Iraq invasion illegal, Annan says

[quote name='Backlash'][quote name='CTLesq']He might be better employed reading the Charter, especially that bit in Art. 51 about member-states having the right to defend themselves. He might also recall the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. [/quote]

Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks; everyone nows agrees on this. We aren't defending ourselves (from what would we be defending ourselves over there? Saddam didn't have any weapons.)

I don't think turning over the Iraq operation to the UN is a good idea; we've shaq-fued it up too bad at this point. However, getting some international help would be nice. Bush alientated pretty much all of our allies, forcing us to try to get out of this mess virtually alone.[/quote]

1. I have no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11. That does not mean that Iraq is not part of a larger Middle East problem. I love when people discuss the Palestinian problem as a complicated issue. They are right. Just like for the US, terrorism and the middle east are a complicated issue.

2. You claim Saddam had no weapons. Can you also pick all the winners on Monday for the football games on Sunday? The behavior of Hussein was consistent with someone who did have the weapons. The US will no longer wait to be attacked.

3. The US has over 30 allies in Iraq. Too bad France and Germany had more interest in their financial concerns in Iraq. Recall there were 17 UN Res against Iraq. As a permeant member of the UN Sec Council France HAD to vote for each of those resolutions. Abstaining would have killed the resolution just as as voting against them.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']3. The US has over 30 allies in Iraq. Too bad France and Germany had more interest in their financial concerns in Iraq. Recall there were 17 UN Res against Iraq. As a permeant member of the UN Sec Council France HAD to vote for each of those resolutions. Abstaining would have killed the resolution just as as voting against them.

CTL[/quote]

You really do live in a black and white world, don't you? Voting for a resolution calling for Saddam to disarm is not the same as saying you want Bush to take his cowboy ass and run roughshod through the Middle East creating a political catastrophe and terrorist breeding ground.
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='Backlash'][quote name='CTLesq']He might be better employed reading the Charter, especially that bit in Art. 51 about member-states having the right to defend themselves. He might also recall the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. [/quote]

Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks; everyone nows agrees on this. We aren't defending ourselves (from what would we be defending ourselves over there? Saddam didn't have any weapons.)

I don't think turning over the Iraq operation to the UN is a good idea; we've shaq-fued it up too bad at this point. However, getting some international help would be nice. Bush alientated pretty much all of our allies, forcing us to try to get out of this mess virtually alone.[/quote]

1. I have no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11. That does not mean that Iraq is not part of a larger Middle East problem. I love when people discuss the Palestinian problem as a complicated issue. They are right. Just like for the US, terrorism and the middle east are a complicated issue.

2. You claim Saddam had no weapons. Can you also pick all the winners on Monday for the football games on Sunday? The behavior of Hussein was consistent with someone who did have the weapons. The US will no longer wait to be attacked.

3. The US has over 30 allies in Iraq. Too bad France and Germany had more interest in their financial concerns in Iraq. Recall there were 17 UN Res against Iraq. As a permeant member of the UN Sec Council France HAD to vote for each of those resolutions. Abstaining would have killed the resolution just as as voting against them.

CTL[/quote]

There WERE clues that Saddam had no weapons. Remember the years of work the weapons inspectors did? They never found anything. Because Iraq was shifty with them, and that Iraq was "a problem" doesn't give the US the right to invade and occupy them.

Oh, and I thought you hated the UN, CTL. Now you're using their efforts to support your cause??? Which is it?
 
[quote name='CTLesq']
1. I have no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11. That does not mean that Iraq is not part of a larger Middle East problem. I love when people discuss the Palestinian problem as a complicated issue. They are right. Just like for the US, terrorism and the middle east are a complicated issue.

2. You claim Saddam had no weapons. Can you also pick all the winners on Monday for the football games on Sunday? The behavior of Hussein was consistent with someone who did have the weapons. The US will no longer wait to be attacked.
[/quote]

So preemptive strikes against countries are ok now. Why don't we invade EVERY country in the middle east? Most of them hate us (now more than ever).

[quote name='CTLesq']
3. The US has over 30 allies in Iraq. Too bad France and Germany had more interest in their financial concerns in Iraq. Recall there were 17 UN Res against Iraq. As a permeant member of the UN Sec Council France HAD to vote for each of those resolutions. Abstaining would have killed the resolution just as as voting against them.

CTL[/quote]

The HUGE majority of troops are from the US, regardless of the number of actual allies. I'm not just talking about France and Germany. With real support from other major industrialized nations we would be much better off there. When some crappy little country sends 50 troops, that doesn't really help.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']
You really do live in a black and white world, don't you? Voting for a resolution calling for Saddam to disarm is not the same as saying you want Bush to take his cowboy ass and run roughshod through the Middle East creating a political catastrophe and terrorist breeding ground.[/quote]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/30613.htm

September 21, 2004 -- 'WE'VE lost the peace,' men tell you. We cannot make it stick . . . Europeans, friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bit terly they are disappointed in you as an American . . . [Liberation] stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing: looting. Never has American prestige in Europe been lower."
Another media report from Iraq? No. This was novelist John Dos Passos in 1945, reporting for Life magazine, from newly-liberated Europe.

....

