Powell on Iraq

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Funny, that's almost exactly the same question I'm asking of Powell, Rumsfeld, Bush, et. al. Except I'm asking for evidence to indicate that there is a direct link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

So far all I have is their say so. Enough compelling questions have been raised by the media to dispute a direct link. The Bush administration has yet to present to the American public concrete evidence to support their assertion.

Until they do, I'm left to believe that this *supposed* link to al Qaeda is no different than the single bullet fired at the Maddox which prompted then President Johnson to exclaim, "We've been attacked by the North Vietnamese."

Get it?

No. I damn well don't. Powell presented the evidence. You just don't believe it. You want more proof. What, you want 8x10 glossys of Sadam and Bin Laden having a romantic dinner? Because other than that the only evidence you are likely to get is when Al Qaeda uses a WMD suplied by Iraq on US soil. You say "Enough compelling questions have been raised by the media to dispute a direct link." Oh realy? I've been following this issue non stop and what I'm seeing is more and more support even from many Dems who have changed their mind. Not one major news outlet has disputed powells claims. And on the matter of character, I hold Powell in the highest regard. Of course ther is no accounting for morons like Kenedy but hey, If you want to join in with that crowd who am I to say you should not.:doh:

[Sarge]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Funny, that's almost exactly the same question I'm asking of Powell, Rumsfeld, Bush, et. al. Except I'm asking for evidence to indicate that there is a direct link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

You liberals kill me. Why must you have concrete proof? Why can't you just take the administrations word for it? The previous administrations word was good enough when clinton sent us to Yugoslvia, why isn't this administrations word good enough now? Why is it everyone was so willing to take clintons word for everything, all while he let all of our nuclear secrets go to the Chicoms for a few hundred grand to the DNC?

How much more do you need? I mean damn, the only way to break it down any dumber would be to draw it in friggin' crayon. Any further disclosure would comprise our HUMIT (human intelligence). That means someone on the ground in Iraq that's on our side would be taken out. Is that an acceptable price to pay so you, some limp dicked liberals and some euro weenies can have your proof? Do the lives of people with more balls than all of you put together mean so little, just so your curiousity can be satisfied? Grow the hell up and join the real world pal. I'm one of the one's that will be going to war. If I have no problem going on what has been presented so far, why the hell do you?

[redman]

Originally posted by TheKurp

I have no issue with the photo. I think it's credible.

What I have issue with is the assertion that Saddam is responsible for a terrorist camp which is located in a territory outside of his control.

What are you talking about "outside his control"? The camp is in Iraq. WTF?

[fansince62]

kurp....I rather like the track you're headed on....stick to your guns. Nevertheless, to borrow your line of reasoning, why on earth should I accept Michael O'Hanlon as an unbiased source of dispassionate argument? Why on earth would I ever accept an instituition with obvious political leanings like the Brookings Institute as an unbiased source of information? It would seem to me, given the relative lack of fcatual data that is available publicly, that your arguments can be levied at all parties. You appear to prefer a certain cadre of writers over others. I found nothing compelling in O'Hanlon's diatribe - and the language was clearly not temperate in his piece. This seems nothing so much as a "pick your poison" situation.

As for your position on questioning the veracity of government controlled information....well....none of us can dispute that it should be questioned (in my opinion). That's what citizens are supposed to do. I would extend your point, however, to all information sources. And I would also toss in the pejorative point you have been trying to score that individuals from any walk-of-life might wilffully "bend" the facts to support an objective. All of this, of course, concerns the process for generating information and not the specific instance of whether Al Queda in fcat has any ties to Iraq. I happen to agree with Art that that is a chimera in terms of the go/no-go decision process and one the administration could have avoided. But, it's not critical at this point if the focus is on WMDs, Iraq's treaty violations and intransigence. You have already stated that you support the policy on these grounds so there isn't as much room for debate here as appears at first blush.

In the event, I did ask in an earlier post what your criteria were for determining an unbiased information source. It's an important question and one you should address if your core thought is that information should be assessed based on the objectives, political disposition or job title of the deliverer.

[TheKurp]

Redman,

The al Qaeda terrorist camp is in Kurd territory. Suddam does not have political control over this area, except of course to bomb the hell out of them with chemical weapons and other means of mass destruction.

If anything, we should hold the Kurds responsible for al Qaeda's presence in Iraq. Of course that would not be politically prudent since we're counting on them as an ally when we remove Saddam from power.

FanSince62,

I think you're finally in tune with my reasoning. Just about everyone else, save Art, has responded emotionally with very little objectivity sprinkled in.

You ask:

In the event, I did ask in an earlier post what your criteria were for determining an unbiased information source. It's an important question and one you should address if your core thought is that information should be assessed based on the objectives, political disposition or job title of the deliverer.

