Things Are Getting Interesting With Iran

[Drummond]

We did NOT invade Iraq because of WMDs

Bush tied Iraq to terrorism and then brought WMDs into the mix as "it's only a matter of time before he gives these weapons to terrorists." Those are just historical facts.

It's one or the other. Either WMD's were why the invasion happened, or, they weren't.

If they 'weren't' ... then, Bush lied to the world, and not least to the UN. If you recall (apparently you don't ?) Bush invoked the 'serious consequences' clause of UN Resolution 1441 as his justification for action.

Reposting:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-i...t-the-iraq-war

On 20 March 2003, a United States-led international coalition - which included Britain - launched an invasion of Iraq.

The stated aims were to disarm the country of weapons of mass destruction, end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism and free the Iraqi people from his repressive regime.

This says that WMD's were central to Bush's concern over Iraq. It's not 'either / or'.

[STTAB]

It's one or the other. Either WMD's were why the invasion happened, or, they weren't.

If they 'weren't' ... then, Bush lied to the world, and not least to the UN. If you recall (apparently you don't ?) Bush invoked the 'serious consequences' clause of UN Resolution 1441 as his justification for action.

Reposting:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-i...t-the-iraq-war



This says that WMD's were central to Bush's concern over Iraq. It's not 'either / or'.

Are you simply unaware of the conjunction AND's meaning? No Bush didn't lie, US intelligence , along with our allies, said Saadam has WMD's, they had been saying the same things since oh I don't know the moment Saadam used them on the Kurds. Know when this happened Drummond? March 16, 1988. So for 15 years we were okay with him having WMDs but all the sudden in 2003 "hey wait a minute we can't let this guy have chemical WMDs?" You believe that shit?

In addition we have seen exactly as much proof that Saadam was involved with terrorists as we have seen that Trump was involved with the Russians to steal the 2016 election. Meaning zero. Don't get me wrong, Saadam was a sadistic asshole and the world is better off with him taking a dirt nap, but does that justify invading a fucking country and killing over 100K people? Fuck no it doesn't.

[Drummond]

Are you simply unaware of the conjunction AND's meaning? No Bush didn't lie, US intelligence , along with our allies, said Saadam has WMD's, they had been saying the same things since oh I don't know the moment Saadam used them on the Kurds. Know when this happened Drummond? March 16, 1988. So for 15 years we were okay with him having WMDs but all the sudden in 2003 "hey wait a minute we can't let this guy have chemical WMDs?" You believe that shit?

In addition we have seen exactly as much proof that Saadam was involved with terrorists as we have seen that Trump was involved with the Russians to steal the 2016 election. Meaning zero. Don't get me wrong, Saadam was a sadistic asshole and the world is better off with him taking a dirt nap, but does that justify invading a fucking country and killing over 100K people? Fuck no it doesn't.

Awareness of, and concern about, terrorism became far more acute, in America, following 9/11, than it was before.

Anyway, check this out:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/terrorism-havens-iraq

[STTAB]

Awareness of, and concern about, terrorism became far more acute, in America, following 9/11, than it was before.

Anyway, check this out:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/terrorism-havens-iraq

That article offers zero proof that Saadam was supporting terrorists, especially Islamic terrorists.

In fact the article you cited goes on to suggest that the US has acknowledged that we toppled Saadam to install a more Democratic government aka nation building.

[Drummond]

That article offers zero proof that Saadam was supporting terrorists, especially Islamic terrorists.

Frankly, it's barely believable that you believe what you SAY you believe, about Saddam. Are you in fact joking ?

A small example: do you deny that Saddam's regime sheltered Zarqawi, an individual known as 'Al Qaeda's man in Iraq' (note mention of him, below) .. ? It was reported at the time !!

Here's a couple of further reports, which presumably you'll reject, out of hand:

https://www.nysun.com/foreign/report...st-ties/72906/

A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

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 commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, 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.

• Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih.

• In 2001, Saddam's intelligence service drafted a manual titled "Lessons in Secret Organization and Jihad Work—How to Organize and Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family." In the same year, his intelligence service submitted names of 10 volunteer "martyrs" for operations inside the Kingdom.

• In 2000, Iraq sent a suicide bomber through Northern Iraq who intended to travel to London to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, at the time an Iraqi opposition leader who would later go on to be an Iraqi deputy prime minister. The mission was aborted after the bomber could not obtain a visa to enter the United Kingdom.

The report finds that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is wanted by the FBI for mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Center Attack, was a prisoner, and not a guest, in Iraq. An audio file of Saddam cited by the report indicates that the Iraqi dictator did not trust him and at one point said that he thought his testimony was too "organized." Saddam said on an audio file cited by the report that he suspected that the first attack could be the work of either Israel or American intelligence, or perhaps a Saudi or Egyptian faction.

