Iriemon said:
I think we are becoming redundant, but I will address the points one more time.
Thank you!
ican said:
(1) Saddam possessed the ability to remove terrorists from the autonomous region.
I provided you evidence that Saddam's military did in fact enter the autonomous zone prior to 9/11/2001, and did in fact remove (e.g., kill) some of those they encountered in the autonomous zone.
Do you disagree? If you do, why?
Iriemon said:
The fact that Hussein was able to attack a city does not logically lead to the conclusion that he had the power to remove Kurdish terrorists.
The US army has the power to attack Iraqi cities. For 2 1/2 years, it has been unable to remove the terrorists.
Saddam certainly had the power to
try or
pretend to try to comply with the USA request to extradite the Ansar al-Islam leadership. Saddam didn't even
pretend to try. Strange behavior for a guy who allegedly hated al-Qaeda.
The Kurdish autonomous zone was a self-governing zone for the Kurds. Saddam entered it before without penalty and he had the power to enter it again, at our invitation, without penalty, if and when he were to choose to do so. The Kurdish autonomous zone was also a no-fly zone. That is, the USA military shot down Saddam's aircraft that ventured into the no-fly zone. The USA military did not shoot down Saddam ground troops that ventured into the no-fly zone.
It is an undeniable fact that the US army did destroy the Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camps in northeastern Iraq. Saddam, in response to the USA's request, could have done the same if he had chosen to. Absent Saddam's effort to do the same, had the USA not invaded Iraq, the Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camps would have grown to train at least as many terrorist fighters in 5 years 4 months -- 10,000 to 20,000 -- as did the terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Those additional 10 to 20 thousand trained in Iraq would have been no less murderous of civilians than those previously trained in Afghanistan.
Thousands of terrorists were driven from Afghanistan. Many of them flocked to Iraq
before we invaded Iraq. Thousands of others that were sent to other countries after they completed their basic training in Afghanistan, flocked to Iraq
after we invaded Iraq. Exterminating or incarcerating them all will take much expense, time, skill and perseverance.
ican said:
(2) Ansar al-Islam terrorists were based in the autonomous region.
I provided you evidence that these terrorist were established in the autonomous region in December 2001.
Do you disagree? If you do, why?
Iriemon said:
Don't contest this point.
ican said:
(3) Ansar al-Islam was formed after the USA invaded Afghanistan.
Do you disagree? If you do, why?
Iriemon said:
Don't contest this point.
ican said:
(4) The Ansar al-Islam terrorists were growing in the autonomous region.
Do you disagree? If you do,why?
Iriemon said:
Don't contest this point.
ican said:
(5) Probably in 5 years time the Ansar al-Islam terrorists would have also trained a large number of terrorist fighters.
Do you disagree? If you do,why?
Iriemon said:
Don't contest this point.
ican said:
(6) Ansar al Islam was formed with the help of bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, who had ties to Iraq through his deputy, Turabi ... and through his deputy, Zawahiri
Do you disagree? If you do,why?
Iriemon said:
I don't contest whether bin Laden helped form the Kurdish terrorist organization. I disagree that the evidence establishes any significant ties, and I disagree with the implication that even if there were "ties" that implies that Saddam supported the Kurdish terrorists.
I never claimed the ties between Saddam and bin Laden were "significant"or that Saddam "supported" Ansar al-Islam. I instead specifically claimed that Saddam
harbored (i.e., allowed) Ansar al-Islam terrorists in Iraq. While I can guess why Saddam chose to do that, I have not yet encountered enough evidence to support any of my guesses.
My favorite guess at the moment is that after the USA's air attacks on Iraq's air defenses in 1998, Saddam began to hate America far more than he hated al Qaeda. After 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, he saw a clear way to service both his hatred of America and his other ambitions, while merely postponing servicing his hatred of al-Qaeda.
ican said:
(7) Saddam ignored USA requests to remove Ansar al Islam.
