Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Syzygyone on June 05, 2003, 03:15:14 PM
-
Okay, this just in. Does it count as WMD?
I didn't think Iraq was supposed to hav any nuclear program?
"U.S. recovered more than 100 barrels from around looted Iraqi nuclear site
By Matt Kelley, Associated Press, 6/5/2003 11:31
WASHINGTON (AP) American forces have gathered more than 100 metal barrels and five radiological devices which Iraqis may have looted from the country's largest nuclear storage site, Pentagon officails said Thursday.
None of the people who turned in the contraband for rewards of $3 showed any more than background levels of radiation, the military officials said. And none of the equipment was emitting more radiation than slightly above background levels, they said.
But American officials still aren't sure what else may have been stolen from the Tuwaitha nuclear complex during the war, said three top military and Defense Department officials who briefed reporters on the issue on condition they not be named.
Iraq stored tons of uranium and other radioactive materials at ''Site C,'' a complex of three buildings at Tuwaitha surrounded by a 12-foot fence and concrete barrier. When U.S. Marines arrived there April 7, the front gate was open and the rear wall was breached. Inside, some radioactive material was scattered around and it was clear the site had been looted.
Local Iraqis later told the Americans that the Iraqi soldiers guarding Tuwaitha left on March 10, before the war started, and civilian guards abandoned the site March 20, the day before American ground forces entered Iraq from Kuwait.
U.S. forces doing an inventory of Site C found more there than they expected, the officials said. They said they don't know whether that means the U.S. expectations were inaccurate, if Iraq moved more radioactive material there before the war or something else was happening.
The Pentagon officials said they were still concerned that some radioactive material could have been stolen from the site, but they could not know for sure until a complete inventory could be taken.
The looting has raised the possiblity that terrorist groups could have obtained material for a radiological ''dirty bomb'' from the site. None of the material at Tuwaitha was of high enough quality to make a nuclear bomb, but some of the material could be teamed with conventional explosives to spew low levels of radioactivity over a relatively large area.
A seven-member team from the International Atomic Energy Agency is scheduled to arrive at Tuwaitha Saturday to begin assessing what material is there and what may have been stolen. The IAEA a United Nations agency had sealed and monitored the storage site for years to enforce the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The United States agreed to let the IAEA team visit the Tuwaitha site only after repeated pleas from IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei. The top Pentagon officials said the IAEA visit did not set a precedent for other U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq.
''The U.S. has the resources to handle the disarmament of Iraq and other tasks,'' said one official in the Pentagon's policy-making office.
His boss, who also spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, said the main American worry was for the safety of U.N. workers. U.S. troops will provide security for the IAEA team and accompany them wherever they go, this official said.
Some people in the villages surrounding the Tuwaitha site have complained of health problems they blame on radiation exposure. At least some of the barrels looted from the site which had been used to store uranium were emptied and used to store drinking water.
The Pentagon is sending a medical team to the area to investigate any health effects of the looting. The team should arrive next week, and will study people living within a three-mile radius of Site C, the Pentagon officials said.
The United States also is training a 100-man Iraqi security force to guard the facility once the Americans leave, the Pentagon officials said."
-
No this doesn't count. This is just the remnant of Iraq's old nuclear power program which Israel put an end to in the 80's.
Iraq really needed a nuclear powerplant, what with their severe shortage of fuel.
:rolleyes:
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
No this doesn't count. This is just the remnant of Iraq's old nuclear power program which Israel put an end to in the 80's.
Iraq really needed a nuclear powerplant, what with their severe shortage of fuel.
:rolleyes:
ra
Are not dirty bombs as much or more of a concern as actual nuclear bombs becaue the dirty bombs are easier to make and smuggle albeit they would do less direct damage?
-
Are not dirty bombs as much or more of a concern as actual nuclear bombs becaue the dirty bombs are easier to make and smuggle albeit they would do less direct damage?
having resources that you could use to make WMD, and actually having the weapons are 2 completely different things.
I could probably find enough stuff in your house to make some sort of devise that could be used for terrorist purposes. but that does not make you a terrorist.
in order to have our 'smoking gun' you'd actually have to find evidence that these resources where used in that way, or something that outlined an actual plan to do so.
-
So now that we found this material you are saying the only stuff that really counts is that you consider usable by a regular military.... Of course you forget our claim that he could supply suitable mqaterial to terrorists.
Funny Chit!!!
I bet if we do find some chemical weapons for example you guys will pop in cheerfully saying it doesnt count because he didnt actually use them in the last war and of course the predetrmined fact that the CIA planted it all.
:p
-
Grun, without flaming, I am curious as to what will be considered WMD. Does it have to be sarin gas, or anthrax, already in a projectile all ready for loading.
One of the biggest concerns we have is a radiologic device. It is such a concern that the goverment entities which used to consider CBN (chemical, biological and nuclear) now have changed their mission to CBRN, Chemical Biological, Radioactive and Nuclear.
So, I ask the question, do not barrels and barrels of radioactive material, which could easily be placed into an explosive disperal device, constitute a WMD?
If it is not such, is it because it isn't radioactive enough. If that's the case, at what mesaurement of radioactivity does it become a WMD as opposed to just a WMD component.
Capt. Apathy, no one was talking about your house or even about whether or not you are a terrorist. :D j/k
But since you posted, I'll respetfully suggest that you probably have an idea of only about a third of the stuff that's in your house that could be used to make a terrorist bomb. Therein lies the point, though. Take common household bleach. It can be used to make really efficient bombs. So, say you are a nut about really white shirts. And you have a few gallons on hand at all times. At what point do we stop ignoring items that are only the "components" of a WMD, since as you suggest having the components is different from having the WMDs?
Just asking! :D :D
-
Nothing will be considered WMD evidence to these people, if any are found they will cheerfully be declared as irrelevant or as is allready the case they will call it a CIA consipiracy to plant WMD evidence.
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
Are not dirty bombs as much or more of a concern as actual nuclear bombs becaue the dirty bombs are easier to make and smuggle albeit they would do less direct damage?
AFAIK, no one has ever used a dirty bomb. It's all speculative at this point.
-
Ahh yes back to the stupid why cant Iraq have WMD material when other countries have it to... :rolleyes:
Anyway Gscholz I dont care any more, Saddam is gone and their WMD program is over. WTG USA!
-
WMD = Weapons sold by western coutries
I dont know why there is a discussion about WMD.
Sure Iraq has WMD - sold by us. The question is why was Mr. Wolfowitz and the US government where unable to make it clear thats not the No. 1 reason to invade the Iraq.