The Bush administration has asserted for many months that there's a direct link between Saddam and al Qaeda. The push to prove this is obvious. Al Qaeda is the hated enemy of everyone in the world who denounces their attack on the World Trade Center. Proving a direct link between Saddam and al Qaeda would be a public relations coup that would spike world opinion heavily in favor of America's intention to go to war with Iraq. However without any proof of Saddam's direct collaboration with al Qaeda, support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, here and abroad, would remain a smidgen above lukewarm.

Powell revealed nothing new in his address to the United Nations regarding Saddam's involvement with al Qaeda. Nothing that hasn't been known for months and already questioned as a tenious link at best. None-the-less, Powell took advantage of his world stage and presented the information. To those who had not closely followed the intelligence reports over the past few months, the al Qaeda - Saddam link sounded like emerging information. It was not.

My entry into this thread was directly in response to Mad Mike's post in which he leaned heavily on Saddam's link to al Qaeda in arguing for war against Iraq. I wished to present what I believe to be valid points that question whether that link is in fact, true. Mad Mike and others took umbrage, sometimes sticking to the issue I raised, at other times wandering off course.

You asked by what criteria do I choose to believe or not believe information that is presented. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I try to base my opinions on unbiased data. Obviously, as I earlier pointed out, the U.S. is not unbiased in presenting its case for a Saddam - al Qaeda link. Therefore until more solid evidence is produced to establish that link, I'll view it with skepticism.

The rest of Powell's presentation to the U.N. was largely comprised of information gleaned by the U.N. inspection team in Iraq. Obviously the make-up of the inspection team, meaning members from many different countries, renders the information gathered unbiased, almost by definition. It is this information that has solidified my stance in supporting Bush in his quest to use our military to remove Saddam from power.

You ask:

...why on earth should I accept Michael O'Hanlon as an unbiased source of dispassionate argument? Why on earth would I ever accept an instituition with obvious political leanings like the Brookings Institute as an unbiased source of information?

Fair enough. Here's a Reuters' source. Choose to digest however you feel appropriate.

Powell Speech Will Not Focus on Qaeda-Iraq Linking

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence on alleged links between al Qaeda and Iraq is fragmentary and open to interpretation and will only be a small part of Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites)'s presentation to the United Nations, U.S. officials said on Tuesday.

"It's not the centerpiece," one official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

President Bush and Powell have hinted at evidence connecting Iraq to al Qaeda as the administration prepares to make a high-stakes bid to convince allies and the public that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein poses a grave danger.

The United States is amassing military forces in the Gulf in preparation for a possible war if Iraq does not disarm suspected biological and chemical weapons. Iraq says it does not have such weapons and has no link to al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America that killed about 3,000 people, so a convincing tie between Osama bin Laden's network and the Iraqi government could sway opinion toward the U.S. viewpoint.

But a solid link has not materialized.

The pieces on which the United States is trying to build a case for an al Qaeda-Iraq link include information that Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected bin Laden lieutenant, received medical treatment in Baghdad last summer.

While there is no evidence that Zarqawi was connected with any top official in the Iraqi regime, Powell will talk about the Jordanian's alleged ties to "poison networks" throughout Europe, a U.S. official told Reuters.

Those groups include one in Britain discovered with the ricin poison, and others in Spain and several other countries linked to other poisons, the official said.

Ansar al-Islam, which operates from Kurdish-held northern Iraq, is also suspected of having ties to al Qaeda, but it is unclear whether Saddam has control over the group.

Beyond Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam, "there are little snippets of information here and there. What one makes of it is open to interpretation," another U.S. official said.

U.S. intelligence agencies have not found proof of an Iraqi tie to the Sept. 11 attacks, nor evidence indicating Saddam gave financial support or weapons to al Qaeda, officials said.

U.S. spy agencies have also been unable to verify a rumored meeting between Mohamed Atta, the suspected ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague in April 2001, months before the attacks.

"You have fragmentary, sketchy, often ambiguous reporting. And if one is motivated to take it in different directions, one could take it in different directions," one official said.

NO GRAND CONCLUSION

"I think it's already established that there have been contacts, the question is how far, how deep does this go? And then what kind of pieces could you draw from that in terms of how much more might take place from that in the future -- that's really the issue here," the official said.

"And as is often the case, the intelligence itself doesn't take you to any grand conclusion like that," the official said.

Powell, accompanied to the United Nations by CIA Director George Tenet, will mainly focus on what the United States believes are Iraq's attempts to hide weapons of mass destruction and deceive weapons inspectors, officials said.

He was expected to use newly declassified satellite photos and play recordings of intercepted conversations among Iraqi officials to make a case that Baghdad was not forthcoming as required by U.N. resolutions, U.S. officials said.

But Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, again disputed U.S. assertions that Iraq was trying to foil inspectors by moving around equipment before they arrived.

Blix said he had reports but no evidence of mobile laboratories. "We have never found one," he told reporters.

