Again... Why did we invade Iraq?

Iriemon · Nov 12, 2005

icantoofly said:
I'm having difficulty relating your argument to what I actually claimed. My claims are in italics below. Much of your argument appears to me to dispute that which I did not claim. Please help me out here and for each of my claims (numbered in sequence below) tell me what you disagree with and why.

I think we are becoming redundant, but I will address the points one more time.

(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?

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.

(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?

Don't contest this point.

(3) Ansar al-Islam was formed after the USA invaded Afghanistan.

Do you disagree? If you do,why?

Don't contest this point.

(4) The Ansar al-Islam terrorists were growing in the autonomous region.

Do you disagree? If you do,why?

Don't contest this point.

(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?

Don't contest this point.

(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?

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.

(7) Saddam ignored USA requests to remove Ansar al Islam.

Do you disagree? If you do,why?

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.

(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?

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.

(9) because such harboring is a threat to our way of life.

Do you disagree? If you do,why?

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.

(10) The USA invaded and destroyed the al Qaeda training camps in Iraq,

Do you disagree? If you do,why?

According to the Govt, they have not removed the terrorists. They may have destroyed some camps.

(11) and began the process of replacing the then Iraq government with a democratic government

Do you disagree? If you do,why?

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.

(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?

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.

icantoofly · Nov 12, 2005

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.

Binary_Digit · Nov 13, 2005

It seems to me our friends the Kurds also made "zero effort" to stop them. So did the Kurds harbor Ansar al-Islam too? Sadaam Hussein didn't have much political influence in that area. Heck, even the U.S. military is having a tough time getting rid of terrorists from Iraq, how could we expect Hussein's Red Guard to do any better? That is, without using mustard gas again...

The best evidence of Hussein's sponsorship of terrorism are the checks he wrote to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, not these "ties" to al'Qaeda or the refusal to do something he was incapable of doing.

icantoofly · Nov 13, 2005

Binary_Digit said:
It seems to me our friends the Kurds also made "zero effort" to stop them. So did the Kurds harbor Ansar al-Islam too? Sadaam Hussein didn't have much political influence in that area. Heck, even the U.S. military is having a tough time getting rid of terrorists from Iraq, how could we expect Hussein's Red Guard to do any better? That is, without using mustard gas again...

No! The Kurds did not make zero effort to stop them! The Kurds certainly did not harbor the Islamist extremists.

I have posted the following quote several times [with different parts boldfaced]:

The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.4, page 61, note 54".
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

Let's you and I focus on the boldfaced parts.

Bin Ladin ... continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control.

In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces.

In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.

Especially note:

In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces.

I have also posted the following quote several times[with different parts boldfaced]:

"American Soldier in Chapter 12 A CAMPAIGN UNLIKE ANY OTHER, CENTCOM FORWARD HEADQUARTERS 21 MARCH 2003, A-DAY, page 483, General Tommy Franks.
The Air Picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges and a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another TLAM [Tomahawk Land Attack Missle] bashing. Soon Special Forces and SMU [Special Mission Unit] operators leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted.

Let's you and I focus on the boldface part:

Soon Special Forces and SMU [Special Mission Unit] operators leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted.

Especially note:

Kurdish Peshmerga fighters

So both before and during the USA invasion of Iraq the Kurds made significant efforts to stop the Islamist extremists.

As I have posted before [please note the boldface]:

The USA invaded Afghanistan October 2001 when the then Afghanistan government ignored USA government requests and would not stop harboring (i.e., allowing) al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, because that harboring is a threat to our way of life. The USA invaded and destroyed the al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, and began the process of replacing the then Afghanistan government with a democratic government in order to reduce the probability that al Qaeda would return and re-establish its training camps when the USA left Afghanistan.

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 because that harboring is a threat to our way of life. The USA invaded and destroyed the al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and began the process of replacing the then Iraq government with a democratic government in order to reduce the probability that al Qaeda would return and re-establish its training camps when the USA left Iraq.

Please note the boldfaced parts:

the then Afghanistan government ignored USA government requests and would not stop harboring (i.e., allowing) al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan

the then Iraq government ignored USA government requests and would not stop harboring (i.e., allowing) al Qaeda training camps in Iraq

If Saddam possessed the means to invade the Kurdish so-called autonomous region of Iraq to kill Kurds, he certainly possessed the means to do the same to the Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan).

You might ask: Why didn't the USA ask the Kurds to defeat the new (i.e., Ansar al- slam) Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan)? The answer is obvious. The USA didn't want the Islamist extremists to be reconstituted by Osama bin Laden a second time after the Kurds defeated the Islamist extremists a second time. They chose instead to partner with the Kurds to defeat the Islamist extremists a second time with the expectation that after a secured democracy was established in Iraq, Osama bin Laden or his heir would be less able, with Saddam's regime removed, to reconstitute the Islamist extremists in Iraq a second time.

