Troubling Times

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 7, 2004, 12:12 am

Kelshara wrote:Adex can you elaborate what you mean with the last part? Not sure if I follow you and I hate not understanding what people mean

As a part of the first Iraq War ceasefire, Saddam was supposed to provide a full accounting of his WMD and destroy them.

Well he yanked our chains about that for 14 years. Bush got fed up and got the UN to demand that Saddam once and for all come to a full accounting of what he had and he (at the advice of the French and Russiam ambassadors) defiantly refused. He went through the motions and threw paper at the inspectors but didn't come totally clean about what he had.

Later on it was mentioned by his former aids that Saddam didn't want to totally say he didn't have WMD because he'd loose face amonst the other countries in the middle east.

So, after 14 years, and after one last UN demand that he fess up, Saddam continued to half ass his way through the UN's demand.

He never nullified the threat that he had WMD. History had show that he was willing to use his WMD on innocents and enemies.

Second they found terrorist training camp in Iraq. Even from satelitte photos you could see the middle part of an airliner in the camp in which the trainees practiced their craft.

Saddam openly compensated Palitinians who's family member's blew themselves up.

Saddam recurrently mentioned his quarrel with the US in terms of gang fight. He wasn't letting go and he was seething to strike back.

Now consider AQ. They want to harm the US. Iraq is a hop skip and a jump away. Iraq possibly could arm AQ with something biological or maybe even nuclear. We didn't know for sure, Saddam didn't come clean.

Wad all of these together. The THREAT was present.

Personally I'm glad we acted to nullify that threat.

The threat of a nuclear or nerve-gas terrorist was too great not to act.

Saddam was known to have a ton of nasty stuff after Gulf War 1. We were never able to document where notable portions of ended up.

This leads me to wonder where did it go? Who has it hidden?

It's not a matter of Saddam had no WMD. He had it at the end of war. This stuff just doesn't go poof.

Kel,

Tanc says Bush invaded under false pretenses. From what I see there's more than enough pretenses at the time for him to act.

He made a judgement call to be certain about an uncertainty too dangerous to leave unanswered.

Krurk · Post by **Krurk** » April 7, 2004, 12:22 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:Second they found terrorist training camp in Iraq. Even from satelitte photos you could see the middle part of an airliner in the camp in which the trainees practiced their craft..

Just want to comment on this specific part. Unless new camps have been revealed, the one you are likely referring too is located in the northern part of Iraq which was under Kurdish control. Because of the no-fly zones, Saddam was unable to exert any authority over this territory. You could almost argue that it was the United States/British and the Kurdish authority that allowed these to exist, but I think that is a bit of a stretch.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 7, 2004, 12:23 am

Ok I got what you mean now, thanks. I highly disagree with a bunch of it though.

First of, the thought of Saddam arming AQ is ridiculous considering they were mortal enemies. NO proof whatsoever has been found linking Iraq to 9/11 or AQ.

Secondly, the whold threat specter.. that has been argued back and forth here a gazillion times before and is not worth getting into again (even though Powell's comments etc support what some of us have said all along). No threat whatsoever has been documented.

Thirdly, if Iraq had admitted to not having any WMDs at all they would have been wiped out by their enemies.

Fourt of all, to use Brotha's great argument: Iraq is a country surrounded by mortal enemies who would love to wipe them out. They should have WMDs!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 7, 2004, 12:25 am

I don't know it's exact location. It would be interesting to find out.

Someone know a link that might help?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 7, 2004, 12:30 am

At the time, instances similar to what I mentioned could be interpreted as a credible threat.

An sure, the definition of that being a threat is subject to the individual.

I personally think there was enough there to act.
I also personally think we should of spent more time exclusively in Afganistan before acting against Iraq.

But hey, I'm not getting daily intelligence reports. My opinion is whoefully unqualified.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 7, 2004, 12:45 am

Adex_Xeda wrote: I personally think there was enough there to act.
I also personally think we should of spent more time exclusively in Afganistan before acting against Iraq.

But hey, I'm not getting daily intelligence reports. My opinion is whoefully unqualified.

AQ thought we'de back out like the russians. hell we even left when the russians did. while we're not out of the woods yet, Afghanistan has a lot of hope. like i said before the key is making sure the people understand we really are not only on their side but can provide them with a better life.

Krurk · Post by **Krurk** » April 7, 2004, 12:45 am

Back to the camps Adex mentioned a few posts back.