Stanley Bedlington, a former CIA counterterrorism analyst, said al Qaeda and Saddam are not natural bedfellows and he has seen no evidence linking the two.

"There is ample evidence that the two don't like each other," Bedlington said. "Osama bin Laden wants to lead the Muslim world, Saddam Hussein wants to lead the Arab world."

Daniel Benjamin, co-author of "The Age of Sacred Terror" and senior fellow at The Center for Strategic and International Studies, also dismissed assertions of an Iraq-al Qaeda link.

"The administration has tapped back and forth on this issue several times, playing it up, playing it down, and never delivering the information. It's a somewhat mystifying exercise," he said.

There were more cases of al Qaeda members transiting Iran than transiting Iraq after the U.S.-led bombing of Afghanistan, Benjamin said. "Neither government to my knowledge was substantively cooperating with al Qaeda."

[fansince62]

kurp....I know where you're coming from although from the opposite side of the fence! I can sometimes fall into kaniptions when reading what I feel is obviously bogus or manipulative thinking on the part of those I happen to disagree with.

one side note.....it seems you are saying in your response that when information is generated by a body composed of individuals who (by assumption) represent differing points-of-view, one is more likely to receive an unbiased product (i.e., balanced) teams, of course, have political dynamics and there is usually a team lead ultimately charged with releasing statements so I'm not sure that organizational structure and team constitution alone is enough.

I think we can both agree that an indpendent review board of some sort is what is needed. unfortunately, that's usually not practical.

[codeorama]

The following article brings up some issues that I hadn't given a great deal of thought before in the way the writer presents it, however, it does support the idea that I have had regarding terrorism... It will continue with or with out Saddam. If action is taken, it is possible (I am not saying I agree or disagree) that it could have even worse affects..

Whose Smoking Gun?

Powell's evidence shouldn't mean war.

By Robert Wright

Posted Friday, February 7, 2003, at 10:02 AM PT

Iraq hawks are troubled by the failure of some Americans to fall in line behind President Bush after Wednesday's impressive performance by Colin Powell. Now that Powell has so clearly shown that Iraq has illegal weapons, they ask, how could anyone argue for continuing United Nations weapons inspections, rather than just fast forwarding to war? Actually, it's not as hard as you'd think.

Powell did produce what, for my purposes, was a "smoking gun," showing beyond doubt that Iraq has failed to fess up to possession of, at the very least, chemical weapons. If we invade Iraq, few Americans will now claim that we're doing it over trumped up charges. Then again, it isn't the American reaction to an invasion that I'm concerned about. It's the reaction in the Muslim world. Various terrorist groups—and not just al-Qaida—will try to use the war to boost recruiting, and I'd like to make their job as hard as possible.

In parts of the Muslim world, needless to say, the United States faces credibility problems. So, an American official isn't as convincing as a U.N. official. And, for that matter, a photograph in New York that in theory could have been doctored by anyone with a computer isn't as convincing as tons of chemical weapons sitting in Iraq, being videotaped by the world's press corps while Iraqi officials stammer that the existence of this particular stockpile had slipped their mind.

The hawks' reply is predictable: The world's anti-American Muslims will hate us no matter what, are impervious to any evidence that favors us, and so on. In the case of already ardently anti-American Muslims, there may be something to this claim. But I'm not talking about how these Muslims will react to a war. (I personally doubt that the short-run terrorist blowback will be great.) What I'm mainly talking about is the coming generation—the Muslim teenagers whom terrorists would like to recruit, but who are still a few steps shy of this fork in their road; teenagers whose life course could depend on precisely how deep their sense of injustice is upon seeing videotape of Iraqi civilians killed by American bombs. I have no idea how many teenagers in the Muslim world fit this description, but it's hard to believe that, out of more than a billion Muslims, the number would be trivial.

I'm not arguing against disarmament, or regime change, or forcefully overhauling Iraqi's government and putting it on the path to democracy. I'm arguing about how we achieve these things. (In a recent New York Times op-ed, I contended that all these things can be had by going through the United Nations—yes, complete with France's assent—and might even be had without war.) And I'm saying that even if getting these things entails war, as it probably will, the more undeniable the smoking gun—especially in the eyes of those who mistrust America—the fewer American lives we'll lose in the long run. (Note that my point is unfazed by arguments that successful American wars, as in Afghanistan, are actually a blow to al-Qaida recruiting on balance. Even in that optimistic scenario of net benefit, there will be some Muslims radicalized by war—and the fewer the better.)

It's depressing that, so far as I can tell, none of the many pro-war op-eds written since the Powell speech have acknowledged, even in passing, this simple point: that there are various kinds of "smoking guns"—the kind that convince Americans and America's friends and the kind that convince the various other constituencies on the planet. If there's a single lesson we should have learned from Sept. 11, it's that, like it or not, the court of world opinion matters to America as never before.

