Yes we all know war brings hardships as has been repeated by many on here but it doesnt mean war is ok. Some wars are ok but this one is not. Therefore an illegal war is an unjust war and an unjust war with hundreds of thousands of people dead means its not ok. Hope that makes sense.
It makes sense. The problem you have is that he had the legality to act.
Besides people can always make an excuse for wars and killing people. Shoot even Saddam himself can say that because there was an assination attempt on his life by the Kurds it was an act of war therefore some innocent people died. Him killing the Kurds is illegal here but maybe it was ok in his eyes. Just like it's ok in your eyes that Iraqis are dying now because a war is going on.
Ok...follow through on this with me ok. One one hand you have a head of state of a regime that has the regime help him plan to kill a US President. On the other hand you have a head of state of a country that escapes an assassination attempt by one of his own countrymen.
Draw the distinction there...
Reagan, after he got shot, didn't order Hinckley's family to be rounded up and fed into plastic chippers feet first, did he ??
thaiphoon wrote:
Clinton's generals caused alot of unnecessary civilian deaths through their high-altitude bombing in the Balkans in the 90's. This war (which was not sanctioned by the U.N.) was conducted to prevent the ethnic cleansing of the Muslim minority by the Serbian majority. Yet, I hear not one peep from you and others on the Left concerning that war...
I was not a member of this site during Clintons years. Otherwise I might have said something then. I'm neither Republican or Democrat. I vote for what I believe in and not a certain party. Anyways the reason I 'peep' about this is because its current events unlike Clinton which was what 7 years ago.
Ok so what is your stance on it. That was a "war' fought without UN approval and the rules of engagement (concerning avoiding unnecessary civilian casualties) were clearly not as defined as they are now for our troops
thaiphoon' wrote:
We were already headed into a recession in 2000. It was starting to really hit home at the same time as 9/11. The further economic calamity that ensued had less to do with 3,000 dead and more to do with the disruption of the daily economy.
O.K. but it's still safe to say that 5 years of brutal warfare has competely ruinied the economy and lives of people living in Afghanistan and Iraq no? Maybe 9/11 didn't make an impact on the U.S. as so many of you are quick to point out so lets ignore that but is it safe to say that destruction of such magnatude such as oh lets say a war might destabilize weaker nations.
Ok...destabilizing Afghanistan's economy?? I thought you believed that to be a "just"war?? How can one wage a "just war" (as you believed it to be) without any sort of damage to infrastructure, etc...??
Now you're just arguing because you don't like Bush. Thats fine with me, but just come out and say that the reason.
As for Iraq... it would be more stable without an insurgency. The quicker we get back to the public works projects and get more services flowing to more people the better in my opinion. Already some areas in Iraq have more services than what they enjoyed under Saddam.
thaiphoon wrote:
At some point the US was going to strike back. Its like the kid on the playground that is bigger than the other kids and is always told to not hit back or he'll hurt the littler kids. That kid is only going to take so much of getting sucker-punched and ignoring it (and therefore emboldening the bullies) before he starts swinging.
Strike back against who? Who was sucker-punching the U.S.? I agree with your anology but you do know we are talking about Iraq and not Al Qeada right? Also you do know that Iraq was not striking or sucker-punching America right? So this anology although true has no basis when talking about Iraq since Iraq was no threat to America.
Iraq
was a threat to us. Saddam was already providing aid and safe haven to terrorists (check out the document dump concerning the millions of documents that we captured and that we are now translating and you'll see that there were some connectiosn to Al-Qaeda). Here is a link to a site that deals with these documents;
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/index.htmAdditionally the UN sanctions were crumbling and were about to be removed and then it was off to the races again with his WMD programs. The New York Times recently put on the front page that IRAQ HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND WAS PLOTTING TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB !!! This article you can find here;
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http: ... Q2A3yQ5EjYwas intended to embarrass the Bush administration by pointing to incompetence in that document dump (admittedly someone screwed up) but the bigger story is that even the NYT agrees that Iraq's plans were so developed that any country with the will and ability could use the documents to build a bomb. So in order to put out a story about "Bush screwed up" they had to knock down the straw man of "No Iraq threat to the U.S" mantra once and for all. This completely invalidates the liberal mantra that Iraqw was not nor could be a threat to us. Because obviously, Saddam could have sold this information to anybody, any other state, or any terrorist group that had publicly pledged to kill millions of Americans and had expressed interest in nuclear arms. You know, like, oh... al-Qaeda
Here's a nice paragraph from the story;
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990's and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.
