Time to kick Iran

[jsiv]

U.S. was pretty much alone.

Show me a country that participates at over 100,000 troops in Iraq.

Yawn. There are virtually no European nations with that kind of standing army, so even if we wanted, we couldn't.

The participation of others is symbolic [...]

Perhaps it is largely symbolic, but so what? They still share a part of the responsibility, even if the sole contribution was a single soldier. That is all I said.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Not really relevant to the point I was making.


Although several of the countries with an interest in Iraq's oil are countries that originally took part in the invasion. The US was not alone in the invasion, even if they were leading the rest.

Five countries participated with troops during the initial invasion (termed the Major Combat Operations phase), which lasted from March 19 to May 1. These were the United States (250,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), Poland (194) and Denmark (300)

Even some of the countries that contributed nothing to the war effort still bought the story.

There are economical and strategic advantages in backing the will of the first economic power of the world.
No advantages in backing Saddam Hussein..
At least, that was the case of Italy..

 

[Matteo Martini]

Perhaps it is largely symbolic, but so what? They still share a part of the responsibility, even if the sole contribution was a single soldier. That is all I said.

Have you ever heard of " political prostitution "?
It pays well, you know..

 

[Ion]

To:

There isn't another country in the world which was capable of deploying that many troops...

and to:

Yawn. There are virtually no European nations with that kind of standing army, so even if we wanted, we couldn't.
...

Then show me the same level of troop co-operation between countries in Gulf War II like it was in the Gulf War I.

There isn't.

U.S. is a rogue Fascist country.

 

[jsiv]

Okay, I'm a man and I am wrong all the time. Now would you explain this to me, too?

No. We're not moving on until you start answering questions instead of sidestepping and changing the subject when you're backed into a corner.

I would like you to comment on thee two quotes below. And no, posting yet another video in response does not count.

Osama Bin Laden used his expert CIA training to pull off 9/11, huh?

Now that one belongs in the CT forum.


So Oliver, what do you think the outcomes of the various conflicts would have been if the US had simply done nothing? Fewer deaths, more deaths? Better, worse? It's a difficult issue, and while the body counts may be factually accurate, presenting them in a way that is designed to give viewers the impression that things would have been better without US intervention is perhaps a litte dishonest.

Don't you agree?


(And before you start, no, I am not saying that the US is necessarily justified in everything it does.)

That's not what the video says. The video says that Bin Laden used his "expert CIA training." Neither Bin Laden nor his fighters had any relationship with the CIA, so how could there have been any "expert CIA training?"

Yes, the CIA did train the afghan mujahideen, but that's hardly relevant to this particular argument.

 

[jsiv]

Five countries participated with troops during the initial invasion (termed the Major Combat Operations phase), which lasted from March 19 to May 1. These were the United States (250,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), Poland (194) and Denmark (300)

Several other countries contributed a smaller number of special forces as well, along with military hardware. But it's not really relevant, and I wasn't asking for a list. I was simplying pointing it out.

There are economical and strategic advantages in backing the will of the first economic power of the world.
No advantages in backing Saddam Hussein..

There certainly are. And that's all I'm saying -- the countries that are whoring themselves out should get off their high horse and admit that they are part of the problem.


I have to say one thing though. I did support taking action against Saddam, just not in the (rushed) way the US decided to.

 

[Oliver]

No. We're not moving on until you start answering questions instead of sidestepping and changing the subject when you're backed into a corner.

I would like you to comment on thee two quotes below. And no, posting yet another video in response does not count.

Here you go:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[37]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Military_and_militant_activity

Now answer my question, too:

What is your honest thought about this fact? :

 

[jsiv]

Then show me the same level of troop co-operation between countries in Gulf War II like it was in the Gulf War I.

There isn't.

I never said there was. You seem to be trying to start an argument just for the heck of it now.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then show me the same level of troop co-operation between countries in Gulf War II like it was in the Gulf War I.

There isn't.

I never said there was, which makes this a bit of a strawman. But you made the statement regarding 100,000 troop deployments, out of either stupidity or dishonesty. Which was it? Or rather, which would you prefer that people believe it was? Do you want to be thought of as dishonest or dumb?

