user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
if everyone who is anti american joined forces, we may as well give up 
"Sunni = Saddam advocates"
So, in your opinion an entire branch of Islam are terrorists?
You are insane, dani. Or *intensely* stupid.
She's stupid. They keep trying to find some non-existent connection between secular Saddam and scary Mooslum bogey-man (American defence budget saviour) bin-Laden. This is just another one.
Hey, you forgot to flag this as a joke ballot.
No, she just believes what Dubya tells her. Lots of people do. Remember, he got 're-elected'.
by mojo on Thu Dec 30, 04 7:55am
[+]
These guys sure do get around pretty well for dead men.
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:31 a.m. ET March 4, 2004 BAGHDAD, Iraq - A Jordanian extremist suspected of bloody suicide attacks in Iraq was killed some time ago in U.S. bombing and a letter outlining plans for fomenting sectarian war is a forgery, a statement allegedly from an insurgent group west of the capital said.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in the Sulaimaniyah mountains of northern Iraq during the American bombing there, according to a statement circulated in Fallujah this week and signed by the Leadership of the Allahu Akbar Mujahedeen.
Hang on! Zarqawi released a statement the other day. He can't be dead. It said:
BRAINS! BRRAAAIINS!
15 of 20 percent of the Sunnis are trying to boycott the elections.
Good enough DingleDung?
The Sunnis are wanting to boycott the elections like Al-Zaarqawi told them too, it doesn't matter if he's still alive or not. Osama praised the efforts of the terrorists in Iraq after their attack in Mosul. Osama is encouraging the Iraqis to keep rebelling against the new government.
Y'all are rediculous and partisan.
Media only covers the bad news because thats the only way to get ratings. Media only covers scandals like Bill Clinton and not Clinton's standing ovation from the world. . .
Dani, boycotting elections doesn't make you a terrorist. You must have forgoten the definition of a terrorits. A terrorist is someone who targets non-combatants in order to acheive political power. Now, does boycotting a set up, fake election make you a terrorist? I didn't think so. Being anti-puppet government also doesn't make you a terrorist eithr. Oh, and Abu Mussab wouldn't be there if the US hadn't attacked so you can't use that to advocate an illegal occupation.
Media only covers bad news because bad news is what 99 percent of Iraq is made up of.
'15 of 20 percent of the Sunnis are trying to boycott the elections.
Good enough DingleDung?'
No. Read Lib_Dem's comment, then go stand in the corner with a dunce's hat on.
Boycotting the elections means they want Saddam Huissein back and believe he is going to come back to rule Iraq again. Saddam Huissein is a terrorist. These are not puppet elections, the Iraqis are voting who they want to vote for, we can't do anything about it.
Don't bring up a conspiracy theory about fake elections. You mine as well call any election fake. I'm not going to listen to someone who thinks "Bush Cheated" and has no evidence whatsoever of how.
What, have to been to Iraq? Have to traveled to every city in Iraq Liberal? 99% of media reports are bad news because bad news is the only thing that brings in the ratings. Ask your friend Bill Clinton.
"Have you traveled" . . "Have you been to"..
Dani, everytime you make a comment you set yourself up for a hit.
' Saddam Huissein is a terrorist '
He's no more of a terrorist than George W. Bush is. Both Bush and Saddam murdered civilians in order to achieve political power in other lands. Remember that. Perhaps you're a terrorist since you support Bush.
' These are not puppet elections, the Iraqis are voting who they want to vote for '
They're voting for what they want but they aren't getting what they want. Like that old Joe Stalin saying. 'The people who cast the votes decide nothing, the people who count the votes decide everything'.
' Don't bring up a conspiracy theory about fake elections '
In order for it to be a conspiracy theory it would mean it's made up. But, it's a fact therefore it's not a theory. Don't bring up that conspircay theory that it's a real election Dani.
' I'm not going to listen to someone who thinks 'Bush Cheated' and has no evidence whatsoever of how. '
This has nothing to do with how Bush cheated the 2004 election. This is about how the Iraqi election is set up. Keep your eyes on the debate please.
' What, have to been to Iraq? Have to traveled to every city in Iraq Liberal? 99% of media reports are bad news '
No, but I'm sure CIA agents who came up with the report have been there and I don't think the CIA is lying either. Do you think that the CIA is making this report up?
' because bad news is the only thing that brings in the ratings '
No, it's the number of people who watch the news who bring up the rating.
' Ask your friend Bill Clinton '
I can't, but if he heard what I'm saying I'm sure he'd agree.
Most of that is your beliefs, and you can have those beliefs but you are just too opinionated to debate with.
The ending parts was just dodging the debate. "No, it's the people who bring in the ratings". Um, WTF? You know what I mean, stop playing games.
' Most of that is your beliefs, and you can have those beliefs but you are just too opinionated to debate with. '
Which one of my comments above are solely based on my opinion and have no fact to them?
' The ending parts was just dodging the debate. '
I'm not trying to dodge the debate, I think it's you who's jumping from one subject to another.
Oh, and the media doesn't try to show only the worst, it shows what the US army reports to them. In other words. Reporting a casualty on the US side doesn't mean that they're running from the truth.
Your belief that Bush wants to go into other lands just for power. Not fact, just a belief.
You thinking the Iraqi elections will be fraudulent is a total conspiracy. YOU having a fact would be something like, you've talked to someone running the elections and they told you how they're going to put voted in for the right candidate. That would be valid facts.
Oh, look at you, CIA report? We're talking about what is going on in Iraq not about the pre-Iraq examination of Saddam having WMD.
Since you have so much distrust for the government why whould you trust what is said in the CIA? For one, they DID say Saddam most likely had weapons of mass distruction.
This is not changing the debate, this coorelates with what we're talking about.
So tell me, have you met anyone involved in conducting the elections in Iraq?
' Your belief that Bush wants to go into other lands just for power. Not fact, just a belief. '
Ok. Your belief that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist is not a fact, just a belief.
' You thinking the Iraqi elections will be fraudulent is a total conspiracy. YOU having a fact would be something like, you've talked to someone running the elections and they told you how they're going to put voted in for the right candidate. That would be valid facts. '
Even if I had talked with someone running the election they wouldn't tell me the truth. It would be very stupid for them if they had told me the truth. What's my proof? It's the illegal occupation that proves everything. It was condemned by the entire world with the exception of a few third world countries that were probably bribed into going to war. Both Geneva and the UN condemn it therefor by international law it is illegal making it an illegal occupation no different than what Saddam did to Kuwait. Now, does a president who illegally occupies a country have intent to bring Democracy to it? This is all common sense.
' Oh, look at you, CIA report? We're talking about what is going on in Iraq not about the pre-Iraq examination of Saddam having WMD. '
The report had nothing to do with WMDs. It had everything to do with the situtation in Iraq. God, can't you pay attention at all. Maybe you should go back to being Dani_Dumgirl, it fits you a lot better.
' Since you have so much distrust for the government why whould you trust what is said in the CIA? '
The CIA isn't part of the White House. The president of the United States can not tell them what to say, how ever he can tell his cabinet and the army what to say. FBI is a government agency but the government has little control over them. The FBI for example is allowed to question the president and arrest him. Had the president any control over him it would make the US a dictatorship in a way.
' For one, they DID say Saddam most likely had weapons of mass distruction. '
But they didn't suggest a war now did they? Gov't agencies are wrong from time to time and that's ok with me but if they can't admit the war was wrong (like Bush right now) and if they can't admit that it's failing then they lose credibility.
' So tell me, have you met anyone involved in conducting the elections in Iraq? '
No, but I see them on TV all the time. They're those men who incredibly have all had someone in the holocaust before.
Saddam was a terrorist was because he gassed his people and cut off their hands and "illegally" killed them. You are Pro-U.N. obviously rather than pro-America. So what makes the U.N. make the laws on weather an occupation is illegle or legal? I thought all countries just decide things on their own. Why do we have to let other countries make decisions for us? I want President Bush to make the decisions, he's the leader of America. He understand what it takes to keep us safe. The lesson of Sept. 11th was to keep us safe and play on the offence, before other countries attack us, durr.
And Britain is not a third world country.
There are many CIA reports. Which one do you mean, one about Iraq? What does it say that gets you so upset.
And the FBI hasn't impeached the President yet now have they?
"Gov't agencies are wrong from time to time"
Good for you to recognise that. Why should Bush have to apologise for listening to the CIA? Also, why should anyone have to apologise who still believes this war is a noble cause? Which is most people in Iraq by the way.
