Considering the level of saber rattling the US has been doing of late. I think the UN should seriously consider taking away the USs nuclear arsenal. They would seem to be more dangerous than anybody else at the moment.
Yes, that's pretty much what he said. Kinda makes sense, the Europeans screwed the Jews over so why should the Palestinians pay? Unfortunately, if you read into the Zionist history, it becomes apparent that no other country appart from Palestine would be acceptable by the Zionists. So much so that the World Zionist Organisation refused to participate in the Evian conference fearing that resettlement of Jews in other nations would reduce the number available for Palestine. I think Ben-Gurion (Israel's first PM and passionate Zionist) summed it up the situation with Zionists in the following words:
"If I knew it would be possible to save all the (Jewish) children in Germany by bringing them to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel (Palestine), then I would opt for the second option."
Make no mistake about it, the USA is the most powerful in military might, the most hypocritical in foreign policy and the most incompetent in political leadership.
Zionism is not a religious issue, its a political one, if that's what you're implying by your post. Many if not all orthodox jews were against Zionism since its origin and some still are. For example, In 1936 the Social Democratic Bund won a sweeping victory in Poland in the Jewish kehilla elections, one of its hallmarks was "an unyeilding hostility to Zionism". Prominent American Jews were also against Zionism, in a report handed to President Wilson, Julius Kahn stated Jews "objections to the oragnisation of a Jewish State in Palestine...Palestine can become no homeland.Even with improvement of the neglected condition of the country, it's limited area can offer no solution...we are voicing the opinion of the majority of American Jews."
My God you are still not able to read. We didn't go to war because of the Kurds, never said that. I'll try and make this real simple.
1. We KNEW Saddam had NBC weapons, we knew this because he used them on the Kurds.
2. On 9-11 we came to the realization that Saddam would NOT need to use a conventional missile delivery system to use NBC weapons against the US. All he would have to do is provide them to a terrorist organization hostile to the US.
3. The UN attempted to establish IF Saddam still had such weapons and he played a shell game. So we had to gamble IF he did or did not still have such weapons.
And THAT was the basis for the war.
What part do you not understand?
Just explaining to you the facts. Don't like them? Can't help you with that.
I don't really watch Fox News. And I already know what the basis for the war was.
I'll try it again. The Kurds were NOT the basis for the war. The risk that Saddam might still have NBC weapons was. The Kurds were the PROOF that he had such weapons at one time.
Bad enough you cannot grasp this simple concept. Honestly.
Good lord. Saddam DID have these weapons. He used them on the Kurds. The fact that we haven't found them since invading Iraq means:
1. He didn't have any left.
2. He still had them and we haven't found them.
And THAT was the issue. We DID NOT KNOW. The UN tried to find out and Saddam screwed with them. Because WE DID NOT KNOW we had to decide the risk. After 9-11 we weren't ready to trust he didn't still have any.
Had Saddam complied with the UN, he would still be President of Iraq today.
Given the vast amount of things you do not understand, I figured I better cover all the bases.
My error, it was Hamas. Not that it makes much of a difference. You want a source for Saddam supporting terrorists? Here ya go...
The report, titled “Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,” finds that:
• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train coofftopicndos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda’s second-in-coofftopicnd, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
• In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.” At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.
• Saddam’s intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.
And he ran a mostly secular government. But guess what, he still liked to screw with the US. The US and the USSR had almost nothing in common, but we still got in bed together because we both disliked Hitler more than each other. The fact is Saddam liked to screw with the US, that was very much his MO. He allied with us when it suited his needs (for example against Iran) and he will ally with Islamic terrorists when it suits his needs.
Just hilarious. The attack on the Kurds were NOT the reason for the war. I never said that. The attack on the Kurds was the PROOF Saddam had such weapons. The reason for the war was the question "Did he still have such weapons?"
You don't need to find the Kurds on a map to ask that question.
Well you have been wrong about everything else, might as well be wrong about me watching Fox News. I actually watch BBC America most because there is less "celebrity watching" and it isn't sensationalized.
So what is the 9-11 Saddam link? Easy, it demonstrated to us that our enemies would not need conventional delivery systems to use such weapons against us. Before 9-11 we didn't fear a Saddam NBC arsenal because we knew he didn't have a missile delivery system that could threaten us. We really didn't consider him providing such weapons to terrorist organizations until the 9-11 attack.