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2846365.stm

Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.
Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques.

"Iraq and Palestine are in one trench. Saddam is a hero," read a banner over a picture of the Iraqi leader and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the ceremony.

With war looming in the Middle East, Palestinian speakers condemned the United States and Israel, which dismissed the ceremony as support for terrorism.

One by one, at least 21 families came up to receive their cheques from the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF), a local pro-Iraq group.

A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

Saddam's avowed support for the Palestinians, and his missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, have won him wide backing in the territories.

Saddam's 'kindness'

Israel condemned the Iraqi handouts as funding for terrorism.

"It shows that Saddam is involved in every activity that is terrorism and murderous and leads to instability in the Middle East," said Amira Oron, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry.

Are you not aware that Saddam's regime was a major funding source for Hamas ??

More:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/world/...rists-1-558334

SADDAM Hussein’s links to terrorism have been proven by documents showing he helped to fund the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

The PFLP, whose history of terrorism dates back to the "black September" hijackings of 1970, was personally vetted by Saddam to receive oil vouchers worth 40 million.

The deal has been uncovered by US investigators, trawling millions of pages of documents showing a network of diplomats bribed by Saddam’s regimes, and political parties who qualified for backhanded payments from Baghdad.

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which is still working its way through 20,000 boxes of documents from Saddam’s Baath party discovered only recently, found a list of pressure groups bankrolled by Saddam.

Using the United Nations’ own oil-for-food scheme - ironically intended as a sanction to control the behaviour of his dictatorship - Saddam gave Awad Ammora & Partners, a Syrian company, two million barrels of oil.

Documents handed over to US authorities by a former Iraqi oil minister only four months ago show that this was a front for the PFLP - which was then embarked on a spate of car bombings aimed at Israeli officials.

The Iraqi records show only one six-month period - suggesting the payments could go on for much longer. While some allocations to the likes of Russian political parties were not cashed in, the PFLP oil deal was carried out in full.

Since its inception after the Six-Day War of 1967, the PFLP has been dedicated to violence - and for this reason split from the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) when it accepted the peace process.

Its first atrocity came in September 1970 when its members hijacked four aircraft bound for the United States. All planes were blown up on the ground after the passengers were evacuated. A hijacking at Lod airport in Israel two years later left 24 dead.

It is now devoted to thwarting the "roadmap" plan for peace in the Middle East - recently mainly through a campaign of car bombs.

While the PLO has been rehabilitated into the political process, the PFLP has remained opposed to it. On Wednesday, it issued a statement saying it had joined forces with Hamas, the main Palestinian terrorist group, in a machine gun attack on a busload of Israeli soldiers.

Earlier last week, it launched a rocket attack at an Israeli kibbutz.

Interviews from Iraqi officials captured by US troops confirm that Saddam saw himself as the potential "liberator" of Palestine. Taped conversations have been uncovered from 1991 saying he wanted to deploy biological warfare on "the Israeli cities - all of them".

In fact the article you cited goes on to suggest that the US has acknowledged that we toppled Saadam to install a more Democratic government aka nation building.

In the aftermath, yes. But then, considering the pro-terrorist threat Saddam was known to be, it's hardly surprising that Bush wanted a change of regime, and political climate, in Iraq !!

All these factors interweave. Non-accountability for WMD stocks. Saddam's historically known widespread support for terrorists and groups associated with them, including extensive funding arrangements.

Why ON EARTH wouldn't the US believe that the world, to say nothing of the US's own interests, wouldn't benefit by Saddam's removal ?? What possible sense did it make to let Saddam continue on, defying the UN over WMD's, defying the world, and as a known terrorist enabler ??

[STTAB]

Why ON EARTH wouldn't the US believe that the world, to say nothing of the US's own interests, wouldn't benefit by Saddam's removal ?? What possible sense did it make to let Saddam continue on, defying the UN over WMD's, defying the world, and as a known terrorist enabler ??

Because as it turns out, getting rid of Saadam caused far more problems than it solved. Also, everything that was known about Saadam in 2003 was known about Saadam in 1991. It wasn't like there was some big revelation, "oh shit Saadam did WHAT? Time to take him out"

Let me ask you this, are you as charitable about Obama toppling Qadaffi in Libya?

[Kathianne]

In fits and starts it seems that pretty much the more neutral publications find Iraqis and the Middle East are better off without Saddam:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/20...-is-doing-well

No, not great, but better off.

[Drummond]

Because as it turns out, getting rid of Saadam caused far more problems than it solved. Also, everything that was known about Saadam in 2003 was known about Saadam in 1991. It wasn't like there was some big revelation, "oh shit Saadam did WHAT? Time to take him out"

Let me ask you this, are you as charitable about Obama toppling Qadaffi in Libya?

So, it was required of GW Bush that he have all the hindsight necessary to know with certainty what Iraq's future, after Saddam, was to be ?

Really ?

You say that everything known about Saddam in 2003 was also known in 1991 ? Interesting. So, the US knew with as much accuracy as it did in 1991, what weapon capabilities Saddam had maintained ? Part of the POINT of the invasion in 2003 was to resolve the threat which Saddam was thought to pose.

As for 1991, and through to GWB's Presidency ... who was GWB's predecessor ? Was he a Republican ? OR, was he a DEMOCRAT President, who even failed to tackle bin Laden, despite repeated chances to do so ?

Clinton was derelict in his duty to the American people. By contrast, GWB was not. He faced problems, and DEALT WITH THEM.

'Charitable about Obama toppling Gaddafi'. Well ... Obama himself was on record as admitting he'd - get this - NOT exercised due responsibility for the aftermath in Libya following Gaddafi !!

Did you know that Obama's first instinct was to leave Libya alone ? Phone calls between the UK's David Cameron and Obama eventually resulted in Obama actually doing something !!!

https://www.sott.net/article/420433-...-bombing-Libya

.. In early March government forces pushed the rebels back and were advancing toward Benghazi; Cameron - then-Britain's prime minister - says he tried to rally allies to take action to avert a potential crackdown on the rebel-held city.

"The decision to ratchet up our response on Libya was, in many ways, the easy part, because I knew it was the right thing to do. What was tough was getting it done — and doing so against the clock. To do nothing in these circumstances was not a neutral act. It was to facilitate murder."

He (Cameron) "found it hard" to get on the phone with Barack Obama, who pursued a policy of disengagement, and felt that the United States was "dithering" on Libya at the time.

He says he finally got to speak to Barack Obama on the evening of 18 March, one day before the military intervention. The US president pledged to support Britain and France in the first week. Cameron says of the conversation: "He was unenthusiastic and matter-of-fact, but this was at least a clear and decisive response."


On 20 March 2011, American, British and French jets and cruise missiles started to strike Gaddafi's troops, forcing them to retreat. "I've never known relief like it," Cameron recalls feeling.

Cameron, our Conservative UK Prime Minister, had to shake Obama out of his complacency and dithering.

[STTAB]

So, it was required of GW Bush that he have all the hindsight necessary to know with certainty what Iraq's future, after Saddam, was to be ?

Really ?

You say that everything known about Saddam in 2003 was also known in 1991 ? Interesting. So, the US knew with as much accuracy as it did in 1991, what weapon capabilities Saddam had maintained ? Part of the POINT of the invasion in 2003 was to resolve the threat which Saddam was thought to pose.

As for 1991, and through to GWB's Presidency ... who was GWB's predecessor ? Was he a Republican ? OR, was he a DEMOCRAT President, who even failed to tackle bin Laden, despite repeated chances to do so ?

Clinton was derelict in his duty to the American people. By contrast, GWB was not. He faced problems, and DEALT WITH THEM.

'Charitable about Obama toppling Gaddafi'. Well ... Obama himself was on record as admitting he'd - get this - NOT exercised due responsibility for the aftermath in Libya following Gaddafi !!

Did you know that Obama's first instinct was to leave Libya alone ? Phone calls between the UK's David Cameron and Obama eventually resulted in Obama actually doing something !!!

https://www.sott.net/article/420433-...-bombing-Libya



Cameron, our Conservative UK Prime Minister, had to shake Obama out of his complacency and dithering.

I'm not interested in a "Republicans good, Democrats bad" conversation, so I'm out.

[Drummond]

I'm not interested in a "Republicans good, Democrats bad" conversation, so I'm out.

A pity. There's much to be learned from such debates ... as I think I'm proving ... am I not, STTAB ?

Not that this was particularly the point, in any case. I go where the truth leads me. I'm not responsible for the (? inevitable) consequence of where that happens to be: the truth is, simply, the truth, regardless of whether or not it's to your personal liking.

By the way, I recall Cameron's exasperation with Obama at the time of his phone contact with Obama .. it made the news over here. Cameron suffered the insult of Obama branding him a political 'lightweight', whereas Cameron - initially ! - had much respect for Obama. Yet, as it turned out, it was CAMERON who found himself prodding OBAMA into some decisive military action, in Libya.

Oh, well.