This is an artical explainging the connection by the way
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
Case Closed
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11
Editor's Note, 1/27/04: In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank reported that "Vice President Cheney . . . in an interview this month with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the 'best source of information' an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified information."
Here's the Stephen F. Hayes article to which the vice president was referring.
-JVL
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.
According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.
The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."
The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."
One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen. As the memo details:
4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes decisive moment in the budding relationship came in 1993, when bin Laden faced internal resistance to his cooperation with Saddam.
5. A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the "Islamic Army" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an "understanding" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader.
Another facilitator of the relationship during the mid-1990s was Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. Abu Hajer al-Iraqi). Abu Hajer, now in a New York prison, was described in court proceedings related to the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as bin Laden's "best friend." According to CIA reporting dating back to the Clinton administration, bin Laden trusted him to serve as a liaison with Saddam's regime and tasked him with procurement of weapons of mass destruction for al Qaeda. FBI reporting in the memo reveals that Abu Hajer "visited Iraq in early 1995" and "had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Sometime before mid-1995 he went on an al Qaeda mission to discuss unspecified cooperation with the Iraqi government."
Some of the reporting about the relationship throughout the mid-1990s comes from a source who had intimate knowledge of bin Laden and his dealings. This source, according to CIA analysis, offered "the most credible information" on cooperation between bin Laden and Iraq.
This source's reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a "window" into bin Laden's activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran).
Reporting from the early 1990s remains somewhat sketchy, though multiple sources place Hassan al-Turabi and Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's current No. 2, at the center of the relationship. The reporting gets much more specific in the mid-1990s:
8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS's principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden's farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti.
9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others.
And later more reporting, from the same "well placed" source:
10. The Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, met privately with bin Laden at his farm in Sudan in July 1996. Tikriti used an Iraqi delegation traveling to Khartoum to discuss bilateral cooperation as his "cover" for his own entry into Sudan to meet with bin Laden and Hassan al-Turabi. The Iraqi intelligence chief and two other IIS officers met at bin Laden's farm and discussed bin Laden's request for IIS technical assistance in: a) making letter and parcel bombs; b) making bombs which could be placed on aircraft and detonated by changes in barometric pressure; and c) making false passport . Bin Laden specifically requested that , Iraqi intelligence's premier explosives maker--especially skilled in making car bombs--remain with him in Sudan. The Iraqi intelligence chief instructed Salim to remain in Sudan with bin Laden as long as required.
The analysis of those events follows:
The time of the visit from the IIS director was a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing. The bombing came on the third anniversary of a U.S. strike on IIS HQ (retaliation for the attempted assassination of former President Bush in Kuwait) for which Iraqi officials explicitly threatened retaliation.
IN ADDITION TO THE CONTACTS CLUSTERED in the mid-1990s, intelligence reports detail a flurry of activities in early 1998 and again in December 1998. A "former senior Iraqi intelligence officer" reported that "the Iraqi intelligence service station in Pakistan was Baghdad's point of contact with al Qaeda. He also said bin Laden visited Baghdad in Jan. 1998 and met with Tariq Aziz."
11. According to sensitive reporting, Saddam personally sent Faruq Hijazi, IIS deputy director and later Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, to meet with bin Laden at least twice, first in Sudan and later in Afghanistan in 1999. . . .
14. According to a sensitive reporting a "regular and reliable source," Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz.
That visit came as the Iraqis intensified their defiance of the U.N. inspection regime, known as UNSCOM, created by the cease-fire agreement following the Gulf War. UNSCOM demanded access to Saddam's presidential palaces that he refused to provide. As the tensions mounted, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on February 18, 1998, and prepared the nation for war. He warned of "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals" and said "there is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
The day after this speech, according to documents unearthed in April 2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might provide "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden."
Four days later, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden issued his now-famous fatwa on the plight of Iraq, published in the Arabic-language daily, al Quds al-Arabi: "For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples." Bin Laden urged his followers to act: "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."
Although war was temporarily averted by a last-minute deal brokered by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, tensions soon rose again. The standoff with Iraq came to a head in December 1998, when President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a 70-hour bombing campaign that began on December 16 and ended three days later, on December 19, 1998.
According to press reports at the time, Faruq Hijazi, deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met with bin Laden in Afghanistan on December 21, 1998, to offer bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. CIA reporting in the memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee seems to confirm this meeting and relates two others.
15. A foreign government service reported that an Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraqi intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan, met in late 1998 with bin Laden in Afghanistan.
16. According to CIA reporting, bin Laden and Zawahiri met with two Iraqi intelligence officers in Afghanistan in Dec. 1998.
17. . . . Iraq sent an intelligence officer to Afghanistan to seek closer ties to bin Laden and the Taliban in late 1998. The source reported that the Iraqi regime was trying to broaden its cooperation with al Qaeda. Iraq was looking to recruit Muslim "elements" to sabotage U.S. and U.K. interests. After a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Taliban leader Omar, arrangements were made for a series of meetings between the Iraqi intelligence officer and bin Laden in Pakistan. The source noted Faruq Hijazi was in Afghanistan in late 1998.
18. . . . Faruq Hijazi went to Afghanistan in 1999 along with several other Iraqi officials to meet with bin Laden. The source claimed that Hijazi would have met bin Laden only at Saddam's explicit direction.
An analysis that follows No. 18 provides additional context and an explanation of these reports:
Reporting entries #4, #11, #15, #16, #17, and #18, from different sources, corroborate each other and provide confirmation of meetings between al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings. The covert nature of the relationship would indicate strict compartmentation of operations.
Information about connections between al Qaeda and Iraq was so widespread by early 1999 that it made its way into the mainstream press. A January 11, 1999, Newsweek story ran under this headline: "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The story cited an "Arab intelligence source" with knowledge of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. "According to this source, Saddam expected last month's American and British bombing campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world, making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait might feel less inclined to support Washington. Saddam's long-term strategy, according to several sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift if formally."
INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, "said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam's office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda."
The bulk of reporting on the relationship contradicts this claim. One report states that "in late 1999" al Qaeda set up a training camp in northern Iraq that "was operational as of 1999." Other reports suggest that the Iraqi regime contemplated several offers of safe haven to bin Laden throughout 1999.
23. . . . Iraqi officials were carefully considering offering safe haven to bin Laden and his closest collaborators in Nov. 1999. The source indicated the idea was put forward by the presumed head of Iraqi intelligence in Islamabad (Khalid Janaby) who in turn was in frequent contact and had good relations with bin Laden.
Some of the most intriguing intelligence concerns an Iraqi named Ahmed Hikmat Shakir:
24. According to sensitive reporting, a Malaysia-based Iraqi national (Shakir) facilitated the arrival of one of the Sept 11 hijackers for an operational meeting in Kuala Lumpur (Jan 2000). Sensitive reporting indicates Shakir's travel and contacts link him to a worldwide network of terrorists, including al Qaeda. Shakir worked at the Kuala Lumpur airport--a job he claimed to have obtained through an Iraqi embassy employee.
One of the men at that al Qaeda operational meeting in the Kuala Lumpur Hotel was Tawfiz al Atash, a top bin Laden lieutenant later identified as the mastermind of the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.
25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement."
26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training.The analysis of this report follows.
CIA maintains that Ibn al-Shaykh's timeline is consistent with other sensitive reporting indicating that bin Laden asked Iraq in 1998 for advanced weapons, including CBW and 'poisons'.
Additional reporting also calls into question the claim that relations between Iraq and al Qaeda cooled after mid-1999:
27. According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia.
And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What's more, the memo reveals potential financing of Atta's activities by Iraqi intelligence.
The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.
And the commentary:
CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.
It's not just Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani. The meeting that has gotten the most press attention--April 9, 2001--is also the most widely disputed. Even some of the most hawkish Bush administration officials are privately skeptical that Atta met al Ani on that occasion. They believe that reports of the alleged meeting, said to have taken place in public, outside the headquarters of the U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, suggest a level of sloppiness that doesn't fit the pattern of previous high-level Iraq-al Qaeda contacts.
Whether or not that specific meeting occurred, the report by Czech counterintelligence that al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service officer to provide IIS funds to Atta might help explain the lead hijacker's determination to reach Prague, despite significant obstacles, in the spring 2000. (Note that the report stops short of confirming that the funds were transferred. It claims only that the IIS officer requested the transfer.) Recall that Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but was denied entry because he did not have a valid visa. Rather than simply return to Germany and fly directly to the United States, his ultimate destination, Atta took pains to get to Prague. After he was refused entry the first time, he traveled back to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and caught a bus back to Prague. He left for the United States the day after arriving in Prague for the second time.
