Again... Why did we invade Iraq?

[icantoofly]

While the Blair and Bush administrations and the USA Congress were gullible fools about some of the intelligence they were provided, they were not frauds; they were not liars about that intelligence. They did not manipulate that intelligence to serve their political objectives.

www.wmd.gov/report/report.html
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
[Boldface added]
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT, MARCH 31, 2005.
(Robb-Silberman Report)

Finally, we closely examined the possibility that intelligence analysts were pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs. The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. That said, it is hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence analysts worked in an environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf
Senate Intelligence Committee Report, July 9, 2004

The committee found no evidence of the IC’s (i.e., Intelligence Community’s) miss characterization or exaggeration of the intelligence on Iraq’s WMD (i.e., Weapon’s of Mass Destruction) capabilities was the result of political pressure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3892809.stm
At-a-glance: Butler report published on 14 July 2004.
Lord Butler's inquiry has published its verdict on the intelligence used to justify the war against Iraq. Here are the main points.

The reliability of intelligence
 Doubt has been cast on a "high proportion" of human intelligence sources - and so on the quality of intelligence assessments given to ministers and officials

Joint Intelligence committee (JIC)
 No evidence has been found of "deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence"
 In general, original intelligence was reported correctly in JIC assessments, with the exception of the 45-minute claim

Congressional Democrats, as well as Congressional Republicans and President Bush, were fooled by the false assertions of our intelligence services and did not lie. In particular, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Jay Rockefeller were fooled by the false assertions of our intelligence services and did not lie.

Wall Street Journal, Thursday November 3, 2005, page A12.

Al Gore from September 23, 2002, amid the Congressional debate over going to war: “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Hillary Clinton from October 10, 2002: “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al Qaeda members. …”

Senator Jay Rockefeller from October 10, 2002: “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons within the next five years. … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

 

[icantoofly]

This stuff might have been justification for invading Iraq. If it were true.

The October 2002 resolution passed by Congress was not a declaration or even an approval of war against Iraq. Rather, it gave the President authority
"to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
...

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:
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.

Clearly the Resolution by Congress October 16, 2002 was exactly what it was titled:
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Clearly, The October 2002 resolution passed by Congress was a declaration of and an approval of war against Iraq to be executed when and if the President thought necessary.

February 5, 2003, the USA declared to the UN what it believed was its case for going to war against Iraq. March 20, 2003, the USA went to war against Iraq by invading Iraq and removing its government which was believed, and subsequently verified, to harbor al Qaeda since December 2001.

 

[cnredd]

Testify, My brother!...:2wave:

 

[icantoofly]

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. 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. 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.

 

[CanadianForPeace]

This is false. Much of what Carter has said has been shown subsequently to have been false.

Subsequently? He said that a few days ago. Proof, please. And I don't see how you can say it's "false" that it's wrong to invade a nation that don't pose a direct threat.

American were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and direct links to the 9/11 attacks. Neither of these things were true. Hence, Americans were decieved about Iraq. That is also inarguable.

Hahaha. You people are all the same. That's OK. The Islamic extremists do it too. Your government wouldn't be the ones that gave us the money...we "stole" it. It's never other governments fault that things occur within their own civilizations and borders....it's always America's fault. I see that blame is the narcotic of choice not only for the Middle East.

No, this is not regarding money we "gave" you. This is regarding an agreement you signed (NAFTA) that you have since chosen to cavalierly disregard after you have been ruled against repeatedly and finally. It has been ruled that you owe us five million dollars. You have chosen not to pay, simply because you are an economically strong nation and have the power not to. That's stealing.

 

[Iriemon]

February 5, 2003, the USA declared to the UN what it believed was its case for going to war against Iraq. March 20, 2003, the USA went to war against Iraq by invading Iraq and removing its government which was believed, and subsequently verified, to harbor al Qaeda since December 2001.

How was it subsequently verified that Iraq harbored Al Queada? I have seen little that verifies it. The connections I have seen to Al Queda related to a Kurdish group (not Iraqi) in the Kurdish part of No. Iraq, and some unsubstantiated claims that Al Zarqawi may have gone to Baghdad at some point.

 

[icantoofly]

Subsequently? He said that a few days ago. Proof, please. And I don't see how you can say it's "false" that it's wrong to invade a nation that don't pose a direct threat.

American were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and direct links to the 9/11 attacks. Neither of these things were true. Hence, Americans were decieved about Iraq. That is also inarguable.

I'll write it more clearly:

Much of what Carter has said over the last 32 years (includes statements he made before he ran for president the first time) has subsequently been shown to be false.