 

[jsiv]

Here you go:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

This is factually incorrect and infact a conspiracy theory. See here for an explanation.

Now answer my question, too:

What is your honest thought about this fact? :

There was a second half to my post.

But for the record, you can see my opinion at the bottom of post #386.

 

[Ion]

I never said there was, which makes this a bit of a strawman. But you made the statement regarding 100,000 troop deployments, out of either stupidity or dishonesty. Which was it? Or rather, which would you prefer that people believe it was? Do you want to be thought of as dishonest or dumb?

The 100,000 troop co-participation or by default the lack of international co-operation in Gulf War II the way it existed in Gulf War I, points out that co-operation with U.S. in Gulf War II is brown nosing by countries that position themselves to the good graces of rogue Fascist U.S..

Like whores.

 

[Oliver]

This is factually incorrect and infact a conspiracy theory. See here for an explanation.

There was a second half to my post.

So you think that the CIA training to the ISI was never adopted by the Mujahedeen and Bin Laden? Sounds pretty naive to me, don't you agree?

Now I agree that the claim is far fetched - but there is truth to it. To discredit the whole video because of that is childish. But it was a nice try nevertheless - unfortunately not for your credibility:

 

[Matteo Martini]

Several other countries contributed a smaller number of special forces as well, along with military hardware. But it's not really relevant, and I wasn't asking for a list. I was simplying pointing it out.

OK

There certainly are. And that's all I'm saying -- the countries that are whoring themselves out should get off their high horse and admit that they are part of the problem.

Absolutely

I have to say one thing though. I did support taking action against Saddam, just not in the (rushed) way the US decided to.

Rushed and.. criminal??

 

[jsiv]

So you think that the CIA training to the ISI was never adopted by the Mujahedeen and Bin Laden? Sounds pretty naive to me, don't you agree?

Now I agree that the claim is far fetched - but there is truth to it.

As far as I can tell, there is no truth to it. Nor does it make any logical sense.

Unless you want to claim that some of the afghans "trained" by the CIA defected to Osama's side and started a training camp based on what they had learned from the CIA. But then you're way out in woo-woo land. There would have been no need for it.

In other words, the claim made by your video that Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA appears to be incorrect.

Did you even read the whole article I linked to?

To discredit the whole video because of that is childish. But it was a nice try nevertheless - unfortunately not for your credibility:

What on earth are you talking about? I commented on the rest of the video seperately, something you seem to continue to ignore.


Also, about your WMD video. I believe that what you see them say in the video and what they did post-9/11 are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

One could just as easily argue that their claims made prior to the invasion were just intended to justify their lack of action against Iraq. In other words, they could easily have believed that he did have WMDs at that time too, and lied about it.

 

[Oliver]

As far as I can tell, there is no truth to it. Nor does it make any logical sense.

Unless you want to claim that some of the afghans "trained" by the CIA defected to Osama's side and started a training camp based on what they had learned from the CIA. But then you're way out in woo-woo land. There would have been no need for it.

In other words, the claim made by your video that Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA appears to be incorrect.

Did you even read the whole article I linked to?

What on earth are you talking about? I commented on the rest of the video seperately, something you seem to continue to ignore.

Also, about your WMD video. I believe that what you see them say in the video and what they did post-9/11 are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

One could just as easily argue that their claims made prior to the invasion were just intended to justify their lack of action against Iraq. In other words, they could easily have believed that he did have WMDs at that time too, and lied about it.

I apologize - you did comment concerning the rest of the video. My fault.

Concerning the Mujahedeen and Al Qaida/CIA:

The Maktab al-Khidamat, also Maktab Khadamāt al-Mujāhidīn al-'Arab (Arabic: مكتب الخدمات or مكتب خدمات المجاهدين العرب, MAK), also known as the Afghan Services Bureau, is reliably believed to have been founded in 1984 by Dr. Abdullah Azzam and Osama bin Laden to raise funds and recruit foreign mujahidin for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. MAK became the forerunner to al-Qaeda and was instrumental in creating the fundraising and recruitment network that benefited al-Qaeda during the 1990s. During the Soviet-Afghanistan war, MAK played a critical role, training over 100 mujahidin for the war and dispersing approximately $2 million in donations sourced via a network of global offices in Western countries, including approximately thirty in the United States. MAK maintained a close liaison with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency via which the CIA also funneled money into the mujahidin campaign.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maktab_al-Khadamat

So even if I agree that it was a far-fetched comment - It's unrealistic to claim that Al Qaida weren't profiting from US weapons and especially training at all.

The problem I have with the WMD's is that everything points exactly in this direction: They knew Iraq didn't pose a threat.

So how do you explain why the Administration was shifting from 9/11 to Iraq? What were their reasons to avoid the real terrorism as main target?

 

[jsiv]

Concerning the Mujahedeen and Al Qaida/CIA:

So even if I agree that it was a far-fetched comment - It's unrealistic to claim that Al Qaida weren't profiting from US weapons and especially training at all.

I don't see how it's unrealistic at all. Al Qaeda had their own sources of funding and training and didn't need US help.

The only thing you could possibly argue is that since they both fought against the same enemy, the afghan mujahideen backed by the CIA indirectly helped Osama's cause by driving the Russians out. But that is very different from what the video claims, which is that the United States directly trained and funded Osama.

It's not too far from that claim to... Tim Osman.

The problem I have with the WMD's is that everything points exactly in this direction: They knew Iraq didn't pose a threat.

I'm not so sure. I think it's possible to argue that they could have lied when they claimed he posed no threat. I mean, think about it. If they intended to stay out of Iraq at the time they made those statements, it would certainly be in their best interest to deny that he was a threat.

And by that I'm not saying that he actually did pose a threat, only that they could have believed he did.

So how do you explain why the Administration was shifting from 9/11 to Iraq? What were their reasons to avoid the real terrorism as main target?

Trying to save the world? Fear that he could become a problem for their activities in Afghanistan, if they believed he actually might have had WMDs. I don't know.

Personally I do not think Saddam was a threat to anyone but his own people.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Personally I do not think Saddam was a threat to anyone but his own people.

The right thing said 5 years too late

 

[Elizabeth I]

[Pat] Robertson is an idiot. What does this have to do with the question at hand?

Nope.
He is a well-respected U.S. politician

Matteo, this is three people now who have told you that Pat Robertson is a joke, and you persist in thinking he's some kind of elder statesman with a great deal of influence. This does not bode well for your cognitive abilities. Or have you just decided to disagree with any point of view that doesn't follow yours?

He's a TV evangelist and an idiot. Yes, he ran for president once - 19 years ago. (H**l, Harold Stassen ran nine times [1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992.] Never even got nominated, so running doesn't prove much.) Yes, he shoots his mouth off on a regular basis on any number of topics about which he knows less than nothing, and every comment that gets media coverage just proves over and over again how big an idiot he is.

Take our word for it. He's a TV evangelist. He's an idiot. NOT a "well-respected U.S. politician."

 

[BeAChooser]

Not the exact same thing, but extremely close.

No, it's not even close. Not when the contents of that one binary sarin round in the hands of a knowledgable terrorist might kill thousands of innocent people. You persist in thinking that what constitutes a threat from terrorists vis a vis WMD post 9/11 is the same as what constituted a threat from a nation state using WMD against another nation state pre 9/11. The quantities needed to make that threat real are vastly different. Plus the means and effectiveness of deterrence are vastly different in the two cases. The concern about Iraq POST 9/11 was that it would be a source of WMD to terrorists because Saddam had not abided by the GW I cease fire agreement he signed. That possibility was simply not acceptable.

And gave the excuse to go to start wars that made 500000 deaths?

Let's be perfectly clear. First, we didn't start this war. Second, you haven't proven that 500,000 have died. Third, it wasn't us who killed most of those who have died ... it was the "nice" terrorists you seem to want to ignore. And, fourth, Saddam and the Taliban killed far more than 500,000 when they were in power.

Basically, very low quantity ( if there were at all ), is so much close to zero, right?

A very low quantity is NOT zero ... especially when one is concerned about terrorist usage of such materials. The contents of that one binary sarin shell could have been used to kill thousands. So even one is a big number in terms of this threat. Why do wooriors not see this?

There are many reasons to suspect that SOME WMD were still in the hands of Saddam's regime in the year before the invasion.

That binary sarin shell was not supposed to exist. First, Saddam's regime denied researching such weapons. When that was proven a lie, his regime denied ever testing such weapons. When that was proven a lie, they denied fielding such weapons and claimed to have destroyed all the shells they had produced. But that binary sarin shell used as an IED puts the lie to that, too. His own scientists told the ISG the program was considered VERY successful. We know Saddam greatly desired possessing WMD. We know (from audio recordings) that he and his staff delighted in fooling the UN as to the scope of their WMD effort and the size of their stockpiles. With that sort of viewpoint, why wouldn't Saddam have ordered production ... at least of small quantities of what was clearly his best chemical weapon? No one has provided a reasonable explanation of how that binary sarin shell got into the hands of the insurgents ... where it came from. The ISG said it opened the door to the possibility of others out there.

The ISG said there were clear indications that the Iraqi regime sanitized files, computers and facilities in locations they believe were associated with WMD. Why would they do that if the proof they'd abided by the cease fire ... the proof there were no WMD ... was in those materials. What were they hiding if not the existance and location of materials (weapons) they were not supposed to have produced or they were supposed to have destroyed? So tell us, why did they sanitize these sites?

The ISG said trucks were observed moving materials from Iraq to Syria shortly before the invasion. Independent sources say those truck convoys were very carefully guarded. Some of the intel indicates those trucks came from areas that were believed to store WMD. Some of the sources say the materials were turned over to Syrians who then buried them. And the ISG said they have a credible source saying the contents were WMD related. We simply do not know what was in those trucks but there is no indication it was money, furniture or other treasures. Everything so far points to those trucks containing WMD related items. And there are also sources indicating that WMD materials were flown out of the country in the months before the invasion. You can't just ignore these reports because they don't fit into the "no WMD" woolusion.

"That is not the same as saying he had "no WMD" and "no capability" to produce WMD ... and you darn well know it."

But that is what Powell said.

No, he did not. He only said they did not have militarily significant quantities. And that sanctions were preventing them from producing militarily significant quantities. That is not the same as saying Iraq had "no wmd" and no capability to produce wmd. To claim that is to lie. Do you really wish to be known as a liar?

This is 2002, which comes after 9/11

But its before 2003 and the invasion of Iraq, and you were claiming that before the invasion Rice said there were "no wmd". That clearly is a lie based on her various statements, including the one in 2002. Claiming they "knew" there was "no wmd" is as illogical and wooish as claiming bombs brought down the WTC towers and something other than Flight 77 damaged the Pentagon.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And he must have had something to hide since the ISG concluded that Iraq sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD just before, during and even after the invasion. What were they hiding? What was in the trucks that went to Syria? Where did that binary sarin shell used as an IED come from?"

Mm.. You are assuming quite a lot of things, here.

I'm assuming nothing. The ISG very clearly stated that Iraq sanitized its files, computers and facilities believed related to WMD before, during and even after the invasion. Didn't you read their report? And that trucks convoys were seen carrying "something" to Syria shortly before the war is also a well documented fact? You'd have to have your head in the ground to not be aware of this? And I'm not assuming anything about the binary sarin shell. I'm asking YOU where it came from.

BAC - "It's no different than the *truthers* who quote mine statements by firemen about 9/11 to present a dishonest picture of what happened and what certain people think."

Do not put in my mouth words I have never said.

I didn't claim you did. I'm only making the statement that this "no WMD" woo based on selective and dishonest interpretations of quotes by folks like Powell and Rice is no different than the dishonest and selective quote mining of firemen statements by the 9/11 *truthers*.

"Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Senator Hillary said in February of 2003 that Iraq was " continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability." She read the same intel reports as everyone else. Was she part of the conspiracy too? Is that logical?"

Where did I speak about a conspiracy at all?

You again miss the point. You claim they KNEW before the invasion there were "no WMD". But here we have Hillary reading the same intel as everyone else and saying just the opposite. So clearly they didn't "know". The intel was just not as good as might have been hoped.

Depends on the definition of " small ".

Well as far as Iraq was concerned, ONE was more than Iraq was supposed to have and the contents of ONE binary sarin shell in the hands of a knowledgeable terrorist might have meant another 9/11 in terms of the number of innocent Americans they could kill.

Ah, so you attacked Iraq, because, in the future, they could have acquired WMD?

No. As I said, Iraq had WMD at the time of the invasion. That binary sarin shell alone proves it. Iraq agreed not to even research the stuff and to destroy everything associated with it. Yet, that is not what the ISG found after the invasion. They found that Iraq deliberately retained the scientists, seed stock and other vital materials and information so that once oversight and sanctions ended they could quickly reconstitute the full arsenal. And had that happened, what would you have done? Complained to the UN?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Then find and link it because Cheney never made any statement suggesting Iraq had NO WMD or NO capability to produce WMD. To claim that is nothing but woo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDnu8...elated&search=

Look at what Richard Clarke says.

You are getting desperate. Clarke says NOTHING in that video clip about "no wmd" and "no capability to produce WMD. He talks about the Atta allegation. And what the folks challenging Cheney's statement about the Atta connection say in that video clip are distortions if not lies. For example, the FBI and CIA did not have anything other than the use of Atta's cell phone to prove Atta was in Florida at the time. Other that that, he disappeared off the map for the whole week in question, after taking $8000 in cash from a bank. Since the hijackers shared apartments, cars, and bank accounts ... why wouldn't they share cell phones? My family members do all the time. And if Atta went to Europe, he had need of lots of cash and no need of a cell phone that wouldn't work in Europe. And we KNOW that Atta went to Prague on other occasions. That's established fact. There are even photos of him meeting al-Ani (the Iraqi agent Atta is alleged to have met in this instance). The CIA has never explained the coincidence that the first case of anthrax showed up at a few miles from where Atta rented a plane and the apartment of hijackers in Florida. The CIA has NEVER explained the coincidence of al-Ani's day calendar indicating a meeting with a "hamburg student" on the day in question. You see, Atta's travel documents listed his occupation as a "Hamburg student". There is much more to this allegation than that videotape indicates. Czech intelligence to this day says they are 70% confident that al-Ani met Atta. Why doesn't that videoclip mention THAT?

The point, is that you guys, care only of the lives of American citizens, but do not give a heck, to the lives of the Iraqis, and, these posts of you are just the proof of this

You have it turned around. It's your side in this debate who cares nothing for Iraqi civilians. You completely ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands died during two wars of aggression by Saddam. You completely ignore that Saddam's actions led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands more Iraqi's during what should have been peacetime. Just because he wouldn't give up his mad dreams of WMD. You ignore the fact that most civilians killed in Iraq since the invasion have been at the hands of Saddam regime holdouts and foreign terrorists. And now you want us to cut and run when most experts are saying that doing so would be unwise because it would lead to chaos that surely would cost the lives of hundreds of thousands more Iraqi civilians.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Do you realize that al-Zarqawi ... a "bad terrorist" ... plotted and funded the death of tens of thousands of innocent Jordanians (and everyone in the US embassy in Amman) from Baghdad before the invasion? It was a plot involving a chemically laced bomb. Or do you simply filter out such facts because they don't fit your perception of nice terrorists.

Nothing that many American presidents, whom you highly respect, did not in the past.

If you think that any recent President ordered a comparable act to what al-Zarqawi planned against civilians, cite the specifics. Else we will conclude you are now getting *really* desperate.

The problem, is that Iraq did not have " chemical, biological or radiological device to kill thousands ".

No, that binary sarin shell proves that statement false.

By the way, I do not know what a " radiological device " is.

Think dirty bomb. And do you know that Iraq actually tested such a device? What if the plans for that had fallen into the hands of al-Qaeda? THAT is the sort of thing that made Iraq very dangerous in this post 9/11 world.

Does this take away from them one iota of their responsibilities?

No, clearly the buck stops there. But for you to claim they lied and that they knew before the war there was "no wmd" is a lie. The intelligence services were telling them that Iraq had WMD. And not just America's intelligence service. France, Germany, Russia ... their intelligence communities said the same thing.

I started a war, in which half a million people got killed,

Please prove that half a million had died. Credible source or more woo?

 

[BeAChooser]

The problem I have with the WMD's is that everything points exactly in this direction: They knew Iraq didn't pose a threat.

Ah, another woorior sticks his head out of the box.