Several reports indicate that the relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued, even after the September 11 attacks:
31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel.
The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration:
References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained A that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11.
Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the U.N. Security Council, revealed the activities of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Reporting in the memo expands on Powell's case and might help explain some of the resistance the U.S. military is currently facing in Iraq.
37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.
38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions.
The memo further reported pre-war intelligence which "claimed that an Iraqi intelligence official, praising Ansar al-Islam, provided it with $100,000 and agreed to continue to give assistance."
CRITICS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION have complained that Iraq-al Qaeda connections are a fantasy, trumped up by the warmongers at the White House to fit their preconceived notions about international terror; that links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have been routinely "exaggerated" for political purposes; that hawks "cherry-picked" bits of intelligence and tendentiously presented these to the American public.
Carl Levin, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made those points as recently as November 9, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday." Republicans on the committee, he complained, refuse to look at the administration's "exaggeration of intelligence."
Said Levin: "The question is whether or not they exaggerated intelligence in order to carry out their purpose, which was to make the case for going to war. Did we know, for instance, with certainty that there was any relationship between the Iraqis and the terrorists that were in Afghanistan, bin Laden? The administration said that there's a connection between those terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. Was there a basis for that?"
There was, as shown in the memo to the committee on which Levin serves. And much of the reporting comes from Clinton-era intelligence. Not that you would know this from Al Gore's recent public statements. Indeed, the former vice president claims to be privy to new "evidence" that the administration lied. In an August speech at New York University, Gore claimed: "The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction." Really?
One of the most interesting things to note about the 16-page memo is that it covers only a fraction of the evidence that will eventually be available to document the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. For one thing, both Saddam and bin Laden were desperate to keep their cooperation secret. (Remember, Iraqi intelligence used liquid paper on an internal intelligence document to conceal bin Laden's name.) For another, few people in the U.S. government are expressly looking for such links. There is no Iraq-al Qaeda equivalent of the CIA's 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group currently searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.
Instead, CIA and FBI officials are methodically reviewing Iraqi intelligence files that survived the three-week war last spring. These documents would cover several miles if laid end-to-end. And they are in Arabic. They include not only connections between bin Laden and Saddam, but also revolting details of the regime's long history of brutality. It will be a slow process.
So Feith's memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee is best viewed as sort of a "Cliff's Notes" version of the relationship. It contains the highlights, but it is far from exhaustive.
One example. The memo contains only one paragraph on Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi facilitator who escorted two September 11 hijackers through customs in Kuala Lumpur. U.S. intelligence agencies have extensive reporting on his activities before and after the September 11 hijacking. That they would include only this brief overview suggests the 16-page memo, extensive as it is, just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections.
Other intelligence reports indicate that Shakir whisked not one but two September 11 hijackers--Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi--through the passport and customs process upon their arrival in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. Shakir then traveled with the hijackers to the Kuala Lumpur Hotel where they met with Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the masterminds of the September 11 plot. The meeting lasted three days. Shakir returned to work on January 9 and January 10, and never again.
Shakir got his airport job through a contact at the Iraqi Embassy. (Iraq routinely used its embassies as staging grounds for its intelligence operations; in some cases, more than half of the alleged "diplomats" were intelligence operatives.) The Iraqi embassy, not his employer, controlled Shakir's schedule. He was detained in Qatar on September 17, 2001. Authorities found in his possession contact information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 hijackings. The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted.
The Qataris released Shakir shortly after his arrest. On October 21, 2001, he flew to Amman, Jordan, where he was to change planes to a flight to Baghdad. He didn't make that flight. Shakir was detained in Jordan for three months, where the CIA interrogated him. His interrogators concluded that Shakir had received extensive training in counter-interrogation techniques. Not long after he was detained, according to an official familiar with the intelligence, the Iraqi regime began to "pressure" Jordanian intelligence to release him. At the same time, Amnesty International complained that Shakir was being held without charge. The Jordanians released him on January 28, 2002, at which point he is believed to have fled back to Iraq.
Was Shakir an Iraqi agent? Does he provide a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11? We don't know. We may someday find out.
But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans.
Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.
' Saddam was a terrorist was because he gassed his people and cut off their hands and "illegally" killed them. '
In that case Bush is a terrorist because he killed people and continues to do so today.
' You are Pro-U.N. obviously rather than pro-America. '
If being pro-America means I have to agree with the actions of a terrorist then no I'm not pro-America. However, I don't think that that's what pro-America means in my dictionary. Will you explain to me what pro-America means please? No, I'm not pro-UN and main reason is because they can't enforce international law. But I do agree with their laws and that people should follow them.
' So what makes the U.N. make the laws on weather an occupation is illegle or legal? '
Their law, their fundamental laws are based on the basics of what is and isn't humane. Same way inside the US the law says you can't kill people unless it's self defense. Imagine if people had no guidlines and did everything based on their own morals. There would be havoc and anarchy would tear the country apart.
' I thought all countries just decide things on their own. '
They do and there are positive and negative consequences that kick in based on the action that the country makes. Let me put some examples out. Soviets attack Afghanistan 20-25 years ago in an attempt to take control of it. What was the consequence? Europe and the US help Afghanistan and Soviets lose real bad. Now the next example. Nazis make an attempt of annihilating all Jews. What was the consequence? The allies attack Germany, countries it annexed and win. The Nazis lose. Now the last example. Bill Clinton's America, UN, and NATO attack Yugoslavia in an attempt to get rid of a tyrant who killed 200,000 people without the intent of occupying them. What was the consequence? US was supported that entire war by Europe, UN, NATO and the middle east. The US gained a lot of support from that war in the US and not a single American died in that war. That's the difference between a war of occupation and a war of liberation. Europe didn't support the US because it knew George W. Bush's intentions, not because they're anti-American.
' Why do we have to let other countries make decisions for us? '
We don't and like I said there are positive and negative consequences. If you follow the rules then the consequences will be positive. If all countries did as they wished we would be taking a huge step backwards in history and we don't want to do that because if we do we'll have Nazis back in power and anarchy would destroy us all.
' I want President Bush to make the decisions, he's the leader of America. '
That's your opinion. It's no different than Nazi youth organizatons saying "I want chancellor Hitler to make decisions, he's the leader of Germany". Just because he's the leader of your country doesn't mean that he's going to do things that benefit the country.
' He understands what it takes to keep us safe '
He certaintly didn't understand what it takes to keep us safe when he recieved that August 6th memo saying that Bin Laden was determined to strike within US boarders.
' The lesson of Sept. 11th was to keep us safe and play on the offence, before other countries attack us, durr. '
Yes, except it wasn't Iraq that attacked us. In fact it wasn't even a country, it was a terrorist organization that requires little force to get rid of since their weapons and skills of battle are outdated by 20 years.
' And Britain is not a third world country. '
Their contribution to the war in Iraq is fairly third world. If they pulled out of Iraq today it would change the Iraq war very little militarily.
' There are many CIA reports. Which one do you mean, one about Iraq? What does it say that gets you so upset. '
The one that came out on December 6-7 that said the Iraq war is not going to improve any time soon. I've explained which one at least 3 times, please don't tell me that you don't remember. 'Cause if you can't remember something I mentioned a few weeks ago then you're a lost case.
' And the FBI hasn't impeached the President yet now have they? '
It's not the job of the FBI to impeach the president. It's the job of The House of Representatives. This is basic US politics that I'm talking about. You should know the basics before trying to debate someone about the topic.
' Good for you to recognise that. Why should Bush have to apologise for listening to the CIA? '
He shouldn't apologize for listening to the CIA but he should apologize for both not listening to the CIA when they said the US is under threat of attack on August 6th and he should apologize for attacking Iraq. After that apology he should pull out of the country.
' Also, why should anyone have to apologise who still believes this war is a noble cause? '
See, that's why he ISN'T going to apologize. He THINKS it's ok to occupy a sovereign nation. Thinking something is right doesn't make it right. It's like saying. "why should Nazis have to apologise for something they still believe is right?" Why won't they? Because they have messed up beliefs.
' Which is most people in Iraq by the way. '
No, most Iraqis don't want to be exploited by George W. Bush.
"In that case Bush is a terrorist because he killed people and continues to do so today."
We are killing the people who kill their people, how is that terrorism? Terrorism is killing innocent people with the intent to. We are just bringing them to justice and doing the best we can at it.
Pro-America means you support America's military in this case and their cause. Pro-America means you are not secretly hoping to see George W. Bush's plans fail in Iraq (which you probably are).
"Yes, except it wasn't Iraq that attacked us"
Again, I said we had to play on the offense. Not just make counter-attacks to one small group who attacked us. We need to create a democracy over there in the middle east, NOT JUST to free Iraqis but to implement a free and safe government who will arrest Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, not have them over for sleepovers. We will not occupy them forever. Mattr of fact our government wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. The violence you see every day now and those pictures of wounded people is all because of the Sunni muslim extremist and Saddam advocates who blow up cars and buildings. Once Iraq's army is FULLY trained, and elections have proven succeful the U.S. will leave. I don't see anything George Bush shoudl apologize about.
" We are killing the people who kill their people, how is that terrorism? "
You must have forgotten about that report that came out a few months ago saying that so far 100,000 Iraqi non-combatants have died so far.
" Terrorism is killing innocent people with the intent to. "
And how do you know what the intent of George W. Bush and the Army is? How do you know that they didn't mean to kill those civilians?
" We are just bringing them to justice and doing the best we can at it. "
What if the best is not good enough? When the US bombed Serbia in order to kick the Ustases and the Cetniks out how many civilians do you think died?
I can gurantee you that some civilians did die. But the army to civilian ratio that died that war in Serbia wasn't 30/70 as it is in Iraq. More like 20 civilians for every 80 combatants that died. And in the end not a single American died in that war. That's the difference between a war of liberation and a war of occupation.
" Pro-America means you support America's military in this case and their cause. "
What if you're a pacifist? Does that make pacifists not pro-American. Military takes up about 20 percent of what America's all about. That's not very much so if you don't support their cause it doesn't make you anti-American since there is another 80 percent of things you may or may not agree with America on.
" Pro-America means you are not secretly hoping to see George W. Bush's plans fail in Iraq (which you probably are). "
I don't have to hope. It's happening as we speak.
" Again, I said we had to play on the offense. Not just make counter-attacks to one small group who attacked us. "
And what did George W. Bush's reasons for Iraq war have anything to do with 9.11? The war in Iraq happened because the George thought Saddam had a 9.11 link and that he had WMDs. He had neither and what do those things have anything to do with 9.11? If you are thinking the US should attack anyone who supports Al-Qaeda then you might as well start war with France and Germany.
" We need to create a democracy over there in the middle east, NOT JUST to free Iraqis but to implement a free and safe government who will arrest Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, not have them over for sleepovers. "
How do you know that the Iraqis won't just elect another Saddam Hussein? Why does Democracy always have to mean that the leader won't be a radical? Democracy in the middle east? I hope you know the middle east takes up half of Asia, that's a lot of Democracy and a lot of Army you'll need to spread George W. Bush's "Democracy". I hope you know Morroco has devoted itself to George W. Bush's crusade. Morroco is an absolute monarchy with little constitution. They don't have democracy. Do you disagree with them?
" We will not occupy them forever. Mattr of fact our government wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. "
I'll believe it when I see it.
" The violence you see every day now and those pictures of wounded people is all because of the Sunni muslim extremist and Saddam advocates who blow up cars and buildings. "
The entire Mehdi Army is Shiite. They killed well over 100 US troops in April alone. How are they not a problem? Sunnis don't make up all of Iraq. They aren't the only ones who don't like occupation. This rebellion is going to go on for more than you think. The more bombs dropped on Iraq the more insurgents will pop up.
" Once Iraq's army is FULLY trained, and elections have proven succeful the U.S. will leave. I don't see anything George Bush shoudl apologize about. "
The war is only 1.5 years old. You don't possibly think the US army and the Iraqi mercenary puppet army can take out all of those insurgents any time soon.
" You must have forgotten about that report that came out a few months ago saying that so far 100,000 Iraqi non-combatants have died so far. "
You forgot most of that is the car bombings and suicide bombers by the Iraqi muslim extremists. There is an Iraq CIVIL war going on over there now, the U.S. is just on the good side (the majority).
And what do you mean Iraq's "puppet" army? Is it so amazing to you that people of Iraq will be getting trained by American soldiers and be fighting with the American troops? Everytime the U.S. has an ally the liberals just say "they're a puppet". At least WE are not being a puppet to the corrupt U.N.
"And how do you know what the intent of George W. Bush and the Army is? How do you know that they didn't mean to kill those civilians?"
And what good would that do? Stop making up theories and spewing "what ifs".
"I don't have to hope. It's happening as we speak."
Oh so you would be hoping it fails anyways and you're anticipating it to, hmmmmm?
"And what did George W. Bush's reasons for Iraq war have anything to do with 9.11? The war in Iraq happened because the George thought Saddam had a 9.11 link and that he had WMDs. He had neither and what do those things have anything to do with 9.11? If you are thinking the US should attack anyone who supports Al-Qaeda then you might as well start war with France and Germany."
If Iraq supports and harbors terrorists,, and has the will, the intelligence and the intent to start nuclear proliferation who do you think they are going to give some WMD to? Their good friends the Al-Qaeda ofcourse. The US didnt even know what the hell Saddam or any of those other countries could be cooking up after Sept. 11. Saddam was proven to be the biggest threat, the most willing to create weapons, and one of the harshest dictators over there. Diplomacy did not work with him throughout alll these years, he is stubborn. Congress, Britain, and the investogators all agreed. Every looked at the same intelligence, and ofcourse the same history of Saddam Hussein an saw Iraq as the biggest threat. Definatly a threat to the US's safety and also a threat to the world's trade.
"The entire Mehdi Army is Shiite. They killed well over 100 US troops in April alone. How are they not a problem? Sunnis don't make up all of Iraq. They aren't the only ones who don't like occupation. This rebellion is going to go on for more than you think. The more bombs dropped on Iraq the more insurgents will pop up."
So In addition there is one Shiite group to the 15% of Sunnis (Sunni boycotters). 20% of Sunnis are in Iraq. 85% of Iraqis want the election. Surely if Iraq votes they won't vote for someone who wants to cut their hands off or gas them again. They won't vote for someone who wants war again or who hurts their economy by ignoring their own major export.
This procedure was already proven succeful in Afganistan. They had the same situation of an evil government, probly even worse then Saddam's. They elected a good leader who's now our ally on the war on terror. History has proven it to WORK.
' You forgot most of that is the car bombings and suicide bombers by the Iraqi muslim extremists. '
Let's do the math. I'll estimate this and it's a number favoring your statement. If on average 20 Iraqi civilians die due to car bombings everyday then that means about 15,000 Iraqi civilians die due to car bombings everyday. That's still another 85,000 Iraqi civilians who have died not because of car bombings.
' There is an Iraq CIVIL war going on over there now, the U.S. is just on the good side (the majority). '
Majority? I need a real stat for that, I believe the majority want the US out.
' And what do you mean Iraq's "puppet" army? '
It's under the command of the US army therefore they are controlled by others. "Puppet" army is like a metaphor.
' Is it so amazing to you that people of Iraq will be getting trained by American soldiers and be fighting with the American troops? '
No, I'm very sure that the Iraqi (US controlled) army is fighting on the side of the US.
' Everytime the U.S. has an ally the liberals just say "they're a puppet". '
Don't give out labels like "liberal". The armies of those countries in Iraq are controlled by the US therefore they are puppets. The US even said that anyone who wants to help out the US with the Iraq war will have to take commands from the US.
' At least WE are not being a puppet to the corrupt U.N. '
No one is.
' And what good would that do? '
It would give him more money and wealth if he occupied a country than liberated it. In order to occupy it there are certain neccessary things that you have to do. Killing civilians is sometimes needed to complete an illegal occupation.
' Stop making up theories and spewing "what ifs". '
What theories? Everything that I've said so far is correct and has a reliable reason/source to back it up.
' Oh so you would be hoping it fails anyways and you're anticipating it to, hmmmmm? '
No, not really. But, the sooner the US leaves the better it is for the US, the US troops, the Iraqis, and the rest of the world.
' If Iraq supports and harbors terrorists,, and has the will, the intelligence and the intent to start nuclear proliferation who do you think they are going to give some WMD to? '
Maybe they would, IF THEY HAD IT. You can't give someone something that you don't have.
' Their good friends the Al-Qaeda ofcourse. '
Saddam and Osama have a bad relationship. How do I know? In 1991 Osama bin Laden told the Sauds that he's willing to move Al-Qaeda into Saudi Arabia to protect it from a possible Iraqi invasion. Now, why would Osama want to help fight a friend? And why would Saddam want to help someone who vowed to fight against him?