Now what part of that do you still not understand?
It matters because it is the proof Saddam DID have WMDs. He used them on the Kurds. Now so you don't get confused again, we didn't go to war because Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds, we went to war because we did not know if Saddam STILL had such weapons, the UN couldn't get an accounting and we didn't want to take the chance.
Again, we aren't fighting the war for, or because, of the Kurds. WWII cost a lot of money, probably shouldn't have done that one either.
This war is costing us far more than money. I could care less about money given the actual costs. Glad you find it funny.
If that was the case then the US should have attacked Iran because it too was playing a "shell game" and atleast they are known to support terrorists whereas Saddam was known not to supports terrorists.
Lets look at your use if NBC with relation to Iraq.
N (nuclear) UN experts reports clearly stated that Iraq had no nuclear capability.
B (Biological) no evidence of Iraq capability ever.
C (cheomical) minor chemical capability technology supplied by U.S. no evidence of weapon production facilities or delivery methods.
So America was driven to war by chemical weapons of WWI era (mustard gas) with no delivery method to threaten U.S. interests. Terrorists could manufacture mustard gas in america easier than transport it from Iraq.
Or perhaps could America have been swayed by one of the world largest oil reserves. Now honestly surely even you can see that you are being fed utter bull. Iraq was contained and was no longer a real threat to anyone.
Especially with the core of bush's government being involved in the new American Century project lets just call Iraq for what it was a good old fashion Imperial adventure. Actually being British, I certainly can recognise that game and Tony Blair was more than happy to join in despite 10 million Britons marching against it.
The difference of course is that Saddam was KNOWN to have once had a stockpile of NBC weapons, Iran wasn't. And as I demonstrated earlier, Saddam absolutely DID support terrorists. You may have missed it.
The report, titled “Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,” finds that:
• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train coofftopicndos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda’s second-in-coofftopicnd, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
• In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.” At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.
• Saddam’s intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.
Salaries For Suicide Bombers
Iraq Pays $25,000 To Families Of 'Martyrs'
(CBS) Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered to relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 per family to $25,000, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday.
Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they have recently received payments of $25,000.
NBC is a category like WMD. I want to be clear I am not suggesting Iraq has either Biological or Nuclear weapons. There is no evidence to even suggest such a thing. What is known is Saddam at one time did have a large chemical weapons inventory. And we have found more than minor production capability.
Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq: US intelligence
US-led coalition forces in Iraq have found some 500 chemical weapons since the March 2003 invasion, Republican lawmakers said, citing an intelligence report.
"Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent," said an overview of the report unveiled by Senator Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra, head of the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives.
As for the US supplying Saddam with chemical weapons...
Iraq: Declassified Documents of U.S. Support for Hussein
Wheaton, Md.: I hear pro-Saddam activists often claim that Reagan supplied Hussein with chemical weapons. I've seen no evidence to support these claims. Is there any truth to this?
Joyce Battle: I have not personally seen documents that indicate that the Reagan administration supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. However, the documents we recently posted on the Internet demonstrate that the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s, but the U.S. government would deny that it was aware that these exports were intended to be used in the production of chemical weapons.
Joyce Battle, Middle East analyst at the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
It is far more likely that our buddies such as France (who constantly supplies our weapons technology to places like China) helped Saddam with his chemical weapons arsenal.
The US was driven by the fact that Saddam had chemical weapons, his willingness to use them, his connections with terrorists organizations and the UN inability to determine the exact status of his current arsenal. Planes aren't a terribly sophisticated weapon (one that also existed during WWII) but they were used to great effect on a civilian population on 9-11.
Saddams chemical weapons were easily sophisticated enough to have great effect on the Kurds, we didn't want to see what they might achieve in Los Angeles.
But the bottom line remains, had Saddam cooperated with UN weapon inspectors, he'd still be President of Iraq today.
Yeah, except for one thing. The actual cost of the war doesn't begin to be offset by your "free oil" notion. In the best case scenario, assuming we can pull of a stabilized Iraq with something close to a Democracy, we are only gonna get favorable oil prices. This won't do much for us until we have offset the cost of the war and by then everyone involves with the secret "colonial plan" will have died. And we already "supposedly" had favorable terms from our supposed allies such as Saudi Arabia due to the Truman Doctrine.