Here is another document that has been translated. This memo directed its agents to test mass grave sites in southern Iraq
for radiation, and to use "trusted news agencies" to leak rumors about the lack of credibility of Coalition reporting on the subject.
They specify CNN(actually it should be called TNN -> the Traitor News Network).
The burial site in the southern no-fly zone got the attention of the head of the IIS 5th Directorate, the Counterintelligence directorate, who sent a top-secret memo to the head of M4/1, Foreign Intelligence - Arab Nations. Document ISGQ-2004-00224003 lays out the Iraqi regime's strategy for damage control. Pages 3-5 contain a Secret memo signed on behalf of the Head of 5th Directorate (Translator Comment (TC): no name indicated) and sent from the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) to the 1st Department of the 4th Directorate regarding information about mass graves in the Southern Area of Iraq, and the rituals and ceremonies to be made for the dead people.
The memo was dated 07 February 2001, and contained the following notes:
• The IIS has no information about the mass graves in the Southern Area.
• Graves have to be tested for the presence of nuclear radiation.
• Were they buried alive or did they die of suffocation?
• Were they military or civilian?
• Was there any identification of their names?
• Place signs and accurate details for the mass graves to be reached easily.
• Use trusted news agencies to leak rumors and information that there is a misunderstanding and signs from some Coalition Forces members regarding the presence of the mass graves in Southern Iraq.
• Request assistance from some friendly countries that possess the technological capabilities to search for these graves.
• Give CNN the priority to cover this incident to make a bigger effect on the international community.
• Leak rumors to trusted media sources that the atrocities and mass graves found in the Southern Area were committed by the Coalition Forces. This is in order to make these actions noticeable as monstrous and inhuman to the whole world.
• After that, the remains are to be taken out of the graves; military procedures and arrangements will be made to pay the deceased their last respect. Also the building of memorial statues for the dead in every governorate.
Now why would they need to test for radiation??
Going further these documents at the website show that by invading in 2003, we followed the best intelligence of the UN inspectors and we succeeded in stopping the development of an Iraqi nuke. This intelligence put Saddam
far ahead of Iran in the nuclear pursuit, and made it much more urgent to take some definitive action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it. And bear in mind that this intelligence came from the UN, and not from the United States . The UN inspectors themselves developed it, and they meant to keep it secret. The FMSO site blew their cover, and they're very unhappy about it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is something I don't understand. When people talk about Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran there is always people who equate those nations with Al Qeada and that is just not the case. If America has beef with Al Qeada which they should...then why the hell are they going after Iraq? You can't lump everyone as Al Qeada. The only reason someone would do this is because they have no knowledge on the subject matter and in doing so maybe they hope that if they say it enough they will believe it and if they believe it to be true then maybe it will become truth.
Read what I posted above.... you and the rest of the anti-war crowd are going to have to argue that the information somehow wasn't dangerous in the hands of Saddam Hussein, but was dangerous when posted on the Internet. That "dog just won't hunt" my friend. It can't be both no threat to America and yet also somehow a threat to America once it's in the hands of Iran. since after all, once the sanctions were lifted, Iraq was then free to pursue its goals of the bomb.
Additionally, another document was translated and released and here is one of the translations of the document;
Top secret memoranda sent to Al-Kadisseiya Military branch No.2205 dated 04/03/2001 and to the Headquarters of Zee karr military branch No. 246 dated: 08/03/2001 that we were informed by another memo from Ali Unit military branch No. 154 dated: 10/03/2001. We urge you to inform the above mentioned unit of the names of people wishing to volunteer for suicide action to liberate Palestine and strike American interests according to the following below for your information and to let us know.
This confirms that Saddam Hussein and his regime had every intention of attacking the US, either here or abroad or both, using members of their own military for terrorist attacks. That puts an end to all of the arguments about whether we should have attacked Iraq, we now know that Saddam and his military planned to attack us.