-
I donno Gcscolz I've kinda given up on argung some points rationlly sometimes - for example when blitz and other USA haters said they would not belive any WMD evidence at all under any circumstance baecause it would be 100% for sure a CIA plot...
What point is rational arguing when faced with that sort of bizzare predispositon?
-
Originally posted by Duedel
WMD = Weopnes sold by western coutries
I dont know why there is a discussion about WMD.
Sure Iraq has WMD sold by us. The question is why is
Or posts like this which somehow try to justify or rationalize Saddams illegal posseison of WMD after the first gulf war cease fire agreement because in past when he was legally allowed to have them western countries sold it to him....
How can you rsspond to such an obsurd post as that?
-
Oh and why if WMD was No. 1 (and the two other reasons too) the USA is not invading North Korea and ... uhm why not Russia cause they definitly sell dangerous material to all they want it.
-
The majority aren't arguing that. You're just as much on the fringe as them (eg. no different than blitz) if this is really what you think, and there's not much point in arguing with you about it if these are the kinds of positions yer going to be taking. The story here is the looting... not these useless barrels that have been known about for decades.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Or posts like this which somehow try to justify or rationalize Saddams illegal posseison of WMD after the first gulf war cease fire agreement because in past when he was legally allowed to have them western countries sold it to him....
How can you rsspond to such an obsurd post as that?
Grunherz this is just for u: we (western democratic nations) sold WMD to Iraq. Why? Cause we want a counterpoint to Iran. Now? We invade Iraq. Why? Cause u (the USA and his yes man) want to alter their faults.
Grunherz u already have ur green card (in contrast to Hortlund)?
-
Well Russia is allowed to have WMD, they were not beaten in a war and did not agree to a cease fire requiring toatal WMD disarmament. So again we have the wholly irrelevant argument sating that somehow Iraq can have WMD baecause other countries do...
NK is a more sensitive case than Iraq because their violations of the nucler weapons restriction are not as legaly binding as were Saddams violations of the cease fire and UN resolutions. There was also no UN resolution that threatened military action if NK violated - however there were both UN and Military consequences written both into the ceasfire and sunsequent UN rsolutions dealing with non-compliance consequences for iraq.
Second we took out Saddam because it also suits our Mid-East interests as he was a proven threat to stability by recently inavding his neighbors and a nuisance by his belligerance and open financial support of terrorists, like paying families of suicide bombers $25,000.
-
Look guys. We need a new world order. IMHO an order where (as stated before in another thread) we can make preemtive wars to prevent millions of people to get slaughtered. But this world order is not only accomblished by the US. Its achieved by most western democratic countries.
If one country thinks (regardless how big and important) it can accomplish it on its own it will fail!
Its a long way and it will cost many many years!
-
Duedel:
Who cares why we sold them to him, really its totally irrelevant. The point is he betrayed us and he became the threat. Thats another really weak argument, the idea that somehow we cannot deal with saddam now because in the past he was our ally and we helped him. Take care to remember that fallacious this argument was
also used by opponents of the Afghan war who said we are responsible for 911 because in the first Afghan war Bin Laden was our ally vs the Soviets and that somehow this made it wrong for us to now try and attack him after he betrayed us.
Nash:
I pointed out Blitz just for that reason - his views are so extreme and inflexible that its totally pointless to argue with him - and then it's just as good to be sarcastic about the whole subject baecuse one cnat make a difference in any way. However I do go too far in extending the same attitude to others - sometimes.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Look guys. We need a new world order. IMHO an order where (as stated before in another thread) we can make preemtive wars to prevent millions of people to get slaughtered. But this world order is not only accomblished by the US. Its achieved by most western democratic countries.
If one country thinks (regardless how big and important) it can accomplish it on its own it will fail!
Its a long way and it will cost many many years!
Well that was suposed to be the UN but France and Russia put the nail in coffin by first Russia opposing the Kosovo war to prevent another developing Milisevic genocide and now with France's outright refusal to agree to ANY use of force to support UNSC 1441 under any circumastances. So just like in Kosovo where NATO indepenadbtly took care of the problem a seperate coalition of like minded states took are of the Iraq issue independantly of the UN.
-
and your views are not extreme and inflexible grunherz? :D
-
Sometimes yes, of course - but not as much as you think. People I argue with are often surprised by how much we agree on, however my arguing style and saracsm gets people pissed off and they are likely to interpret it as extremism and inflexibility. Nonetheless I seek out argument as an oportunity to learn and integrate others ideas into my viewpoint. Belive it or not I like when people are patient with me and put up with my loudmouth style but keep challenging my argument, this is a good opportunity for them to influence mt thinking and change my views.
Much where I am very extreme is in my hatred of communism and racially divisive politics. I come from the former Yugoslavia so I hope you understand how I can be a bit sensitive, explosove or extreme on those two issues in particular.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
and your views are not extreme and inflexible grunherz? :D
Yeah but it's funny to watch the rantings. :)
-
From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/07/sprj.nilaw.iraq.nuclear/index.html)
All countries that have nuclear reactors are routinely inspected by the IAEA to make sure that they are disposing of their spent fuel rods and other radiated materials, and not making bombs out of them. One of the ways they do this (as I understand it) is by cataloguing and sealing the material.
Every country that has a nuclear reactor has this material produced as a by-product, and has it inspected (if they are abiding by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-NPT), and this material is NOT considered to be a weapon. The only case where this material would be considered a weapon (WMD or otherwise) is if the government or an individual broke the seals, took the radiological material, and made it into a weapon. Since there is no evidence as of yet that this was the case in Iraq (remember, the inspectors KNEW about this material, and were keeping tabs on it), then you cannot say that the materials in question are weapons of any kind.
Bottom line: there is a difference between something having the POTENTIAL to be made into a weapon, and something that is DESIGNED to be a weapon.
-
Originally posted by ra
No this doesn't count. This is just the remnant of Iraq's old nuclear power program which Israel put an end to in the 80's.
Iraq really needed a nuclear powerplant, what with their severe shortage of fuel.
Even if you're standing on oil, it doesn't mean it'd be cheap to build and operate fossil fuel electricity plants for the effectiveness.
How do we know US isn't using it's nuclear plants to make mass destruction weapons... oh wait, they've been doing it all along.
Let's force US to disactivate their nuclear plants and disassemble all of their WMD!
Always when some non-western country is thinking about building a nuclear plant, westerners without a doubt considers it as an attempt to make nukes.
Why nobody cared about india and pakistan building nukes and even missiles dedicated just to deliver nukes to the targets?!