[quote name='E-Z-B']There WERE clues that Saddam had no weapons. Remember the years of work the weapons inspectors did? They never found anything. Because Iraq was shifty with them, and that Iraq was "a problem" doesn't give the US the right to invade and occupy them.[/quote]

I suspect it would take very little for me to find a post from you on this forum in which you criticize Bush for failing to connect the dots before 9/11 and you believe he failed the American people for not preventing the atttacks.

I would propose that better we err on the side of taking Saddam out and finding out he was less of a danger than waiting for another attack and having people such as yourself complain that Bush was asleep at the switch.

[quote name='E-Z-B']Oh, and I thought you hated the UN, CTL. Now you're using their efforts to support your cause??? Which is it?[/quote]

Clearly you didn't understand the point of the articles, if you believe my using them supports the UN.

CTL
 
Now Annan is saying that through its actions, the U.S. is showing contempt for the Rule of Law.

I thought Republicans were all about the Rule of Law. Or does that only apply when the Democrats are in charge?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38139-2004Sep21.html

UNITED NATIONS -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned world leaders Tuesday that international law was being "shamelessly disregarded" and cited the U.S. abuse of prisoners in Iraq as an example of such violations.

Speaking at the high-level session of the U.N. General Assembly, Annan said "no one was above the law" whether in Sudan, Iraq, Uganda, Russia or the Middle East.

"Again and again, we see laws shamelessly disregarded -- those that ordain respect for innocent life, for civilians, for the vulnerable -- especially children," he said.

In Iraq, he said civilians were massacred in cold blood, while relief workers, journalists and others were "taken hostage and put to death in the most barbarous fashion."

"At the same time, we have seen Iraqi prisoners disgracefully abused," Annan said, referring to inmates in the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad who were photographed being brutalized by American soldiers.

"Every nation that proclaims the rule of law at home must respect it abroad. And every nation that insists on it abroad must enforce it at home," he said.
 
[quote name='Backlash'][quote name='CTLesq']
1. I have no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11. That does not mean that Iraq is not part of a larger Middle East problem. I love when people discuss the Palestinian problem as a complicated issue. They are right. Just like for the US, terrorism and the middle east are a complicated issue.

2. You claim Saddam had no weapons. Can you also pick all the winners on Monday for the football games on Sunday? The behavior of Hussein was consistent with someone who did have the weapons. The US will no longer wait to be attacked.
[/quote]

So preemptive strikes against countries are ok now. Why don't we invade EVERY country in the middle east? Most of them hate us (now more than ever).

[quote name='CTLesq']
3. The US has over 30 allies in Iraq. Too bad France and Germany had more interest in their financial concerns in Iraq. Recall there were 17 UN Res against Iraq. As a permeant member of the UN Sec Council France HAD to vote for each of those resolutions. Abstaining would have killed the resolution just as as voting against them.

CTL[/quote]

The HUGE majority of troops are from the US, regardless of the number of actual allies. I'm not just talking about France and Germany. With real support from other major industrialized nations we would be much better off there. When some crappy little country sends 50 troops, that doesn't really help.[/quote]

Ah yes the fallacy that unless the US invades ALL nations it can't invade any.

Thats not an argument.

And yet when one of those crappy countries withdraws it is viewed as a "major blow".

I have yet to see anyone come up with numbers of troops that France or Germany could supply. Ask the French - they will tell you they are bogged down in the Ivory Coast.

CTL
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Now Annan is saying that through its actions, the U.S. is showing contempt for the Rule of Law.
[/quote]

This is the same man who refuses to cooperate with Paul Voelker in probing the Oil for Food program?

Right, what legitimacy he has.

Perhaps if he is interested in human rights abuses he should look into the malfeasance of UN troops in Bosnia, his failure to act in Rwanda, the reappointment of Sudan to the UN Human Rights Commission and his failure to act on the Sudan in general.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Clearly you didn't understand the point of the articles, if you believe my using them supports the UN.

CTL[/quote]

You're flip-flopping. You support the UN and their resolutions as justification for the Iraqi war, yet you claim we shouldn't pay attention to them when they call the war illegal.

Which is it? UN - good or bad?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']Clearly you didn't understand the point of the articles, if you believe my using them supports the UN.

CTL[/quote]

You're flip-flopping. You support the UN and their resolutions as justification for the Iraqi war, yet you claim we shouldn't pay attention to them when they call the war illegal.

Which is it? UN - good or bad?[/quote]

Please link to a UN Resolution which calls the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Did you read the articles? The very point of the articles were that the UN confers NO legitimacy.

And more to the point to the extent YOU asked for international justification - I provided it. Just because I don't believe it was or is necessary doesn't mean I can't cite to a source which disproves your position. By the way - a source you believe is legitimate.

No offense but I would love to know the ages and degree of education of most of you on this forum, because so much just slides right by.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']
Ah yes the fallacy that unless the US invades ALL nations it can't invade any.

Thats not an argument.

And yet when one of those crappy countries withdraws it is viewed as a "major blow".

I have yet to see anyone come up with numbers of troops that France or Germany could supply. Ask the French - they will tell you they are bogged down in the Ivory Coast.

CTL[/quote]

I'm not saying that we have to invade every country, but according to your reasoning, why wouldn't we? In fact, it seems that if the only prerequisites are non-democratic, unfriendly to the US, and possible weapons, there are several targets that are much more enticing than Iraq.

Also, I DON'T see it as a big blow when those little countries withdraw. Costa Rica takes away a few troops? Oh no.