While it is easy to think AQ is the only terrorist group out there, there are actually well over 100 established terrorist groups as recognized by the United States.

The majority of these groups do have various links back to AQ however. These links may range from moral support to financial and resource contributions, but the groups still act independantly fighting for whatever cause they choose.

With that said, there are several terrorist groups that function in the area known as Kurdistan (region including territory from Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey with a Kurdish majority population).

The main one I know off hand is the Kurdistan Worker's Party, though they function mainly in Turkey. Operating a base in northern Iraq could have offered them benefits at the time because of the lack of a central authority willing to oppose their presence.

Estrosiath · Post by **Estrosiath** » April 7, 2004, 1:03 am

Slightly off-topic but, since it was mentioned...

The French government was not against Tchador only - but also against Kippa, and any sign of religion at school ( say, you can't wear a visible cross ). I know it's rather difficult for people outside of France to accept this, but it's deeply entrenched in the French history and constitution that there is a separation between religion and the government, and that school shall remain a lay institution.

It was also an issue that had the Muslim community divided in France - don't go thinking that all the Muslims were opposed to the law, because they weren't. But as usual, the minorities that are were very vocal. And then there are the extremists like Al-Qaeda that try to take advantage of the situation.

Not to mention that Muslim students were starting to demand that school cafeterias ban pork - now, I understand asking about demanding pork-free menus, but banning pork altogether ( when there are still non-Muslim students at school ) ? And some of them were also asking for a separation between sexes in sport classes. Those were first steps towards a transformation of school into a religiously-segregated institution; and France did very well to stop them. Note that in Muslim or Jewish private schools, they can do as they wish - all this applies only to public schools, run by the state.

France is a country in troubled waters. The 5 million Muslims ( out of a 60 million population ) are proving to be difficult to integrate within the republican model.

And, more on the topic... Spain did not say they are pulling out their troops. They said they would pull them out only if the sovereignty was not transmitted to the UN before the date mentioned by Zapatero ( which is, IIRC, the end of June ) . As for pulling them out - Zapatero is only doing what the people wanted in the first place. Want to bet if Berlusconi's coalition loses election next year, this will happen in Italy as well?

As for Aznar being poised to win and then losing. Would you re-elect a government that tries to cover-up and blame the ETA on something as major as that, because elections are coming up? They were going to be re-elected because of issues not related to the Iraq war, such as economic growth, and fighting the ETA threat. Aznar should have come out clean, he would still be in power. It's called Democracy.

And if we want to get back to Iraq. Frankly, Bush wanted many things in Iraq. He wanted to finish up what daddy had started. He wanted the oil, and the fat n' juicy contracts for US companies. He wanted to 'oust a dictator, and promote democracy in the middle-east' ( in a country that is not ready for it, nor will likely be in the close future ). Democracy isn't an idea you can impose on people, they have to demand it first. He wanted to make sure that AQ and Saddam wouldn't get together ( this is such a joke - Iraq was one of the least religious countries in the region, because of the strong lay government. He was hated by AQ, as an extremist organisation. They would never have 'gotten together'. If anything, the US did AQ a favor by kicking Saddam out ). Most of all, he wanted to make sure that the only major oil-producing country pricing its oil on Euro instead of Dollar ( bet you didn't know about this one ) disappeared.

Oh, by the way, Hugo Chavez ( Venezuela's president ) suggested that the OPEC base its prices on Euro, and not Dollar anymore. Any bets on how long he lasts before the US orchestrate a military coup ( not like it's anything new in the region; the US have backed every single dictator in the region that would kick out a socialist government. Slightly bloody work, don't you think? ). Now, as a student of IR, I can understand every one of Bush's reasons. He's protecting the interests of his country, and the lobby that got him elected. However, he blatantly lied about it. He picked all the wrong reasons, and insisted that they were true. He didn't go there to fight the war on terror. It wasn't a quick, clean war. The Iraqis don't want Democracy. There were no WMDs ( gee, might the UN inspectors have been right? ). Yes, by doing what they did, the US is promoting radical islamism in the country. The US will never be free of Islamic threats, as long as they support Israel ( and veto all the resolutions condemning them at the UN level ), and war criminals such as Sharon.

