Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Saddam, al-Qaeda not linked: U.S. Senate

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Saddam, al-Qaeda not linked: U.S. Senate
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject:

No cause fighting Khomeni isn't a bad thing . If Saddam had contacts with Al Qaeda then it was for something that is not good. What Al Qaeda and what Saddam fight for and what Iran fights for is sinister.The US is justified to go act against Iran , Iran's war like Saddam's war and Al Qaeda's war is not justified. It is like saying the US is like WW II Germany cause of the US bombing of Dresden or because of nuclear bombing of Japanese cities. What a side fights for counts. The US may not be perfect , but it is no where near the moral equivalent of Khomeni followers , Bin Laden supporters or Saddam supporters. . Bin Laden supporters , Khomeni supporters and Bathists act to conquer the mideast for themselves . the US acts to prevent that. It is not the same, It is not morally equivalent.The US isn't fascist . They (Khomeni lovers, Bin Laden supporters and Bathists ) are. What Khomeni followers , Bin Laden supporters and Bathists want is evil and illegitimate.

Alias

Joined: 24 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:06 am Post subject:

So the Senate report is wrong?

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:23 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

No cause fighting Khomeni isn't a bad thing .

If Saddam had contacts with Al Qaeda then it was for something that is not good.

What Al Qaeda and what Saddam fight for and what Iran fights for is sinister.The US is justified to go act against Iran , Iran's war like Saddam's war and Al Qaeda's war is not justified.

So let me get this straight:

Iraq's invasion of Iran was okay, because Iran was under Khomeni. Therefore, it was okay for the US to provide weapons (including chemical and biological weapons) and weapons know-how to Saddam at that time.

That those same weapons (including biological and chemical weapons) and weapons technologies were then used against the Kurds and Kuwaitis does not make the US culpable in those atrocities. Even thought we knew Saddam was an evil dictator. His battle against Khomeni justified providing him with those weapons, at that time.

So even though Saddam rejected Al Qaeda's overtures, we were still justified in invading Iraq because he used weapons (including biological and chemical weapons) against the Kurds and Kuwaitis. Even though we had no problem providing him with those weapons originally for use against the Iranians.

Anything I missed?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:30 am Post subject:

Quote:

Well it was understandable since Iran was behind anti US terror, and Iran was trying to conquer the gulf .

Like Saddam Khomeni was a fascist bigot.

Quote:

That those same weapons (including biological and chemical weapons) and weapons technologies were then used against the Kurds and Kuwaitis does not make the US culpable in those atrocities. Even thought we knew Saddam was an evil dictator. His battle against Khomeni justified providing him with those weapons, at that time.

Was the US wrong to support Stalin in WW II?

Quote:

So even though Saddam rejected Al Qaeda's overtures,

Are you sure?

Quote:

we were still justified in invading Iraq because he used weapons (including biological and chemical weapons) against the Kurds and Kuwaitis. Even though we had no problem providing him with those weapons originally for use against the Iranians.

Anything I missed?

Show the US provided Chemical weapons to Saddam.

at Any rate Saddam deserved to get overthrown cause he was evil and cause he wouldn't give up his war.

but WMDs were not the real reason for the war. Evne though the US thought Saddam had some.

This was the real reason for the war.

Quote:

S Arabia 'real reason for war'
NEWS.com.au ^ | April 3, 2004

FORGET Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.

Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.

Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.

"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.

Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.

"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.

"Then the US turned to the question - we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda."

He said those enablers, the financiers and recruiters, existed in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

But the Saudi government variously took the view that this wasn't true or that they lacked the ability and strength to act, he said.

Dr Friedman said in March last year, the Saudis responded to US pressure by asking the US to remove all its forces and bases from their territory. To their immense surprise, the US did just that, relocating to Qatar.

He said Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda shared a number of beliefs including that the US could not fight and win a war in the region and was casualty averse. There was a need to change that perception.

But close by was Iraq, the most strategically located nation in the Middle East, bordering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Iran.

"If we held Iraq we felt first there would be dramatic changes of behaviour from the Saudis," he said. "We could also manipulate the Iranians into a change of policy and finally also lean on the Syrians.

"It wasn't a great policy. It happened to be the only policy available."

Dr Friedman said US President George W Bush faced the difficulty of explaining this policy, particularly to the Saudis. Moves to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda failed completely.

"They then fell on WMD for two reasons," he said.

"Nobody could object to WMD and it was the one thing that every intelligence agency knew was true.

"We knew we were going to find them. And we would never have to reveal the real reasons.

"The massive intelligence failure was that everybody including Saddam thought he had WMD. He behaved as if he had WMD. He was conned by his own people."

Here is another way of putting it.

Quote:

The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.

Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there ?a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government ?and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen ?got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:29 am Post subject:

Back to the OP....

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

So even though Saddam rejected Al Qaeda's overtures,

Are you sure?

It's hard to prove a negative. But I'll take the word of the 9/11 Commission. Remember the OP? You've yet to show any proof that there was a deal.

JRGR wrote:

Show the US provided Chemical weapons to Saddam.

How did Iraq get its weapons? We sold them

Quote:

By Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot

THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological wea pons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs which oversees American exports policy reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup

Quote:

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

JRGR wrote:

at Any rate Saddam deserved to get overthrown cause he was evil and cause he wouldn't give up his war.

There are lots of evil dictators out there. What about these guys?

JRGR wrote:

but WMDs were not the real reason for the war. Evne though the US thought Saddam had some.

This was the real reason for the war.

Quote:

Meaningless conjecture. He wasn't there when the decision was made.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:50 am Post subject:

Quote:

It's hard to prove a negative. But I'll take the word of the 9/11 Commission. Remember the OP? You've yet to show any proof that there was a deal.

Lets hold off for now.

[

Quote:

THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological wea pons of mass destruction.

technology and materials Not weapons.

Besides most of the stuff was duel use items that were not tightly controlled. the US did not sell tanks or Jets to Saddam it was Russia and France who did that . Saddams chemical plants came from Germany.

Quote:

authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications

So where are the weapons? I see no reason to exagerate what the US did. The US sold no weapons. Saddam was allowed buy stuff from the US that was not tightly controlled.

Were they weapons when the US had them no. No reason to say more than what is there.

Quote:

There are lots of evil dictators out there. What about these guys?

Saddam was worse than most evil dictators. He made Pinochet look like a choirboy.

See below.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm

How many of them killed 300,000? actually one could put up to a million deaths on Saddam.

Besides Saddam was at war with the US. So he deserved it. Not all of those dictators were at war with the US.

So Saddam deserved it , but just as much.

Iraq is also a strategic nation in the mideast. Mideast regimes and elites teach hate and incite violence which is the main reason for terror. Iraq was only a tactical threat to the US but the mideast the way it was and still is is a strategic threat to the US. The US invaded Iraq but the US did not look at it as just invading Iraq. It was an invasion of the middle east.

Mideast regimes can end terror if they decide to do it cause they are all police states. The governments there are nearly all powerful within their own nations.

Quote:

Meaningless conjecture. He wasn't there when the decision was made

Not the only one. You don't go after a country for WMDs when they have six months of warning about it.

If not that then why did Bush do it? Why don't you tell us?

Thanks.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:16 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

It's hard to prove a negative. But I'll take the word of the 9/11 Commission. Remember the OP? You've yet to show any proof that there was a deal.

Lets hold off for now.

Hold off for what? Where's the proof?

Quote:

THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological wea pons of mass destruction.

technology and materials Not weapons.

Nice trim. Please reread the original articles, especially the part I quoted. to whit:

Quote:

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs which oversees American exports policy reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

If those aren't weapons, I don't know what are.

Quote:

authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications

So where are the weapons? I see no reason to exagerate what the US did. The US sold no weapons. Saddam was allowed buy stuff from the US that was not tightly controlled.

So you would approve sales of cryptography to China? Centrifuges to Iran? They aren't weapons. What's the point of having the state sponsors of terror list?

Quote:

There are lots of evil dictators out there. What about these guys?

Saddam was worse than most evil dictators. He made Pinochet look like a choirboy.

How many of them killed 300,000? actually one could put up to a million deaths on Saddam.

How many deaths do they get before being called to the carpet? How many have died in Sudan? Aren't they about to their limit yet?

Quote:

Besides Saddam was at war with the US. So he deserved it. Not all of those dictators were at war with the US.

What war was that?

Quote:

Meaningless conjecture. He wasn't there when the decision was made

Not the only one. You don't go after a country for WMDs when they have six months of warning about it.

If not that then why did Bush do it? Why don't you tell us?

I wasn't there when the decision was made either. Whatever the reason, it'd be hard to argue that the benefits outweighed the costs. It's hardly slowed Iran or North Korea as they can count on the US being stretched thin by two unsuccesful operations.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:10 am Post subject:

Quote:

Hold off for what? Where's the proof?

I have a weekly standard article but I want something better

Quote:

Nice trim. Please reread the original articles, especially the part I quoted. to whit:

Were they weapons

Quote:

If those aren't weapons, I don't know what are.

Well what did the US have them for? Were they weapons in the US? When the US had them they were not biological weapons and they were not chemcial weapons.

That is the first time I have seen that the US sold VX to Iraq. If that is the case them I am in error. I am going to double check that.