Do you disagree? If you do,why?
Iriemon said:
I did not specifically address this point, but IMO the support for this proposition, Powell's UN speech, to be unreliable. As discussed earlier, this presumes that Hussein had the power to remove the Kurdish terrrorists from the autonomous zone.
I think it very reliable. While Saddam denied other claims made by Powell in his speech to the UN (e.g., Saddam possessed WMD; Saddam abetted 9/11) , Saddam did not deny Powell's claim that the USA more than once requested Saddam extradite Ansar al-Islam leadership, and that more than once that request was ignored. Instead, Saddam ignored Powell's claim altogether.
ican said:
(8) The USA invaded Iraq March 2003 when the then Iraq government ignored USA government requests and would not stop harboring (i.e., allowing) al Qaeda training camps in Iraq
Emphasizing: ignored USA government requests and would not stop harboring (i.e., allowing)
Do you disagree? If you do,why?
Iriemon said:
I disagree this was "sold" as the primary justification for military intervention. I will agree that this Administration did a great job of implying that Iraq was involved with 9/11, Al-Queda, and terrorism in general.
Harboring terrorists was given three times by President Bush in 2001, after 9/11, as a fundamental justification for the USA to invade another country. It
sold me and
all of my acquaintenances. The alleged Iraq possession of WMD and abetting of 9/11, stated in Congress's 2002 resolution, were considered by
all of us as mere supplementary reasons. We were convinced that even if those two allegations were later found to be false, the harboring allegation was the fundamental allegation in Congress's 2002 resolution. President Bush blundered when he let congress and TOMNOM (i.e., The Oxy-Moron News-Opinion Media) convey, without an attempt on his part to correct the impressions of so many, that Saddam's possession of WMD and Saddam's abetting 9/11 were primary reasons.
ican said:
(9) because such harboring is a threat to our way of life.
Do you disagree? If you do, why?
Iriemon said:
Oh, I agree terrorism is a threat -- "to our way of life" is probably a bit of an exagerration, but our leaders do tend to exacerbate the terror caused by such and attack and use it for their political goals, which does change our way of life, so maybe there is some truth to it.
I think terrorism is a threat to our lives and to the lives of those we love. Those of us who are murdered by terrorists cease to any longer have a way of life. They only have a way of death. The lives of those who survive loss of murdered love ones are transformed by their sorrows and suffering into fearful and/or vengeful shadows of their former selves.
ican said:
(10) The USA invaded and destroyed the al Qaeda training camps in Iraq,
Do you disagree? If you do,why?
Iriemon said:
According to the Govt, they have not removed the terrorists. They may have destroyed some camps.
The US military destroyed
all the Ansar al-Islam training camps in northeastern Iraq by the time the USA invasion of Iraq was completed. Since then, as I mentioned above, additional terrorists have flocked to Iraq.
ican said:
(11) and began the process of replacing the then Iraq government with a democratic government
Do you disagree? If you do,why?
Iriemon said:
I agree this is what they are attempting to do, though I think what is going on is trying to install a pro-US government.
The USA is trying to do both. At the very least the USA is attempting to establish a democratic government that will not harbor (i.e., allow) terrorist training camps in Iraq.
ican said:
(12) in order to reduce the probability that al Qaeda would return and re-establish its training camps when the USA left Iraq.
Do you disagree? If you do, why?
Iriemon said:
That may have been the goal, but I think Hussein was more effective at keeping al-Queda out of Iraq than we were. IMO Al-Queda has a much stronger presence in Iraq than it did prior to the US invastion in Mar 03.
As long as al-Qaeda had adequate training camps in Afganistan, al Qaeda was not aggressive about establishing themselves in Iraq. So at that time Saddam had relatively little to do to keep al-Qaeda out of Iraq. But please note that as soon as al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan were destroyed by the USA, al Qaeda through its own new affiliate, Ansar al-Islam, established training camps in Iraq with zero effort by Saddam to stop them.