After the Powell presentation, the hawkish Washington Post editorial page said, "it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction." Talk about a failure of imagination.

[Mad Mike]

Code the guy who wrote that is in dream land and so are you. He says...

I'm not arguing against disarmament, or regime change, or forcefully overhauling Iraqi's government and putting it on the path to democracy. I'm arguing about how we achieve these things. (In a recent New York Times op-ed, I contended that all these things can be had by going through the United Nations—yes, complete with France's assent—and might even be had without war.)

Oh yeah? HOW? It is total bullsh!t to say we should not to something one way without showing how it can be done another.

Furthermore I find his use of the word "hawk" very informative. Note that he uses the word as a catch all for anyone who supports the war, be they strong supporters or reluctant. The guy is an extremist nut.

Someone tell me where these fruitcakes are when a country like Iraq invades another country, pilages their resources, tortures the population and rapes their women?

[Jagsbch]

Oil is not going to last forever or let alone for the rest of this century at the rate we are absorbing it. Until we can get technology up to speed to the point where oil is worthless then No way can we have a freak like Sadumbass controlling a huge fraction of the worlds oil supplies. I am not convince that Oil has nothing to do with this war.

With the UN inspections moving right along at a snails pace mind you I think I would land my troops right in the heart of the Palestinian and Israeli boarder and focus on the terrorism there it's a hot bed, then wait for an opportunity for Sadumbass to really blow it and send in the troops to wipe him out. But right now we look like a bunch of oil grubbing bullies going in for Sadumbass in the name of terrorism in the eye's of a lot of Muslims. They are definitely not the brightest bulbs on the shelf, and seeing the oil Tycoon from Texas pacing back and forth at the boarder of Iraq is not convincing them especially when you have Sadumbass pulling off one of the greatest weapon disappearing acts ever.

I think that Bush is just as surprised as the rest of the world is that the inspectors with all of our satellites and intelligent resources have still not been able to find any WMD. Sadumbass is winning the game and until we can find these weapons, our efforts to take him down could very well indeed back fire on us. I mean once we are in whats to stop Sadumbass from going into hiding and dumping his arsenal on his own people when they elect to have a new government. Looks like the enemy tribes from the north are going to be the ones taking over. Any way he has shown by the destruction of the Kuwait oil fields that if he can't have it no one else can, this ploy of ridding Sadumbass from Iraq mind boggling to me as anything This to me is a no win situation at the moment we must be patient. Putting our troops in this high of a risk at this time is just not cutting it for me. I say we wait atleast 6 months by then we should closing in on the weapons with all of our resources. We are playing Sadumbass' game what we need to do is just play it better. This is a UN issue and if we go in without their consent why in the hell have the UN in place. This really makes no sense to me. It's one thing to be a leader but this is turning into a cluster*****

---------------------------------------------------------------

WILLIAMSBURG, Virginia (CNN) --

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Saturday that the issue of Iraqi disarmament is "not for any one state but for the international community as a whole," and urged the United States to seek consensus before taking military action against Baghdad.

ElBaradei called Thursday's interview "a step in the right direction." There was no immediate confirmation of Friday's interviews from U.N. officials.

_____________________________________

You see Sadumbass is winning the game he has tied the UN’s hands with the suttle progress he is making with the inspections. The US has some support but without the UN this could very well indeed be a PR debacle. Sure we can go in technically but a technicle argument is not as good as having the evidence of Sadumbass actually possessing WMD’s. Until he does I think Bush must wait for UN consensus. It’s one thing to have This freak against us but the whole Muslim nation as well as other countries like Germany, China, France...

Bottom line if we are going to take on a war of this scale let’s go through the proper channels and exhaust any other means to the end of ridding Saddumbass from power. Patients is a virtue. Once we cross the line their is no turning back, we are virtually at that point now so while their is still time we must gain more support and allow the UN inspectors more time and resources to get the Job Done. Double and tripple their resources what's to stop us from doing that. I say Send in an 10, 20, 30 or even 100 armies of inspectors, We created the Game and Saddumbass is winning, it’s time to turn the tide with the Mind not Might.

--------------------------------------------

"War is never a first or an easy choice, but the risks of war have to be balanced against the risks of doing nothing, while Iraq pursues the tools of mass destruction."

"The stakes are high -- Iraq is now defying the 17th U.N. Security Council resolution," Rumsfeld said. "Seventeen times the United Nations has drawn a line in the sand, and 17 times Iraq has crossed it.

"The resolution which passed unanimously did not say the next-to-final opportunity, it said the final opportunity. Those who voted for it knew what it said."

---------------------------------

We have to find the WMD before we invade. That will silence the Majority of the critics. The Inspectors are in there making progress, as long as the progress is occuring we have no reason to put our American Soldiers in harms way, We absolutely have to have the weapons in hand before we attack. We need more inspectors to speed up the proccess. War seems inevitable but lets not go in their with our pants down thats really all I am saying. Until Bush has the WMD in hand What's to stop the Muslims who are in the dark to accuse us of Killing civilians of Iraq for oil.

With all the Muslim freaks that are in this nation I really think we should be patient, this move could do more to trigger an all out assault on us by Muslims, who are laying dormant than anything else. The religion is nothing more than a virus on humanity, a virus filled with fear and hate we need to try and erradicate it not provoke it. This is a highly delicate situation; One that need's to be administered by wisdom and patients.

[Mad Mike]

With all the Muslim freaks that are in this nation I really think we should be patient, this move could do more to trigger an all out assault on us by Muslims, who are laying dormant than anything else.

No excuse was needed for 9/11. The radicals will attack us no matter what we do.

[Jagsbch]

Not saying that it won't happen one way or the other but while we have Iraq on the run let's put our foot on the gas with the inspections with more inspectors. We need to excersize every option available to avoid war. If we play our cards right and find the WMD's then the people of Iraq may throw him out to avoid the casualty of war from being launched on them. They will know that war is inevitable then, when the UN is behind the effort. Right now the people of Iraq are banking on Sadumbass. If we can get them to pull their support away from him and avoid a war then we win without exposing our troops to the hell of biological warfare.

The threat of local Muslims are not the reason to stand down, I just don't like the idea of us provoking the sleepers who may be oon the fence. We need the WMD before The UN will support the war effort, and when it does the people of Iraq will have no choice but to rid themselves of their leader so they can avoid being guided into a war they know they cannot win. We must be patient, We must send in many more inspectors to speed up the proccess.

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Jagsbch

Not saying that it won't happen one way or the other but while we have Iraq on the run let's put our foot on the gas with the inspections with more inspectors. We need to excersize every option available to avoid war. If we play our cards right and find the WMD's then the people of Iraq may throw him out to avoid the casualty of war from being launched on them. They will know that war is inevitable then, when the UN is behind the effort. Right now the people of Iraq are banking on Sadumbass. If we can get them to pull their support away from him and avoid a war then we win without exposing our troops to the hell of biological warfare.

The threat of local Muslims are not the reason to stand down, I just don't like the idea of us provoking the sleepers who may be oon the fence. We need the WMD before The UN will support the war effort, and when it does the people of Iraq will have no choice but to rid themselves of their leader so they can avoid being guided into a war they know they cannot win. We must be patient, We must send in many more inspectors to speed up the proccess.

1) The people of Iraq are not going to do squat. They only know what saddam tells them. Their own family members are killed by Sadam, you think they would not have removed him by now if they could. I'm sick of this wishfull thinking argument. It's a lie.

2) We have been patient for 12 years. How many inspectors would it take in a country the size of california where the government is actively hiding the WMD? How much longer do they stay? And if by some miricle they were succesfull in disarming Sadam how long do you think it would be befor he rebuilt his programs after the inspectors leave? Another damn pipe dream.

Get your head out of the sand.

[Jagsbch]

To think that war is an end all for the problems we face in Iraq now that is a pipe dream.

If we have to result to going to war all I am saying is that let us do it in as politically correct manner as we can.

You say we have been patient for 12 years great what is another 6 months going to hurt, why rush in all of a sudden in a mad paranoid rush with out getting our ducks in a row first.

Why not sending in a few thousand more inspectors? You'd think that having to search a country the size of California you'd do it with as many inspectors as possible.

What is wrong with actually finding these weapons before we attack. Why not wait? Why the Mad rush... especially when the UN is not even in consensus. When we find the weapons regardless of concensus we should move in but until I say we wait. This is war we are talking about here. some little girls dad is going to die someones brother is going to die there are so many sensetive issues at stake to take on such an enormous task with out the tact of Consensus Protocol.

Concesus is the key to going to war without WMD being in the hands of the inspectors with out it I fear that this move will be imature.

[Mad Mike]

What is wrong with actually finding these weapons before we attack.

Yeah, that must have been hair spray Iraq used on Iran and the Kurds. You people who want a "smoking gun" kill me.

AND

According to the UN resolution, it is not our responsibility to find the WMD. It is Iraqs responsibility to turn them over.

AND

Don't tell me about someones father putting their lives at risk. MY father fought in Vietnam. Every gerneration faces hard choices and tasks. It's not pleasant but it is reality.

Iraq has thumbed it's nose at us for 12 years, they attempted to assasinate a US president and they are harboring terrorists. If we dont have the balls to stand up to them we don't deserve the freedom we take for granted.