Here's another document released by the FMSO project. This document contains the records of the Iraqi regime's early connections to Osama bin Laden, starting in 1994 and continuing at least through 1997. It comes in the middle of document ISGZ-2004-009247, a review of Iraqi Intelligence Service contacts in the region and summaries of the combined efforts that they produced.
The review of their work with Saddam comes in section 2, discussing "The Reform And Advice Committee":
2. The Reform and Advice Committee:
Headed by the Saudi Usamah Bin Ladin [UBL], who is a member of a wealthy Saudi family with his roots going back to Hadhramut [TC: An area now part of Yemen]. This family has a strong ties with the ruling family in Saudi. He is one of the leaders of the Afghan-Arabs, who volunteered for jihad in Afghanistan. After the expulsion of the Russians, he moved to live in Sudan in 1992 subsequent to the Islamists arrival to power in Sudan.
[A]s a result of his antagonistic positions against the ruling Saudi family in opposition to the foreign presence in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi authorities issued a decree to withdrawing his Saudi Citizenship. We approached the committee by doing the following:
A. During the visit of the Sudanese Dr. Ibrahim Al-Sunusi to Iraq and his meeting with Mr. `Uday Saddam Hussein, on December 13th 1994, with the presence of the respectable, Mr. Director of the Intelligence Services, he [Dr. Al-Sunusi] pointed out that the opposing Usamah Bin Ladin, residing in Sudan, who expressed reservations and fear that he may be depicted by his enemies as an agent for Iraq; is ready to meet with us in Sudan (The Honorable Presidency was informed of the results of the meeting in our letter 782 on December 17th 1994).
B. An approval to meet with opposer Usama Bin Ladin by the Intelligence Services was given by the Honorable Presidency in its letter 138, dated January 11th 1995 (attachment 6). He [UBL] was met by the previous general director of M ’I M 4 [QCC: possible the previous General Director of Intelligence] in Sudan, with the presence of the Sudanese, Ibrahim Al-Sannusi, on February 19th 1995. A discussion ensued with him about his organization, he [UBL] requested the broadcasting of the speeches of Sheikh Sulayman Al-`Udah (who has an influence within Saudi Arabia and outside, due to his religious and influential personality), to designate a program for them through the radio broadcast directed inside Iraq, and to perform joint operations against the foreign forces in the land of Hijaz. (The Honorable Presidency was informed of the details of the meeting in our letter 370 on March 4th 1995, attachment 7)
C. The approval was received from the Leader, Mr. President, may God keep him, to designate a program for them {QCC: UBL and the Sheikh] through the directed radio broadcast. We were left to develop the relationship and the cooperation between the two sides to find out what other avenues of cooperation and agreement would open up. The Sudanese were informed of the Honorable Presidency’s approval of the above through the representative of the Respectable Director of Intelligence Services our Ambassador in Khartoum.
D. Due to the recent situation in Sudan, and being accused of supporting and embracing terrorism, an agreement with the opposer Saudi Usamah Bin Laden was reached, to depart Sudan to another region; whereas, he left Khartoum in July of 1996. The information indicates that he is currently in Afghanistan.
The relationship with him is ongoing through the Sudanese side. Currently, we are working to revitalize this relationship through a new channel in light of his present location.
This shows that the connections to the Saddam regime went much higher than previously reported. Saddam's son made the arrangements with the Sudanese government in December 1994. Osama met directly with the General Director of the IIS. Even after he left the Sudan, the Sudanese continued to act as a conduit between Osama and Iraq, at the behest of Saddam Hussein -- and the IIS states that they were actively working to connect to Osama again after he landed in Afghanistan.
During this period of 1996, al-Qaeda bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. In 1998, Osama issued his fatwa against the US. The embassy attacks in Africa followed, and then the bombing of the USS Cole -- and finally, 9/11. Aid and comfort to Al-Qaeda anyone???
I have pointed out in other threads that we were justified in going in and the documents we were translating were proving my point. Some people refused to believe the documents were genuine. Now we have no less of an authority than the New York Times to verify that the IIS documentation is not only genuine, but presents a powerful argument for the military action to remove Saddam from power.
Game, set, and match
)