It is not wrong to invade a nation that harbors (i.e., allows) al Qaeda to operate terrorist training camps in it.

I agree that "American were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and direct links to the 9/11 attacks. Neither of these things were true."

It is false to say "Hence, Americans were decieved about Iraq." That is arguable. That is true for only some Americans. That is true only for those Americans who are gullible folks limited to TOMNOM's (i.e., The Oxy-Moron Opinion-News Media's) pseudo-news.

I wasn't deceived! None of my acquaintenances were deceived. In my judgment, mostly the hate-bush-democrats were deceived. The rest of us weren't deceived because we were told back in September and October 2001, shortly after 9/11, what would cause the USA to invade another country. Not mentioned in the President's speeches then were the false accusations that Iraq possessed ready-to-use WMD, and was an accomplice to 9/11. However, those false reasons were mentioned both in the October 2002 resolution and in Powell's UN speech February 5, 2003, along with valid reasons.

The original, fundamental, and sufficient reason for invading Iraq as well as Afghanistan was stated three times by President Bush in September and October of 2001. 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.

From www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
September 20, 2004, final report

The night of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the President broadcast to the nation (chapter 10, page 326, note 10):

We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

Thursday, September 20, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress (chapter 10.3, page 336, note 80):

Tonight we are a country awakened to danger.

Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

This is civilization's fight.

On Tuesday, October 25, 2001, President Bush formally signed this new presidential directive (chapter 10.2, page 333, notes 57 & 58):

The pre-9/11 draft presidential directive on al Qaeda evolved into a new directive, National Security Presidential Directive 9, now titled "Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States." The directive would now extend to a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda. It also incorporated the President's determination not to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them. It included a determination to use military force if necessary to end al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan. The new directive -- formally signed on October 25, after the fighting in Afghanistan had already begun -- included new material followed by annexes discussing each targeted terrorist group. The old draft directive on al Qaeda became, in effect, the first annex. The United States would strive to eliminate all terrorist networks, dry up their financial support, and prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The goal was the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life."

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 additional 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
...
(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;

...
(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:

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 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.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

It's the oil, stupid:

When Colin Powell’s former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson publicly decried the Bush administration’s bungling of U.S. foreign policy, the focus of the press coverage was on Wilkerson’s depiction of a “cabal” headed by Vice President Dick Cheney that had hijacked the decision-making process.

Largely overlooked were Wilkerson’s frank admissions about the importance of oil in justifying a long-term U.S. military intervention in Iraq. “The other thing that no one ever likes to talk about is SUVs and oil and consumption,” the retired Army colonel said in a speech on Oct. 19. CONTINUE

 

[icantoofly]

How was it subsequently verified that Iraq harbored Al Queada? I have seen little that verifies it. The connections I have seen to Al Queda related to a Kurdish group (not Iraqi) in the Kurdish part of No. Iraq, and some unsubstantiated claims that Al Zarqawi may have gone to Baghdad at some point.

Verified by our own military forces among others.

For example:

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 [Bin Laden's Sudanese deputy] 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

Soon after the USA invaded Iraq, USA military forces attacked the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists in northeastern Iraq.

"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.

-----

When the USA military forces attacked the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists in northeastern Iraq, their leaders escaped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
When the US invaded, it attacked AI [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] training camps in the north, and the organization's leaders retreated to neighboring countries. When the war in the north settled down, the militants returned to Iraq to fight against the occupying American forces.

-----

By the time of the invasion of Iraq, Ansar al-Islam had grown significantly.

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. At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.

AI [I.E., Ansar al-Islam] is believed to be responsible for several suicide bomb attacks in Iraq, mostly in the north. The first such was at a checkpoint on February 26, 2003, before the war [March 20, 2003].

 

[icantoofly]

It's the oil, stupid:

When Colin Powell’s former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson publicly decried the Bush administration’s bungling of U.S. foreign policy, the focus of the press coverage was on Wilkerson’s depiction of a “cabal” headed by Vice President Dick Cheney that had hijacked the decision-making process.

Largely overlooked were Wilkerson’s frank admissions about the importance of oil in justifying a long-term U.S. military intervention in Iraq. “The other thing that no one ever likes to talk about is SUVs and oil and consumption,” the retired Army colonel said in a speech on Oct. 19. CONTINUE

Perhaps this is true. Perhaps it isn't. Eitherway,we still 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 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.

 

[icantoofly]

THE PROBLEM IS THE AL QAEDA RELIGION
The problem is not President Bush or his administration.

Scholar says this generation’s Muslims face a
momentous choice

Nothing less than the very soul of Islam is at risk

By Richard N. Ostling, Associated Press
Friday, November 04, 2005 (Published in the Manila
Times)


LOS ANGELES: Khaled Abou El Fadl, a law professor at
the University of California, Los Angeles, has a
scholarly manner and speaks in soft tones. But listen
as he tells his story.

A Kuwaiti native, he was fascinated by militant Islam
as a young man, then evolved into a moderate champion
of democracy who suffered arrest and torture in Egypt
for his views. Saudi intermediaries failed to buy his
silence but long limited his influence by preventing
publication of his works in Arabic. He received death
threats over antiterrorist comments after the
September 11 attacks.

Now, as Muslim immigrants to America struggle to find
their voice, no one is more outspoken than Abou El
Fadl—driven by what he sees as a global crisis: the
fight between “moderates” and “puritans” to determine
who represents authentic Islam.

“Nothing less than the very soul of Islam” is at risk,
says the 42-year-old Abou El Fadl, who is calling upon
moderates to reverse their declining influence and
reclaim bold leadership of the faith.

This is a “transformative moment,” he says. In his
view, Islam is suffering a schism as dramatic as the
16th-century Protestant Reformation that split
Christian Europe.


Two main movements claim to perpetuate true Islam, he
says. On one side, the professor’s fellow moderates
uphold centuries of Muslim teaching and the beliefs of
an often-quiescent Muslim majority.

Their opponents, as he sees it, are puritans—he
dislikes the “fundamentalist” and “Islamist”
labels—who have won a remarkable following as they
have preached religious extremism and, often, carried
out acts of reprehensible violence in recent decades.

Eventually, one of these two rivals will achieve
near-total commitment from the world’s more than 1
billion Muslims and “the power to define Islam” for
the indefinite future—including attitudes toward
terrorism, he predicts.

Abou El Fadl depicts the contest in his new book The
Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists
(HarperSanFrancisco). It’s probably the most dramatic
manifesto from an American Muslim since the September
11 attacks.

Reaching this point has been a complex, dangerous and
sometimes lonely struggle for the author.

Abou El Fadl spent a decade in Egypt learning the
intricacies of Islamic law, then received an Ivy
League education in America (Yale bachelor’s, Penn law
degree, Princeton doctorate)—a potent and rare
combination. His library of tens of thousands of
volumes has long since spilled from his home into the
garage.

Yet as a teenager, he found the intense call of Muslim
radicalism emotionally satisfying, a feeling that only
dissipated as he studied Islamic legal traditions in
earnest. At Yale he plunged into advocacy of democracy
and human rights.

Abou El Fadl says he returned to Egypt in 1985 after
winning a key undergraduate honor and expected a warm
reception. Instead he was subjected to torture. “By
the third day in there I was praying I would die,” he
recalls.

His tormenters provided no explanation but indicated
hostility to his liberal political ideas. It took him
a month to recover, physically and emotionally, and it
was years before he returned to Egypt again. The
ordeal made him opt to become a US citizen, instead of
working in Egypt.

The professor reports that Saudi intermediaries made
three offers to buy his silence and that Saudi
pressure prevented publication of his books in Arabic,
an essential step for gaining any permanent impact in
the Muslim world—though some of his writings and
interviews are available in Arabic on the Internet. “I
felt I probably would not have much use in my
lifetime,”

because of the censorship, he says.

Yet some Arabic translations have finally appeared in
the Middle East in the past two years, and he expects
The Great Theft will eventually follow.

He was pleased by appreciative audiences last summer
during talks in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.

A Christian expert, J. Dudley Woodberry of
California’s Fuller Theological Seminary, says,
“Muslims of good will are longing for someone to make
a case for moderation.”

That makes Abou El Fadl “a star on the rise,”
Woodberry adds.

“I hope he’s right. And for the West, he pretty much
is.”

Muslims who join Abou El Fadl in advocating moderation
include those associated with the Washington-based
Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy and
authors in the forthcoming anthology Islamic
Democratic Discourse (Lexington).

In that volume, editor Muqtedar Khan of the University
of Delaware will criticize Abou El Fadl as too
traditional, because he favors application of shari’a
(Islamic law) as interpreted by religious jurists.
Though Abou El Fadl has a liberal interpretation of
religious law and supports democracy, Khan says, on
this point “he says what Islamists are saying.”

The moderate cause also is embraced in group
pronouncements like one in July from 18 scholars of
the Fiqh Council of North America.

They declared that “targeting civilians’ lives and
property through suicide bombings or any other method
of attack is haram—or forbidden under the Koran and
Muslim law.