Edits : Added some text, capitalized a few letters ( damn English

)

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 7, 2004, 1:08 am

care to elaborate, while we're on the subject of France, about the divide between the US and France.. ie freedom fries and that whole thing

Estrosiath · Post by **Estrosiath** » April 7, 2004, 1:28 am

Divide between US and France is quite easy. France is refusing US hegemony. If you look at it from a realist point of view, you'd say it's futile. But it irritates the US a lot, that someone actually resists them on major issues such as this. This isn't to say that the US France are not great friends and allies, because they are. It is simply the current administration way of polarizing the issue that caused the popular opinion to go awry. But France has always been a thorn in US side, since De Gaulle came to power. It's a love/hate relationship, you see.

There are a lot of important issues that caused this. Iraq, oil, the Euro, Economic sanctions on European and Chinese steel to protect home industry...

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 7, 2004, 2:10 am

When France agrees with the US, they say "America is joining the world community".

When France disagrees with the US, they say "We refuse to bow to American hegemony."

It's funny that you mention that. If I recall a few months back when new EU members voiced their support for America, the French attempted to assert their "hegemony over the EU" by telling the new members that they should sit down and shut up and let the elder EU members do the talking.

The world is much bigger than America. We're not Big Brother.

France and Russia dragged their feet through this Iraq thing because they stood to lose out on lucrative oil contracts that Saddam had agreed to honor once the sactions were lifted.

You can spin that just as darkly as you can spin the anti-america propaganda.

"The French didn't care about people being under a tyrant just as long as they got their billion dollar oil contracts and their under the table military deals"

There is truth, and then there is embellishment. Too much of the later is unhealthy.

Estrosiath · Post by **Estrosiath** » April 7, 2004, 2:30 am

Oh of course - I should have mentioned it. Don't think I'm pro-French, because I'm not

I actually intensely dislike them. And yes, France didn't refuse to invade Iraq because they are nice people, but simply because France was the main trading partner of Iraq. Both sides were simply trying to protect their interests.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 7, 2004, 10:12 am

Of course, any American will bitch out the French for protecting their interests while applauding Bush for doing the same thing..

Anyway, the whole division between Europe and the US has come from (at least acording to what I have read from people back over there) a very simple thing: Europeans are tired of saying "YES SIR!" every time the US say anything. Being allies doesn't mean agreeing on everything, and it pissed quite a few people off when Bush had a hissy fit when people did not back Iraq 100%. As I have said before, most people agreed 100% on Afghanistan but when it came to Iraq they did not.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 7, 2004, 2:03 pm

Bush's interests wear protecting us from terrorists and tyrants (i'm not saying he went the right way about it). France and Russia's interests were making money off of them.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 7, 2004, 2:21 pm

Yeah there was no other motives than protecting you from terrorists! None!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » April 7, 2004, 4:41 pm

Waiiiit, AQ and Saddams government were distinct enemys? This puts an ENTIRE new spin on the situation, shit this makes the invasion look like 5x the joke...that is really true?

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 7, 2004, 8:38 pm

Saddam openly compensated Palestinian suicide bombers famlilies. AQ are not the only terrorists around you know.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 7, 2004, 8:44 pm

Don't even try that one, the Bush administration clearly tried to tie Saddam and AQ together.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 7, 2004, 9:01 pm

you're right and i agree with you on that point, however Saddam was still a threat like N Korea is a threat. I'm not saying we should invade NK but if AQ were to explode a nuke supplied by NK in the states everyone would be pissed we didn't do something before. something needed to be done about Saddam, we should have had a better plan and not rushed it. but the fact remains that certain people in the UN were too busy making money off the Oil-for-Palaces UN deal to do anything about Saddam.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 7, 2004, 10:09 pm

I have yet to see any good argumentation on how Saddam was an immediate threat to the US.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 7, 2004, 10:32 pm

not an immeadiate threat no, you're right. we should have waited and gone about it a little less hastily. but Saddam was a threat.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » April 7, 2004, 10:53 pm

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2004, 1:03 pm

Kelshara wrote:
...and I laughed it off as arguing semantics, which is what I'm going to do now as well.
How can you laugh it off as semantics? When it is the very foundation of everything you try to argue? Kurds are not Saddam's people, it's that simple.

Yeah, that would be as moronic as saying Hitler killed off his own people...

Saddam didn't come clean about WMD, and he was positioned to make America haters like AQ vastly more powerful than they were without him.

Apparently, Saddam did come clean.

Second they found terrorist training camp in Iraq.

In northern Iraq in Kurdish territory.

Saddam openly compensated Palitinians who's family member's blew themselves up.

How does that constitute a threat to the US?
You might be surprised to know that every middle eastern leader supports Palestine in their conflict with Israel.

Saddam was known to have a ton of nasty stuff after Gulf War 1.

What nasty stuff?
A crippled economic infrastructure?
A decimated military?
A non existant 'elite guard'?
Decades old military equipment they had no means of maintaining?
Alleged Chem/Bio weapons?

It's not a matter of Saddam had no WMD. He had it at the end of war. This stuff just doesn't go poof.

Chem/Bio weapons have a limited shelf life.
Most of the documented Chem/Bio weapons Iraq had were about a decade past their maximum shelf life.

but Saddam was a threat.

I don't think Saddam/Iraq was every a direct threat to the US.
There has been no concrete evidence to support that theory.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » April 8, 2004, 1:16 pm

he may have been telling the truth, but what was he hiding? Why was he always stopping the un guys, thats what im trying to figure out

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 8, 2004, 1:18 pm

crippled economy? then where did all those palaces come from?

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2004, 1:21 pm

Sionistic wrote:he may have been telling the truth, but what was he hiding? Why was he always stopping the un guys, thats what im trying to figure out

It's not that difficult to figure out.

Saddam didn't like UN inspectors snooping about his business.

Saddam didn't want the UN or any of his potential enemies to know what his military capabilities were. He didn't want to show weakness to his people by giving in to weapons inspectors.

He did give in to a lot of the UN inspectors demands towards the end and did supply a lot of the access and information they wanted.

His defiance was perfectly understandable to me.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 8, 2004, 1:25 pm

The economy was crippeled, there is no doubt about that. Also, most of the WMDs that they had back in the days would require extreme facilities to store over a long period of time. There was simply no way that Iraq could preserve them until now.

As Miir said, Saddam could not afford to loose face by cooperating freely 100% for two simple reasons:

1. His own people would rebel even more than they did.
2. He has so many enemies surrounding him that the threat (or even a hint) of having WMDs kept them at bay. You know, the deterrent that you pro-Isreal's nucleaer weapons talk so freely about.

There is also a different theory out: Saddam didn't know for sure exactly what they had. It has been mentioned in countless articles that his "inner circle" lied to not only eachother, but to him as well.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2004, 1:25 pm

nobody wrote:crippled economy? then where did all those palaces come from?

I'm pretty sure those palaces have been around for longer than a decade.

There is also a different theory out: Saddam didn't know for sure exactly what they had. It has been mentioned in countless articles that his "inner circle" lied to not only eachother, but to him as well.

That's not surprising.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » April 8, 2004, 1:28 pm

nobody wrote:crippled economy? then where did all those palaces come from?

are you that fucking dumb?

In almost all 3rd world countrys a .05% minority or something of the sort has all the wealth. The middle class didnt live in palaces did they?

miir · Post by **miir** » April 8, 2004, 1:34 pm

I used to read this forum and think to myself....

Man, nobody could be a bigger moron than Brotha

Turns out I was right.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 8, 2004, 1:50 pm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -9364r.htm

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040321 ... -2593r.htm

But the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That's because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 8, 2004, 2:18 pm

Why are you arguing stuff that everybody agrees on? I'd rather see you make an argument for how Iraq was a threat.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » April 8, 2004, 2:22 pm

miir wrote:I used to read this forum and think to myself....

Man, nobody could be a bigger moron than Brotha

Turns out I was right.

LOL

I really don't think that's possible.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 8, 2004, 2:26 pm

miir wrote:I used to read this forum and think to myself....

Man, nobody could be a bigger moron than Brotha

Turns out I was right.

Miir.. thank you for making me almost choke on my coffee.. that was brilliant!

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 8, 2004, 2:33 pm

that last post wasn't really an argument. just pointing something out. but if you say so i'll go along for the sake of argument. did you read the article about Saddam's scientists? why do you think their turning out that way? because saddam had no WMD's? and somebody made a good point a while back, (can't remember which post) but Saddam had WMD's at the end of the Gulf War I, they had to go somewhere.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 8, 2004, 2:36 pm

miir wrote:I used to read this forum and think to myself....

Man, nobody could be a bigger moron than Brotha

Turns out I was right.

k, lol, i have to admit that was pretty good

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » April 8, 2004, 2:42 pm

but Saddam had WMD's at the end of the Gulf War I, they

The response to that has already been spoonfed you here a few times.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » April 8, 2004, 8:36 pm

nobody wrote:not an immeadiate threat no, you're right. we should have waited and gone about it a little less hastily. but Saddam was a threat.

You still haven't answered how Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US.