Why are you fixated on France and Germany? Yes, troops from there could really help, but there are plenty of other countries who could also help if they were willing to, if we hadn't made such an ass out of ourselves over there.
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']Clearly you didn't understand the point of the articles, if you believe my using them supports the UN.

CTL[/quote]

You're flip-flopping. You support the UN and their resolutions as justification for the Iraqi war, yet you claim we shouldn't pay attention to them when they call the war illegal.

Which is it? UN - good or bad?[/quote]

Please link to a UN Resolution which calls the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.[/quote]

The "them" refers to the UN not to resolutions. I never said there were UN resolutions calling the Iraqi war illegal.

Did you read the articles? The very point of the articles were that the UN confers NO legitimacy.

And more to the point to the extent YOU asked for international justification - I provided it. Just because I don't believe it was or is necessary doesn't mean I can't cite to a source which disproves your position. By the way - a source you believe is legitimate.

No offense but I would love to know the ages and degree of education of most of you on this forum, because so much just slides right by.

CTL
Click to expand...

You still want it both ways. You want to cite the UN resoultions as justification for the war (since there were no WMDs and no links to al Qaeda) and yet you still want to dismiss the UN when Annan says the war was illegal. You can't play both sides.

Don't be upset because people with less education argue better than you. It's really not a fair fight when we have facts on our side.
 
[quote name='Backlash']I'm not saying that we have to invade every country, but according to your reasoning, why wouldn't we? In fact, it seems that if the only prerequisites are non-democratic, unfriendly to the US, and possible weapons, there are several targets that are much more enticing than Iraq.[/quote]

Don't they have to threaten Dubya's daddy too?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']Clearly you didn't understand the point of the articles, if you believe my using them supports the UN.

CTL[/quote]

You're flip-flopping. You support the UN and their resolutions as justification for the Iraqi war, yet you claim we shouldn't pay attention to them when they call the war illegal.

Which is it? UN - good or bad?[/quote]

Please link to a UN Resolution which calls the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.[/quote]

The "them" refers to the UN not to resolutions. I never said there were UN resolutions calling the Iraqi war illegal.

Did you read the articles? The very point of the articles were that the UN confers NO legitimacy.

And more to the point to the extent YOU asked for international justification - I provided it. Just because I don't believe it was or is necessary doesn't mean I can't cite to a source which disproves your position. By the way - a source you believe is legitimate.

No offense but I would love to know the ages and degree of education of most of you on this forum, because so much just slides right by.

CTL
Click to expand...

You still want it both ways. You want to cite the UN resoultions as justification for the war (since there were no WMDs and no links to al Qaeda) and yet you still want to dismiss the UN when Annan says the war was illegal. You can't play both sides.

Don't be upset because people with less education argue better than you. It's really not a fair fight when we have facts on our side.[/quote]

:applause:

You know he's getting pissed when he starts resorting to insulting your educational level.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Scrubking']Yes, there are. So I guess the US is also harboring terrorists, since there are terrorists here? That's basically the argument you made against Iraq.

No, that is the argument that you are making up. Do I really need to explain the difference between having and harboring? Sadddam did both, we only had them and found out too late. :roll:[/quote]

Do you have any idea about the history between al Qaeda and Saddam? You realize, of course, that al Qaeda wanted nothing more than to overthrow Saddam and establish a religious government, right? And Saddam knew that.[/quote]


FOR THE LAST TIME, AL-QUEDA IS NOT THE ONLY TERRORIST GROUP IN THE WORLD[/quote]

Then name one terrorist group in Iraq when Saddam was in power.[/quote]

Since nobody responded to this yet, off the top of my head Ansar al-Islam.[/quote]

Lest you also forget the other terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion:

Adbul Nidal:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/

Or: Abu Abbas

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172623149.html?oneclick=true[/quote]

I think the issue was terrorist GROUP, as Scrubking was harping on.

Hamas?
Al Martyr Brigrades?
Abu Sayyeff?

Oh, and Ansar al-Islam are Kurds. They're the ones that Saddam tied to wipe out.[/quote]

I can't believe I have to say this so often in this forum or any forum, but it does indeed help quite a bit to know what you're talking about.

http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml

Ansar al-Islam is a radical Kurdish Islamic group that is supportive of Saddam Hussein's regime. This group is located in the pseudo-autonomous Northern Iraq. This group has ties with Taliban and al-Qaeda. It is the most radical group operating in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Click to expand...

If that's not enough, Saddam Hussein openly was paying families of suicide bombers in Palestine and sheltered an escaped suspect in the 1993 WTC bombing, Ramzi Yousef.

Try here for more info:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

In short, you could argue possibly that al Qaeda didn't have strong connections to Hussein, but he certainly was in the terrorism business.
 
[quote name='Backlash']Why are you fixated on France and Germany? Yes, troops from there could really help, but there are plenty of other countries who could also help if they were willing to, if we hadn't made such an ass out of ourselves over there.[/quote]

I'd like to know which countries and troops these are. According to U.S. military commanders, less than 10,000 troops are possibly available in the whole of NATO to go to Iraq even if the countries agreed to send them. Most NATO troops are already committed elsewhere, especially in Afghanistan. Unless you're thinking of other countries with whom we are at odds (China, North Korea) or those who have militaries which are more or less pre-modern by our standards (most other non-European countries that aren't already in Iraq). So please, which countries are you thinking of?
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']Clearly you didn't understand the point of the articles, if you believe my using them supports the UN.