 

[Iriemon]

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.

Is that why we invaded Iraq? I remember something about weapons of mass destruction our Govt said they "knew" Iraq had, chem weapons, nuke programs stuff like that. I am must thinking about another war.

 

[Iriemon]

Verified by our own military forces among others.

The verification that Iraq was a terrorist state is:

"Reportedly", Hussein made a deal with bin Laden so that bin Laden would stop attacking Hussein.

That is support for terrorism?

And the terrorist camp of a Kurdish (our friends, Saddam's enemy) group. Your articles says that there are "indications" that the Iraqi regime "tolerated" it in the nothern part of Iraq Hussein did not control. What, they didn't violate the no-fly zone and bomb it?

Anything else in the verification department?

How many terrorist attacks was Hussein involved in?

 

[icantoofly]

Is that why we invaded Iraq? I remember something about weapons of mass destruction our Govt said they "knew" Iraq had, chem weapons, nuke programs stuff like that. I am must thinking about another war.

You choose to remember only what both the Hate-Bush-Democrats and al Qaeda want you to remember.

President Bush gave you true reasons besides the false reasons that Saddam possessed WMD and abetted 9/11.
Colin Powell gave you true reasons besides the false reasons that Saddam possessed WMD and abetted 9/11.
USA Congress gave you true reasons besides the false reasons that Saddam possessed WMD and abetted 9/11.
USA Military gave you true reasons besides the false reasons that Saddam possessed WMD and abetted 9/11.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission gave you true reasons and not the false reasons that Saddam possessed WMD and abetted 9/11.
And Icanflytoo gave you true reasons and not the false reasons that Saddam possessed WMD and abetted 9/11.

But you choose to ignore each and every one and their true reasons.

Why do you do choose to do that?

 

[icantoofly]

The verification that Iraq was a terrorist state is ...

I wrote nothing alleging Iraq was a "terrorist state."

I wrote:

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.

By the way, I also wrote:

Saddam's regime, while lacking government civil control of northeastern Iraq in the autonomous region, was not lacking military ground control.

From Encyclopedia Britannica, IRAQ
www.britannica.com
In April 1991 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France established a “safe haven” in Iraqi Kurdistan, in which Iraqi forces were barred from operating. Within a short time the Kurds had established autonomous rule, and two main Kurdish factions—the KDP in the north and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in the south—contended with one another for control. This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force. The Iraqi military launched a successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil in 1996 and engaged in a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing in areas directly under its control—particularly in and around the oil-rich city of Karkuk—that were inhabited predominantly by Kurds and other minorities.

 

[Iriemon]

You choose to remember only what both the Hate-Bush-Democrats and al Qaeda want you to remember.

President Bush gave you true reasons besides the false reasons that Saddam possessed WMD and abetted 9/11.
Colin Powell gave you true reasons besides the false reasons that Saddam possessed WMD and abetted 9/11.
USA Congress gave you true reasons besides the false reasons that Saddam possessed WMD and abetted 9/11.
USA Military gave you true reasons besides the false reasons that Saddam possessed WMD and abetted 9/11.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission gave you true reasons and not the false reasons that Saddam possessed WMD and abetted 9/11.
And Icanflytoo gave you true reasons and not the false reasons that Saddam possessed WMD and abetted 9/11.

But you choose to ignore each and every one and their true reasons.

Why do you do choose to do that?

[Edit for record: Icantoofly did not claim that Iraq was a terrorist threat, but that Iraq harbored Al-Queda, and some of my comments are based on that misaprehension]

Why do you choose to blindly believe folks that you admit have given us so many false reasons? How many times do they have to be false before you start to question the credibility of these people?

I don't choose to ignore anything. I'm just trying to find the truth. Since the months before the invasion of Iraq, I have heard claims about Iraq, Hussein and why this invasion was necessary and justified. Most of the claims have proved wrong.

One of the claims is the one you made, that Hussein [Edit: harbored Al-queda terrorist]. I have been hearing this for two years as a justification for why this war was necessary.

But no one has ever shown me one time Hussein's Iraq was ever involved or implicated in an actual terrorist attack.

I've seen the basis that supports this [Edit: supporting terrorits] claim. I've heard about Hussein harbored terrorists, the Salman Pak terrorist training center, how the Iraqis train terrorists. And the one you gave -- the Kurdish terrorist camp. And one by one, when I investigate these claims, I have found that they are not true, the evidence turns out doesn't support the claim, they are based on conjecture and exagerration and speculation, but have been presented to us by the Administration and its apologists as confirmed fact.

Here's an example of just the latest one -- where Bush told us that "Iraq has trained Al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases," but the "truth" is, apparently, that his own intel people told him that the person making this claim could not provide facts to back up his statement and was probably lying.

But Bush's "truth" did disclose that part.

The "truth" you claim is that Hussein's Iraq [Edit: harbored Al-Qeuda terrorists]. The support you give for your "truth" are US sources that talk about "reported" meetings in which bin Laden agreed to stop attacking Hussein, and articles about a terrorist group of Kurds, who are against Hussein, and are our allies.

If that is the best you have to support your "truth" that Iraq was a terrorist state, I'm not buying it. If that is the evidence, I'm not buying the claim that Hussein was ever involved in a terrorist attack, supported terrorism, or had an agenda to support a terrorist attack agains the United States.

I have seen no credible evidence for these claims; for that matter the people making them don't have the greatest track record when it comes to claims about Iraq in general.

Based on what I have studied, I conclude that the claims that Iraq was a terrorist state was a pretextual misrepresentation by this Administration and the neocons to justify a predetermined invasion of that country.

That is the truth, to the best I can discern it.

 

[Iriemon]

I wrote nothing alleging Iraq was a "terrorist state."

I wrote:

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.

I'll retract; I apparently picked up the "terrorist state" quote from another post. Otherwise does not change the analysis.

 

[Nikola]

you asked why we invaded Iraq, now as a libertarian lawyer I will answer the best I can without bias and hopefully won't bore you to death

1)Sept. 5 2001 George W. Bush was giving a letter regarding the bombing of the WTC on Sept. 11.
2) Because the author of the letter was unknown and the author's resources unknown, Bush decided to play it cautiously so as to avoid panic, secretly doubled the security of the WTC. However it did not work because the letter did not contain HOW the WTC would be bombed.
3) Sept. 11, 2001 - Hell broke loose, the culprit was found to have been in afganistan and so we invaded them and any other country who harbored terrorists
4) Another anonymous letter was sent to the President saying that Hussain had WMD's and was harboring al-Q's. Again no author, no resources. (perhaps the same person?) And Zarquawi is in the al-queda prgm.
5)Bush who wanted to avoid another 9/11 invaded Iraq to get Hussain
6)the WMD's were found to have been 500 Kegs of Mustard Gas, that much mustard gas when used at maximum capacity, can wipe out a population like that of California.
7) this was ignored by the mainstream media, probably because it was not revealed where they were taken to.Why is this? because the terrorists watch our networks, if it was released where the mustard gas went to the terrorists could just walk up to the place, bomb the container and have a gas leakage. Good I think not.

Now what of North Korea or any other country that now poses a threat? Sadaam Hussain is not like that of other rulers, Saadam was a phsychotic killer. The Nort Koreans are actually sane enough to "negotiate" over conflicts instead of a total war, now that we are in Iraq we can't just pull out, we have to win. It is too late in the war to just say "Hey! lets just press the end war button and pull out our troops".

 

[icantoofly]

...
The support you give for your "truth" are US sources that talk about "reported" meetings in which bin Laden agreed to stop attacking Hussein, and articles about a terrorist group of Kurds, who are against Hussein, and are our allies.
...

Some USA sources I gave for my "truth" also confirmed Saddam did not possess ready-to-use WMD (Charles Duelfer Report), and Saddam did not abet 9/11 (9/11 Commission Report).

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.

You claimed I supported that with: "that talk about 'reported' meetings in which bin Laden agreed to stop attacking Hussein, and articles about a terrorist group of Kurds, who are against Hussein, and are our allies."

Actually, I supported that with:

Saddam's regime, while lacking government civil control of northeastern Iraq in the autonomous region, was not lacking military ground control.

From Encyclopedia Britannica, IRAQ
www.britannica.com
In April 1991 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France established a “safe haven” in Iraqi Kurdistan, in which Iraqi forces were barred from operating. Within a short time the Kurds had established autonomous rule, and two main Kurdish factions—the KDP in the north and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in the south—contended with one another for control. This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force. The Iraqi military launched a successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil in 1996 and engaged in a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing in areas directly under its control—particularly in and around the oil-rich city of Karkuk—that were inhabited predominantly by Kurds and other minorities.

Soon after the USA invaded Iraq, USA military forces attacked the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists in northeastern Iraq.

"American Soldier in Chapter 12 A CAMPAIGN UNLIKE ANY OTHER, CENTCOM FORWARD HEADQUARTERS 21 MARCH 2003, A-DAY, page 483, General Tommy Franks.
... 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. ... 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.