At worst Iraq will destabilize and be taken over by Iran who desperately wants Iraqi oil fields. And right now that is what we are trying to achieve. If we can get Iraq strong enough to defend itself and leave it with anything short of an Islamic theocracy, that is gonna be as close as we get to a "win." There won't be any "Paradise of Democracy" in the Middle East, there won't be any "free oil." And this is why once we removed Saddam we should have called it a day. Our primary failure was thinking (and trust me not every American thought this way) we could build some modern, Western style Democracy in the middle of the Arab states and that freedom would spread like wildfire.
The reality of course is nothing is going to improve in the Middle East until we come up with a viable alternative to fossil fuel. Sadly the money we have spent trying to turn Iraq into a "happy place" could have been far better spent on just this sort of research. The sooner crude oil is no more desirable than whale oil the safer the world will become. When Middle Eastern oil fields are of no value they can go back to being a third world crap hole that hates America. And so long as we aren't foolish enough to conduct some Somalian style "food aid" effort, they won't be any kind of real threat to us.
I would like to close by thanking you for actually reading what I wrote. You debates were based upon the fact that you actually read and understood what I said. You asked me to support my statements and that is fine, it is to be expected. You have shown me far more consideration than most of the others. I appreciate it.
But it seems I've stumbled into a sort of internet Bizzaro World (and here I am not referring to anything YOU have said or posted) where Al Jizzera is accepted as a credible source and American news sources such as Fox (sensationalized and reactionary as they are at times) are considered to be nothing more than unfounded propaganda.
A poster actually used the current Ayatollah of Iran as reassurance for the radicalness of the Iranian President. I simply don't have the words to address such ideas. It is like telling us that Imperial Japan and Prime Minister Tojo wasn't really all that bad because the Emporer was actually a nice guy.
And of course there is the guy who can't read or understand a single thing I write and goes on in a tirade about how "I can't read none too good."
Given all this, and the fact that people who are as considerate as you are rare here, I think I will stop wasting my time.
Everything I wrote can be easily sourced by anyone with the willingness to find information on the internet. If they aren't willing to do that, I am wasting my time bringing it to them.
That'd be nice. If we wanted fake as Fox News we'd be on the Fox News site... not having to wade through your patriotic parrot posts would be great. Yes... please stop wasting your time.
B
I
N
G
O
!
Most of us have heard the apologetics and the spin before. So really you are wasting your time. It's nothing new... it's more of the same 'ol same 'ol. So really save yourself the time and spare us the hot air.
You ever heard of a guy called Dr. David Kelly? He died for telling the truth that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction and that the government altered the evidence presented. This was proven by public enquiry in the UK.
Can I ask a personal question how much time have you spent outside continental America?
No you misunderstand because you live in a polarised world. The people here don't beleive EITHER Al Jazeera or FOX news because they are both lying. There are independent news sources if you bother to look for them.
We went to war with Iraq because of 9-11? No that's why we decimated what was left of Afghanistan. As for the whole 9-11 story. It doesn't add up. There are too many holes in the story. Too many coincidences. And still no plausible explanation as to why the towers were reduced to rubble inside their own foot print. Like a planned demolition. And no plausible explanation as to why the other building collapsed, like a planned demolition inside it's own foot print, or why it was even on fire in the first place.
Now if we really did go to war with Iraq to find WMDs then why did US forces make a mad dash for Baghdad? All the intelligence was that the WMDs were somewhere in the western desert. That they were moved around. Intelligence we now not only know to be flawed because it was exposed as such. But was also know at the time to be flawed. Even the CIA wouldn't touch it.
It all just sounds like the politics of terror to me. Clintons' statements just confirm that.
And why would saddam fund a terrorist organisation to attack the US (someone who he has sold plenty of oil to and that have made him rich). The man was a dictator, horrible, but also extremely clever.
"After 9-11 we weren't ready to trust he didn't still have any."
Rubbish, it was an excuse for a war to secure some black gold. We didnt flatten ireland after the northern ireland conflict "just incase" did we.
You make it sound like saddam was the only route to chemical weapons for any terrorist organisation and that you went to war based on that obviously flawed thought.
To be honest I think people are kneejerking all over the place in regards SteyrAUG's posts. He's clearly not a second coming of tekkengod as he's showing a clear ability to make coherent and well argued points and respond in a logical way to criticisms (and personal slights). Whether or not you agree with the conclusions he is arriving at I really think a whole lot could be gained from not assuming he's a gun tooting, Fox watching eejit who just hasn't bothered to do research for himself. From what I'm seeing on this thread he clearly DOES do research and he clearly HAS thought out his opinions.
I'm no fan of American foreign policy but one doesn't have to be to agree when someone is making a valid point such as highlighting how everyone tends to vilify America regardless of it's particular role in events in the Middle East. And to be clear I'm not saying ALL his points are uncontestable (though some of them clearly are!), I'm saying that it would be good if people could argue back with coherent arguments rather than just insulting him for missing the point. For my own 2 cents he doesn't seem to have missed the point of any reply I've seen on this thread.
Where did he suggest there wasn't? From what I can see his comment is referring to the fact that people are being inconsistent by immediately critiquing Fox for its clear ideological bias but have no such qualms with Al Jazeera. Since he also mentioned that Fox is 'sensationalised and reactionary at times' I think saying he's living in a polarised mindset is a bit far off the mark.
That's a highly dubious suofftopicry of the whole issue. What was proven is that Dr. David Kelly (and his team!) seriously questioned some of the claims in the September Dossier in 2002 in particular the '45 minute claim' which he said was added through political pressure though he still "believed it was most likely that Iraq had retained some biological weapons after the end of inspections" (From Wikipedia!). Next after his second visit he said that the 2 factories he visited were not chemical weapons factories and could not be used as such.
That the government pressurised the people writing the report and approved questionable claims I strongly believe. That David Kelly was killed for making this clear I strongly doubt as:
1. He had already supplied all the information and accusations.
2. He had a very high profile in the media at the time.
3. He was CLEARLY disturbed and traumatised by the ridiculous public scrutiny and political rigmaroll he was put through.
4. His family do not believe the conspiracies!
There are of course the inevitable experts who disagree but then there are a whole host of experts who make such claims about the twin towers too. The important thing is to look at who are the relevant experts and not to mention assessing the arguments made critically rather than simply accepting them because they appeal to your ideological leanings.
As to why I believe that it was suicide:
- The issue of eye witness accounts not matching exactly is a complete non-issue. Eye witness accounts vary wildly all the time and in this case it's over being 'slumped over' and being 'flat on the ground'.
- The two paramedics who said there wasn't enough blood clearly mentioned "like I said we're not medical experts" and the "medical experts" who did attend and whose job it is to care about such details said "there was a significant volume of blood" (pathologist) and "there was a fair bit of blood (consistent with a severed artery)" (forensic biologist).
- There were issues with the way evidence was treated but this is ALWAYS the case in a high profile case. I've never seen a case where experts are unanimously happy that everything was done perfectly.
- There was an inquiry- not a government cover up an inquiry just like the inquiries into the Twin Towers. The problem is when an inquiry comes up negative and people want it to be true. I am 100% certain if another inquiry was performed and came up negative the conspiracy theorists would not be happy.
- There is a single MP who is promoting the conspiracy theory and who seems to thrive on the image of being a maverick challenging the government.
- Three months after the inquest THE CORONER decided whether to reopen the case for another inquiry. He decided against it based on the publicly available evidence, detailed police reports not made publicly available and the fact that his family believed he commited suicide and didn't want another inquest.
- The throwaway comment about 'probably turning up in the woods' is taken as serious evidence that Dr. Kelly knew he would be killed in the woods. That's just silly.
- The 2 top experts with relevant experience have commented on the issue and have leant their support to the fact that Dr. Kelly could easily have died from the official cause of death injuries. One the president of the 'British Association in Forensic Medicine' explained why the artery he cut could have proved fatal and the other "Britain’s leading Forensic toxicologist and the president of the Forensic Scienc Society" supported by the a professor in toxicology at leeds university commented about how the dosage of pills could easily prove fatal.
So all in all to me it's down to seeing a conspiracy if you want to see one. It is still possible he was killed but I know which way the evidence leans for me!