[Jagsbch]

This is not a matter of Balls. We have the balls there is no question there. Though this war may very well indeed be unavoidable, Premature ejeculation is? It's obvious that Bush and Blair have a hardon for Saddumbass, but we have to initiate the proper sequence foreplay for this horrendous affair. There are alot of players involved, this is not a wam bam thank you mam affair. The inspectors have just came in on the scene, this is the second date so what do you suggest pounce him while your at the dinner table in the middle of the dinning room, in front of everybody while they are still eating the information coming in, it hasn't even began to digest. Main course is still being served we haven't had dessert let alone a dance. This is the second date, let us let it take it's course before we shack up for the nite;)

[Mad Mike]

To use your play on words, we've had 12 years of foreplay. But enough of the stupid euphemisms, they make light of a subject that deserves more respect and have no relavance to actual events. You are in la,la land.

The inspectors have just come in FOR THE SECOND TIME, and ONLY BECAUSE SADAM KNOWS WE ARE SERIOUS. He's playing games again and you like some obedient dog are falling for it. Tell me, how does it feel to be played like a violin?

[Jagsbch]

Mike I want to see this guy go down as much as the next guy, personally i don't need convincing He has to go down forget Asylum.

But we have to have something in our hands to say to the rest of the world see this is why we are going in they still have WMD. There are too many idiots out there who need to see it, before they can condone it. It is the reaction of of those people towards us that I will regret more if we go into this thing prematurely.

We have waited this long for him to disarm, and he has done nothing out of the ordinary in recent history to provoke an attack, this will fuel the minds of alot of peopleas well as freaks when the images of war come into play. This my friend will do more to provoke the sleepers than anything. This could create a chain reation of apacolyptic proportions. All I am saying is can we have concrete and visible evidence to show the world before they have to entertain the images that will be forced on to them to stirr up even more of an unbridlled hatred towards us.

This is a world issue. When our motives are being critisized to the point where we are looked upon as a bunch of thugs rather than terror police then we have to take a few steps back. Our political campaign for this battle is not popular with the majority. I think we ought to really watch our backs we can't afford to allow Saddumass turn our allies into enemies.

This battle with IRAQ is a Battle we may win on the field but lose off of it if we are not careful. The civilians are forced for the most part into compliance to their government and their casualty will be great, and it will be highly fround upon by the rest of the world who are opposed to the rush to Battle approach Bush's campaign is taking in the war against terrorism.

Saddumass would like nothing more than to appear the victim in this assualt by the US. We can't afford to allow him to win a battle off the field that he has lost on the field.

Personally I don't like the way we are dealing with the issue of offering a vehicle for Asylum. If Saudi Arabia is offering asylum then why shouldn't they be a target for harboring a known terrorist supporters. Our willingness to create a vehicle for him to go to Saudi Arabia blows my mind. He could easily utilize his arsenal from their.

--------------------

Foreign Office officials confirmed that Saudi Arabia has offered to take Saddam if he goes into exile. Last month Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said he would be "delighted" if Saddam fled Iraq. "To avoid a war, I would personally recommend that some provision be made so that the senior leadership and their families could be provided haven in some other country," he said.

Ok let me get this straight we are going to provide provisions and safe haven for the senior leadership and their families to some other countries where they can set up their campaign of terror??????

--------------------------------------

Ok Saddumbass flee's to another country via the Pentagon to finish his plan of attack, and we get his OIL. Am I missing something here? When we go in we need to take him out. He has to go down. and so do all of his croanies. I say we go and take him out but as a last resort. We still have a hand to play out with these inspections.

[Sarge]

Jagsbch,

Are you a UN delegate? It sounds as if you are. Tell me why it is you think we must ask the world "Mother, may I?" We are a sovereign country, we don't depend on the rest of the world to make decisions or foreign policy for us, unless you are the clinton administration. And as for your worry about the actual location of the WMDs in Iraq, we already know where a large portion of them are being kept. THey will be one of the first objectives dispatched with extreme prejudice.

[Mad Mike]

This is not us against the world. It is France and Germany vs the world. So far the vote looks like 20 to 4 in favor of our plan. I personally feel no need to prove anything to France and Germany or kiss their @***. France would still be an anex of Germany and they both would be a part of the Soviet Union if it were not for US intervention and action. France and Germany can kiss my lilly white @***. :jerkoff:

[Tarhog]

Jags,

All of the second-guessing and hemming and hawing we are hearing from the likes of France and Germany will be a side-note when we crush Hussein's military. He'll either launch all his chem and bio weapons at us immediately (proving our attack is just to begin with) or we'll find his hidden weapons once we're in control of his military (again proving our point). The resistance to war you are hearing and seeing is a lot less about true concern for peace, and a lot more indicative of a real resentment of the United States. Guess what? NOTHING WE DO is going to make the countries that harbor ill will against us change their mindset. Our best protection (and it was the UNITED STATES that just had 3000 innocent citizens killed and doesn't want more future victims from a nerve agent, smallpox, or anthrax attack) in the short term is to make it clear we will destroy any one who threatens us. We won't be done after Iraq. We are going to deal with North Korea, Iran, and others before all is said and done.

[Sarge]

We won't be done after Iraq. We are going to deal with North Korea, Iran, and others before all is said and done.

Quick everyone, break out your atlas. Look at what country that starts with "I" and ends with "ran" will be surrounded when we are done with Iraq:D Probably makes sense why they decided to announce that they are mining uranium for their nuclear reactor. A little subtle statement brought about by the realization that they are probably next on the ****list. Maybe we know what we are doing afterall

[Jagsbch]

Rate Member

posted 02-09-2003 04:19 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- After two days of talks with Iraqi officials in Baghdad, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Sunday there had been some "good developments" but Iraq still needed to cooperate more with inspectors.

A senior Bush administration official called any change of heart from Iraq "meaningless."

"Resolution 1441 does not call for a change of heart, but for Saddam to prove he is disarming," the official said. "With all due respect to Dr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, it is not the mission of inspectors to negotiate with Iraq, but to verify Iraq is disarming."

Key countries opposed to conflict are also looking at how to proceed. After meeting Sunday with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he saw no reason for military action.

"We are sure that we need to continue all efforts for a peaceful resolution of this crisis," Putin said. "At the moment, we don't see any foundation, any cause for the use of force."

------------------------------------

Lets see here Russia is getting into the act now. How interesting the divide is growing.

NOW YOU SEE WHY I AM TOTALLY FOR GETTING MORE INSPECTORS IN TO SPEED UP THE HIDE AND GO SEEK GAME WE HAVE FOUND OURSELVES IN.

BUSH WANTS TO BE KING, BUT THERE ARE ALOT OF OTHER KINGS WHO ARE ALSO IN THE GAME, WHETHER HE LIKES TO ACCEPT THE FACT OR NOT, THEY ARE SAYING TO WAIT. THIS WEAKENS THE KING PEACES ON THIS SIDE OF THE CHESS BOARD TO A CERTAIN EXTENT BEING AS WATERED DOWN AS IT IS. THE STRUGGLE ON THIS SIDE OF THE BOARD MAKES THE KING ON THE OTHER SIDE LOOK STRONGER. THIS IS WHAT I WISH WE COULD AVOID AT ALL COST. NOW THAT RUSSIA HAS JOINED THE DIVIDE IT JUST MAKES US LOOK THAT MUCH WORSE.

THIS S UCKS. BUSH NEEDS TO BE PATIENT AND USE TACT. THE SMOKE AND MIRROR EFFECT IN PLAY HERE, HAVE TURNED THE TABLE ON BUSH MAKING HIM APPEAR THE TYRANT AND GUESS WHO IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY. WE NEED TO SLOW DOWN. AM I THE ONLY ONE SEEING THIS.

As much as we would all like to see this issue tackled we have to take a stand back. Nobody ELSE really seems to care about resolution 1441, they are playing into Iraq's AS WELL AS THE UN'S hide and go seek game with the WMD. When the UN and CNN are saying things like "good developments" before an invasion this is not good for us.

NO WONDER WE ARE ON HIGH ALERT. AS FAR AS THE WORLD KNOWS IRAQ IS MAKING "GOOD PROGRESS" AND "AMERICA NEEDS TO BE STOPPED". THE MEDIA IS NOT HELPING THE CAUSE AGAINST TERRORISM AND NIETHER IS THE UN AT THE MOMENT. TIME TO HANG ON????????

SOME COUNTRIES ARE JUST LOOKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE US LOOK LIKE BAD GUYS, NOW THAT RUSSIA HAS GOTTEN INTO THE MIX YOU CAN BET THAT CHINA WILL NOT BE TOO FAR BEHIND THE DIVIDE. Their support for North Korea who has WMD and technology that rivals our own no thanks to clinton and an army a million strong and building. Japan is worried sick and so is Taiwan. NK can carry out both short, mid, and long range attacks on the US with WMD. So look for chuina who is also helping Iran with it's nuclear arsenal too oppose us. So between the majority of European population and 100 % of the arab world, along with Russia now Germany, France, northKoerea, south Africa, a few Islands of the pacific coast, I'd say about three quarters of the world are opposed to us moving in at this time. It would be more if we had not Bribed support from other countries.

I am not drunk with the thirst for blood and war. We have been at war since 911 At this time I believe this is a battle we can not win, even if it is won on the battlefield. The civilian casualty will be too enormous to justify an attack. You have to remember these people are forced into submission by fear of the dictator. I think it's the worlds pitty on them that has it's support opposed at this time. Not to say things won't change in the near future, we have to put those weapons in the hands of the inspectors to justify an attack to a majority of the world. Until then we must back off. Pakistan Iran and Saudi Arabia are just as guilty of supporting terrorism.

Having Bush's motives questioned over oil does not help the matter. I mean offering to give safe haven and provisions to Sadams senior staff to set up his terrorist support organization elsewtre has me tripping at his motives myself. They need to go down not supported with provisions by our country in another country to do their dirty work there. It just doesn't make sense and add's to the skeptisism of his motives. This is a very aggrevating subject that effects us all.I voted for Bush to be president, but I had no idea that our government would turn him into a dictator. What good is the Constitution at this point?????????

No I am not with the UN, I am not a democrat or a republican. I tend to have conservative ideals and somewhat of a liberal lifestyle. I truly understand that we have a threat, but I think we have the luxury to be patient for a few months. I can't help that Bush has all of these troops ready for war, I could care a less at the cost sending more troops when his support is shrinking day by day does not help either. He need's to consider backing off the throttle and coasting a while. I better stop posting cause I started drinking... I hope i didn't make too many people upset with my view. Love this country and only want the best for it. I know this battle at this time is not the best thing for us. Why add fuel to an already raging fire AGAINST US.:doh:

God Bless America

[tex]

Al Qaeda’s Opening Shot in Iraq War

DEBKAfile Military-Intelligence Exclusive

February 9, 2003, 5:50 PM (GMT+02:00)

Saturday night, February 8, in the Iraqi-Kurdish city of Suleimaniyeh, al Qaeda and Iraqi military intelligence fired their first shot of the US-Iraq war - by assassination. They used their shared surrogate, the extremist Kurdish Ansar al-Islam of northeast Iraq, to eliminate the top command of the pro-American Patriotic Union of Iraqi Kurdistan’s fighting militia.

The three-way collaboration between Baghdad, al Qaeda and the Kurdish fundamentalist terrorists provided a live and incontrovertible smoking gun. The price was heavy, a grave setback for US war plans.

DEBKAfile’s military analysts compare the murders to the assassination of the Afghan Northern Alliance commander Shah Massoud two days before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

Then, the killers posed as journalists; this time, they pretended to be defectors.

Ansar al Islam, which has been fighting the PUK for two years and whose members trained in Afghanistan, used double agents to convince the Kurdish commanders of this strategic northeastern corner of Iraq that top Ansar commanders were willing to defect. The defectors, it was promised, would bring fresh evidence of the collaboration between Iraqi military intelligence and al Qaeda.

The offer came just after secretary of state Colin Powell spoke of this collaboration at his Security Council presentation of America’s case against Iraq on February 5. According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the Ansar offer was relayed to officers of the US special forces and CIA working alongside the PUK militia. According to some local sources, the Ansar intermediaries also offered to produce captive Iraqi military agents or al Qaeda operatives as hostages.

Suleimaniyah, the hub town of eastern Kurdistan, is also the headquarters of the PUK high command in the region. It is ruled by the PUK leader Jalal Talabani, who has been short-listed in Washington for the post of Iraqi prime minister after Saddam Hussein’s ouster.

Suleimaniyeh also commands the highway from eastern Kurdistan to the important oil town of Kirkuk. The intermediaries’ choice of this city for the Ansar defection was intended to inspire trust. Any defectors guilty of treachery would be at the mercy of the PUK.

Believing they were safe, therefore, the top PUK commanders turned up to await the defectors. Instead of defecting, the Ansar arrivals pulled from their robes Kalashnikov assault guns and grenades. They killed Gen. Shawkat Haji Mushir, PUK leadership member, Hekmat Osman, security chief of the Sirwan district and Sardar Qafoor, military commander of the same district, as well as Sheik Kaffar Mustafa and three civilians. Mohamad Tawfiq, security chief of Halabja was seriously injured.

The Ansar killers used the noise and confusion to make their escape.

DEBKAfile’s counter-terror experts note the features common to these murders and al Qaeda’s assassination of the legendary Northern Alliance leader, Ahmad Shah Massoud, by two suiciders who detonated bomb belts just two days before the Islamic terrorist network struck in New York and Washington. Today it is generally believed that al Qaeda, predicting America’s response to the terror attacks, struck in advance of the Afghanistan War to eliminate America’s most gifted and formidable military ally.

The wiping out the PUK high command in Suleimaniyeh has alerted Western counter-terror agencies to the possibility of its being the precursor for another massive al Qaeda strike against the United States or its allies. Al Qaeda has taken advantage of the presence of its operatives in a given territory to hit pro-American military leaders present in the same place. One such operative is Abu Musaab al Zarqawi, who is in charge of terrorist activity in Europe and the Middle East, as well as the worldwide distribution of the network’s stock of chemical, biological and radioactive weapons. It is therefore possible that the murder of the Kurdish commanders signals the next major al Qaeda outrage.

[Mad Mike]

Jagsbch

Just say no to drinking and posting. That last one was pure nonsense. You are getting farther and farther from reality, and closer and closer to insanity. Bush is the dictator? I hope you have the sense enough to be embarased when you realize what you posted tomorow. :gus: :doh: :shootinth