When the USA military forces attacked the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists in northeastern Iraq, their leaders escaped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
When the US invaded, it attacked AI [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] training camps in the north, and the organization's leaders retreated to neighboring countries. When the war in the north settled down, the militants returned to Iraq to fight against the occupying American forces.

By the time of the invasion of Iraq, Ansar al-Islam had grown significantly.

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. At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.

AI [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] is believed to be responsible for several suicide bomb attacks in Iraq, mostly in the north. The first such was at a checkpoint on February 26, 2003, before the war [March 20, 2003].

Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001, 1 year 3 months prior to the invasion of Iraq March 20, 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
It [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar. Krekar is alleged to be the leader of Ansar al-Islam. He has lived in Norway, where he has refugee status, since 1991. On March 21, 2003 his arrest was ordered by Økokrim, a Norwegian law enforcement agency, to ensure he did not leave the country while accusations that he had threatened terrorist attacks were investigated.

Mullah Krekar was an absentee a leader of Ansar al-Islam in in 2001, since he "has lived in Norway, where he has refugee status, since 1991."

In the 5 years 5 months from May 1996 to October 2001 (when the USA invaded Afghanistan), al Qaeda in Afghanistan trained 10,000 or more terrorist fighters: ... about 1,846 per year. In the 1 year 3 months from December 2001 to March 2003 (when the USA invaded Iraq), I estimate probably 1,000 or more terrorist fighters were trained by al Qaeda in Iraq. As of now, far fewer than 11,000 such fighters have been killed or captured in Iraq. Until these 11,000 have been killed or captured, one cannot rationally claim that our invasion of Iraq increased the total number of al Qaeda trained terrorists.

The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 67, note 78.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
The Taliban seemed to open the doors to all who wanted to come to Afghanistan to train in the camps. The alliance with the Taliban provided al Qaeda a sanctuary in which to train and indoctrinate fighters and terrorists, import weapons, forge ties with other jihad groups and leaders, and plot and staff terrorist schemes. While Bin Ladin maintained his own al Qaeda guesthouses and camps for vetting and training recruits, he also provided support to and benefited from the broad infrastructure of such facilities in Afghanistan made available to the global network of Islamist movements. 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 20,000.78

Osama's deputy Turabi had ties to Iraq and through him provided Osama a connection to Iraq. Osama helped form Ansar al-Islam.

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 [Bin Laden's Sudanese deputy] 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

Osama’s deputy Zawahiri had ties to Iraq and through him also provided Osama a connection to Iraq.

The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 66, note 75.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.

More than once, the USA requested Saddam to extradite the leadership of Ansar al-Islam, but Saddam ignored those requests

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.

... 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.

While Saddam's regime denied Powell's claims that the regime was an accomplice to 9/11 or possessed ready-to-use WMD, Saddam's regime never confirmed or denied the USA requested the Saddam regime extradite the terrorist leadership in Iraq. Instead the Saddam regime ignored these requests.

 

[Iriemon]

Some USA sources I gave for my "truth" also confirmed Saddam did not possess ready-to-use WMD (Charles Duelfer Report), and Saddam did not abet 9/11 (9/11 Commission Report).

I claimed:


You claimed I supported that with: "that talk about 'reported' meetings in which bin Laden agreed to stop attacking Hussein, and articles about a terrorist group of Kurds, who are against Hussein, and are our allies."

Actually, I supported that with:

I read it the first time. Where's the beef?

How does this connect to Hussein supporting Al-Queda? There are two basic claims in all this stuff you repeat.

1. Meetings between Iraq and Al-Queada.

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi [Bin Laden's Sudanese deputy] reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam.

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence.

We have "reported" meetings, where bin Laden reportedly agreed to stop attacking Hussein.

How does that show Iraq was supporting Al-Queda?

2. The Ansar al-Islam Kurdish group.

In April 1991 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France established a “safe haven” in Iraqi Kurdistan, in which Iraqi forces were barred from operating.

(i.e., Supporters or Partisans of Islam) is a Kurdish Sunni Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war. At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.

AI [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] is believed to be responsible for several suicide bomb attacks in Iraq, mostly in the north. The first such was at a checkpoint on February 26, 2003, before the war [March 20, 2003].

You have radical Islamic Kurdish group -- Husseins' enemies and our pals, reportedly working with Al-Queda and setting up a camp in Northern Iraq in the "safe haven" area Iraqi troops were not allowed to go.