Iriemon · Nov 18, 2005

icantoofly said:
Originally Posted by Iriemon
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.

Click to expand...

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.

1. The sole data you rely upon for the contention the US requested Iraq to remove Kurdish terrorists is Powell's UN speech, which has been discredited and Powell himself criticized, as I posted earlier in this thread. IMO, statements in Powell's speech are not credible as a basis for establishing fact. In any event, the statement is too ambiguous to make reliable conclusions.

"We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large, to come and go."

Where is this asking Iraq to remove Kurdish terrorists or Kurdish terrorist camps in Northern Iraq? What is the friendly security service? Why did we use a "friendly security service" and not ask formally? What was asked? What data was given that would have made it easy to find Zaqarwi?

2. If Powell's information is accurate, if we had data that made it easy to find Zarqarwi, why didn't we nail him? Why the hell didn't we bomb the Kurdish terrorist camps? The fact we did not leads me to question the accuracy of this contention.

3. Why should Hussein use his army to invade an autonomouse area of Northern Iraq he didn't control, he wasn't supposed to send his forces, or aircraft, he had been told to stay out of (according to your sources) to hunt for terrorists we say are there?

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.

You cited the contacts between Hussein and Al-Queda ops. I had supposed you did this to support your argument that Hussein harbored Kurdish terrorists.

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.

Nice speculation. Not evidence Hussein "harbored" Al-Queada.

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.

You are entitled to your opinion as to the validity of Powell's UN speech. I'll take Powell's own assessment of it over yours.

Please cite the quote where Powell (or anyone) claimed that "the USA more than once requested Saddam extradite Ansar al-Islam leadership..." I looked for that and did not see language supporting that contention in the sources you cited.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
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.

I disagree with your assetion. Bush may have talked about harboring Al-Queda three times, but he talked about WMDs scores (if not hundreds) of times. But this is a matter of opinion, so no use debating it.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
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.

Click to expand...

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.

If you are worried about dying, there are about 117 things more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack. You are much more likely to get killed in a car accident, murdered, shot, catch a disease, or any other number of things.

My mom did not die of a terrorist attack. She died of diabetes. She no longer has a way of life. She only has a way of death. I had sorrow. Diabetes kills 70,000 people every year. Since 2001, 280,000 people (Americans) have died of diabetes. That is 93x more people than have died of terrorist attacks (if you don't count the troops in Iraq).

Get some perspective.

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.

And failing. There are apparently many, many more terrorists being harbored in Iraq now than there were before Mar 2003.

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.

If the Kurds were running Al-Queda affiliated terrorist camps, why did we invade Iraq? Why not just invade Kurdistan? Why are we now supporting the Kurds, who not only harbored, but according to your data, trained terrorists?

Seems to me, based on your data and arguments, it was our friends the Kurds who were supporting the Al-Queda affiliated terrorists, not Hussein. We went after the wrong group.

Iriemon · Nov 18, 2005

Postscript to my preceding post -- someone posted this quote on another thread -- relevant to the contention that Hussein harbored the Kurdish terrorists in Northern Iraq:

Condoleezza Rice July 29, 2001:
"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

icantoofly · Nov 18, 2005

Iriemon said:
1. The sole data you rely upon for the contention the US requested Iraq to remove Kurdish terrorists is Powell's UN speech, which has been discredited and Powell himself criticized, as I posted earlier in this thread.

You have misquoted both Powell and me. Furthermore, Powell's claim that the USA asked Saddam to extradite the leadership of the al Qaeda supported Ansar al-Islam islamic extremists has not been discredited.

Iriemon said:
Where is this asking Iraq to remove Kurdish terrorists or Kurdish terrorist camps in Northern Iraq?

Iraq was not asked to remove "Kurdish terrorists." Iraq was asked to extradite the leadership (e.g., Zarqawi) of the al Qaeda supported Ansar al-Islam islamic extremists.

Iriemon said:
2. Why the hell didn't we bomb the Kurdish terrorist camps? The fact we did not leads me to question the accuracy of this contention.

Been there, done that in Afghanistan: Bombing did not work. Invasion of Afghanistan was required to destroy al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan: the same was true in Iraq.

Iriemon said:
3. Why should Hussein use his army to invade an autonomouse area of Northern Iraq he didn't control, he wasn't supposed to send his forces, or aircraft, he had been told to stay out of (according to your sources) to hunt for terrorists we say are there?

But Saddam didn't stay out in 1996, did he? Ignoring our requests (three including Powell's speech of 2/5/2003) wasn't a rational self-interest way to disuade us from invading Iraq.

Iriemon said:
You cited the contacts between Hussein and Al-Queda ops. I had supposed you did this to support your argument that Hussein harbored Kurdish terrorists.

No! I cited those contacts to show that Saddam had contacts with al Qaeda and could have ordered the al Qaeda supported Ansar al-Islam islamic extremists out of Iraq if he had chosen not to harbor them.

Iriemon said:
You are entitled to your opinion as to the validity of Powell's UN speech. I'll take Powell's own assessment of it over yours.

Please cite the quote where Powell (or anyone) claimed that "the USA more than once requested Saddam extradite Ansar al-Islam leadership..." I looked for that and did not see language supporting that contention in the sources you cited.

Powell did not disclaim/reject/denounce this part of his speech:

Secretary of State, Colin Powell's speech to UN, 2/5/2003, on sinister nexus.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

Now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large, to come and go.

Iriemon said:
I disagree with your assetion. Bush may have talked about harboring Al-Queda three times, but he talked about WMDs scores (if not hundreds) of times. But this is a matter of opinion, so no use debating it.

Twenty-three whereases (i.e., reasons) were stated in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 by Congress October 16, 2002. However, only six of Congress's reasons (shown below in boldface), reflect the one reason declared by President Bush a year earlier. That one reason was: President Bush declared that the USA shall fight a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda, that will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them, in order to eliminate terrorism as a threat to our way of life.

Consequently, Congress's additional seventeen reasons constitute supplementary reasons for invading Iraq, and as such are not needed to justify the Iraq invasion regardless of whether any one or more of those seventeen have been subsequently shown to be either true or false.

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
Oct. 16, 2002
(H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
(1) Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

(2) Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

(3) Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

(4) Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

(5) Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

(6) Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

(7) Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

(8) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

(9) Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

(10) Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Continued in next post!

icantoofly · Nov 18, 2005

Continued from my previous post!

(12) Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

(13) Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

(14) Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

(15) Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

(16) Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

(17) Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

(18) Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

(19)Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

(20) Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(21) Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(22) Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

(23) Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
50 USC 1541 note.

Iriemon said:
If you are worried about dying, there are about 117 things more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack. You are much more likely to get killed in a car accident, murdered, shot, catch a disease, or any other number of things. Get some perspective.

I'm not afraid of my dying. That is certain. I am afraid of our posterity never living, or living under intolerable conditions.I think it is you who needs to get some perspective (and maybe some better reading comprehension skills as well).

The Price of USA withdrawal:

Al-Zarqawi: al Qaeda's Second Generation by Jordanian journalist, Fouad Hussein.

Al Qaeda's seven phase plan for world conquest:

Phase 1, the "wakeup call." Spectacular terrorist attacks on the West get the infidels to make war on Islamic nations. This arouses Moslems, and causes them to flock to al Qaedas banner. This phase is complete.

Phase 2, the "eye opening." Al Qaeda does battle with the infidels, and shows over a billion Moslems how it's done. This phase to be completed by next year.

Phase 3, "the rising." Millions of aroused Moslems go to war against Islam's enemies for the rest of the decade. Especially heavy attacks are made against Israel. It is believed that major damage in Israel will force the world to acknowledge al Qaeda as a major power, and negotiate with it.

Phase 4, "the downfall." By 2013, al Qaeda will control the Persian Gulf, and all its oil, as well as most of the Middle East. This will enable al Qaeda to cripple the American economy, and American military power.

Phase 5, "the Caliphate." By 2016, the Caliphate (i.e., one government for all Moslem nations) will be established. At this point, nearly all Western cultural influences will be eliminated from Islamic nations. The Caliphate will organize a mighty army for the next phase.

Phase 6, "world conquest." By 2022, the rest of the world will be conquered by the righteous and unstoppable armies of Islam. This is the phase that Osama bin Laden has been talking about for years.

Phase 7, "final victory." All the world's inhabitants will be forced to either convert to Islam, or submit to Islamic rule. To be completed by 2025.

icantoofly · Nov 18, 2005

Iriemon said:
Postscript to my preceding post -- someone posted this quote on another thread -- relevant to the contention that Hussein harbored the Kurdish terrorists in Northern Iraq:

Condoleezza Rice July 29, 2001:
"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Condi was wrong then (If in deed she ever said that then)! But then she'd only had about 6 months in her job at that point -- July 29, 2001. By October 16, 2002, 1 year 3 months later, the day of Congress's war resolution, she obviously thought differently.

Iriemon · Nov 19, 2005

icantoofly said:
You have misquoted both Powell and me. Furthermore, Powell's claim that the USA asked Saddam to extradite the leadership of the al Qaeda supported Ansar al-Islam islamic extremists has not been discredited.

I quoted Powell earlier in this thread, his statements stand by themselves.

What is the friendly security service? Why did we use a "friendly security service" and not ask formally? What was asked? What data was given that would have made it easy to find Zaqarwi?

Iraq was not asked to remove "Kurdish terrorists." Iraq was asked to extradite the leadership (e.g., Zarqawi) of the al Qaeda supported Ansar al-Islam islamic extremists.

Your assertion from post #799: (7) Saddam ignored USA requests to remove Ansar al Islam [ie the kurdish terrorists]. Now you are backtracking from the claims you made to support your conclusion.

Been there, done that in Afghanistan: Bombing did not work. Invasion of Afghanistan was required to destroy al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan: the same was true in Iraq.

Not an explanation to me, if the US knew where these Al-Queda camps and had data that "would make it easy to find Zarqawari", why we did not destroy the camp. Using your own argument, the Bush administration should have at least tried. The fact that they did not leads to the conclusion that the accuracy of this claim is suspect. Add to that this contention relies upon statments from Powell's discredited UN speech, and the general unreliability of information and analysis the neocon group that is the source of this stuff has made about Iraq in general, and the conclusion I reach is that your contention that Hussein was harboring Al-Queda camps because he did not remove Kurdish terrorists is fallacious.

In any event, you initially based your claim that Hussein supported and harbored Al-Queda, because Hussein did not remove the kurdish terrorist group and that the US asked him to. Now as we examine the details, we find that your contention is really based on the dubious proposition about whether Hussein was asked to and could have extradited one man, not a kurdish terrorist network in a place in Iraq Condi says he did not control. The entire premise of your conclusion has fallen apart.

But Saddam didn't stay out in 1996, did he? Ignoring our requests (three including Powell's speech of 2/5/2003) wasn't a rational self-interest way to disuade us from invading Iraq.

We are repeating. One raid in 1996 does not equate to the ability to hunt out and remove kurdish terrorists. The proof is in the pudding, the best army in the world has been unable to do the same thing after 2 1/2 years.

No! I cited those contacts to show that Saddam had contacts with al Qaeda and could have ordered the al Qaeda supported Ansar al-Islam islamic extremists out of Iraq if he had chosen not to harbor them.

Whatever. The evidence of these "contacts" indicating a cooperation with al-Queda is extemely suspect, for reasons I have already explained.

Powell did not disclaim/reject/denounce this part of his speech:

Powell indiacted that the intellegence he was given to make statements in his speech were unreliable. He did not disclaim any specific part of it. The indication is that the intel was manipulated to make the case for war. We can show there were WMDs. It is hard to disprove the location of one man. I have reviewed reports on the data about Hussein extraditing Zarqawi. There is no reliable evidence that Hussein had this capability, or that Zaqarwi, if he even was in Iraq before Mar 2003, was ever in areas of Husseins control. That is another unfounded part of Powells UN speech you are relying upon .

Twenty-three whereases (i.e., reasons) were stated in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 by Congress October 16, 2002. However, only six of Congress's reasons (shown below in boldface), reflect the one reason declared by President Bush a year earlier. That one reason was: President Bush declared that the USA shall fight a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda, that will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them, in order to eliminate terrorism as a threat to our way of life.

Consequently, Congress's additional seventeen reasons constitute supplementary reasons for invading Iraq, and as such are not needed to justify the Iraq invasion regardless of whether any one or more of those seventeen have been subsequently shown to be either true or false.

I disagree with your assertion on how the justification of the war in Iraq was sold. I agree that Administration did try mightly to imply, falsely, that Hussein and Al-Queda were closely interlinked and that Hussein was linked to 9/11. As a result of these misimplications (I call them lies), a large percentage of the populace believed Iraq was invovled in Al-Queda in 9/11 in Mar 2003. On that basis I agree that was one of the things this Administration did to get backing for its war. But the primary justification was the WMDs and the urgent threat they posed.

I'm not afraid of my dying. That is certain. I am afraid of our posterity never living, or living under intolerable conditions.I think it is you who needs to get some perspective (and maybe some better reading comprehension skills as well).

I am concerned about our posterity as well. That is why I object so strongly to this Government for disregarding fundamental individuals rights our forefathers died for. They are the greater danger to our posterity, IMO.

The Price of USA withdrawal:

Are you contending this will be the consequence if the US admits its mistakes and gets out of Iraq? LOL. I will say, if this is their plan, this Administration is playing right into their hands with the Iraq war. It is embarrassing to me that our leaders are so stupid that they are being manipulated so easily by the likes of bin Laden and Chalibi.

Condoleezza Rice July 29, 2001:
"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Condi was wrong then (If in deed she ever said that then)! But then she'd only had about 6 months in her job at that point -- July 29, 2001. By October 16, 2002, 1 year 3 months later, the day of Congress's war resolution, she obviously thought differently.

I see. When statements support your theory, even when they have been discredited by their own author, you rely on them. When statements by the Administration do not support your theory, they were wrong.

Based on the way you analyse data, you would have fit right in with the intellegence analysts and decision makers who brought us into this erroneous war.

icantoofly · Nov 19, 2005

Iriemon said:
... What is the friendly security service? Why did we use a "friendly security service" and not ask formally? What was asked? What data was given that would have made it easy to find Zaqarwi?

I don't know. I don't know how a lot of things work that I know work. That doesn't prevent me from knowing they in fact do work. Why did you ask?

Iriemon said:
Your assertion from post #799: (7) Saddam ignored USA requests to remove Ansar al Islam [ie the kurdish terrorists]. Now you are backtracking from the claims you made to support your conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam (i.e., Supporters or Partisans of Islam) is a Kurdish Sunni Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war

Ansar al-Islam is a "Kurdish Sunni Islamist group" and a "kurdish terrorist group." As such they are only a group of Kurds and not all the Kurdish people. Many Kurds helped the USA destroy the Ansar al-Islam camps in Iraq.

Iriemon said:
the conclusion I reach is that your contention that Hussein was harboring Al-Queda camps because he did not remove Kurdish terrorists is fallacious.

to harbor = "to give shelter or refuge to"

Ansar al-Islam took refuge in Iraq with al Qaeda's help. Ansar al-Islam was allowed by Saddam's government to keep its refuge in Iraq. Saddam's government was asked to remove Ansar al-Islam's leadership from Iraq. Saddam's government ignored the request. Al Qaeda's Ansar al-Islam grew in Iraq. The USA invaded Iraq. The USA removed Ansar al-Islam from Iraq. The USA removed Saddam's government from Iraq. Al Qaeda re-entered Iraq. The USA is fighting to again remove al Qaeda from Iraq.

Iriemon said:
We are repeating. One raid in 1996 does not equate to the ability to hunt out and remove kurdish terrorists. The proof is in the pudding, the best army in the world has been unable to do the same thing after 2 1/2 years.

Thus, it's a very good thing the USA is continuing to fight to again remove al Qaeda from Iraq. The consequences of failure to do so are intolerable.

Iriemon said:
I disagree with your assertion on how the justification of the war in Iraq was sold. I agree that Administration did try mightly to imply, falsely, that Hussein and Al-Queda were closely interlinked and that Hussein was linked to 9/11. As a result of these misimplications (I call them lies), a large percentage of the populace believed Iraq was invovled in Al-Queda in 9/11 in Mar 2003. On that basis I agree that was one of the things this Administration did to get backing for its war. But the primary justification was the WMDs and the urgent threat they posed.

The WMD threat was not the only justification given. The WMD threat was the most frequent, most widely publicized, and most popular justification given. That does not make WMD the primary justification given. It was not the primary justification (i.e., most important justification given). The terrorists have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to murder hundreds and even thousands without the use of WMD. The primary justification (i.e., the primary rational justification) was that the terrorist threat was growing in Iraq even while the USA was fighting to end it in Afghanistan.

The only rational complaint about our invasion of Iraq is its slow progress in removing the terrorist threat from Iraq. Surely you understand that if we had not invaded Iraq, our progress in removing the terrorist threat from Iraq in particular, and the middle east in general, would have been even slower.

Iriemon said:
I am concerned about our posterity as well. That is why I object so strongly to this Government for disregarding fundamental individuals rights our forefathers died for. They are the greater danger to our posterity, IMO.

The USA is attempting to secure those rights per the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States ofAmerica.

Iriemon said:
Are you contending this will be the consequence if the US admits its mistakes and gets out of Iraq? LOL. I will say, if this is their plan, this Administration is playing right into their hands with the Iraq war. It is embarrassing to me that our leaders are so stupid that they are being manipulated so easily by the likes of bin Laden and Chalibi.

I am saying that getting out of Iraq now will result in a far greater insecurity for our rights than any temporary, minor wartime restrictions. The USA has "been there and done that" several times before. In each case, at the end of the conflict the wartime restrictions were rescinded.

Iriemon said:
Condoleezza Rice July 29, 2001:
"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

That isn't what Condi knew subsequently, a year and 3 months later. Perhaps what you know today is the same as what you knew yesterday. Most of us are not so blessed.

Iriemon said:
Based on the way you analyse data, you would have fit right in with the intellegence analysts and decision makers who brought us into this erroneous war.

You appear to think that absent a certain threat, there is no threat. The terrorist threat to the security of our rights is real and, while not certain yet, it is horribly highly probable. The moment the terrorist threat becomes certain to you, if it ever becomes certain to you, you will certainly be dead or injured.

You may walk across the path of a speeding auto risking only the probability but not the certainty you will be dead or injured before you finish crossing its path. Good luck! You'll probably need it.

Iriemon · Nov 19, 2005

icantoofly said:
I don't know. I don't know how a lot of things work that I know work. That doesn't prevent me from knowing they in fact do work. Why did you ask?
...

You are now just repeating the same assertions we have already analyzed.

icantoofly · Nov 19, 2005

Iriemon said:
You are now just repeating the same assertions we have already analyzed.

I have to! You keep bringing up the same old rebuttals we have already analyzed.

I argue preponderance of probability. You argue lack of certainty.

I bet that the only thing certain in this world is that nothing is certain in this world.

And so here I probably go again ...

I CLAIMED:

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, because such harboring is a threat to our way of life. The USA invaded and destroyed the al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and began the process of replacing the then Iraq government with a democratic government in order to reduce the probability that al Qaeda would return and re-establish its training camps when the USA left Iraq.

ABSTRACTS OF EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT MY CLAIM

(1) Saddam possessed the ability to remove terrorists from the autonomous region.
www.britannica.com
IRAQ
"This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force."

(2) Ansar al-Islam terrorists were based in the autonomous region.
"American Soldier", by General Tommy Franks
*Chapter 12 - A CAMPAIGN UNLIKE ANY OTHER, CENTCOM FORWARD HEADQUARTERS 21 MARCH 2003, A-DAY", page 483
"Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges and a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
*Ansar al-Islam
"When the US invaded, it attacked ... Ansar al-Islam ... training camps in the north"

(3) Ansar al-Islam was formed in Iraq after the USA invaded Afghanistan in October 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam
"Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001"

(4) The Ansar al-Islam terrorists were growing in the autonomous region.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam
"Ansar al-Islam ... [was] promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war. At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq ... Ansar al-Islam ... controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border."

(5) Ansar al Islam was formed with the help of bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, who had ties to Iraq through his deputies, Turabi and Zawahiri.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
*The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.4, page 61, note 54.
"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi ... Bin Laden's Sudanese deputy … with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam."

*The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 66, note 75.
"Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, … had ties of his own to the Iraqis. "

(6) In 5 years, the Ansar al-Islam terrorists probably would have trained about the same number of terrorist fighters.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 67, note 78.
"U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of fighters who underwent instruction in Bin Ladin-supported camps in Afghanistan from 1996 through 9/11 at 10,000 to 20,000."

(7) Saddam ignored USA requests to remove Ansar al Islam.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...2003/17300.htm
Secretary of State, Colin Powell's speech to UN, 2/5/2003,
"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network

We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice

The network remains in Baghdad."

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS MY CLAIM

(1) Saddam possessed the ability to remove terrorists from the autonomous region.
(2) Ansar al-Islam terrorists were based in the autonomous region.
(3) Ansar al-Islam was formed in Iraq after the USA invaded Afghanistan in October 2001.
(4) The Ansar al-Islam terrorists were growing in the autonomous region.
(5) Ansar al Islam was formed with the help of bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, who had ties to Iraq.
(6) In 5 years, the Ansar al-Islam terrorists probably would have trained about the same number of terrorist fighters.
(7) Saddam ignored USA requests to remove Ansar al Islam

CONCLUSION

We have one independent, valid and sufficient justification for the invasion of Iraq by the USA. I think it obvious that the validity of this one reason is not reduced by the lack of validity of any other reason or reasons claimed for the invasion of Iraq by the USA, regardless of the number of such reasons.

The USA invaded Afghanistan October 2001, when the then Afghanistan government ignored USA government requests and would not stop harboring (i.e., allowing) al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, because such harboring is a threat to our way of life. The USA invaded and destroyed the al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, and began the process of replacing the then Afghanistan government with a democratic government in order to reduce the probability that al Qaeda would return and re-establish its training camps when the USA left Afghanistan.

For the same reason that the USA invaded Afghanistan, the USA invaded Iraq. 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, because such harboring is a threat to our way of life. The USA invaded and destroyed the al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and began the process of replacing the then Iraq government with a democratic government in order to reduce the probability that al Qaeda would return and re-establish its training camps when the USA left Iraq.

Iriemon · Nov 21, 2005

icantoofly said:
I have to! You keep bringing up the same old rebuttals we have already analyzed.

I argue preponderance of probability. You argue lack of certainty.

You argue based on speculation, discredited and unreliable evidence, and unfounded infrerences. IMO we should not be invading countries based on speculation.

I bet that the only thing certain in this world is that nothing is certain in this world.

True, so you do the best you can based on an objective analysis. This is what the Administration failed to do. It had determined to invade Iraq long before Mar 2003 and was completely subjective.

And so here I probably go again ...

There you go again. Restating the exact claims I have shown are, if not unreliable or speculative, false.

(1) Saddam possessed the ability to remove terrorists from the autonomous region.

Demonstrably false. Iraq did not have this capability.

(2) Ansar al-Islam terrorists were based in the autonomous region.

True. The Ansar al-Islam terrorists were Kurds operating in the Kurdish autonomous region of Northern Iraq.

(7) Saddam ignored USA requests to remove Ansar al Islam

Demonstrably false. The US never asked Iraq to remove the Kurdish terrorists.

CONCLUSION

We have one independent, valid and sufficient justification for the invasion of Iraq by the USA. I think it obvious that the validity of this one reason is not reduced by the lack of validity of any other reason or reasons claimed for the invasion of Iraq by the USA, regardless of the number of such reasons.

The USA invaded Afghanistan October 2001, when the then Afghanistan government ignored USA government requests and would not stop harboring (i.e., allowing) al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, because such harboring is a threat to our way of life. The USA invaded and destroyed the al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, and began the process of replacing the then Afghanistan government with a democratic government in order to reduce the probability that al Qaeda would return and re-establish its training camps when the USA left Afghanistan.

For the same reason that the USA invaded Afghanistan, the USA invaded Iraq. 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, because such harboring is a threat to our way of life. The USA invaded and destroyed the al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, and began the process of replacing the then Iraq government with a democratic government in order to reduce the probability that al Qaeda would return and re-establish its training camps when the USA left Iraq.

Your conclusion is based upon false premises and analysis.

Iraq did not possess the power to remove the Kurdish terrorists.

Condoleezza Rice July 29, 2001:
"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Iraq did not have the forces to sweep the entire mountainous area of Northern Iraq searching for terrorist camps, even if had been authorized to do so. It couldn't even fly aircraft in the area. The US army, best in the world, has been unable to remove terrorists from Iraq, so your argument that Hussein could have removed the terrorists in an area outside his control is demonstrably false.

On this basis alone, your entire argument falls apart.

You have also presented no evidence for the proposition of claim number 7. "Saddam ignored USA requests to remove Ansar al Islam". In fact, the only evidence of this claim is the dubious statement Powell made in his discredited UN speech where he said that Iraq was asked to extradite Al Zaqarwi through a intermediary.

Finally, your entire argument flies in the face of logic that Hussein would "support and harbor" a kurdish terrorist organization, whose goal was independence from Iraq, if not the overthrow of Hussein. Hussein would not logically have supported the arming and training of such a group in his country.

You have presented no credible authority for the proposition that Hussein harbored and supported Al-Queda, beyond speculation, discredited statements, and illgocial inferences. The rational conclusion is that Iraq did not support and harbor Al-Queda, this is yet another unfounded claim made by the neocons and Bush apologists, and does not provide justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

icantoofly · Nov 21, 2005

Iriemon said:
You argue based on speculation, discredited and unreliable evidence, and unfounded infrerences.

There you go again with your unsupported allegations. Let's look at what is at best your only alleged evidence.

Iriemon said:
...
Condoleezza Rice July 29, 2001:
"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

(1) You have presented zero evidence that Rice actually said this.
(2) You ignore the fact that Rice repeatedly contradicted this statement after 9/11/2001.
(3) You ignore the fact that Saddam contradicted this statement in his 1996 successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil.
(4) You ignore the fact that the Kurds defeated the previous occupants of northeastern Iraq in the late 1990s.
(5) You ignore the fact that the Kurds with USA guidance destroyed the Ansar al-Islam camps and removed (i.e., ran off) their leadership in less than a week in 2003.
(6) You ignore the fact that Powell publicly announced that the USA had requested that Saddam extradite the leadership of Ansar al-Islam, but Saddam ignored that announcement when he could have either denied it or pleaded he was unable to comply.
(7) You ignore the fact that the 9/11 Commission alleged that Saddam's relationship with al Qaeda started to change in 1998 with bin laden's 1998 fatwah and the USA air raid on Iraq's air defense systems.
(8) You ignore the fact that the 9/11 Commission alleged that Saddam's relationship with al Qaeda became downright cordial after al Qaeda attacked the USA and murdered almost 3,000 civilians. (That's easy to explain: Saddam hated the USA a lot more than he hated al Qaeda.)

Iriemon said:
...
You have presented no credible authority for the proposition that Hussein harbored and supported Al-Queda, beyond speculation, discredited statements, and illgocial inferences. The rational conclusion is that Iraq did not support and harbor Al-Queda, this is yet another unfounded claim made by the neocons and Bush apologists, and does not provide justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

This is falsity. Absent evidence to the contrary, it at best represents your opinions, and at worst your fantasies.

Iriemon · Nov 22, 2005

icantoofly said:
There you go again with your unsupported allegations. Let's look at what is at best your only alleged evidence.

(1) You have presented zero evidence that Rice actually said this.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
Do a google search on the quote and you'll find 64,000 sources of it.

(2) You ignore the fact that Rice repeatedly contradicted this statement after 9/11/2001.

You mean after the Administration started cooking the case for invading Iraq?

(3) You ignore the fact that Saddam contradicted this statement in his 1996 successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil.

That does not contradict the statement. Plus this action was in 1996, 5 years before the National Security Advisor's statement in 2001.

(4) You ignore the fact that the Kurds defeated the previous occupants of northeastern Iraq in the late 1990s.

I guess we should have asked the Kurds to remove the Kurdish terrorists.

(5) You ignore the fact that the Kurds with USA guidance destroyed the Ansar al-Islam camps and removed (i.e., ran off) their leadership in less than a week in 2003.

Ditto. And did this act (assuming it's true) remove the terrorists?

(6) You ignore the fact that Powell publicly announced that the USA had requested that Saddam extradite the leadership of Ansar al-Islam, but Saddam ignored that announcement when he could have either denied it or pleaded he was unable to comply.

There you go again, changing your assertions on the fly. Which is it, did

(7) Saddam ignored USA requests to remove Ansar al Islam

as you previously claimed, or

the USA had requested that Saddam extradite the leadership of Ansar al-Islam

As you now are arguing?

(7) You ignore the fact that the 9/11 Commission alleged that Saddam's relationship with al Qaeda started to change in 1998 with bin laden's 1998 fatwah and the USA air raid on Iraq's air defense systems.

I have not. The report claimed that there was may have been an effort to get an agreement that Al-Qeuda would stop attacking Hussein, that may or may not have been successful. So what? That proves nothing, except bin Laden and Hussein were bitter enemies.

(8) You ignore the fact that the 9/11 Commission alleged that Saddam's relationship with al Qaeda became downright cordial after al Qaeda attacked the USA and murdered almost 3,000 civilians. (That's easy to explain: Saddam hated the USA a lot more than he hated al Qaeda.)

I don't recall you posting anything that talked about "downright cordial" relationships?

This is falsity. Absent evidence to the contrary, it at best represents your opinions, and at worst your fantasies.

You are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to mine. In my opinion, you have completely failed to make a case that Hussein ever supported or harbored Al-Queda as a justification for the Iraq war. Others can form their own opinions.

KCConservative · Nov 22, 2005

Iriemon said:
:spin: Nice job.

icantoofly · Nov 22, 2005

Iriemon said:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
...
You are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to mine. In my opinion, you have completely failed to make a case that Hussein ever supported or harbored Al-Queda as a justification for the Iraq war. Others can form their own opinions.

There you go again with your unsupported allegations. Let's look again at the full quote of what is at best your only alleged evidence.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
 Describing the state of Iraq and it's threat level to its neighbours on CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, July 29th 2001
 CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, July 29th, 2001 reported by Radio4all.net

So Rice was talking about the state of Iraq and it's threat level to its neighboring states (e.g., Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia) and not its threat level to any areas inside Iraq.

THEREFORE
(1) You have presented zero evidence that Rice was talking about the state of Iraq’s ability to remove Ansar al-Islam from Iraq.
(2) You ignore the fact that Rice repeatedly contradicted this statement after 9/11/2001.
(3) You ignore the fact that Saddam contradicted this statement in his 1996 successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil.
(4) You ignore the fact that the Kurds defeated the previous occupants of northeastern Iraq in the late 1990s.
(5) You ignore the fact that the Kurds with USA guidance destroyed the Ansar al-Islam camps and removed (i.e., ran off) their leadership in less than a week in 2003.
(6) You ignore the fact that Powell publicly announced that the USA had requested that Saddam extradite the leadership of Ansar al-Islam, but Saddam ignored that announcement when he could have either denied it or pleaded he was unable to comply.
(7) You ignore the fact that Saddam built thousands of ordnance depots throughout Iraq prior to the USA invasion of Iraq.
(8) You ignore the fact that the 9/11 Commission alleged that Saddam's relationship with al Qaeda started to change in 1998 with bin laden's 1998 fatwah and the USA air raid on Iraq's air defense systems.
(9) You ignore the fact that the 9/11 Commission alleged that Saddam's relationship with al Qaeda became downright cordial after al Qaeda attacked the USA and murdered almost 3,000 civilians. (That's easy to explain: Saddam hated the USA a lot more than he hated al Qaeda.)

Absent evidence to the contrary, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

oldreliable67 · Nov 22, 2005

Most likely only history will tell us who is right and who was wrong, but at this moment in time...

kudos to itoocanfly and iriemon for a really good back and forth on an important topic. Thats really digging in and going for it. Good job!

Iriemon · Nov 22, 2005

oldreliable67 said:
Most likely only history will tell us who is right and who was wrong, but at this moment in time...

kudos to itoocanfly and iriemon for a really good back and forth on an important topic. Thats really digging in and going for it. Good job!

Thanks. I disagree with Itoo's conclusions, but he did a nice job researching and putting together an argument.

icantoofly · Nov 23, 2005

oldreliable67 said:
Most likely only history will tell us who is right and who was wrong, but at this moment in time...

kudos to itoocanfly and iriemon for a really good back and forth on an important topic. Thats really digging in and going for it. Good job!

Iriemon said:
Thanks. I disagree with Itoo's conclusions, but he did a nice job researching and putting together an argument.

Thank you both.:smile:

Again... Why did we invade Iraq?

Iriemon

icantoofly

Member

Binary_Digit

icantoofly

Member

Iriemon

Iriemon

icantoofly

Member

icantoofly

Member

icantoofly

Member

Iriemon

icantoofly

Member

Iriemon

icantoofly

Member

Iriemon

icantoofly

Member

Iriemon

KCConservative

icantoofly

Member

oldreliable67

Iriemon

icantoofly

Member

Again... Why did we invade Iraq?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency