Iraq and the War on Terror

[Comrade]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestCo...o20040730.shtml

This guy sat down and wrote out all the justifications for the war. So many people believe that it is a waste of lives and money and has nothing to do with the war on terror, and this guy sets out what I'm too lazy to do: To write a big long essay over how Iraq helps us in the war on terror.

[giuliano]

This remains one of the primary rationales for our war in Iraq. This is not <s>just</s> a war against Osama bin Laden, or Al Qaeda.

that's better.

As the Pentagon describes it: ultimately to defeat the global terrorist threat, we first need to “drain the swamp” of Islamic fanaticism in the region that provides the breeding grounds for terrorism. To get there --- as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times argued -- we had to strike deep into the heart of the Arab world.

why did we choose iraq then? iraq was in no way harbouring islamic fanaticism - saddam was a strong defender of secularism, going so far as to protect christian communities and churches (ironically now under attack).

iraq may be geographically located near the heart of the arab world, but surely it is more important to strike at an actual islamic regime? i mean, there are plenty to choose from...

[giuliano]

Meanwhile, Libya also was a significant terror state and WMD producer. Muhammar Qaddafi has since succumbed to the Iraq "demonstration effect," disclosed, and abandoned his secret WMD programs, and at least appears to be joining the civilized world in renouncing terror.

this also is very dubious. qaddafi has been feeling the squeeze of economic sanctions, and for some time has been sounding out the west to reform his relationship. he has long since ceased his policy of sponsoring terror attacks.

to turn around now and credit that with the iraq war - when there has been no suggestion at all of invading libya - is drawing a very long bow.

[Gorgo]

No facts, just slogans. "Drain the swamp" "liberated Iraq"

Attempt to justify it all you want. It is a violation of international and U.S. law. Bush is a criminal. Why are people still supporting these criminals?

[Isacki]

The end of the story is that the link of Iraq with terror is false and it's amazing that anyone in the White House had the idea to push it, let alone that it tricked millions of Americans and others around the world. For all the troubles, there was virtually no terrorist activity in Iraq nor any proven concrete link of any kind between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks - let alone 9/11.

The incorrect and disingenuous attempts to link Hussein to 9/11 and even attempting to get uranium from Niger have been thoroughly debunked and show up as lies to all but the most intransigent neocons.
Now, terrorist activity in Iraq is at lunatic levels and the terror networks seem to still be as alive and kicking as ever. It is unfortunate that not only has the this false link caused this carnage, for which neocons should be held responsible for for decades, but that the neocons (rejected lefties ) have no intention whatsoever of admitting the mistake or adjusting their foreign policy in the slightest.

But that isn't all. The silliest, and one of the dumbest things to emerge from this, is that the war has resulted in a new government being elected and a new constitution being written. And guess what? The people want an Islamic republic in accordance with Islamic law. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4177266.stm)

The chaos and killing in Iraq is well-documented - the place is a hell-hole. Generally, the further you are from Iraq, the more you thought the war was justified. But there's one more thing, and it's possibly the most ironic example of blowback: as a result of the war, Iran and Iraq are closer than ever - best buddies - "Axis of Evil all over again!" I expect to hear from neocons in the future.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq's next-door neighbour, has benefited in every way from President George W Bush's decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It is probably the best thing that has happened to Iran since the Islamic Revolution there in 1979. Iran has seen its sworn enemy, Saddam, removed from power. And it has seen the arrival in power in Baghdad of pro-Iranian Shia politicians like the prime minister himself, Ibrahim Jaafari. - BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4714127.stm

And despite the fact that it is the Iraqis who are suffering the most, and it is the civilians there dying because of appalling terrorist activity that has filled the vacuum caused by the invasion, and that hundreds of Iraqis have died for each coalition soldier -
It's only now that coalition casualties have notched up a bit and the body bags have started returning in numbers, that people have scratched their heads and said: "What the hell was this?"
I'm sure this situation was the outcome all the war supporters yearned for - wasn't it?

[northtexan]

Quote by: Comrade http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestCo...o20040730.shtml This guy sat down and wrote out all the justifications for the war. So many people believe that it is a waste of lives and money and has nothing to do with the war on terror, and this guy sets out what I'm too lazy to do: To write a big long essay over how Iraq helps us in the war on terror.

But this is typical of the pro-war-crimes crowd: instead of making up your own lies, you let someone else make them up for you. A million essays will not change the facts: Iraq HAD nothing to do with Al Qaida or any other terrorism directed at the U.S.; America was lied into the war, never told any real reasons for the war; the invasion was illegal and started America down the road to international pariah status, as well as undermining international support for the so-called 'war on terror'; the occupation was fatally bungled, not temporarily as the nutcase author argues; the invasion and bungled occupation have CREATED a fertile field for the growth of international terrorism, aimed at the U.S. and its co-conspirators; Iraq has been irreversibly destabilized; the U.S. is in a counterinsurgency quarmire, a new Vietnam created by those who wanted to forget the lessons learned from Vietnam; and the U.S. public will no longer support the crazy, bungled, dangerous Iraqi policies of the Bushistas. The major problem at present is the spinelessness of elected Democratic politicians to oppose the war -- ironic, given how Dem pols jumped onto the anti-Vietnam bandwagon, despite that war's first major escalation's being by a Dem president.

[rmnunez]

I wouldn't reach the conclusion Iraq had no terrorist ties whatsoever, but would agree those held failed on their own to justify intervention under the "war on terrorism" rubric. Yet Iraq does lie at an invaluable strategic location if the aim is to "drain" that swamp. Iraq is halfway between Riyahd and Teheran, both prolific terrorism generators with a history of this. To some extent, through no fault of their own, Iraqis became victims of their location and neighbors -though Saddam remained a big part of the problem.

As I see it there are several 'justifications' for intervention in Iraq; suspicion of WMD possession, breach of UN Security Council Resolutions, the repressive nature of the regime and resulting humanitarian concerns, the uncertainty over long-term Iraqi political stability and its impact on neighboring states, among other factors played a role in advising intervention.

It is a mistake to conclude absent any showing of a direct relationship between Iraq or Saddam and those responsible for 911, there could be no justification to intervene against Iraq as part of any initiative to end international terrorism.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: rmnunez if the aim is to "drain" that swamp.

If draining the swamp is the motive, why not assault the swamp? Namely Pakistan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Aren't these nations the funding sources for Islamic Fundamental terror?

Quote by: rmnunez It is a mistake to conclude absent any showing of a direct relationship between Iraq or Saddam and those responsible for 911, there could be no justification to intervene against Iraq as part of any initiative to end international terrorism.

Nunez, you should take into account the international agreements the US has made regarding the use of its military. A vague goal like ending terrorism is not sufficient to justify siezing and occupying another nation. America gets away with it because of her superpower status and her arrogance. I mean what international body would be able to arrest BushCo for their war crimes? And there is no doubt that waging aggressive war is THE supreme war crime. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml

Bush's war on Iraq is a war of aggression. "Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition," according to General Assembly Resolution 3314, passed in the wake of Vietnam. The only two situations where the UN Charter permits the use of armed force against another state is in self-defense, or when authorized by the Security Council. Iraq had not invaded the U.S., or any other country, Iraq did not constitute an imminent threat to any country, and the Security Council never sanctioned Bush's war. Bush and the officials in his administration are committing the crime of aggression. Virtually every Western democracy has ratified the treaty of the International Criminal Court, except the United States. Bush knows that the Court will eventually prosecute leaders for the crime of aggression. Mindful that he and his officials could become defendants, Bush renounced the Court, and extracted bilateral immunity agreements from more than 80 countries. This year, however, Bush unsuccessfully sought to ram through the Security Council an immunity resolution that would exempt U.S. personnel from the Court's jurisdiction. But shortly after the photographs of U.S. torture of Iraqi prisoners emerged, the Council refused to put its imprimatur on preferential treatment for the United States. Bush knows that the Court will also punish war crimes. Pursuant to policies promulgated by Bush and Rumsfeld, U.S. forces have engaged in widespread torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Bush admitted in his 2003 State of the Union address that he had sanctioned summary executions of suspected terrorists. Torture, inhuman treatment, and willful killing are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, treaties ratified by the United States. Grave breaches of Geneva are considered war crimes under our federal War Crimes Act of 1996. American nationals who commit war crimes abroad can receive life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, a commander can be held liable if he knew or should have known his inferiors were committing war crimes and he failed to prevent or stop them.

[Dieval]

Quote by: northtexan A million essays will not change the facts: Iraq HAD nothing to do with Al Qaida or any other terrorism directed at the U.S.; America was lied into the war, never told any real reasons for the war; the invasion was illegal

Nothing to do with terrorism or al qeada eh? I find that very interesting... I posted parts of a story, as well as a link to the actual story, that outlined Iraq's connection to terrorism..very interesting read.

The Mother of All Connections..

[rmnunez]

"take into account the international agreements the US has made regarding the use of its military"

I wonder what agreements you mean. The US has bilateral international military agreements, mostly mutual defense pacts with the countries where they are deployed overseas and some multilateral military alliances like NATO. None of these agreements limits US resort to force in their national interest -no contry surrenders this military capacity.

The closest to an international agreement limiting its use of force the US has signed would be the UN Charter, but its preclusion on force is conditional and there are enough circumstances surrounding intervention in Iraq to colour a claim an exception would apply (there are exceptions to the preclusion for perceived "threats to international peace and security", in "self-defence" and arguably even "for humanitarian reasons".

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: giuliano why did we choose Iraq then? Iraq was in no way harbouring islamic fanaticism - saddam was a strong defender of secularism, going so far as to protect christian communities and churches (ironically now under attack)...

I will be glad to educate you on that front with a few of many points.

Saddam while under 11 years of UN sanctions did do the following bad stuff:

He harbored various Islamic fanatics by having training camps at times there and there were lots of terrorist acts funded by Saddam out of Iraq where he was paying them to kill off Jews with terrorist acts, the payments were 25K a bombing to the family of homicide bombers.

He tried to assassinate an ex United States President.

He for over a year was firing hundreds of rounds at UN planes legally patrolling the no-fly zone.

He also was stealing most of the oil for food money that was to be used to feed his people and get them medicine. Instead he built more palaces while his people died.

I won't get into the mass graves, jailed children nor the rape and torture rooms, that can be fore another time.

Anyway, we agree Saddam was a secular guy, but he used his people and outside Islamic fanatics for his evil purposes for sure.

Have a good day.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Dieval Nothing to do with terrorism or al qeada eh? I find that very interesting... I posted parts of a story, as well as a link to the actual story, that outlined Iraq's connection to terrorism..very interesting read.

Still pandering that nonsense, Dieval? From your post...

John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, spoke to The Weekly Standard at the time the report was released. "There may well be--and probably will be--additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as--nor meant to be--the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities."

Ok, it's been 2 years, with half the former Iraqi government in custody and the other half working for us. Where are the captured records that show a clear, working link between Iraq and al-Qaeda... things like tranfers of weapons, transfers of funds, transfers of intel, transfers of personel? Not lip service... an actual working relationship.

On January 18, 1991, one day after the Gulf war began, an Iraqi terrorist posing as a day laborer managed to plant 26 sticks of TNT in a flower box below a window of the U.S. ambassador's residence in Jakarta, Indonesia.

So, the day after Desert Storm begins, 2 Iraqis make inept attempts at terrorist attacks in Indonesia and the Phillipines. What a surpise? And al-Qaeda is involved how?

Saddam Hussein openly encouraged these attacks. "It remains for us to tell all Arabs, all militant believers . . . wherever they may be that it is your duty to embark on holy war. You should target their interests wherever they may be," he said on January 20, 1991.

Well duh!!!! He was now three days into a war with the United States, begging for any help he could get. And al-Qaeda was involved how?

An internal Iraqi Intelligence memo dated March 28, 1992, lists individuals Hussein's regime considered assets of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Osama bin Laden is listed on page 14. The Iraqis describe him as a Saudi businessman who "is in good relationship with our section in Syria."

So? Other than simply being listed in 1992, what was their actual relationship? Where and how did they cooperate?

"Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

"Cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

Again... what cooperation? Someone's paying lip service, but where's the actual cooperation? What did anyone actually do?

Etc, etc, etc.... your link features a lot of talk about pacts (according to some obsure Italian paper) and cooperation. Like I said, we've owned Iraq for over two years now. Where's the evidence that Hussein and bin Laden did more than acknowledge each other's existance, where Hussein did more that offer lip service to bin Laden for the benefit of his Sunni base. What did they actually DO?

.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica UN planes legally patrolling the no-fly zone.

More lies from "God". UN has no warplanes, and no actual armed forces at all! LOL!

Maybe you forgot or maybe you never knew, that the "No-fly Zone" was a unilateral creation of the US to restrict Iraq's access to the airspace over its own territory. No UN resolution supported the NFZ. In any case, I have about had it with your lies, GBA. When you are exposed you just walk away like nothing is wrong, but you stand accused as a habitual prevaricator.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1175950.stm

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: PatrickHenry More lies from "God". UN has no warplanes, and no actual armed forces at all! LOL! Maybe you forgot or maybe you never knew, that the "No-fly Zone" was a unilateral creation of the US to restrict Iraq's access to the airspace over its own territory. No UN resolution supported the NFZ. In any case, I have about had it with your lies, GBA. When you are exposed you just walk away like nothing is wrong, but you stand accused as a habitual prevaricator. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1175950.stm

Various countries were indeed flying "UN missions" and monitoring the no-fly zones and were shot at. The planes under UN duty were American, UK, I think the Italians, Austailians and perhaps others as well (shot at). LOL???

http://www.historyguy.com/no-fly_zone_war.html
"The "No-Fly Zone War" pitted the air and naval forces of the United States and the United Kingdom (also referred to as "Great Britain"), against the air defenses of Iraq. This conflict proved to be largely ignored by the media and the public in both the U.S. and in the U.K., though it impacted the military and the citizens of Iraq on an almost weekly basis, especially since the intense "Desert Fox" bombing campaign of 1998. The roots of this conflict are quite simple to trace: the inconclusive and vague cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War of 1990-1991. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. The original intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities. As time progressed though, the No-Fly Zones became a means for the Allies to force Iraq to comply with UN and Coalition demands, often related to the status of the weapons inspectors. As tensions mounted after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the possibility of a major escalation between Iraq and the U.S. increased dramatically, and the violence in the No-Fly Zone increased in preparation for the beginning of the Third Persian Gulf War: "Operation Iraqi Freedom", which began on March 19, 2003. In historical terms, the No-Fly Zone War is considered to have ended on March 19, 2003, when "Operation Iraqi Freedom" began and this conflict segued into the larger war. All three of the U.S.-led Coalition wars with Iraq (the 1990-1991 Gulf War, the 1991-2003 No-Fly Zone War, and the 2003 Gulf War 2) can really be seen as one long, extended conflict, but for classification purposes, are seen as separate conflicts. (written on March 22, 2003) "

[monty of ll]

I sympathize with your frustration Patrick, because I feel it too. Here's what the 'global policy forum' has to say about the no-fly zones.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...q/flyindex.htm

"In April 1991, claiming a false authority under Security Council Resolution 688, the US, UK and France began to patrol the skies over northern Iraq, excluding Iraqi aircraft from this zone. The same powers started to enforce a second “no fly” zone in southern Iraq a few months later. Announced as a means to protect Iraqi Kurds (in the north) and Iraq’s Shi’a population (in the south), the no-fly has offered dubious humanitarian protection, while engaging Iraq’s government in ceaseless military pressure. France eventually withdrew from the no-fly process. The US-UK turned no-fly into an even more aggressive operation after 1998, when “more robust rules of engagement” have led to regular bombing of ground targets and substantial civilian casualties."

Those are the facts, just as you have attempted to make clear to our warmongering apologist. I would suggest you don't waste too much energy on those that don't have a bloody clue of what they are talking about. I'm about where you are on this individual's nonsense, at the end of my patience. I would point out that even his link from the 'historyguy' LOL is full of lies but I have come to understand that it's just not going to sink in. What's the point?

[Zeebadee]

The "Historyguy":

"Roger Lee holds Bachelor of Arts degrees from Washington State University in History and Political Science. He also holds a Master of Arts degree from the University of Washington, Tacoma in Educational Administration. He is a veteran educator, currently teaching Social Studies to a diverse student population at an alternative high school in Auburn, Washington."

http://www.historyguy.com/Biography.html

Outstanding credentials, how could anyone possibly have doubts about him??

[Dieval]

Quote by: Sonart Still pandering that nonsense, Dieval?

Calling it "nonsense" doesn't mean there wasn't a connection..

Quote by: Sonart Ok, it's been 2 years, with half the former Iraqi government in custody and the other half working for us. Where are the captured records that show a clear, working link between Iraq and al-Qaeda... things like tranfers of weapons, transfers of funds, transfers of intel, transfers of personel? Not lip service... an actual working relationship.

As much as I think it'd be great for the evidence of acts like those you mentioned to just pop right out and say "Here I am", that's just not the way things work in real life. Millions of pages of documents are still being translated and sorted, data was destroyed before we entered the city,etc, etc....and anyone with half a brain wouldn't keep too many records of transactions such as that, especially when they're supposedly being monitored by the UN and a possible invasion by the US looming.

Quote by: Sonart So, the day after Desert Storm begins, 2 Iraqis make inept attempts at terrorist attacks in Indonesia and the Phillipines. What a surpise? And al-Qaeda is involved how?

TERRORIST actions don't always involve al qeada.
2 inept Iraqi terrorists are still 2 Iraqi TERRORISTS. But I guess since it doesn't fit into the only flavor of terrorism you recogonize, we might as well just cut them some slack, eh?

Quote by: Sonart Well duh!!!! He was now three days into a war with the United States, begging for any help he could get. And al-Qaeda was involved how?

Shows a definite anti-American, pro-terrorist way of doing business, don't you think?

Quote by: Sonart So? Other than simply being listed in 1992, what was their actual relationship? Where and how did they cooperate?

Maybe you should ask him. Listing OBL as an asset works for me. Do you want to give Saddam the benifit of any doubt that he may just be full of crap?

Quote by: Sonart Again... what cooperation? Someone's paying lip service, but where's the actual cooperation? What did anyone actually do?

They just openly declared that they'd allow their relationship to develop and you're questioning it? If someone declared they were going to kill you, would you ask them to prove it? :rolleyes:

Quote by: Sonart Etc, etc, etc.... your link features a lot of talk about pacts (according to some obsure Italian paper) and cooperation. Like I said, we've owned Iraq for over two years now. Where's the evidence that Hussein and bin Laden did more than acknowledge each other's existance, where Hussein did more that offer lip service to bin Laden for the benefit of his Sunni base. What did they actually DO? .

When did sources like - "Senate Intelligence Committee report, July 7, 2004" & "Saddam Hussein, January 17, 1993" & "Internal Iraqi Intelligence memo on Iraq-al Qaeda cooperation, June 25, 2004, New York Times" & "Internal Iraqi Intelligence memo describing the goal of meetings with an al Qaeda envoy, February 19, 1998" & "Interview with John Gannon, former chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council, October 25, 2004" - become an obsuce Italian paper? I must have missed that.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval Calling it "nonsense" doesn't mean there wasn't a connection.. As much as I think it'd be great for the evidence of acts like those you mentioned to just pop right out and say "Here I am", that's just not the way things work in real life. Millions of pages of documents are still being translated and sorted, data was destroyed before we entered the city,etc, etc....and anyone with half a brain wouldn't keep too many records of transactions such as that, especially when they're supposedly being monitored by the UN and a possible invasion by the US looming.

Yeah, and the WMD's will be discovered any day now.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Zeebadee Yeah, and the WMD's will be discovered any day now.

Yeah, and we're not the only ones that believed they had the large stock piles.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Dieval Yeah, and we're not the only ones that believed they had the large stock piles.

What is this supposed to mean? Who cares what the others believed? Bush, while browbeating and bribing together a "coalition" (pretty much in name only - just look at the casualty figures) is the only one that started a war based on what he supposedly believed.