For some reason nobodys telling them thats bad.. in fact US is in good relationship with them... erm.. as long as they "work against the terrorism"
(and yet pakistan is claimed to protect terrorists etc. etc., but US couldn't care less.. after all, they've been able to conduct operations into afganistan from pakistan)
:rolleyes:
-
At what point do we stop ignoring items that are only the "components" of a WMD, since as you suggest having the components is different from having the WMDs?
Just asking!
my concern is just the opposite.
if we decide that they have the resources to make a wmd, and we decide that that is proof enough. then where does this 'logic' end. we could carry this line of thought into our own courts.
I'm a fairly big guy, I have the resources at hand to make an excellent mugger. but having the capacity to commit a crime doesn't make me a criminal.
are all gun owners killers?
and since all women posses the resources, should they all be charged as potatos.
this stuff is nuclear waste at of all places a former nuclear power plant. AFAIK it has not been reported to have been modified or packaged to facilitate it's use as a weapon. it hasn't been transported to an area containing other components that could be used with it to make bombs.
or to return to the house analogy- the bleach is in the laundry room and the ammonia is under the sink with the floor wax. it's not like we found huge amounts of both, together in a room with a delivery system and a gas-mask.
at worst all we have is proof of sloppy containment in their nuclear waste.
-
But apathy to do that is to ignore Saddms history of past behavior. If we just let him keep WMD components and WMD personell is there really any sensible individual in the world who does not think that that Saddam would restart WMD producion once sanctions were lifted and UN inspectors gone. And remember we allready know WMD are more important to him than loss of oil revenues as he has given the UN 12 years of cause to maintain sanctions, so the consequences of lost oil revenue down the road if he restarted his WMD probram are inconsequential.
Basically what I'm saying is that, sadly , as was the case with Hitler, containment of Saddam would be ineffective without indefinite sanctions and indefinite inspections both of which are are unsaustainable over the long run due to the regions particularites. Those being in no particular order, the unstable (non) peace process in Israel/Palestine made worse by Saddam support of suicide bombers, yes of course Oil, general regional instability, the genaeral war on terror, muslim opinions about US opression of Iraqi civilians by sustained sanctions and a few others I dont have time to write about. So IMHO the USA decided the best thing possible was to oust saddam, and try to foster a democratic government in the area in an attempt to deal with those issues and not face an indefinite standoff with a Saddam family led Iraq.
So the real reasons are complex and specific to Iraq, WMD violation was the simplest one top communicate so it was brought to the forefront and it did provide an expedient basic legal justification. We have allready started finding WMD equpipment as outlined by Powell, captured Iraqi WMD scients under allied interrogation are said to be failing polygraphs left and right -they are lying, and we have yet to seach literally hundered of suspected WMD sites and lets not forget Iraq was able to hide large numbers of MIG25s in short order from allied surveilance in the recent war so I suspect that unkown WMD
sites will also pup up as well.
And for the UN devotees out there the UN declared that Iraq still possesed illegal WMD when the inspectors were forced out in 1998 and we know that some of these weapons materials were still ounacounted for as of late 2002/2003 in Iraqs final decleration. So, in fact , by UN accounting Iraq possed illegal WMD as late as the start of this year. Obviously this was a breach of 1441, but we all witnessed Frances defiance wrt to use of force in case of 1441 non compliance - so effectively the UN was neutralized in this case. And as so happened with Russian UNSC intransigence wrt to intervention in Kosovo, where NATO acted alone, an independant military alliance took action in Iraq.
-
The key argument is that according to Bush Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, i.e material that was weaponized ready to go. Tony Blair said Iraqi forces had such access to WMD that it was ready to go at 45 minutes notice. Barrels of pesticide is not WMD. Barrels of low level radioactive waste (that is probably less harmful than the radon gas naturally emitted by granite) is not WMD.
The search goes on IMO. I'll be satisfied when they find warheads ready to fire containing chemical or biological agents (I seriously doubt they ever got hold of any kind of nuclear precursor nevermind a nuke). The threat as was portrayed by Bush and Blair was one of the utmost urgency - the 45 minute preparedness quote underlines that.
Did Iraq have any WMD? I don't know. I'm prepared to wait until the autumn at the latest - that's the amount of time I wanted the inspectors to be given. In truth, it should be earlier given that the coalition forces have free reign over the entire country. But I'm patient.
-
It works both ways, no?
Syz:"So, I ask the question, do not barrels and barrels of radioactive material, which could easily be placed into an explosive disperal device, constitute a WMD?"
Grun:"Of course you forget our claim that he could supply suitable mqaterial to terrorists."
What does it tell you that this stuff has been sitting at this destroyed and basically abandoned site for ages and has not been weaponized and has not been supplied to any terrorists?
It works both ways, no?
-
How do YOU know its just been sitting there unsupervised? You cant go agound blasting us for supposedly making asumptions and then try to speak aouthoritativley about the same thing yourself when you have noo better information.
Anyway even the UN and Hans Blix himself in his latest report admit that that there ase still large amounts of unacounted WMD materials in Iraq that the Saddam government lied about destroying but failed to show evidence for. So frankly even the UN thinks Iraq posesed illegal WMD material of some sort right up to the start of the war.
-
Even if you're standing on oil, it doesn't mean it'd be cheap to build and operate fossil fuel electricity plants for the effectiveness.
Actually, it does.
How do we know US isn't using it's nuclear plants to make mass destruction weapons... oh wait, they've been doing it all along.
The US obeys international laws and treaties regarding WMD and nuclear power plants.
Always when some non-western country is thinking about building a nuclear plant, westerners without a doubt considers it as an attempt to make nukes.
It must be racism, no other possible explaination.
Why nobody cared about india and pakistan building nukes and even missiles dedicated just to deliver nukes to the targets?!
People cared very much about these 2 countries getting nukes, where have you been hiding? What can be done about it?
For some reason nobodys telling them thats bad.. in fact US is in good relationship with them... erm.. as long as they "work against the terrorism"
The US had a "good relationship" with the USSR in 1941-1945. Geopolitics is not neat and orderly.
ra
-
Ok well Grun... Just from the article, you have Iraqis who were assigned to guard that facility, and who abandoned their post a day before the invasion. It's only after they abandoned the facility and the looting occured that "it has raised the possiblity that terrorist groups could have obtained material for a radiological ''dirty bomb'' from the site."
You hear all these people suspecting Hussein of supplying the terrorists with WMD, yet you have the situation at this facility where he's taking an active measure to prevent that. Now, this doesn't rule anything out, but what occured at the site surely runs counter to any of those suspicions and is almost the opposite of any 'smoking gun' imho.