Quote:

So you would approve sales of cryptography to China? Centrifuges to Iran? They aren't weapons. What's the point of having the state sponsors of terror list?

Of course not. However you are saying more than what is there.

But the US gave weapons to Stalin. Was that wrong?

Quote:

How many deaths do they get before being called to the carpet? How many have died in Sudan? Aren't they about to their limit yet?

Yes but Saddam had a geo political agenda and also Iraq was strategic and he was at war w/ the US

Quote:

What war was that?

Saddam tried to kill a US president. Saddam shot at US planes. Saddam massed troops for an invasion of Kuwait in 1995. He regime funded suicide bombers that killed US citizens in Israel and his regime taught hate and incited violence.

Peaceful acts?

Quote:

Well if the US wins in Iraq then it will have the stratgic ability to force midast regimes to kill AQ supporters. Mideast regimes are good at doing that sort of thing if they need to.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject:

Alias wrote:

So the Senate report is wrong? Confused

How do you know it isn't?

Just like the intelligence reports that Saddam had WMD's or the reports about those memos on Bush's National Guard service?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject:

huffdaddy wrote:

Back to the OP....

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

So even though Saddam rejected Al Qaeda's overtures,

Are you sure?

It's hard to prove a negative. But I'll take the word of the 9/11 Commission. Remember the OP? You've yet to show any proof that there was a deal.

[.

What deal? Mr Rhhee was saying there WERE contacts.

Alias

Joined: 24 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Alias wrote:

So the Senate report is wrong? Confused

How do you know it isn't?

Just like the intelligence reports that Saddam had WMD's or the reports about those memos on Bush's National Guard service?

Did you lift that from Rush Limbaugh? Wink

In the meantime if the war's supporters/apologists still want to grasp at straws using the most tenuous links, that just makes their argument sound more pathetic. Even the majority of Americans now believe that the Iraq war was a mistake.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject:

[quote="Alias"]

Alias wrote:

So the Senate report is wrong? Confused

No incomplete

Quote:

I wonder how Americans would answer this question : Is the middle east the way it is a strategic threat to the US?

Alias

Joined: 24 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:37 pm Post subject:

Do you think the wording of that question will get the answer that you want?

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:09 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

Hold off for what? Where's the proof?

I have a weekly standard article but I want something better

Are you refering to this article?

Quote:

Saddam's al Qaeda Connection
From the September 1 / September 8, 2003 issue: The evidence mounts, but the administration says surprisingly little.
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/01/2003, Volume 008, Issue 48

Which alleges contact and links between 1992 and 1998. Not sure how much it contributed to 9/11 though. Is Bush just waiting until October to drop his intel?

Quote:

Nice trim. Please reread the original articles, especially the part I quoted. to whit:

Were they weapons

Quote:

If those aren't weapons, I don't know what are.

Well what did the US have them for? Were they weapons in the US? When the US had them they were not biological weapons and they were not chemcial weapons.

Anthrax isn't a weapon? I'm not sure what semantic level you're working on, but anthrax is most definitely a weapon. Especially in the hands of a guy like Saddam. Why else would they sell him anthrax?

Quote:

So you would approve sales of cryptography to China? Centrifuges to Iran? They aren't weapons. What's the point of having the state sponsors of terror list?

Of course not. However you are saying more than what is there.

That the US aided and abetted Saddam? How is that not true?

Quote:

But the US gave weapons to Stalin. Was that wrong?

A much more complicated picture, but probably not. It helped keep the Russia in the war and prevented Hitler from concentrating on the Western front. It was probably also significant in Russia not marching all the way into Paris at the end, when they had the ability to do so. Thus free states stayed that way. Getting involved in Saddam versus Khomeni didn't really serve to protect any crucial interests - it only served to maintain two despots hold on power.

Quote:

What war was that?

Any interesting article on whether or not Saddam really tried to assassinate B*sh -

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02

Anyways, I'm not going to line up a defense for Saddam, but does all this justify a trillion dollar war? What about KAL007? A lot of American deaths were incured before we entered WWII. You don't just start expensive wars over minor infractions.

Quote:

Well if the US wins in Iraq then it will have the stratgic ability to force midast regimes to kill AQ supporters. Mideast regimes are good at doing that sort of thing if they need to.

Even if the US can get Iraq in line (knock on wood), it's not going to be much of a deterent to other regimes.

The one questions I want answered is this: Given your support for the Patriot Act, shouldn't Reagan, B*sh Sr., Rumsfeld, et al be held to the same standards you wish on everyone else? Namely guilt by association, and guilty until proven innocent.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:12 am Post subject:

Alias wrote:

Do you think the wording of that question will get the answer that you want?

Confused

It might.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe