in Iraq, says no such proof exists. The world says no country can unilaterally invade Iraq - regardless of even how the Arab world hates Saddam. Furthermore this nearly unanimous worldwide opinion is correct.

Therein is George Jr's problem. Therein lies the value of Colin Powell whose views coincide closer with mine. A 15-0 vote in the Security Council is an affirmation of Colin Powell's opinions vs George Jr's extremist advisors. Even Syria, Mexico, and Germany voted for it (the latter two being close American allies that totally and publically disagree with George Jr's right wing extremist advisors).

UN resolution passed because it was carefully worded to demand the US/Britian first get Security Council permission. Under Dave's scenario, the Security Council would have no problem authorizing use of force against Iraq - as would I. But until there is indeed a threat - a threat that Saddam's neighbor's see and appreciate - then there will be and should be no justification for military action.

That is the point. Every nation providing intelligence to the US and every nation that would be targets of Saddam's WMD don't view Saddam as a threat. Even the CIA comes to the same conclusion. Those conditions must be reversed to justify use of military force - a concept that George Jr's right wing advisors cannot be bothered to acknowledge. It is that right wing extremist mindset that make this US administration so dangerous and makes Colin Powell so essential to American security.

It was this same mindset that almost got us into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane. It is these same right wing extremists who also want revenge on Saddam for making them so foolish. Saddam is only still there because those same right wing extremists screwed up while in the George Sr administration.

[slang]

09/13/2002 The Daily Standard

<B>Why Can't the CIA Keep Up with the New Yorker?</B>
http://<a href="http://www.theweekly...8rrstd.asp</a>

by Stephen F. Hayes

IN WHAT SHOULD go down as one of the most under-discussed revelations of the war on terrorism, an unnamed "senior counterterrorism official" told the Washington Post Tuesday that the CIA is aware of credible reports documenting Saddam-al Qaeda coordination in northern Iraq, but hasn't checked them out.

Someone remind me why George Tenet still has a job.

In March, the New Yorker ran an exhaustive--16,000 words--account by Jeffrey Goldberg detailing the plight of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. It was an extraordinary piece of journalism--the kind that journalism awards are created to recognize. I distributed the article to dozens of friends and colleagues.<B> It turned Iraq doves into hawks, and skeptics about a war there into believers. </B>

Goldberg sprinkled his prose with caveats--about the possible motivations of the Kurds, about the differing agendas of Saddam and Islamic radicals. That skepticism made his account more credible. But what ultimately made the report convincing was the detail. Goldberg named the prisoners, he explained their relationships, he recreated their battles, and he described their travels.<B> In short, his work is verifiable.</B>



3/25/2002 The New Yorker

<B>THE GREAT TERROR (This is very long)</B>

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

by JEFFREY GOLDBERG

The possibility that Saddam could supply weapons of mass destruction to anti-American terror groups is a powerful argument among advocates of "regime change," as the removal of Saddam is known in Washington. These critics of Saddam argue that his chemical and biological capabilities, his record of support for terrorist organizations, and the cruelty of<B> his regime make him a threat that reaches far beyond the citizens of Iraq.</B>

"He's the home address for anyone wanting to make or use chemical or biological weapons," Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi dissident, said. Makiya is the author of "Republic of Fear," a study of Saddam's regime. "He's going to be the person to worry about. He's got the labs and the know-how. He's hellbent on trying to find a way into the fight, without announcing it."

On the surface, a marriage of Saddam's secular Baath Party regime with the fundamentalist Al Qaeda seems unlikely. His relationship with secular Palestinian groups is well known; both Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas, two prominent Palestinian terrorists, are currently believed to be in Baghdad.<B> But about ten years ago Saddam underwent something of a battlefield conversion to a fundamentalist brand of Islam.</B>

<B>The Kurdish intelligence officials I spoke to were careful not to oversell their case; they said that they have no proof that Ansar al-Islam was ever involved in international terrorism or that Saddam's agents were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But they do have proof, they said, that Ansar al-Islam is shielding Al Qaeda members, and that it is doing so with the approval of Saddam's agents.</B>

The Kurdish intelligence officials told me that they have Al Qaeda members in custody, and they introduced me to another prisoner, a young Iraqi Arab named Haqi Ismail, whom they described as a middle- to high-ranking member of Al Qaeda. He was, they said, captured by the peshmerga as he tried to get into Kurdistan three weeks after the start of the American attack on Afghanistan.<B> Ismail, they said, comes from a Mosul family with deep connections to the Mukhabarat; his uncle is the top Mukhabarat official in the south of Iraq. They said they believe that Haqi Ismail is a liaison between Saddam's intelligence service and Al Qaeda.</B>

I havent checked JEFFREY GOLDBERG's credencials, but the report seems well researched and well written. As we see from these 2 articles, there is some type of problem with the US intell agencies. It may be omnious or not, I have more to say about that later (with references).


<B> I have many more replies to the questions/comments earlier. I dont have time to respond right now but will soon, thanks for your patience</B>

[slang]

Still waiting for slang's OKC/Iraq smoking gun, i could use a good laugh.

I'm sorry Jag, I really didn't mean to use the words "smoking gun". Can you show me where I posted them , I need to change them. Thanks.

[jaguar]

You gave the impression you had one.
That's a lovely article about an article about the Kurds, how terrible, another oppressed group. Terrible. Bit like the Palestinians really, course the US supports their oppression. Or some of the horrible regimes in South America the US supports/ed, or the ones in Africa or....

Stephen F Hayes I get the feeling, got his qualifications in a Christmas cracker.

Neither of the articles mentions any link between OKC and Iraq.

My guess is there is more to this than meets the eye. The most likely scenario in my mind is that the Kurds are talking shit and the CIA know it, it wouldn't shock me and it wouldn’t be the first time. The second most likely scenario is that what the CIA are well aware, and are doing something about it but because they are the worlds premier Intel force its not making the papers, always a sign of good operation. Of course you can never rule out sheer incompetence. On the other hand considering how desperately Bush is looking for anything to make that link to justify a war I doubt this has been overlooked.

[slang]

Stephen F Hayes I get the feeling, got his qualifications in a Christmas cracker.

Neither of the articles mentions any link between OKC and Iraq.

Your lack of patience with me regarding the OKC connection is disapponting considering you "get feelings" about someone's qualifications without a specific reason given, muchless any supporting references.

I am not a researcher, and not a writer. I do have a point to make as do you. Hang tight, we can debate this after I complete the background and post the results. There are many others I owe a response to.

[jaguar]

Your lack of patience with me regarding the OKC connection is disapponting considering you "get feelings" about someone's qualifications without a specific reason given, muchless any supporting references.

While i don't acutally seen any connection between thsoe two things and i'm yet to see you actually refute anything by anyone.........

Someone remind me why George Tenet still has a job.

I think that covers it. I've seen better essays written by year 9s, its something you'd expect to see posted on here or any other forum, not a news article or an opinion piece. A quick wander though the site appears to reveal the be most B grade rubbish i've seen published.

Just curious jag, have the kurds been suicide bombing, targetting innocent Iraqis in Baghdad?

[jaguar]

and your point is....?
They don't have the US and Biritsh airforces keeping them safe either.

[slang]

To which I asked: "When would you say the left-wingers were last in the majority?"

When I said that I was speaking specifically to the US Senate, although I'm sure I wasnt clear.

Tom Daschle has been the Senate Majority leader since Jefford's defection. More than a few people that pay attention, see that as the same technicality that put W in the White House. It was a power grab, and we're pissed.

While we dont think that all Democrats in the Senate are neccessarily totally left wing, having the Democrats in the majority gives them the control of the issues that come up for vote. I would say having Daschle in control has killed the chances of anything even remotely right from coming up for vote.

One thing we are concerned with is the Supreme Court. We want Justices that are in favor of the second ammendment, that believe in states rights, believe that there are enough special legal privileges for minorities. The religious right also wants very desparately to overturn Roe v. Wade. I personally dont have an opinion on abortion. Since they hold a strong influence on Republicans I tend to overlook the issue entirely. I DO understand how powerful the pro abortion movement is and respect their concern over having pro-life Justices on the bench.

When this last election changed the majority in the Senate, we were very happy. We now feel that some of our legislation will at least come up for a vote. That's all I am asking for, a vote.