' The US didnt even know what the hell Saddam or any of those other countries could be cooking up after Sept. 11. '
And that's exactly why you don't attack them. YOU DON'T KNOW, that's why you don't attacks something based on something you don't know. It's like going into a warzone and shooting blind.
' Saddam was proven to be the biggest threat, '
Is that why you can't find the WMDS? Is that why it took the US 2 months to take over the entire country. His military power was totaled, he had no missiles, and any artillery that he had couldn't have been any bigger than a mortar launcher.
' the most willing to create weapons, and one of the harshest dictators over there. '
That sentence above decribes a world leader in power right now. His name is Kim Jong Il. Kim Jong has WMDS, proven to be the most anti-American leader in the world probably, and he admits his hate toward the US and his willingness to destroy it. On top of it all he admits having WMDS. Why didn't Bush try to attack them? Because North Korea has little natural resources, has a large military, and it would probably start WW3. So, it's easier to attack a third world Iraq that's full of wealth and profit. Saddam had an embargo on himself, there's no way that he could've gotten his hands on anything nuclear or any nuclear bomb building material.
' Diplomacy did not work with him throughout alll these years, he is stubborn. '
He allowed inspectors to search every hole in Iraq, how is that stubborn and how much more diplomatic could he have gotten?
' Congress, Britain, and the investogators all agreed. Every looked at the same intelligence, and ofcourse the same history of Saddam Hussein an saw Iraq as the biggest threat. '
That's US and UK congress. That's only 2 countries out of like 200 that agree he's a threat.
' Definatly a threat to the US's safety and also a threat to the world's trade. '
Can you explain what he could've done that's more of a threat than North Korea?
' So In addition there is one Shiite group to the 15% of Sunnis (Sunni boycotters). 20% of Sunnis are in Iraq. '
Just because 15 percent of the Sunnis are going to boycott elections it doesn't mean that they're planning attacks against the US. The one Mehdi Army can do enough to mess up the elections. Actually anyone can mess up the process, doesn't mean that the Sunnis are going to be the only ones in it.
' 85% of Iraqis want the election. Surely if Iraq votes they won't vote for someone who wants to cut their hands off or gas them again. '
I'm glad George W. Bush can't be in the election if that's the case.
' They won't vote for someone who wants war again or who hurts their economy by ignoring their own major export. '
Now I'm really glad that George W. Bush can't run for the Iraqi presidency.
' This procedure was already proven succeful in Afganistan. They had the same situation of an evil government, probly even worse then Saddam's. They elected a good leader who's now our ally on the war on terror. '
Oh because a third world country without a stable army is going to be so successful and useful on the "war on terror".
' History has proven it to WORK. '
With the exception of Afghanistan (even though that was set up too) has there ever been a time in which the US "installed" democracy?
"Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War
DVD ~ Robert Greenwald"
****
See all 93 reviews
amazon
"Uncovered - The Whole Truth about the Iraq War" is a chilling exposé of the lies upon which the war on Iraq is based. This DVD reveals that the idea for war against Iraq came to the Bush administration on September 11th, 2001. They realized that the fear instilled in the US population by the terrorist attacks in New York and DC would be a wonderful way to mobilize the US population for war against Iraq. The only thing necessary was a justification, so they decided to mislead the US population into believing that Osama bin Laden and Saddam are partners, and that Iraq had nuclear capabilities that they planned to soon use against us. As this DVD reveals, these were all lies.
Most of the lies are by now well-known to those of us who were opposed to the war from the beginning: there are no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was not gearing up for war with the US, Saddam and bin Laden are not partners and in fact opposed one another. But this documentary is still interesting because it contains the interviews of many people who have worked within the governmental and military system for decades, such as: former Ambassador Joe Wilson; weapons inspectors Scott Ritter and David Albright; anti-terrorism expert Rand Beers; former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, former CIA operative Robert Baer; and Washington editor of The Nation, David Corn. It's fascinating for me to see footage of people who are within the system, believe in the system, and yet are willing to come forward and speak out against Bush and the war on Iraq. For example, John Dean, former White House counsel, comments on the lies Bush told to Congress about Iraq's nuclear capabilities, explaining that it is a federal felony, a crime, to distort information that you present to congress.
I was also struck by the juxtaposition of archival footage, gleaned from a variety of talk shows and public addresses, of Bush, Powell, Rice, and other White House representatives, telling their lies and uttering their buzz words and catch phrases. Asking such ridiculous questions as, "Why should we wait for that smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud?" During the buildup to war I had avoided watching such addresses, (because I knew it was all nonsense) so it is interesting to now see such footage. It is so easy to see how all these appearances were scripted. Bush, Rice, Powell, and company, all come across as robots, shells of human beings. It made me wonder what it was like to lie to a nation, the entire world even, knowing that your lies would result in the deaths of thousands: about 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed, and nearly 700 US soldiers have since been killed. It's a chilling thing to imagine. I don't know how they can sleep at night.
The documentary closes with some wonderful commentary on patriotism and all the propaganda we heard that those of us who oppose the war are traitors, that if you oppose the war then you are not supporting the troops. Milt Bearden, former CIA Station Chief in Pakistan with 30 years of service, comments that unlike just about anyone who holds office in the US, he has two sons who served in the military and even went into combat. In Mr. Bearden's words, "I don't have to take any such nonsense on this. And I won't."
Andrew Michael Parodi "
"Alright, I rushed with that statement. How many Iraqi non-combatants do you think Iraqi terrorists kill daily on average? "
I just presented you with all the stats neccesary to figure it out. 86% of Iraqi deaths are due to their own Iraqi islam radical's bombings. Either you got your facts mixed up for the deeaths per day from car bombings actually exceeds 20. That's not even including the 300,000 innocent Iraqis killed due to those same extremists who were in Saddam's regime.
"The military only counts the number of civilians they kill when they are certain they did it. When aren't they certain? When the randomly shelled Fallujah in November they didn't know who they killed however the hospitals know that civilians died. The military won't count that."
The civilians were even told by the U.S. to clear out of Fallujah during that time. Ofcourse they won't make up casualties that aren't supposed to exhist. All civilians were given fair warning, and the military isn't going to make up a casualty that they or anyone "suppose" might occur. They don't even know.
"Those polls are as accurate as the CNN polls on who's gonna be the next president. The opposition doesn't take those polls. A lot of people protest those polls or don't take them because they fear the US Army will arrest them for being against the insurgency."
1. Those are only statistics of the sect of religion.
2. The Sunnis who are terrorists are not afraid to say who they are. Every car bombing and EVERY terrorist act by insurgents is always quickly claimed responsibility by those people, the insurgents. They have never hided it a bit who they are. These are people who blow up themselves to kill others.
"Majority of the countries in the coalition get annual aid from the US. They are third world countries (ie Palau, Costa Rica, Poland, Iceland, Morroco) that can be easily controlled through money. It's a method that's been around since medieval ages. The US tells them to either support the war or the US will cut funding. "
And there is nothing unusual about it either. It's what allys are all about. We do stuff for them, they do stuff for us. What are we supposed to give people free money for they're failure to provide help for themselves? Communist ideals.
It's their obligation to join in our war as allys because it is ours to give them money.
"Call them the anti-war, pro-peace people, okay?
"
Only if you'll call us anti-tyranny, pro-democracy. :|
"They have to and the US army openly admits that any one in the coalition who chooses to land their troops in Iraq has to have their army controlled by the US army."
Obviously because this is our war and they are allys. The US military commanders are the most credited in combat tactics and strategy of this war anyways.
"If they aren't trained yet then why are they being sent into battle?"
For one the commanders in specific aren't trained yet to command. 2, there is really no other choice right now but to try as much as they can in battle, as they learn from that. Those experienced may fight more, and those just learning spend more time in the barracks. It's as simple as that.
"Yes, I know that. That's why no one is a puppet of theirs. "
Ever heard of oil for food?
"Adolf Hitler did what he believe was right because he was the leader of Germany. "
You mine as well say this for any president of the US then. They are the elected leaders of our country. I disagree with FDR on things like you disagree with Bush. Can he be prapared to Hitler now?
IF all they are is 'support' then their set of rules don't matter do they?
---
Everything about troops killing civilians on perpose, have you been there? From the simple rules of war they aren't supposed to and they get in trouble if they go randomly firing. Every war's like that.
--
Everything about WMDs, read the duelfer report. Saddam was moving closer and closer to those materials again like he had in the past. The CIA even said he would most likely have them. And you can't rule out the fact that they were destroyed or dispersed. They knew clearly the US were coming and they wouldn't have the weapons in plain sight when they came.
==
About N. Korea.
And yes, they are part of the axis of evil as described by president Bush. They have been negotiated with extensivly though. We were never in a war with them before, like in Iraq. And on Sept. 11th is was particularly Islamic Radical Jihadis who attacked us. Buddhism has nothing to do with Islam's reasons for attackin us. Nor does communism.
"And that means they can't be terrorists?"
Not yet anyways. And when they do it's war.
"In that case why don't you declare war on the entire world. Better safe than sorry, right? "
Saddam is different.
1. Saddam kills his people who are innocent or who don't follow certain idiotic rules.
2. We were at war with him at one point.
3. Most people in the entire US congress and senate and excecutive branch, including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, not to mention G. Britain and the CIA all said Saddam had WMD and/or was the biggest threat. Everyone looked at the same intelligence.
From the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, to the millennium bomber of 1999, to the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, I would think the great Clinton position onf foreing policy was "ahh who cares, Osama isn't a problem".
Lets see what Bush would've done during those times hmmm...
"IF all they are is 'support' then their set of rules don't matter do they?"
that was in response to..
"You don't ask for permission from the UN. You ask for their support."
' I just presented you with all the stats neccesary to figure it out. 86% of Iraqi deaths are due to their own Iraqi islam radical's bombings. '
I'd like a number, not a percentage.
' Either you got your facts mixed up for the deeaths per day from car bombings actually exceeds 20. '
That's impossible, I've seen how the media likes to show all of them and it's rare to see 20 Iraqis killed by a single car bombing.
' That's not even including the 300,000 innocent Iraqis killed due to those same extremists who were in Saddam's regime. '
The Iraqi insurgency has nothing to do with Saddam and half or a little less than half of the insurgency wasn't a Saddam loyalist.
' The civilians were even told by the U.S. to clear out of Fallujah during that time. '
That's irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Just because someone told them to leave doesn't mean that they have to. Would you leave if an occupier told you to leave?
' Ofcourse they won't make up casualties that aren't supposed to exhist. All civilians were given fair warning, and the military isn't going to make up a casualty that they or anyone "suppose" might occur. They don't even know. '
Read my above comment.
' 1. Those are only statistics of the sect of religion.
2. The Sunnis who are terrorists are not afraid to say who they are. Every car bombing and EVERY terrorist act by insurgents is always quickly claimed responsibility by those people, the insurgents. They have never hided it a bit who they are. These are people who blow up themselves to kill others. '
What does that have to do with them refusing to take a poll?
' And there is nothing unusual about it either. It's what allys are all about. We do stuff for them, they do stuff for us. What are we supposed to give people free money for they're failure to provide help for themselves? Communist ideals. '
So it's ok to bribe people and buy allies?
' It's their obligation to join in our war as allys because it is ours to give them money. '
But they don't have any morale to do it, they're doing it solely for the money sort of like a mercenary.
' Only if you'll call us anti-tyranny, pro-democracy. :| '
Or how about you stop handing out labels.
' Obviously because this is our war and they are allys. '
I thought it was the world against terrorism? Our war? Bush's war?
' The US military commanders are the most credited in combat tactics and strategy of this war anyways. '
And the US army controlling them makes them a puppet army.
' For one the commanders in specific aren't trained yet to command. 2, there is really no other choice right now but to try as much as they can in battle, as they learn from that. Those experienced may fight more, and those just learning spend more time in the barracks. It's as simple as that. '
Then why don't the US army allow the Iraqi generals to learn from commanding and making their own decisions?
' Ever heard of oil for food? '
It's a trading system, anyone can do it. Countries have done that with the US before, that doesn't make a country a puppet of the country or organization they are trading with?
' You mine as well say this for any president of the US then. '
What makes the US better from Germany or any other country.
' They are the elected leaders of our country.'
Yes, there have been a hundered tyrants in the past who have been elected.
' I disagree with FDR on things like you disagree with Bush. Can he be prapared to Hitler now? '
Say that again.
' IF all they are is 'support' then their set of rules don't matter do they? '
Whether the UN supports a war action or not the rules of war should be followed.
' Everything about troops killing civilians on perpose, have you been there? '
Have you been there either? I thought so.
' From the simple rules of war they aren't supposed to and they get in trouble if they go randomly firing. '
And since when does the US follow the rules of war?
' Every war's like that. '
Doesn't make it a good war.
' Everything about WMDs, read the duelfer report. Saddam was moving closer and closer to those materials again like he had in the past. '
Except that there isn't a single trace that he might have been an inch closer to WMDS as he was in 1991.
' The CIA even said he would most likely have them. '
But now you know he doesn't have them, why is the US still there?
' And you can't rule out the fact that they were destroyed or dispersed. '
And you have no proof of that. It's like me saying that Nazis were dropped off by aliens to kill Jews or some other wild conspiracy theory like that.
' They knew clearly the US were coming and they wouldn't have the weapons in plain sight when they came. '
Or, maybe the never had them. Ever thought of that?
' About N. Korea.
And yes, they are part of the axis of evil as described by president Bush. They have been negotiated with extensivly though. '
They won't allow inspectors in, they have no good negotiation intentions. Saddam on the other hand allowed inspectors to search the whole country.
' We were never in a war with them before, like in Iraq. '
Ummm, remember the Korean war?
' And on Sept. 11th is was particularly Islamic Radical Jihadis who attacked us. Buddhism has nothing to do with Islam's reasons for attackin us. '
Islam had nothing to do with 9/11 however white supremacist groups want to make Islam as the reason. George W. Bush said that the war on terror isn't only about Al-Qaeda but also about any other terrorist organization or tyrant who opresses people. Osama isn't the only one out there.
' Not yet anyways. And when they do it's war. '
The North Koreans do perform terrorist operations against their own people like Saddam. Except they have nukes, I guess the nukes parts rules out the idea of war with them.
' Saddam is different.
1. Saddam kills his people who are innocent or who don't follow certain idiotic rules. '
Kim Jong Il does that too.
' 2. We were at war with him at one point. '
Ever heard of the idea of peace treaty? Well the US signed a peace treaty after that first war. The US was at war with Germany before, does it mean that that's a good excuse to attack them again?
' 3. Most people in the entire US congress and senate and excecutive branch, including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, not to mention G. Britain and the CIA all said Saddam had WMD and/or was the biggest threat. '
That's only like 500 people. You'll need more than that.
' Everyone looked at the same intelligence. '
And they were mislead, now oppose the war and the US is still there occupying a once sovereign nation.
' From the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, to the millennium bomber of 1999, to the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, I would think the great Clinton position onf foreing policy was "ahh who cares, Osama isn't a problem".
Lets see what Bush would've done during those times hmmm... '
He would've attacked Argentina probably.
Ignore the Anonymous post.
' I did, scroll up to that other post. I have you the numbers then concluded it with a percentage'
I couldn't find your number so I did the math myself. If 86 percent of those Iraqi civilians were killed by Iraqi terrorists then 86,000 of them died due to terrorists. That means that 235 Iraqis die each day (since 86,000 divided by 365 days is 235) because of these Iraqi terrorists. If I'm not mistaken the Neo-Cons and Republicans have claimed that the media only shows the worst of things. If that's true then why have we yet to see an newsreport by the "Liberal owned media" at least once that says 235 civilians killed in any day in Iraq? I challenge you to find me a singe news article on the net that says 235 Iraqis killed in one day from anytime in this war by terrorists. Do we have a deal?
' Right. Then by process of elimination then you got your facts mixed up. '
So you stand by that 235 killed daily figure?
' That is why I didn't include it.
But then again, you said "or a little less than half of the insurgency wasn't a Saddam loyalist." So in way the majority of those insurgents now WERE responsible for the deaths in the past. Plus, how do you know the precise demographics of the insurgents? Thanks for seeing my point though. '
You did include it. You said that all or just about all of the insurgency is made up of Sunnis. The insurgents the US fights in Iraq weren't all in Saddam's army. A loyalist doesn't mean that they did his dirty work.
' Hmm, I don't know Lib. Would you evacuate your town just for a short while when the soldiers told you they're going to come in and raid your homes to clear out those who want to blow up you up? '
No, I'd join the rebellion of course.
' You said
"A lot of people protest those polls or don't take them because they fear the US Army will arrest them for being against the insurgency."
Then I said the terrorists aren't afraid to let the U.S. know who they are if infact they could be traced on taking the poll. '
If they let the US know that they are against them then that would eliminate the idea of this Iraq war being won by guerrila warefare. A guerrila never lets his enemy know he hates them.
' This is exactly on topic but you're the one trying to avoid it when you keep saying "what does this have to do with that". '
Because you need reason to prove something. You can't say something or hear the president say something and automatically say that it's true. If people did that then humanity would be taking a large step backwards into the times of Feudalism.
' . . . '
Ok, if you think so. That topic can't have a right or wrong answer since people have different values. One of my values is that bribing is un-ethical.
' And they're whole country isn't being drafted or forced to go to war. They do what they can, even if it doesn't amount to much like you said. They could be bribing us into giving them money, using your logic. '
Read the comment above.
' Labels are in your username, buddy. '
Proud of it. Nothing wrong with a Liberal who supports Democracy.
' If they happen to get into a war we would support them militarily too. Simple as that. (Highly unlikely though obviously). It is so simple I can't believe you're not getting this concept. '
And un-fortunately the US has an international policy that is based on getting into other wars even if they don't pose a threat to the US or have nothing to do with the US. Whenever there's been a war in the 20th century I can gurantee you the US got itself involved into it one way or another. It has nothing to do with the US supporting them if they help the US. The US supports them whether they do get into war or don't.
' That was a pretty lame comeback, because now you're talking in circles. Restating your initial talking point doesn't make a comeback because I already answered it. '
How is their army not a puppet while it is controlled by the US?
' No. Which explaines why you can't call the third world countries a puppet. '
Not sure what your point is...
' And with that statement you just made you also justified why the U.S. must be friendly with Saudi Arabia for the moment. '
The Sauds have been America's biggest enemy in the last 20-30 years. A war with the Sauds would be more justified than a war with Iraq. Even though it can be avoided and an empty goal.
' I don't follow you. '
What makes a war based on occupation by Germany worse than a war of occupation by the US?
' The U.S. can't have tyrants because we have a wonderful constitutional system which consists of "cheacks and balances". Distributing a certain 'veto' power to all 3 branches of government. Also, Presidents are limited to a 4 years a term and only 2 terms total.. ETC. ETC. ..... U get the picture. ;) '
Yes, I'm aware of that. That system was created during the 1700s by John Locke and his followers. The US is influenced a lot by European Enlightenment thinkers and even though the system may sound perfect there is still ways of getting into power by revolution.
' Lyndon Johnson rather..
So if I don't agree with a president YOU like it doens't mean I can compare them to Hitler, is what I'm saying. '
I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler. I am using Hitler as an example. A war of occupation by Hitler is no different than a war of occupation by Bush. As well as a war of occupation by any other tyrant. What you don't understand is that in past time the media has been used as a propaganda source by dozens of leaders democratically elected or through family. Not everything he say has to be true.
' Doesn't look like al-Zarqawi or the Al Qaeda group have been following the rules of war either.
All of the tyrants on Bush's infamous 'axis of evil' do not follow the rules of CIVIL RIGHTS either my friend. '
That doesn't make the right either. Two wrongs don't make right.
' I haven't been caliming things that go on in Iraq because I haven't been there. You haven't been there either so I don't think you can make wild claims out of thin air, which is what you are doing. '
I use a large international source of media as my support. YOU knowing that 30 something troops died yesterday doesn't require you to be in Iraq.
' The U.S. military obviously has rules of combat -- don't kill random civilians. The Iraqi insurgents of whom we are fighting obviously don't follow one damn rule of civil rights of the rules of war. Their whole operation is to kill ther own people in order to get them away from voting anyways. '
First of all. There is a difference between Iraqi insurgent and Sunni terrorist. The insurgency opposes the occupation and targets US army. The Sunni terrorists are Saddam loyalists who target mostly Shiites and what to take control again.
' As David Kay revealed, Iraqi scientists were working on weaponizing anthrax "right up until the end" and had restarted a rudimentary nuclear weapons program in 2000 & 2001. '
That's proven to be wrong as well. You're missing my point a whole lot. My point is that when you mess up on something you don't continue to mess it up againt. Let me make an example. You driving a car, you hit the car in front of you, you stop. Instead of stopping in this Iraq war, Bush has choosen to keep on pressing that pedal and crashing the car even worse. Get my drift?
' Anthrax KILLS. When proliferated long enough it can become a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Just my opinion... (and a significant amount of others) '
I agree, anthrax is a WMD. No one should have in. Even Saddam who doesn't have it had hasn't had it since 1991. FYI, the US army has a very large arsenal of WMDs, just incase you forgot.
' -To rebuild Iraq.
-To prevent even worse civil war between the Iraqi people and the 20% Iraqi insurgents.
-To follow through in our promise to conduct a safe election and to keep the civilians and election officials secure.
-To continue to fully train the Iraq military. '
Why is any of this the job of the US? If they have a civil war, will it hurt the US? If they don't have an army will it hurt the US? Let them do it themselves.
' Wild conspiracy theories? Hmm, sounds familiar. '
Probably from George W. Bush's state of the union adress...;)
' Actually, not the whole country. If that would be the case then the CIA would have a completly different report. '
I believe he allowed inspectors to search all of Iraq, take photos and he wasn't time stingy.
' There have been bilateral talks with North Korea involving Japan and China. Many countries such as China, Japan, Russia, USA, and South Korea are involved in these talks with N. Korea. Esecially China, who are making the arrangments. It's expected for these dialogues to continue. "..and the effort to convince Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons program and accept a reasonable 'more-for-more' agreement, while not easy, should enjoy a reasonable chance of success." '
You have forgotten that North Korea has helped Iran get weapon making material, as a Mossad report said so not long ago. China and Russia are both supporters of Syria and Iran, have sold them weapons that while the US opposed the deals. Can you really trust them. Now, off topic. I'll ask you a question based on pure common sense when answering. Which is more of a threat? A country that you know is anti-American, has WMDs and openly admits, won't allow inspectors, negotiations have not at all improved even though they've been going on for 8 years. Or a country that has had an embargo since '91, has allowed inspectors in, has no organized army, and has been under the watch of the UN and US?
' That wasn't with Kim Jong Il. '
You're right it was with his father, Kim Sung Il who has an even uglier reputation for his ruthlessness toward the citizens. So you think that "we've been to war with them before" justifies war? Maybe a newly elected party in Germany should execute Jews again and use "we've been at war with them before" as their reason. Would that be ok?
' Read above. There is also the issue of armed forces reserves we have left.. president Bush has ambitious agendas but some things will have to be continued with a future president I'm assuming. '
What does that have to do with Islam and 9.11?
' See above. '
I have seen the above and it doesn't make Kim Jong Il a good person for killing all those North Koreans.
' If it was still Hitler in there today, then yes. '
The first Gulf war wasn't about getting Saddam out of power, it was about taking his WMDs away.
' Those are highly appointed, elected, government officials.
These are people representing two of the most powerful countries in the world. Most importantly, this was concerning the safety of America post-911. Removing Saddam Huissein was something Bill Clinton wanted to do. '
And how many politicians truly represent the word of the people?
' Ofcourse when looked at in hindsight people change their minds about things. Time can't be reversed, y'know. '
He posed no threat and even though Bill Clinton said it it doesn't mean I automatically agree with him.
' Explain please how people were "mislead", while looking at the same intelligence, and knowing the same history of Saddam. Am I getting a flashback of the Bush/Kerry debates? '
You/US citizens were mislead by the intelligence since the intelligence was proven wrong not some long ago.
I apologize for the time gaps in between when you post and I respond. I get very little time nowdays to respond and large comments take long to respond to. But please, keep them as long as you want them to be.
"I couldn't find your number so I did the math myself."
Here it was.
'The total civilians killed due to military intervention in Iraq is 15,000 to 17,000. The total Iraqis dead though is 100,000 like you said. That means around 84% of Iraqi civilian deaths are from their own civil war insurgents. 84% is MOST, justifying my statement of MOST there.' -Dani
" If 86 percent of those Iraqi civilians were killed by Iraqi terrorists then 86,000 of them died due to terrorists. That means that 235 Iraqis die each day (since 86,000 divided by 365 days is 235) because of these Iraqi terrorists."
365? The military's invasion of Iraq happened March 20, 2003... Not January 28, 2004. So your 235 number means nothing.
" If I'm not mistaken the Neo-Cons and Republicans have claimed that the media only shows the worst of things. If that's true then why have we yet to see an newsreport by the "Liberal owned media" at least once that says 235 civilians killed in any day in Iraq? I challenge you to find me a singe news article on the net that says 235 Iraqis killed in one day from anytime in this war by terrorists. Do we have a deal? "
First of all, nobody on the media from what I've seen bothers to mention the civilian deaths, except for on election day. And if the liberal media actually mentioned the number of civilian deaths FROM U.S. forces then they would also have to mention how many civilians die from car bombings, sunni terrorists, things like that.
"You did include it. You said that all or just about all of the insurgency is made up of Sunnis."
Yeah, and then you turned wht I said "just about all of the Insurgency" into "a half or a little over half".
" The insurgents the US fights in Iraq weren't all in Saddam's army. A loyalist doesn't mean that they did his dirty work. "
Some of them did, and the rest just supported it. By supporting Saddam when he was in power means they are willing to fight for him, which is where all those insurgents came from. They didn't know Saddam personally but they lived happily under him because they favored what eachother stand for.. killing Kurds and stuff.
" No, I'd join the rebellion of course. "
Okay, so if you choose to join the rebellion against democracy and security as a civilian then the U.S. isn't going to count your death. That's my point.
" If they let the US know that they are against them then that would eliminate the idea of this Iraq war being won by guerrila warefare. A guerrila never lets his enemy know he hates them. "
The Guerilla wants the enemy to know they are hated, and the guerila fighters want their group to be known of their existence. Guerilla warfare just means they disguise themselves as civilions and launch surprise attacks on people. They have no official army outfits or government funded money or support is all what gurilla is. Fidel Castro appeared on TV tons of times and wanted to get himself known when he was leading a Guerila army.
" Because you need reason to prove something. You can't say something or hear the president say something and automatically say that it's true. If people did that then humanity would be taking a large step backwards into the times of Feudalism. "
What is it you want proved?
" ' . . . ' "
The dot dot dot wasn't my response, it was showing your words continued and those two quotes from you is what I responded to.
" Ok, if you think so. That topic can't have a right or wrong answer since people have different values. One of my values is that bribing is un-ethical "
So bribing is unethical? Okay, LITTLE COUNTRIES giving us military support in exchange for us giving them a little money is not bribing. I see it as trading, partnership, it's part of what world countries always do. You can call it bribing but it is bribing on BOTH PARTS then.
" Proud of it. Nothing wrong with a Liberal who supports Democracy. "
OK then why are you upset when I use the term liberal when describing you and people who think like you? And if you're such an 'advocate for democracy' why don't you support implementation of democracy in Iraq?
" And un-fortunately the US has an international policy that is based on getting into other wars even if they don't pose a threat to the US or have nothing to do with the US. Whenever there's been a war in the 20th century I can gurantee you the US got itself involved into it one way or another. It has nothing to do with the US supporting them if they help the US. The US supports them whether they do get into war or don't. "
Yeah, we're a big country with a big military and also the most powerful economically.. with Americans willing to fight for their country all the time in the army reserve and training camps and stuff. That's just life.
" How is their army not a puppet while it is controlled by the US? "
Because they believe in helping the advance of democracy in their country. They can leave any time and join the insurgents whenever they want to.. but in reality most of them are not Sunnis therefor they will not join the Sunni rebellion. They are not being controlled by Bush they are being trained by US army general who teaches them how to fight, that's all.
" Not sure what your point is... "
Okay i thought you were still talking about thrid world countries when you said puppet but you mean the Iraqi army.. I answered already thought obviously .
"The Sauds have been America's biggest enemy in the last 20-30 years. A war with the Sauds would be more justified than a war with Iraq. Even though it can be avoided and an empty goal. "
Invading Iraq hopefully would set and example to people like the Saudi's monarchy that they better stop being so oppresive and theocratic or the US will give them problems. The truth is, the military coulnd't handle it right after Afghanistan. YEah, they're a bad regime but they over all these investigations and history Saddam just proved to be more of a threat. And it's not just because of one reason, but of a combination of reasons I already explained.
" What makes a war based on occupation by Germany worse than a war of occupation by the US? "
What German occupation are you talking about? And how is it occupation when all the US did was get rid of Saddam? The war was miscalculated at some parts but I don't see anything wrong with the initial removal of Saddam's regime from power and just making it a democracy.
" Yes, I'm aware of that. That system was created during the 1700s by John Locke and his followers. The US is influenced a lot by European Enlightenment thinkers and even though the system may sound perfect there is still ways of getting into power by revolution. "
I was just proving a point, I know you know, duh. And my point is proven unless you can come up with a way to show how Bush started a revolution or how he defyed the system to get into power.
" I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler. I am using Hitler as an example. A war of occupation by Hitler is no different than a war of occupation by Bush. As well as a war of occupation by any other tyrant. What you don't understand is that in past time the media has been used as a propaganda source by dozens of leaders democratically elected or through family. Not everything he say has to be true. "
There is freedom of the press, the media says anything they want. The Judicial system and everyone else makes sure those constitutional rights are not obstructed, remember?
" That doesn't make the right either. Two wrongs don't make right. "
Lame. Then I guess all other countries should have just ignored Germany and let them kill all those Jews in WWII. We should just let serial killers all go free because "two wrongs don't make a right". Okay Gandhi.
" I use a large international source of media as my support. YOU knowing that 30 something troops died yesterday doesn't require you to be in Iraq. "
Require me to be in Iraq? I don't get what you mean. Oh and I use cia.gov and stuff like that for facts and media.
" First of all. There is a difference between Iraqi insurgent and Sunni terrorist. The insurgency opposes the occupation and targets US army. The Sunni terrorists are Saddam loyalists who target mostly Shiites and what to take control again. "
And the Sunni terrorists are part of the Iraq insurgency who are targeting Shiite citezens, fighting the New Iraqi Army, and the US Army because basically those three are all on the same side.
" That's proven to be wrong as well. You're missing my point a whole lot. My point is that when you mess up on something you don't continue to mess it up againt. Let me make an example. You driving a car, you hit the car in front of you, you stop. Instead of stopping in this Iraq war, Bush has choosen to keep on pressing that pedal and crashing the car even worse. Get my drift? "
Whoa, that analogy is so comepletly wrong. What you are suggesting Bush does is speed off and let that car sit there without getting any assistence or getting towed. And what we are doing in Iraq is trying to make up for what we left them with, no government. That's why there were elections. Also, the US needs to keep Iraq safe from the violence of civil war and rebuild housing and infrastructure. Then train the Iraq army, which can be compared to giving buying that car we crashed into a new bumper or whatever it needs. Yes, BUYING it for them, like paying 25 Billion this year for the damage and for the troops (in Iraq & Afghanistan).
" I agree, anthrax is a WMD. No one should have in. Even Saddam who doesn't have it had hasn't had it since 1991. FYI, the US army has a very large arsenal of WMDs, just incase you forgot. "
How could the CIA have been sure he wasn't hiding it after Sept. 11?
" Why is any of this the job of the US? If they have a civil war, will it hurt the US? If they don't have an army will it hurt the US? Let them do it themselves. "
What do you think would happen in over in that country Iraq if the U.S. just left right now? And yes, the Iraq army will take over the job themselves but they have to be TRAINED first so they are less likely to be killed.
" Probably from George W. Bush's state of the union adress...;) "
How 'bout "Bush stole the election! Bush cheated again. Bush wanted 9/11 to happen."
" I believe he allowed inspectors to search all of Iraq, take photos and he wasn't time stingy. "
Keyword: 'I believe'.
" You have forgotten that North Korea has helped Iran get weapon making material, as a Mossad report said so not long ago. China and Russia are both supporters of Syria and Iran, have sold them weapons that while the US opposed the deals. Can you really trust them. "
Then why would China be investigating them then? Just because they are both anti-America doesn't mean they are best friends themselves. And what does N. Korea helping Iran have anything to do with it? Duh, that's why North Korea is being dealt with. I trust the U.S. investigations, I trust Japan and SOUTH Korea. If some Russian diplomats want to be involved than I don't see anything wrong with that.
" Now, off topic. I'll ask you a question based on pure common sense when answering. Which is more of a threat? A country that you know is anti-American, has WMDs and openly admits, won't allow inspectors, negotiations have not at all improved even though they've been going on for 8 years. Or a country that has had an embargo since '91, has allowed inspectors in, has no organized army, and has been under the watch of the UN and US? "
You're just skewing the perception. The threat was less dir | |