-
Grun- you make some prety good points. but my basic problem is this-
as Dowding stated we have been sold on this war with threat of huge bio and chemical weapons plants that they where refusing to let UN inspectors into. weapons already built and a danger to us right now. such a danger in fact that we can't wait for more inspections or for congress to declare war. clear and present danger, we must act now.
if what we are finding now was enough, then why wasn't THIS danger presented. obviosly the Bush administration didn't think this was a good enough argument for war or he'd have used it instead of the fabrication we heard.
at best the evidence we where presented with prior to invasion was the parinoid ramblings of a scared man.
at worst it was a knowing plot to present false evidence to the world in general and the american people in particular (including testimony given to congress) in order to sway us to this path. with the death of americans that came of this war, this might even be treasonus.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ok well Grun... Just from the article, you have Iraqis who were assigned to guard that facility, and who abandoned their post a day before the invasion. It's only after they abandoned the facility and the looting occured that "it has raised the possiblity that terrorist groups could have obtained material for a radiological ''dirty bomb'' from the site."
You hear all these people suspecting Hussein of supplying the terrorists with WMD, yet you have the situation at this facility where he's taking an active measure to prevent that. Now, this doesn't rule anything out, but what occured at the site surely runs counter to any of those suspicions and is almost the opposite of any 'smoking gun' imho.
I guess, given his history, that I am unwilling to ascribe such laudable motives to Hussein, Nash. Your argument presupposes that Hussein had the guards at the site to protect it from being looted by terrorists. Perhaps it's not too large a leap of logic to think that Hussein's guards were there to make sure that only Hussein could sell it to terrorists, as opposed to allowing it to be looted and someone other than Hussein getting the cash for it. Remember that Hussein had engendered significant hatred of his regime within very large numbers of his own people.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
Grun- you make some prety good points. but my basic problem is this-
as Dowding stated we have been sold on this war with threat of huge bio and chemical weapons plants that they where refusing to let UN inspectors into. weapons already built and a danger to us right now. such a danger in fact that we can't wait for more inspections or for congress to declare war. clear and present danger, we must act now.
if what we are finding now was enough, then why wasn't THIS danger presented. obviosly the Bush administration didn't think this was a good enough argument for war or he'd have used it instead of the fabrication we heard.
at best the evidence we where presented with prior to invasion was the parinoid ramblings of a scared man.
at worst it was a knowing plot to present false evidence to the world in general and the american people in particular (including testimony given to congress) in order to sway us to this path. with the death of americans that came of this war, this might even be treasonus.
Yes, I think Downign hit it on the head. We were told that the WMD's could be deployed within 45 minutes. I've yet to see proof of such a weapon but I am not yet convinced that none existed, rather I believe that they were secreted out of the country. Time will tell on that I guess.
As for knowing plot to present false evidence, the reason I don't believe that is the fact that no WMD's have been found. Surely if you're smart enough to perpetrate such a worlwide fraud, you are smart enough to recognize the need for and provide for "proof" to be found to complete the fraud. That hasn't happend so I think it augers heavily against this being some kind of large dupe-the-populace conspiracy.
So, as you put it, that leaves us with considering whether the war was motivated by the paranoid ramblings of a scared man; I don't buy that for a second. As the first post in this thread shows, even the Demos thought in 1998 that Iraq had WMDs. 1998 was three years before we were attack on our own soil. 9/11 changed EVERYTHING. So, perhaps it's more a statement of the need to protect this nation from a man who was openly hostile and was WIDELY believed to possess the kind of wewapons that could do very serious harm to this nation, and who had displayed an open willingness to deal with terrorists. Call it paranoia if you will. I call it prudence.
Dangit, folks. we KNOW, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, that there are many thousands of people who haev sworn a blood oath to do everything they can to DESTROY this nation and we KNOW, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, that those same people will attempt to do so using the most cowardly and heinous methods possible.
I admit, it is not an easy subject to deal with, certainly, but I for one am damn happy to err on the side of kicking their bellybutton before they kick some more of ours!
-
Exactly GScholz.
Why is it that folks on the side of Syz, Grun etc. can't go 30 seconds in talking about the situation before they drift into vague generalities then (whammo!) it becomes not even factual anymore. Surely they could deliver their point without straying off into the realm of fiction... so why does that appear so hard for them to do?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
... and was WIDELY believed to possess the kind of wewapons ...
Believed ... not known. I kinda like to know I'm right before starting killing people.
"... and who had displayed an open willingness to deal with terrorists."
I'd like you to elaborate on that please.
I am glad you guys live in a black and white world. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't and we have to do the best we can with the grey areas.
[NB] this will take two posts because of the HUGE AMOUNT of public source inforation linking SH and UBL!
Ask and you and Nash shall receive:
Bin Laden Linked to Saddam Hussein.
The September 11 attacks in the United States were carried out by operatives of Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida organization, but the initial plans for the terrorist attack were made in Baghdad six years ago.
Iraqi intelligence trained at least two of bin Laden‘s suicide pilots on Boeing jetliners the Iraqis captured during the Gulf war. The Iraqis provided several of bin Laden‘s men with forged passports and vials of anthrax, which were delivered to one of the suicide pilots, Mohammad Atta, during secret meetings in Prague.
Although the religious extremist and the extreme nationalist are polar opposites politically, international terrorist Osama bin Laden and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein long ago set aside their differences to meet a common goal. The tragic events of September 11 mark only the first phase in their joint effort to enact revenge on their many common enemies in both the Western and the Islamic worlds.
Mohammad Atta and His Iraqi Handlers
Al-Qaida terrorist Mohammad Atta, who hijacked and piloted American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Center in September, met often with Iraqi intelligence officers. He met at least twice with Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a known Iraqi intelligence officer who worked in the Iraqi Embassy in Prague under diplomatic cover. Atta went to Prague from Hamburg by bus on June 2, 2000, to meet with al-Ani. The next day Atta left for the United States, where he enrolled in a flight school in Florida. Atta then returned to Prague in April 2001 to once again meet with al-Ani. In April, 2001 Czech authorities forced al-Ani to leave the country for "activities incompatible with his diplomatic status," a euphemism for espionage. (See footnotes 1, 2, 3)
Atta's connection to the Iraqis predates those meetings by at least a year, when he and fellow hijacker Marwav Jussuf al-Shehhi roomed together in Hamburg, Germany. Czech authorities say that Atta is believed to have also met with Farouq Hijazi in the spring of 2001. Hijazi is Iraq‘s ambassador to Turkey and a former general in the intelligence service. Hijazi is Saddam Hussein‘s personal liaison with bin Laden and is reportedly the man who as early as 1995 came up with the plan to destroy the World Trade Center with hijacked airliners. (See footnotes 4, 5, 6)
Among the items given to Atta by the Iraqi officers was a packet of documents that included at least one forged passport. German investigators believe that Atta also received at least one vial of anthrax. Atta is believed to have taken that anthrax with him to the United States. He reportedly gave it to other members of the Al-Qaida network to use in the ongoing terrorist campaign to distribute the deadly substance through the U.S. mail system. (7)
Anthrax Marked With Iraqi Signature
Various samples of the anthrax that were found in Washington contain traces of silicia and bentonite, substances that were added to anthrax spores to help keep the tiny particles separated and floating in the air so that their intended victims can more easily inhale them. Former United Nations biological arms inspector Timothy Trevan says that Iraqi scientists routinely used bentonite to enhance the effectiveness of their anthrax weapons. The anthrax that has shown up in the United States is of the Ames-type strain, samples of which were provided to Iraq for use in developing antidotes to anthrax bacteria, which often affect cattle. (1)
A growing amount of evidence shows that Iraq intelligence may have played a key role in the bin Laden organization‘s September 11 terror attacks and in the spread of anthrax in the United States. Evidence connecting the two organizations has been published in the world press for at least six years. (1, 8)
Saddam and Osama: A Long History
Former Iraqi official Ahmed Allawi, now a leader of the Iraqi National Council, said in 1999, "There is a long history of contacts between the Mukhabarat (Iraqi secret service) and Osama bin Laden." Allawi said then that the alliance between Al-Qaida and Iraqi intelligence developed over the years. (8)
Saddam Hussein, by far a devout Muslim, actively and aggressively courted Osama bin Laden. This was not an easy task, as Saddam Hussein has murdered thousands of Iraqis who shared bin Laden‘s goal of establishing governments based on his version of the Islamic Shari‘a legal codes. The Iraqi leader, however, was able to lure bin Laden by offering him access to specialized training and weaponry that Al-Qaida could not acquire themselves. That training includes using captured Kuwaiti Boeing 707 airliners to practice hijacking techniques, and the weaponry includes significant amounts of at least one biological warfare toxin: anthrax. (See footnotes 9, 10, 11)
August Terrorist Convention in Baghdad
On August 19 Saddam Hussein opened his fifth annual conference of resistance organizations in Baghdad. The guests of honor represented some of the most notorious and violent terrorist groups. Among with Iraq‘s top intelligence officers during the three days of speeches and meetings were representatives from Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Hamas, the radical Egyptian Gamaa al-Islamiya and Osama bin Laden‘s Al-Qaida organization. In the audience were more than 100 known terrorists from groups as distant and as diverse as Somalia, the Philippines and Bangladesh. (12)
Amidst chants of "Down with America" and "Down with Israel," Saddam told the gathering of urban guerrillas, assassins, hijackers and bomb-makers that their time of vengeance was close at hand. Three weeks later, 19 members of bin Laden‘s Al-Qaida hijacked four American airliners to launch the suicide attacks that took the lives of thousands of people in New York alone. Of that number, many were foreign nationals from 80 countries. Ten were French citizens. Many more died at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. (See footnotes 12, 20)
The Alliance of Vengeance
Baghdad is a second home to many of the world‘s leading terrorist groups. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal and other infamous terrorists of the 1970s and 1980s found refuge and financial support in Saddam Hussein‘s Iraq. During the 1990-1991 Gulf war, Iraq recruited, supported, funded, armed and trained numerous radical Palestinian and Arab terrorist organizations. Saddam openly encouraged them to commit acts of violence against the nations of the allied coalition that opposed him. (12)
Many of the key leaders of those groups were former "Afghan Arabs," volunteers from the Muslim world who, like Osama bin Laden, had fought against the Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan. After the Gulf war, many of those terrorists who were based in Iraq sought sanctuary in the only country that remained allied to Saddam during that conflict: Sudan. Bin Laden also found refuge in Sudan, which remained his base and a magnet for his fellow "Afghan Arabs" until 1996.
Iraqi intelligence officers frequently met with Afghan Arabs and Sudanese government leaders in Sudan in the early 1990s. It was there that Iraqi intelligence and what would become the Al-Qaida first learned of each other‘s capabilities. (12)
-
Ramzi Youssef, the First Link Between Bin Laden and Saddam
Ramzi Youssef, the terrorist leader who planned the 1993 truck bomb attack on the World Trade Center in New York, was trained in Iraq. After the 1993 bombing failed to bring down the twin towers, he fled to Manila, where he lived in secret with Mohamed Jamal Khalifia, the brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden. Khalifia transferred money from Osama bin Laden to Ramzi Youssef, who in turn taught bomb making to the Muslim Abu Sayyaf rebel group, a group bin Laden still trys to support financially. (See footnotes 9, 13, 14)
Youssef planned two major operations while in Manila. One was to assassinate the Pope during his visit to the Philippines in 1995. The second was to simultaneously blow up 12 American passenger jets at the turn of the millennium. A routine investigation of an accidental fire at his apartment led to the discovery of these plans by Philippine security forces. Youssef fled to Pakistan, where he was later arrested and extradited to stand trial in the United States. Khalifia simply disappeared and is believed to have found refuge with his brother-in-law in Afghanistan. (See footnotes 13, 14)
World Trade Center Attack Planned in Iraq in 1995
Made aware of bin Laden by Ramzi Youssef and impressed by bin Laden‘s attacks against local and particularly American targets in Saudi Arabia, in 1995 Saddam Hussein sent two of his top intelligence officers to make contact with the bin Laden organization. Farouq Hijazi, then a brigadier general in the General Intelligence Directorate, and Habib Ma‘muri, chief of special operations for the directorate, met with representatives of bin Laden‘s organization at Salman Pak, home of Iraq‘s special weapons research division. Hijazi already knew bin Laden. They had met in 1994 during one of Hijazi‘s numerous visits to Sudan. (See footnotes 6, 8)
According to former officers who have since defected from Iraq and joined the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress, these two intelligence officers discussed plans with bin Laden‘s lieutenants on how to improve on and finish the plan of attack made by Ramzi Youssef to bring down the World Trade Center. An official at the Iraqi National Congress told reporters in late October that it was at this meeting that Hijazi and Ma‘muri came up with the idea of hijacking jetliners and turning them into flying bombs. (6)
Saddam Invites Bin Laden to Baghdad
Iraqi intelligence worked hard to develop close ties with bin Laden and his operatives. Saddam Hussein‘s interest in meeting with him reportedly became a priority following the bombing of the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998. In 1998 General Hijazi was appointed ambassador to Turkey. In his role as a diplomat, the former intelligence director was able to travel more freely abroad. One of his first trips was to Afghanistan, where he met with bin Laden. The general conveyed a personal message from Saddam Hussein inviting bin Laden to Baghdad. (See footnotes 6, 12)
Bin Laden was seen in Baghdad‘s al-Rashid Hotel in December 1998. International lawyer Giovanni Di Stefano, who was in Baghdad at the time to negotiate a contract to represent Iraqi Airlines in Italy and Yugoslavia, met and talked with bin Laden. Western and regional intelligence officers, as well as Iraqi exiles, confirm that bin Laden met with Saddam, who reportedly offered to grant bin Laden a base and asylum in Iraq. Bin Laden, however, already firmly established in Afghanistan, where his money and armed followers had made him an important figure in the regime, declined. Bin Laden did agree to send men to Iraq to receive "special" training. (See footnotes 9, 15)
Former General Hijazi became Saddam Hussein‘s official liaison with bin Laden shortly after his visit to Afghanistan in 1998. He facilitated the movement of about 60 of bin Laden‘s followers to Iraq for special training. That unit became the core cadre of the Jund al-Islam, or "Soldiers of Islam." It has been built up to about 500 men and is led by Amir Abdullah al-Shafi‘i, an Egyptian (or Syrian) who was one of bin Laden‘s "Afghan Arabs." Most of Jund al-Islam‘s recruits are mercenaries. Many are members of renegade Kurdish groups Iraq has created as a counterpoint to the larger Kurdish guerrilla forces that oppose the Baghdad regime. (9)
Captured Boeings Used by Iraq to Train Bin Laden Hijackers
Bin Laden‘s men are among a selected group of terrorists who were trained by the Iraqis to hijack and dismantle the warning systems aboard jetliners. The Iraqi military captured several Boeing 707 jetliners from Kuwaiti Airlines in the Gulf war and took them back to Iraq. The planes are now located at the intelligence service training center at Salman Pak. Although the planes have been grounded ever since, they have provided the Iraqi intelligence service with an excellent classroom to give hijackers "hands-on" training with such planes and, more important, to help make pilots familiar with the operating systems in the cockpits of Boeing airliners. (11, 16)
Boeing manufactured both of the planes that were hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center towers on September 11. Those 757 and 767 Boeings were newer and larger models than the 707s taken from Kuwait, airline industry officials say the basic layout is very much the same. (11, 16)
Iraqis Train Al-Qaida Suicide Squads to Handle Bio-weapons
Several of the terrorist training camps Iraq set up just prior to and during the Gulf war have been reopened. Others like al-Habaniya and al-Safar were never shut down. At least 6,000 recruits from both major and minor terrorist organizations are currently undergoing some form of martial instruction in Iraq. The recruits receive training in communications, explosives, small arms and a variety of sophisticated techniques, ranging from how to use eavesdropping and surveillance equipment to the handling of chemical and biological weapons. (12)
The Jund al-Islam trains at the camps, along with other groups belonging to the Al-Qaida organization. In January 2001, Arab-language newspapers in London reported that one of bin Laden‘s chief lieutenants, Abu Khabab al-Masri, had created a special cell to study the use of biological, chemical and radioactive materials. "Suicide elements" of this cell, the Arab-language newspaper reported, "trained in the use of mustard and sarin gas and the anthrax virus." That training, the newspaper reported, was carried out in Iraq. (9, 10)
"I Created Death" for Saddam
An Iraqi scientist who says "I created death for Saddam" recently escaped from Iraq and fled to Europe. In September 2001 he told a London newspaper, "Over the past six months 3,000 physicists and chemists have been working flat out on secret programs to develop both toxins and the means to deploy them to lethal effect." The defector, who used the pseudonym Doctor al-Sabri to protect his family from reprisals, says Iraq has rebuilt much of its former capability to create weapons of mass destruction. (17)
Al-Sabri says that Professor Shaher Mahmoud al-Jibouri heads up the testing division of the chemical and biological warfare department. The professor is also a member of the intelligence service. Al-Sabri claims that in earlier in 2001 at least 30 prisoners died in experiments the professor conducted to test the lethality of the latest batch of biological weapons being made in Iraq. (17)
Considering that Saddam has already used chemical weapons against his own people, killing thousands of unarmed citizens in northern Iraq, Al-Sabri‘s information seems to confirm what we already know of Saddam.
Iraq Rebuilding Anthrax, Other Biological Weapons Stockpiles
Iraq began research on creating chemical and biological weapons in 1973. United Nations arms inspectors report that by the time of the outbreak of the Gulf war in 1990, Iraq had amassed more than 40,000 chemical weapons. Among them were atleast 50 bombs and five to ten missile warheads filled with anthrax. Another 8,425 liters of liquid anthrax was in storage awaiting "weaponization" into a powdery form. (See footnotes 17, 18, 19)
Richard Spertzel is intimately acquainted with Iraqi chemical and biological weapons programs. He was one of the last members of the United Nations Special Commission to be expelled from Iraq in 1998. Spertzel told reporters on October 28, 2001 that during the U.N.‘s last two years in Iraq the commission was unable to investigate the suspected rebirth of the Iraqi programs to research and create anthrax and other biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. (12)
Although all of the known stocks and laboratories at Muthana and al-Hakam were destroyed in the aftermath of the war, United Nations officials say they cannot be certain that they completely eliminated Iraq‘s anthrax stockpiles, let alone Iraq‘s ability to create new stocks of weapons-grade anthrax. (17, 18, 19)
Sources to follow!
-
"... and who had displayed an open willingness to deal with terrorists."
I'd like you to elaborate on that please. [/B]
Sources:
1. ABCnews.com, 10/29/01
2. Daily Telegraph (London) 10/27/01 (Prague confirms hijack leader met Iraqi agent)
3. Boston Globe, 10/25/01 (The Iraqi Factor)
4. Die Welt (Berlin) 9/19/01 (Frankfurt Seen As Hub of Bin-Laden‘s German Network)
5. Observer (London) 10/14/01 (Iraq ‘behind US anthrax outbreaks‘)
6. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 10/19/01 (INC Says Iraqi Ambassador Linked to WTC Attack Tactic)
7. AFP (Berlin) 10/25/01 (German Newspaper: Suspected Hijacker May Have Transported Anthrax)
8. Iraq News, 2/10/99 (Osama Bin Laden and Iraq)
9. Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, 9/19/01 (Iraq Kurdish Opposition Site on Bin-Laden‘s Plan to Target Iraqi Kurdistan) 10. Al-Hawadith (London) 1/26/01 (Report Views Bin-Laden‘s Operations, Counter-Terrorism Efforts)
11. Wall Street Journal (New York) 10/29/01 (Anthrax: The Elephant in the Room)
12. Daily Telegraph (London) 10/28/01 (Every day, the case mounts against Saddam)
13. Far Eastern Economic Review, 9/27/01 (The Coming War: Danger Within)
14. Far Eastern Economic Review, 9/27/01 (The Coming War: Thwarted Plots)
15. Independent (London) 10/14/01 (The suicide bomber and the Baghdad conspiracy)
16. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 10/01 (‘Well-Trained‘ Pilots Left Little to Chance)
17. Sunday Telegraph (London) 9/30/01 (Defecting Physicist Claims Iraq Building Chemical, Biological Arsenal)
18. Guardian (London) 10/15/01 (Iraq stockpiled anthrax in run-up to Gulf war)
19. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 10/19/01 (Iraq‘s Anthrax Stockpile Highlighted)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
"... and who had displayed an open willingness to deal with terrorists."
I'd like you to elaborate on that please"
That's what I did. Please say thank you.
I could not provide actual links as I had enough of a time fitting into the text limits of this BBS a sit was. But I did provide you with the source information.
Originally posted by GScholz
If all that "evidence" you got there isn't jused by the two men that need it most right now, I don't trust it.
My friend, all I did was elaborate, as you asked, but, mind you, all I have access is open source. Is it "eh...evidence"? I don't know, but your snide "I know better than anyone else" insinuation that it is not evidence is specious. The fact is, I don't know and neither do you. But, it is what has been reported.
Neither I nor you are in any position to determine the true facts, and, as you say, GW and TB obvsiously had the better intel. But, I think you a) quoting a statement that doesn't deal with the question you asked in your previous post, and b) are reading far too much into their quoted statements.
a)They did not say there was no evidence to proove that SH dealt with terrorists. That wasn't the question to which they responded but, it was the question that you asked in your post, was it not. At most, they refused to confirm that there is a proven connection between SH and 9/11/01. But, does that mean there is no proof that SH dealt with terrorists.
b) the mere fact that they said they cannot make the claim that SH was linked to 9/11 does not necessarily prove he wasn't. Again, I don't know, but then again, why would they acknowledge proof of a fact that might burn a source. That kind of decision is made on a daily if not hourly basis in the intelligence community.
"Sigh" I guess trust the collective judgment of GW and TB. Too bad you obviously do not.
Have a nice day!
:D
-
"I could not provide actual links as I had enough of a time fitting into the text limits of this BBS a sit was. But I did provide you with the source information. "
hehe what kind of a reason is that? :D
Isn't it because the article (http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/4637/terr26a.html) where you lifted this from didn't provide those links?
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Look guys. We need a new world order. IMHO an order where (as stated before in another thread) we can make preemtive wars to prevent millions of people to get slaughtered. But this world order is not only accomblished by the US. Its achieved by most western democratic countries.
If one country thinks (regardless how big and important) it can accomplish it on its own it will fail!
Its a long way and it will cost many many years!
I think your idea of a world body that cooperates to keep the peace is wonderful. Why, nations would be united. We could call it the League of Nations, or maybe the United Nations.
But wait, we already did that, and found that we couldn't get everyone to agree on what should be done 99% of the time.
Sometimes one person (or country) has a clearer vison of what needs to be done for the common good than the majority. This may be one of those times.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
... and was WIDELY believed to possess the kind of wewapons ...
Believed ... not known. I kinda like to know I'm right before starting killing people.
"... and who had displayed an open willingness to deal with terrorists."
I'd like you to elaborate on that please.
Gunther, that is the exact same attitude that gave us the Munich deal between Germany, France, and Britain. These 'incontrovertible proof' demands mask self-doubt. I'm not saying "fear", don't get me wrong. Our societal reaction to the abuses of our forefathers during colonial times has made us unwilling to act in our own self-interest.
You don't see the Mullahs preaching that Islam should not attack the West because both societies have valid moral bases. We should not require absolute proof that there is a proximal threat before we act in our own defense.
Iraq had gas shells, unfilled. They had a portable bio-weapons lab, buried in the desert. We have only been in country two months, give us more time to find all the buried skeletons. And speaking of skeletons, what about the thousands of Iraqis buried in mass graves, with a bullet in the back of the head?
They have documented terrorist contacts between the Iraqi regime and various terrorist organizations. Read it in the papers, Gunther.
There were more than enough reasons to topple Saddam. I don't care if we ever find a "smoking gun" on the WMD issue. That guy--and all his henchmen--need to be dead. They are/were scary people.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
I think your idea of a world body that cooperates to keep the peace is wonderful. Why, nations would be united. We could call it the League of Nations, or maybe the United Nations.
But wait, we already did that, and found that we couldn't get everyone to agree on what should be done 99% of the time.
Sometimes one person (or country) has a clearer vison of what needs to be done for the common good than the majority. This may be one of those times.
yea democracy sucks!
its good sadam is gone but its bad that we were lied to about why we went to war. the longer we wait the more we learn about how our allies knew iraq didnt have the crap we claimed they had.
here is a question for ya, which is worse:
a: a lie about cheating on your wife which only affects you and your wife.
b: a lie about the reasons for going to war.
btw to the french for going into the congo.
-
Dangit, folks. we KNOW, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, that there are many thousands of people who haev sworn a blood oath to do everything they can to DESTROY this nation and we KNOW, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, that those same people will attempt to do so using the most cowardly and heinous methods possible.
I admit, it is not an easy subject to deal with, certainly, but I for one am damn happy to err on the side of kicking their bellybutton before they kick some more of ours!
Yep, everyone knows that there are people out there that would like to see the U.S. fall. But I couldn't disagree with you more that it is okay for us to err when overthrowing countries because of it. I think now more than ever we need to be cautious as to where we direct our force, or we run the danger of becoming what those fanatical dip****s like Bin Laden say we are.
You're statements pretty clearly illustrate what is scary about this country now. Because of 9/11, emotions have overrun rationality. What would have a few years ago have been unthinkable aggression for the amount of justification presented is now accepted and embraced because it plays on those emotions.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
btw to the french for going into the congo.
What a hypocrite they only went there to steal the conflict diamonds....
-
Originally posted by Nash
"I could not provide actual links as I had enough of a time fitting into the text limits of this BBS a sit was. But I did provide you with the source information. "
hehe what kind of a reason is that? :D
Isn't it because the article (http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/4637/terr26a.html) where you lifted this from didn't provide those links?
LOL!
I didn't lift the article from there. It was someplace else.
:D
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
btw to the french for going into the congo.
The Congo was never a threat to France. It's just redikulus!
-
no im a bleeding heart liberal democrat that thinks if your going to go to war to stop people from being killed then dont just limit it to iraq.
of course i also believe that true democracy cannot be forced on a people but come from within if it is to survive.
wait wait correct me if im wrong but i thought the conflict diamonds were on the ivory coast of africa and not in some small village in eastern congo. i guess those uraguay troops are just rolling in diamonds as well. soon they will be the richest troops in the world!!!
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
liar liar pants of fire!
-
at least chirac isnt lieing about the reasons for being in there. thats more i can say about our president.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
yea democracy sucks!
its good sadam is gone but its bad that we were lied to about why we went to war. the longer we wait the more we learn about how our allies knew iraq didnt have the crap we claimed they had.
here is a question for ya, which is worse:
a: a lie about cheating on your wife which only affects you and your wife.
b: a lie about the reasons for going to war.
btw to the french for going into the congo.
If only his philandering and dishonesty were the only damage he did. Selling American technology for campaign contributions to a country diametrically opposed to our ideals is traitorous imo.
-
Originally posted by Lance
Yep, everyone knows that there are people out there that would like to see the U.S. fall. But I couldn't disagree with you more that it is okay for us to err when overthrowing countries because of it. I think now more than ever we need to be cautious as to where we direct our force, or we run the danger of becoming what those fanatical dip****s like Bin Laden say we are.
You're statements pretty clearly illustrate what is scary about this country now. Because of 9/11, emotions have overrun rationality. What would have a few years ago have been unthinkable aggression for the amount of justification presented is now accepted and embraced because it plays on those emotions.
You admit that there are people out there that would like to see the U.S. fall, so please share with us all your rational, as opposed to emotional, approach to the terrorist threat. As for being scary, the only people that ought be scared are the terrorists, willing to slaughter inncocents to destroy this country and its allies.
:D
-
Originally posted by Syzygyone
You admit that there are people out there that would like to see the U.S. fall, so please share with us all your rational, as opposed to emotional, approach to the terrorist threat. As for being scary, the only people that ought be scared are the terrorists, willing to slaughter inncocents to destroy this country and its allies.
The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with any approach to the terrorist threat Syz, no matter how many times you and whoever else keeps repeating it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with any approach to the terrorist threat Syz, no matter how many times you and whoever else keeps repeating it.
I know, I know, it was War for Oil. But, likewise, no matter how many times you and whoever else repeats that, it won't make it true.
Ahahahhahahahahaha!:D
Don't you just love internet arguments!
I enjoy your posts Nash, and your avatar too! Keep it up.
BTW, I sent you an email about the source.
It wasn't what you think but I was impressed that you found what you found. How'd you do that?
:D
-
bush is going to get killed in the debates if he dosnt find some WMD's by 2004. Using false documents to start a war is treasonable.
btw. akiron all those millions of dollars spent investigateing clinton and his administration went to waste. The best they could do was him cheating on his wife. All other accusations have proven false. while the current administration is looking like the most crooked one in modern history.
-
Heh! Lets see... Oh, I guess I would identify which countries directly supported terrorism against the U.S. and tried to stop them. At first diplomatically, but failing that, militarily. I would use tact in my diplomacy throughout the process so that I did not come off as a dick trying to push the world around.
What I would not do is act on shaky intelligence and use it to support presupposed conclusions. I would not use shaky, unverified intelligence to sell the public on the idea that they are in danger and a war is necessary. And based on the intelligence that we've seen, I would not have identified Iraq as a serious threat or supporter of terrorism against the U.S and certainly would certainly not have identified them as so much of a threat as to warrant all of the human, monetary and political costs of a unilateral, unsanctioned-by-the-U.N. war.
But I guess the shoot-a-shady-looking-character-first-and-ask-questions-later technique is more rational though, eh? Keep arguing that position, its pretty damn funny, Syasdaadfasnzasdf.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If the US really wants to rid the world of opressive dictators that kill thousands of their own people, start in Africa.
Been there, done that, will likely do it again. Of course when we do all the US haters just cry imperialism.
-
Originally posted by Lance
Heh! Lets see... Oh, I guess I would identify which countries directly supported terrorism against the U.S. and tried to stop them. At first diplomatically, but failing that, militarily. I would use tact in my diplomacy throughout the process so that I did not come off as a dick trying to push the world around.
What I would not do is act on shaky intelligence and use it to support presupposed conclusions. I would not use shaky, unverified intelligence to sell the public on the idea that they are in danger and a war is necessary. And based on the intelligence that we've seen, I would not have identified Iraq as a serious threat or supporter of terrorism against the U.S and certainly would certainly not have identified them as so much of a threat as to warrant all of the human, monetary and political costs of a unilateral, unsanctioned-by-the-U.N. war.
But I guess the shoot-a-shady-looking-character-first-and-ask-questions-later technique is more rational though, eh? Keep arguing that position, its pretty damn funny, Syasdaadfasnzasdf.
I too would like to live in a perfect world where you could, with absolute certainty, based on hard, indisputable evidence, identify the countries that directly supported terrorism before the terrorists they support can strike again. Trouble is, I don't think that world exists. :confused:
As far as your conclusion that it was shakey intelligence, I have to thank you for resolving the current highest level raging international debate on whether or not the intelligence that was acted upon was, indeed, shakey. :rolleyes: Please be sure to notify the media.
As far shooting first and asking questions later, I've never espoused anything of the sort, and neither has this administration to my knowledge. Your otherwise nicely presented thoughts suffer for this digression into nanner nanner world.
An my name HAS NO VOWELS, EXCEPT FOR SOMETIMES Y. OKAY?:mad:
j/k with the caps!:D
-
You are right, there is no way to be absolutely certain, and I am not asking for that. What I would like, however, is to be beyond a reasonable doubt that a country poses a threat to the U.S. before we invade them and overthrow their government. It is, after all, the governmental equivalent of an execution. I personally wasn't anywhere near this regarding Iraq given what we (the public) were told. Afganistan and the Taliban were a different story.
But most of the American public were in support of the Iraq war, and that is what disturbs me. Despite no solid evidence that this foreign nation was a threat to us, a vast majority supported pre-emptively invading that country and deposing the government. America has never been like that. I probably am being too cynical when I say that fear is the root of it, though. It really is trust. Trust that, despite a lack of demonstrated evidence, their government would not mislead them into an unjustified war.
Regarding the intelligence that was used to provide the foundation for the war's justifications, I am going to have to consider it as being shaky until we actually uncover some hint of the hundreds (or was it thousands?) of tons of chemical and biological weapons that were claimed. You are perfectly welcome to view it as rock solid, if you wish.