CTL[/quote]

You're flip-flopping. You support the UN and their resolutions as justification for the Iraqi war, yet you claim we shouldn't pay attention to them when they call the war illegal.

Which is it? UN - good or bad?[/quote]

Please link to a UN Resolution which calls the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Did you read the articles? The very point of the articles were that the UN confers NO legitimacy.

And more to the point to the extent YOU asked for international justification - I provided it. Just because I don't believe it was or is necessary doesn't mean I can't cite to a source which disproves your position. By the way - a source you believe is legitimate.

No offense but I would love to know the ages and degree of education of most of you on this forum, because so much just slides right by.

CTL[/quote]

Age: 33
Education: BS Chemical Engineering

I concur with the earlier posts that it appears you are flip-flopping.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Scrubking']Yes, there are. So I guess the US is also harboring terrorists, since there are terrorists here? That's basically the argument you made against Iraq.

No, that is the argument that you are making up. Do I really need to explain the difference between having and harboring? Sadddam did both, we only had them and found out too late. :roll:[/quote]

Do you have any idea about the history between al Qaeda and Saddam? You realize, of course, that al Qaeda wanted nothing more than to overthrow Saddam and establish a religious government, right? And Saddam knew that.[/quote]


FOR THE LAST TIME, AL-QUEDA IS NOT THE ONLY TERRORIST GROUP IN THE WORLD[/quote]

Then name one terrorist group in Iraq when Saddam was in power.[/quote]

Since nobody responded to this yet, off the top of my head Ansar al-Islam.[/quote]

Lest you also forget the other terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion:

Adbul Nidal:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/

Or: Abu Abbas

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172623149.html?oneclick=true[/quote]

I think the issue was terrorist GROUP, as Scrubking was harping on.

Hamas?
Al Martyr Brigrades?
Abu Sayyeff?

Oh, and Ansar al-Islam are Kurds. They're the ones that Saddam tied to wipe out.[/quote]

I can't believe I have to say this so often in this forum or any forum, but it does indeed help quite a bit to know what you're talking about.

http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml
[/quote]

Indeed it does: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/time.iraq/

Yet while Ansar may share Saddam's desire to destroy the Kurdish leadership, the Iraqi dictator does not appear to have direct control over the Kurdish militants. Both Saddam and al-Qaeda may find Ansar's activities useful, but there's no evidence that the group serves as a link between them.

[quote name='elprincipe']
Ansar al-Islam is a radical Kurdish Islamic group that is supportive of Saddam Hussein's regime. This group is located in the pseudo-autonomous Northern Iraq. This group has ties with Taliban and al-Qaeda. It is the most radical group operating in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Click to expand...

If that's not enough, Saddam Hussein openly was paying families of suicide bombers in Palestine and sheltered an escaped suspect in the 1993 WTC bombing, Ramzi Yousef.

Try here for more info:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

In short, you could argue possibly that al Qaeda didn't have strong connections to Hussein, but he certainly was in the terrorism business.[/quote]

Paying palestians still isn't evidence that Saddam was harboring terrorist groups in iraq.

And "When I put it to them that Iraq was probably behind the Trade Center bombing..." doesn't constitute as evidence either.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='CTLesq']Clearly you didn't understand the point of the articles, if you believe my using them supports the UN.

CTL[/quote]

You're flip-flopping. You support the UN and their resolutions as justification for the Iraqi war, yet you claim we shouldn't pay attention to them when they call the war illegal.

Which is it? UN - good or bad?[/quote]

Please link to a UN Resolution which calls the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.[/quote]

The "them" refers to the UN not to resolutions. I never said there were UN resolutions calling the Iraqi war illegal.

Did you read the articles? The very point of the articles were that the UN confers NO legitimacy.

And more to the point to the extent YOU asked for international justification - I provided it. Just because I don't believe it was or is necessary doesn't mean I can't cite to a source which disproves your position. By the way - a source you believe is legitimate.

No offense but I would love to know the ages and degree of education of most of you on this forum, because so much just slides right by.

CTL
Click to expand...

You still want it both ways. You want to cite the UN resoultions as justification for the war (since there were no WMDs and no links to al Qaeda) and yet you still want to dismiss the UN when Annan says the war was illegal. You can't play both sides.

Don't be upset because people with less education argue better than you. It's really not a fair fight when we have facts on our side.[/quote]

:applause:

You know he's getting pissed when he starts resorting to insulting your educational level.[/quote]

1. Again, I don't want or need the UN resolutions. I was asked to provide the international legal basis for the war. I don't think I need it. Based on US Law, I don't believe its not a requirement I need to meet. However, Mr.BadExample wanted it.

2. I am not getting pissed, nor am I insulting people's education. I do find it frustrating that on this board there is a virtual void of information about people to place their comments within context. It would assist in determining if people have the capacity to understand things however.

Edit: And one last thing. If you read and understood the point of the articles they did nothing but deride the alleged legitimacy of UN approval based on the UN's ineptitude. But you people believe what the US says is gold. So I gave it to you.

CTL
 
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_arm_for_per

Graph of armed forces personnel, worldwide. Most not in NATO, I know. But it does seem like even the NATO countries have large numbers of military personnel.

