|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
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 |
| Quote: |
| 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? |
No actually it is another article.
Were they weapons
| Quote: |
| 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 |
?
In the hands of Saddam it probably was. However when the US had it is what used for research for protecting livestock.
when the US had it's use was not a weapon.
| Quote: |
| That the US aided and abetted Saddam? How is that not true? |
The US gave FAR less help to Saddam than did Russia , France or Germany.
And the US was doing it cause Saddam was fighing against another fascist.
France and Russia just sold him stuff to make money.
As I said the US helped Stalin too.
[
| Quote: |
| 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. |
maybe it could have knocked one of them out. It kept them pinned down for years.
And Khomeni was attacking the US - blowing up marine barricks in Lebanon, kidnappings . other terror. All the while he was trying to conquer the mid east.
Khoemni was attacking the US - doing something against him was at least understandable.
[
Any interesting article on whether or not Saddam really tried to assassinate B*sh -
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Well if Saddam gave up his war then there would have been no war. Besides the US had to contain Saddam .
Well this article says it better than me
| Quote: |
The sanctions exist only because Saddam Hussein has refused for 12 years to honor the terms of a cease-fire he himself signed. In any case, the United Nations and the United States allow Iraq to sell enough oil each month to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians. Hussein diverts these resources. Hussein murders the babies.
But containment enables the slaughter. Containment kills.
The slaughter of innocents is the worst cost of containment, but it is not the only cost of containment.
Containment allows Saddam Hussein to control the political climate of the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can shoot at U.S. planes. He can mobilize his troops near Kuwait. He can support terrorists and destabilize his neighbors. The United States must respond to these provocations.
Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money.
The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.
The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.
But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia.
This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no Sept. 11 |
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Military bases in the mideast can reach them all. the US could even start assassinating mideast elites.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
I don't understand your question 100% but the answer is no .
Cause they are not fascist bigots. Khomeni supporters , Bathists and Al Qaeda supporters are. Because of what they stand for and what they seek to achieve they are not entitled to the same level of rights that others are. There is no moral equivalence . What they fight for is different I don't know why you are trying to argue for it |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JRGR wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
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? |
In the hands of Saddam it probably was. However when the US had it is what used for research for protecting livestock.
when the US had it's use was not a weapon. |
And what did the US think he was going to do with it? Research cattle disease? I mean sure, a lot of civilian use materials can be made into war materials. But anthrax isn't exactly the kind of thing you put in the hands of a guy like Saddam.
Most everything else is a repeat of the other thread I responded to.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| 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. |
I don't understand your question 100% but the answer is no. |
Restated: If we held Reagan et al. to the standards of the Patriot Act, weren't they terrorists?
| Quote: |
| Cause they are not fascist bigots. Khomeni supporters , Bathists and Al Qaeda supporters are. Because of what they stand for and what they seek to achieve they are not entitled to the same level of rights that others are. There is no moral equivalence . What they fight for is different I don't know why you are trying to argue for it |
Selling weapons to Saddam and Khomeni would make one liable under the Partiot Act though, right? Or are thy exempt because they did it in the name of "democracy"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And what did the US think he was going to do with it? Research cattle disease? I mean sure, a lot of civilian use materials can be made into war materials. But anthrax isn't exactly the kind of thing you put in the hands of a guy like Saddam. |
Yes , you are right except you ought to have said the US gave him stuff that he used for weapons.
| Quote: |
| Restated: If we held Reagan et al. to the standards of the Patriot Act, weren't they terrorists? |
why?
| Quote: |
| Selling weapons to Saddam and Khomeni would make one liable under the Partiot Act though, right? Or are thy exempt because they did it in the name of "democracy"? |
I don't think the Patriot act covers that kind of stuff.
But the answer is no. Becuase the US did it to force Khomeni to give up his war. Khomeni was attacking the US and trying to conquer the gulf as well
The US didn't do it for democracy they did it cause Khomeni was an enemy.
At the very least understandable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And what did the US think he was going to do with it? Research cattle disease? I mean sure, a lot of civilian use materials can be made into war materials. But anthrax isn't exactly the kind of thing you put in the hands of a guy like Saddam. |
Yes , you are right except you ought to have said the US gave him stuff that he used for weapons. |
Oh, ok. And box cutters are just tools. As I said, semantics.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Restated: If we held Reagan et al. to the standards of the Patriot Act, weren't they terrorists? |
why? |
Selling weapons to one country on the state sponsors of terrorism list. Removing another country off of the state sponsors of terrorism list for the sole purpose of selling them weapons. That sort of thing isn't forbidden by the Patriot Act? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Oh, ok. And box cutters are just tools. As I said, semantics. |
Why not phase it as accurately as possible
| Quote: |
| Selling weapons to one country on the state sponsors of terrorism list. Removing another country off of the state sponsors of terrorism list for the sole purpose of selling them weapons. That sort of thing isn't forbidden by the Patriot Act? |
That is not part of the Patriot act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
As I said was the US wrong to support Stalin against Hitler? I don't think so.
Iran was after the US and killing Americans while trying to conquer the gulf.
What ought the US do just take it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
A Saddam-Al Quaida alliance claims were always utterly preposterous. Saddam ran a largely secular dictatorship--Baathism being the "religion" of the day--Al Quaida is anything but secular!!! They thought him as a godless fool. They were natural enemies since Al Quaida getting a foothold in Iraq by attempting to exploit religious divisions would have been a huge threat to Saddam's grip on power--like he was going to roll over and let that happen.
Those were ridiculous claims coming from ridiculous people looking for ridiculous excuses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Commission confirms links
By Stephen J. Hadley
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite is true. The staff report documents such links.
The staff report concludes that:
�Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan."
�"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."
�"Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan."
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.
President Bush and members of his administration have said all along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised troubling questions.
For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda for years. Zarqawi's network helped establish and operate an explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the fall of Saddam's regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good" and that Baghdad could be transited quickly.
It may be that all of the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda never resulted in joint terrorist attacks. But considering all that we knew, no responsible leader could take for granted that such a collaboration would never happen.
Saddam had threatened American interests for more than a decade, harbored and assisted other terrorists, and possessed and used weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda had declared war on America, and bin Laden had called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction to attack Americans a "religious duty."
The president did not order the liberation of Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. He sent American troops to Iraq to remove a grave and gathering threat to America's security. Because he acted, Iraq is free, and America and the world are safer. |
Stephen J. Hadley is deputy national security adviser to President Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stephen J. Hadley is deputy national security adviser to President Bush.
.....and he glosses over the fact that they were totally tenuous. Why not investigate that links further to prove the case for war? I'm sure the admin would be doing that now if they thought it would help. But no.
Senate report states that there were NO LINKS between AQ and Saddam.
Enough said |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. |
what were the contacts about? To give to the united way? Besides the sentete report dealt with Al Zaquair. Not other stuff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mere contact between two groups does not mean they were conspiring to commit some sort of act. Do you know the content of the tenous contacts? Remember the alleged Prague meeting to plan 9-11? Turned out to be bull.
Anyway, Senate report states that there were NO LINKS between AQ and Saddam. Enough said |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Alias"]
| Quote: |
| Mere contact between two groups does not mean they were conspiring to commit some sort of act. Do you know the content of the tenous contacts? Remember the alleged Prague meeting to plan 9-11? Turned out to be bull. |
for what reason would Al Qaeda and Saddam' regime have contracts
| Quote: |
| Anyway, Senate report states that there were NO LINKS between AQ and Saddam. Enough said |
They were talking about Al Zaqari.
Again:
| Quote: |
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