But wait, you say, why the heck would most of those countries want to help in Iraq? Iraq never attacked them.

I have no idea. Why are we in Iraq? They never attacked us either.
 
[quote name='Backlash']http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_arm_for_per

Graph of armed forces personnel, worldwide. Most not in NATO, I know. But it does seem like even the NATO countries have large numbers of military personnel.

But wait, you say, why the heck would most of those countries want to help in Iraq? Iraq never attacked them.

I have no idea. Why are we in Iraq? They never attacked us either.[/quote]

That's an interesting graph. It proves my point quite well.

NATO countries with the most forces (most likely to help the U.S. as we are a NATO member):

Turkey - we don't want them in Iraq because we are afraid of what they might do to the Kurds, as they have a long-running battle with supporters of a Kurdish state, some of them terrorists

France - HAHAHAHA..no.

Italy - they're already there.

Germany - HAHAHAHA..no.

Poland - already there.

UK - already there.

Starting to get the picture? Not many NATO troops to deploy, even if we could convince those countries that have some available to do so.

Non-NATO forces?

China - HAHAHA..no.

Russia - HAHAHA..no.

India - possible, but they probably don't want to send too many if any because of their heavily-militarized border w/Pakistan and the fact that they are in conflict with said Pakistan, a Muslim state.

South Korea - already there

Pakistan - we probably would like them to use any available troops to go after al Qaeda remnants along the Afghan border. Plus they probably don't want to ship out too many troops anyway due to their India situation.

Iran - HAHAHA..no.

Vietnam - HAHAHA..no.

Egypt - possible though doubtful since no Muslim country is involved and I don't think they'd want to.

Ethiopia - nope, they're devoted to their continual wars with Eritrea.

Burma - nope, they need their troops at home to oppress their populace.

Syria - HAHAHA..no.

See where I'm going? There are just not forces available, whatever John Kerry says about magically making troops appear to relieve U.S. forces.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Scrubking']Yes, there are. So I guess the US is also harboring terrorists, since there are terrorists here? That's basically the argument you made against Iraq.

No, that is the argument that you are making up. Do I really need to explain the difference between having and harboring? Sadddam did both, we only had them and found out too late. :roll:[/quote]

Do you have any idea about the history between al Qaeda and Saddam? You realize, of course, that al Qaeda wanted nothing more than to overthrow Saddam and establish a religious government, right? And Saddam knew that.[/quote]


FOR THE LAST TIME, AL-QUEDA IS NOT THE ONLY TERRORIST GROUP IN THE WORLD[/quote]

Then name one terrorist group in Iraq when Saddam was in power.[/quote]

Since nobody responded to this yet, off the top of my head Ansar al-Islam.[/quote]

Lest you also forget the other terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion:

Adbul Nidal:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/

Or: Abu Abbas

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172623149.html?oneclick=true[/quote]

I think the issue was terrorist GROUP, as Scrubking was harping on.

Hamas?
Al Martyr Brigrades?
Abu Sayyeff?

Oh, and Ansar al-Islam are Kurds. They're the ones that Saddam tied to wipe out.[/quote]

I can't believe I have to say this so often in this forum or any forum, but it does indeed help quite a bit to know what you're talking about.

http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml
[/quote]

Indeed it does: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/26/time.iraq/

Yet while Ansar may share Saddam's desire to destroy the Kurdish leadership, the Iraqi dictator does not appear to have direct control over the Kurdish militants. Both Saddam and al-Qaeda may find Ansar's activities useful, but there's no evidence that the group serves as a link between them.[/quote]

So you agree with me then? Your link states Ansar al-Islam includes al Qaeda members too. Maybe Saddam didn't have direct control, or maybe he did. In any case, they are not exactly against him like you said originally, are they?

[quote name='elprincipe']
Ansar al-Islam is a radical Kurdish Islamic group that is supportive of Saddam Hussein's regime. This group is located in the pseudo-autonomous Northern Iraq. This group has ties with Taliban and al-Qaeda. It is the most radical group operating in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Click to expand...

If that's not enough, Saddam Hussein openly was paying families of suicide bombers in Palestine and sheltered an escaped suspect in the 1993 WTC bombing, Ramzi Yousef.

Try here for more info:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

In short, you could argue possibly that al Qaeda didn't have strong connections to Hussein, but he certainly was in the terrorism business.[/quote]

Paying palestians still isn't evidence that Saddam was harboring terrorist groups in iraq.

And "When I put it to them that Iraq was probably behind the Trade Center bombing..." doesn't constitute as evidence either.[/quote]

Paying Palestinian suicide bombers is supporting terrorism. I think that gets a big "DUH". I don't know if Iraq was behind the 1993 WTC bombing or not, but they definitely harbored Yousef, a terrorist involved in the plot. There is more evidence too if you still are blind to it, including harboring the main threat to our forces in Iraq right now, Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi.
 
[quote name='Backlash']
France - HAHAHAHA..no.
......
Germany - HAHAHAHA..no.
[/quote]

Aside from the usual French-bashing, why wouldn't we want their forces there? One Frenchie fighting in Iraq means one less American who's going to be caught up in the Bush draft.

I'm also puzzled by your opposition to German troops.
 
First of all listening to anything the UN states is stupid. Reagan effectively killed the UN in the 80's and the US has neglected it since then. We "owe" hundreds of millions in dues that we will never pay because of the amount the US is supposed to pay compared to other nations.

Also when you have countries like Sierra Leone on the human rights board you know your organization is a winner.


On Iraq, the whole invasion was stupid from the standpoint that we were ill prepared and we still had trouble in Afganistan. Why did we become so obsessed with Saddam Hussein? If they had caught Osama Bin Laden, it would have sent a ripple effect through the middle east and made it a lot easier for us to fight the war on Terror. Would Afganistan be in as bad of shape as it is if Osama was alive?

Karl Rove and the rest of the RNC wanted control of the senate after Jeffords became independent, and they needed a new punching bag to hit on to make sure they won some seats. Saddam Hussein became the punching bag, and did a good job of achieving the parties objectives.
 
Why did we become so obsessed with Saddam Hussein?
Click to expand...

Because there is no country called Terrorlandia or Al-qadia. If we are going to fight them on their turf and keep them out of ours we have to establish a base of operations, and Iraq had enough going against him for his time to be up.

What people fail to understand is that if we weren't fighting and dying over there we would be fighting and dying here!! Only it would be innocent civillians, babies, children that would get killed by more bombings, etc.

Now instead of terrorists coming here to kill they go to Iraq and hopefully get killed by our military.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B']Paying palestians still isn't evidence that Saddam was harboring terrorist groups in iraq.

And "When I put it to them that Iraq was probably behind the Trade Center bombing..." doesn't constitute as evidence either.[/quote]

Paying Palestinian suicide bombers is supporting terrorism. I think that gets a big "DUH". I don't know if Iraq was behind the 1993 WTC bombing or not, but they definitely harbored Yousef, a terrorist involved in the plot. There is more evidence too if you still are blind to it, including harboring the main threat to our forces in Iraq right now, Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi.[/quote]

Harbor: to give shelter or refuge to
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?harboring

Again, PAYING PALESTINIANS DOES NOT EQUATE TO HARBORING TERRORISTS IN IRAQ!!!!!!!

Al-Zarqawi didn't even show up on the radar screen until AFTER the fall of Saddam. And BTW, here's an interesting article on Al-Zarqawi:

Bush Rejected Plans to Go After al-Zarqawi because Success would Undermine Case for Iraq War

In his effort to claim he is the strongest candidate on national security, President Bush has lately been speaking a lot about how he is doing everything possible to track down terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - the man thought to be responsible for escalating attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. But according to NBC News, it was Bush who in 2002 and 2003 rejected three plans to strike and neutralize Zarqawi because he believed a successful strike would undermine the public case for targeting Saddam Hussein.
http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df09212004.html
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
Why did we become so obsessed with Saddam Hussein?
Click to expand...

Because there is no country called Terrorlandia or Al-qadia. If we are going to fight them on their turf and keep them out of ours we have to establish a base of operations, and Iraq had enough going against him for his time to be up. [/quote]

There is a place called Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11 came from. But wait...they're our rich oil friends.

What people fail to understand is that if we weren't fighting and dying over there we would be fighting and dying here!! Only it would be innocent civillians, babies, children that would get killed by more bombings, etc.

Now instead of terrorists coming here to kill they go to Iraq and hopefully get killed by our military.
Click to expand...

So the idea is we have made Iraq a big decoy to attract terrorists, kinda like a bug zapper? Is this the latest rationale? I'm sure the Iraqi people (who we are supposed to be liberating from tyranny) will be thrilled to hear we just want to use their country to lure terrorists.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']

That's an interesting graph. It proves my point quite well.

NATO countries with the most forces (most likely to help the U.S. as we are a NATO member):

France - HAHAHAHA..no.
Germany - HAHAHAHA..no.
UK - already there.
South Korea - already there
.
[/quote]

Wait, why don't you want France and Germany's help? Anyway, look at the numbers!

UK, already there, sure, but according to this they have 212,000 personnel, which must include tons of soliders (over 100,000). And how many are in Iraq? A few thousand? Could be MANY more.

South Korea has over 600,000! But only a few are in Iraq, and we can't convince them to send more. That was my point.
 
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Backlash']
France - HAHAHAHA..no.
......
Germany - HAHAHAHA..no.
[/quote]

Aside from the usual French-bashing, why wouldn't we want their forces there? One Frenchie fighting in Iraq means one less American who's going to be caught up in the Bush draft.

I'm also puzzled by your opposition to German troops.[/quote]

Dude you quoted the wrong person!
 
[quote name='Backlash'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Backlash']
France - HAHAHAHA..no.
......
Germany - HAHAHAHA..no.
[/quote]

Aside from the usual French-bashing, why wouldn't we want their forces there? One Frenchie fighting in Iraq means one less American who's going to be caught up in the Bush draft.

I'm also puzzled by your opposition to German troops.[/quote]

Dude you quoted the wrong person![/quote]

My apologies, Backlash.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
Why did we become so obsessed with Saddam Hussein?
Click to expand...

Because there is no country called Terrorlandia or Al-qadia. If we are going to fight them on their turf and keep them out of ours we have to establish a base of operations, and Iraq had enough going against him for his time to be up.

What people fail to understand is that if we weren't fighting and dying over there we would be fighting and dying here!! Only it would be innocent civillians, babies, children that would get killed by more bombings, etc.

Now instead of terrorists coming here to kill they go to Iraq and hopefully get killed by our military.[/quote]

So instead of building up homeland security by increasing security at our ports and airports, and putting more cops and firefighters on the streets, we spend $1 billion a month in a war that you acknowledge was completely unprovoked?

Also, if the war in Iraq is making the homeland so much safer, why do we still keep getting terror warnings?
 
[quote name='dennis_t']So instead of building up homeland security by increasing security at our ports and airports, and putting more cops and firefighters on the streets, we spend $1 billion a month in a war that you acknowledge was completely unprovoked?[/quote]

Fortress America will never work just by itself. We must strike terrorists abroad. I have said this many times: terrorism is at best state ignored, at worst state sponsored. Therefore it is imperative that people like Assad, the Saudi, et al be concerned that THEY may be the one's who get whacked. Further the US economy is about 7 Trillion Dollars a year. One Billion, is nothing. We can spend on more than one project at a time.

Your broader point is one that I believe should be more closely examined: cops, fire fighters - all help AFTER a terror attack. Suing and issuing subpeonas to these people makes no differnece. American foreign policy is to stop these attacks before they occur, not to pick up the pieces after.

[quote name='dennis_t']Also, if the war in Iraq is making the homeland so much safer, why do we still keep getting terror warnings?[/quote]

By that logic there is no value in killing 400 terrorists if terrorist 401 gets through...which of course is false.

CTL
 
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Backlash']
France - HAHAHAHA..no.
......
Germany - HAHAHAHA..no.
[/quote]

Aside from the usual French-bashing, why wouldn't we want their forces there? One Frenchie fighting in Iraq means one less American who's going to be caught up in the Bush draft.

I'm also puzzled by your opposition to German troops.[/quote]

Are you saying you think they will send forces? My post was meant to state what most people concede is obvious: France and Germany are not going to send troops to Iraq no matter what. Their leaders have clearly stated this position and the people of both countries are completely against it. Or maybe you're one of the people that think if Kerry is elected and snaps his fingers the French and Germans will magically send troops to Iraq to relieve ours. If so, someone should pinch you ASAP.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B']Paying palestians still isn't evidence that Saddam was harboring terrorist groups in iraq.

And "When I put it to them that Iraq was probably behind the Trade Center bombing..." doesn't constitute as evidence either.[/quote]

Paying Palestinian suicide bombers is supporting terrorism. I think that gets a big "DUH". I don't know if Iraq was behind the 1993 WTC bombing or not, but they definitely harbored Yousef, a terrorist involved in the plot. There is more evidence too if you still are blind to it, including harboring the main threat to our forces in Iraq right now, Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi.[/quote]

Harbor: to give shelter or refuge to
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?harboring

Again, PAYING PALESTINIANS DOES NOT EQUATE TO HARBORING TERRORISTS IN IRAQ!!!!!!![/quote]

Don't quote me definitions. Saddam harbored Ramzi Yousef, a known terrorist involved in the WTC plot. I didn't say he "harbored" Palestinian terrorists, just supported them, and he himself declared he was doing this by paying them and their families. Saudi Arabia has done the same thing.

I don't know why you can't accept the fact that there were terrorists in Iraq during Saddam's reign. Usually people only dispute al Qaeda, which is a more debateable subject.
 
[quote name='Backlash'][quote name='elprincipe']

That's an interesting graph. It proves my point quite well.

NATO countries with the most forces (most likely to help the U.S. as we are a NATO member):

France - HAHAHAHA..no.
Germany - HAHAHAHA..no.
UK - already there.
South Korea - already there
.
[/quote]

Wait, why don't you want France and Germany's help? Anyway, look at the numbers!

UK, already there, sure, but according to this they have 212,000 personnel, which must include tons of soliders (over 100,000). And how many are in Iraq? A few thousand? Could be MANY more.

South Korea has over 600,000! But only a few are in Iraq, and we can't convince them to send more. That was my point.[/quote]

As I said above, I don't think France and Germany will help us under any circumstances at this point.

Just FYI, I'll repeat, senior US military commanders have said that less than 10,000 NATO troops are available for immediate deployment to Iraq. Of course, that could be more if we took forces from places like Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia, and the Baltic States where they really are needed (so we won't).

South Korea has a significant numbers disadvantage compared to North Korea, and I don't think anyone would advocate them sending a major tens-of-thousands force to Iraq. Again, they're got their own border to protect with a madman intent on acquiring nuclear weapons right next to them.

When it comes down to it, at this point the only realistic thing is we're just going to have to continue in Iraq pretty much as-is because there is no relief coming from other countries (at least major relief) in troops.
 
I think I got off-track a bit there. My beef is not that I expect them to help us at this point, it's that we moved in more or less unilaterally. We need to change things so that the other countries WILL help us (i.e. WANT to help us).

I don't care if it's going through the UN, going through some other international orgainization, or just Bush playing poker with other presidents/prime ministers in the basement, we need to have more support to go to war and (more importantly) rebuild/exit.

Hopefully we can change our international relations so that next time this is possible. I do not believe that can/will happen with Bush's administration. Will Kerry's be able to? That I do not know. It definitely won't happen quickly in any case.
 
[quote name='"CTLesq"'][quote name='dennis_t']So instead of building up homeland security by increasing security at our ports and airports, and putting more cops and firefighters on the streets, we spend $1 billion a month in a war that you acknowledge was completely unprovoked?[/quote]

Fortress America will never work just by itself. We must strike terrorists abroad. I have said this many times: terrorism is at best state ignored, at worst state sponsored. Therefore it is imperative that people like Assad, the Saudi, et al be concerned that THEY may be the one's who get whacked. Further the US economy is about 7 Trillion Dollars a year. One Billion, is nothing. We can spend on more than one project at a time.

Your broader point is one that I believe should be more closely examined: cops, fire fighters - all help AFTER a terror attack. Suing and issuing subpeonas to these people makes no differnece. American foreign policy is to stop these attacks before they occur, not to pick up the pieces after.
Let's say I agree with your assertion that a pre-emptive war was necessary to cow pro-terror states into submission. Wouldn't it then have been better to attack a nation with actual, proven and continuing links to terror -- say, Syria or Saudia Arabia? We attacked in the wrong direction by attacking Iraq. We didn't cow terrorists -- we gave them both a playground and a recruiting station.

As to your second point, I have to say you are completely wrong. Preventing terrorism at home is solely a law enforcement effort. Police, FBI and other law enforcement agencies are the people who will stop a terrorist attack here, not the troops in Iraq. We are a free society and thus cannot take the steps necessary to absolutely insure that a terrorist can't get into our country. That's why it's absolutely imperative that we adequately fund law enforcement as part of homeland security. Bush has completely ignored this aspect of the War on Terror in favor of his Iraq quagmire.

And I've got to tell you, one billion dollars would put one hell of a lot of cops on the streets, inspectors in the ports, and counter-terrorism units on the trail of these bastards.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='"CTLesq"'][quote name='dennis_t']So instead of building up homeland security by increasing security at our ports and airports, and putting more cops and firefighters on the streets, we spend $1 billion a month in a war that you acknowledge was completely unprovoked?[/quote]

Fortress America will never work just by itself. We must strike terrorists abroad. I have said this many times: terrorism is at best state ignored, at worst state sponsored. Therefore it is imperative that people like Assad, the Saudi, et al be concerned that THEY may be the one's who get whacked. Further the US economy is about 7 Trillion Dollars a year. One Billion, is nothing. We can spend on more than one project at a time.

Your broader point is one that I believe should be more closely examined: cops, fire fighters - all help AFTER a terror attack. Suing and issuing subpeonas to these people makes no differnece. American foreign policy is to stop these attacks before they occur, not to pick up the pieces after.
Let's say I agree with your assertion that a pre-emptive war was necessary to cow pro-terror states into submission. Wouldn't it then have been better to attack a nation with actual, proven and continuing links to terror -- say, Syria or Saudia Arabia? We attacked in the wrong direction by attacking Iraq. We didn't cow terrorists -- we gave them both a playground and a recruiting station.

As to your second point, I have to say you are completely wrong. Preventing terrorism at home is solely a law enforcement effort. Police, FBI and other law enforcement agencies are the people who will stop a terrorist attack here, not the troops in Iraq. We are a free society and thus cannot take the steps necessary to absolutely insure that a terrorist can't get into our country. That's why it's absolutely imperative that we adequately fund law enforcement as part of homeland security. Bush has completely ignored this aspect of the War on Terror in favor of his Iraq quagmire.

And I've got to tell you, one billion dollars would put one hell of a lot of cops on the streets, inspectors in the ports, and counter-terrorism units on the trail of these bastards.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='"CTLesq"'][quote name='dennis_t']So instead of building up homeland security by increasing security at our ports and airports, and putting more cops and firefighters on the streets, we spend $1 billion a month in a war that you acknowledge was completely unprovoked?[/quote]

Fortress America will never work just by itself. We must strike terrorists abroad. I have said this many times: terrorism is at best state ignored, at worst state sponsored. Therefore it is imperative that people like Assad, the Saudi, et al be concerned that THEY may be the one's who get whacked. Further the US economy is about 7 Trillion Dollars a year. One Billion, is nothing. We can spend on more than one project at a time.

Your broader point is one that I believe should be more closely examined: cops, fire fighters - all help AFTER a terror attack. Suing and issuing subpeonas to these people makes no differnece. American foreign policy is to stop these attacks before they occur, not to pick up the pieces after.
Let's say I agree with your assertion that a pre-emptive war was necessary to cow pro-terror states into submission. Wouldn't it then have been better to attack a nation with actual, proven and continuing links to terror -- say, Syria or Saudia Arabia? We attacked in the wrong direction by attacking Iraq. We didn't cow terrorists -- we gave them both a playground and a recruiting station.

As to your second point, I have to say you are completely wrong. Preventing terrorism at home is solely a law enforcement effort. Police, FBI and other law enforcement agencies are the people who will stop a terrorist attack here, not the troops in Iraq. We are a free society and thus cannot take the steps necessary to absolutely insure that a terrorist can't get into our country. That's why it's absolutely imperative that we adequately fund law enforcement as part of homeland security. Bush has completely ignored this aspect of the War on Terror in favor of his Iraq quagmire.

And I've got to tell you, one billion dollars would put one hell of a lot of cops on the streets, inspectors in the ports, and counter-terrorism units on the trail of these bastards.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top