Even if make the dubious assumption that these "reports" are true when so many have proved to be fasle, how does this support the contention that Hussein harbored Al-Queda terrorists? The Kurds, our buddies to whom we are giving weapons and power, supported Al-Queada. Not Hussein!

Why would Hussein support Al-Queda at all? It was attacking him. Hussein was a relative secular moderate with a Christian foreign minister. Al-Queda is a fundamentalist Islamic radical group who want to replace guys like Hussein from power! Why would Hussein support them? Why would Hussein support Kurdish terrorists who want to break away from Iraq and set up there own state? They have opposite goals. It makes no sense for Hussein to support Al-Queda and your data, no matter how many times your reprint it, does not show otherwise.

 

[icantoofly]

Iriemon

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 SUPPORTS MY CLAIM

From Encyclopedia Britannica, IRAQ
www.britannica.com
...
This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force. ...

Saddam possessed the ability to remove terrorists from the autonomous region.

"American Soldier in Chapter 12 A CAMPAIGN UNLIKE ANY OTHER, CENTCOM FORWARD HEADQUARTERS 21 MARCH 2003, A-DAY, page 483, General Tommy Franks.
...
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
...

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
... Ansar al-Islam ... was formed in December 2001 ...

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam ... 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.
...

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

The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 67, note 78.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
...
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.
...

Probably in 5 years time the Ansar al-Islam terrorists would have trained a comparable number of terrorist fighters.

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

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.

The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 66, note 75.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
...
Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.

Ansar al Islam was formed with the help of bin Laden,the leader of al Qaeda, who had ties to Iraq through his deputy, Zawahiri.

Secretary of State, Colin Powell's speech to UN, 2/5/2003, on sinister nexus.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...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,
...
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.

Saddam ignored USA requests to remove Ansar al Islam.


SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS MY CLAIM

Saddam possessed the ability to remove terrorists from the autonomous region.

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

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

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

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

Probably in 5 years time the Ansar al-Islam terrorists would have also trained a large number of terrorist fighters.

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.

Ansar al Islam was formed with the help of bin Laden,the leader of al Qaeda, who had ties to Iraq through his deputy, Zawahiri.

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, 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]

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS MY CLAIM

Saddam possessed the ability to remove terrorists from the autonomous region.

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

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

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

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

Probably in 5 years time the Ansar al-Islam terrorists would have also trained a large number of terrorist fighters.

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.

Ansar al Islam was formed with the help of bin Laden,the leader of al Qaeda, who had ties to Iraq through his deputy, Zawahiri.

Saddam ignored USA requests to remove Ansar al Islam.

I respect the detail of analysis you have made. And I don't, at for purposes of this post, question a lot of your data. However, your concluision relies upon a chain of facts, and if a piece of the chain is missing, the logic behind your implicit claim that Hussein supported and harbored Al-Queda fails apart.

IMO, at least two of the links of your chain are unsound. 1) The link that claims that Hussein could have removed the terrorists, and 2) the link that Hussein supported the terrorists because of his links to Al-Queda.

Here is why I think the links don't hold:

1. The Ansar al-Islam organization that set up the Al-Queda camps were Kurds.

Your own data:

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.

The Kurds did not like Hussein and vice-versa, especially regarding the radical Islamic kinds. The Kurds wanted to secede from Iraq and Hussein would not allow that. Hussein had brutually crushed Kurdish rebellions and there are allegations he gassed their people. There is no dispute as to this Therefore, to me it is improbable that Hussein and Kurdish terrorists were working together. It is improbable that Hussein would harbor or support an organization that was ultimately dedicated to the overthrow of his government and secession. It just makes no sense.

2. The area where the Ansar al-Islam organization operated was in the autonomous section of Northern Iraq where Hussein was forbidden to operate.

Furthermore, the Kurdish terrorists were operating in Northern Iraq where they had been granted a level of autonomy and a "safe haven" according to your own data:

In April 1991 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France established a “safe haven” in Iraqi Kurdistan, in which Iraqi forces were barred from operating.

Nonetheless, as part of the chain of logic supporting your conclusion, you contend that Hussein "possessed the ability to remove terrorists from the autonomous region." If Hussein did not possess that power, we cannot infer that his failure to remove them is an indication of his harbor and support for the Kurdish terrorists.

3. The claim that Hussein had ability to remove terrorists .

There is an empirical basis for demonstrating factual error in this assetion. You contend Hussein had the power to remove the terrorists (in an area he was not allowed to send his forces). Yet the United States, with the best, high-tech, most effective army in the world, has been unable to accomplish this very same objective after 2 1/2 years of effort. If the US Armed Forces have not been able to achieve this, IMO there is very good reason to doubt that Hussein could have been able to achieve it.

The only basis for your contention that Hussein had the power to remove terrorists is this:

From Encyclopedia Britannica, IRAQ

www.britannica.com
In April 1991 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France established a “safe haven” in Iraqi Kurdistan, in which Iraqi forces were barred from operating. Within a short time the Kurds had established autonomous rule, and two main Kurdish factions—the KDP in the north and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in the south—contended with one another for control. This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force. The Iraqi military launched a successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil in 1996 and engaged in a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing in areas directly under its control—particularly in and around the oil-rich city of Karkuk—that were inhabited predominantly by Kurds and other minorities.

From the facts stated in this article -- that Hussein attempted to influence the region and attacked one city -- you make the conclusion that Hussein had the ability to remove the Kurdish terrorists that were locate in a huge area of Northern Iraq, something the best army in the world has failed to do after 2 1/2 years. This is a giant inference and, in my opinion, an illogical leap of logic to make.

4. Notwithstanding the improbable support and cooperation between mortal enemies Hussein and the Kurdish terrorists, you contend that Hussein supported the Kurdish terrorists because of Husseins "ties" with Al-Queda.

In the first instance, even assuming these ties were true, it still requires a big leap of logic to assume that Hussein would support Kurdish radical Islamic terrorist. But more fundamental, IMO, the evidence supporting these "ties" of this degree is dubious.

a) The claim that 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.

From the 9-11 Commission report you rely upon:

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

54. Ibid.; Intelligence report, al Qaeda and Iraq, Aug. 1, 1997.

I made this comment earlier: the best evidence supporting your theory is a note in the 9-11 report that there are "indications" that Hussein tolerated the Kurdish terrorists. Something the footnotes do not substantiate in any detail.

The only other basis for this Saddam-Al-Queda link that you provide is Powell's discredited UN speech.

b. The claim that Ansar al Islam was formed with the help of bin Laden,the leader of al Qaeda, who had ties to Iraq through his deputy, Zawahiri

Colin Powell's speech to the UN has been proven to be full of dubious, unsubstantiated and incorrect claims which Powell himself has acknowledged:

"I'm the one who presented it to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It is painful now," Powell said in an interview with Barbara Walters on ABC-News. ... "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Powell said. "That devastated me," he said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm

Several of Powell's assertions in that speech where shown to be incorrect, and based on invalid application of intellegence. Powell's statements in this speech are, therefore, IMO, unreliable evidence to substantiate the claim that Hussein was complicit with the Kurdish terrorists because of these claimed "ties" between Iraq and Zawahir.

c. Your own sources discredit these claims.

I noted this from Wiki, from the article you rely upon, but you did not quote:

The US has also claimed that Ansar al-Islam has links with Saddam Hussein, thus claiming a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. The claims were rejected by Krekar, and a presentation by Colin Powell to the UN on February 5, 2003 was met with widespread scepticism (see United Nations actions regarding Iraq).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam

CONCLUSION:

In my opinion, your conclusion that Hussein supported and harbored Al-Queda terrorists is based upon facts of dubious validity and illogical inferences. Your claim that Hussein had the ability to remove terrorists is based on highly improbable inferences, and your conclusion that Hussein supported the Kurdish radical Islamic terrorists is based on evidence that is at best extremely weak and of very questionable reliability.

The weakness of these arguments do not overcome what IMO would be the natural improbabilty that Hussein would support a terrorist organization that would have the goal of overthrowing him and seceding from his country. They also do not, in my opinion, come anywhere near the level of connection I would want to see before committing to an military invasion and occupation that costs scores of thousands of deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars, and creates the risk of much greater destabilization of a region than existed when Hussein was in control.

 

[icantoofly]

I respect the detail of analysis you have made. And I don't, at for purposes of this post, question a lot of your data. However, your concluision relies upon a chain of facts, and if a piece of the chain is missing, the logic behind your implicit claim that Hussein supported and harbored Al-Queda fails apart. ...

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.

(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?

(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?

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

Do you disagree? If you do,why?

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

Do you disagree? If you do,why?

(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?

(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?

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

Do you disagree? If you do,why?

(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?

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

Do you disagree? If you do,why?

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

Do you disagree? If you do,why?

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

Do you disagree? If you do,why?

(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?

 

[TwoPops4Sure]

CONCLUSION:

In my opinion, your conclusion that Hussein supported and harbored Al-Queda terrorists is based upon facts of dubious validity and illogical inferences. Your claim that Hussein had the ability to remove terrorists is based on highly improbable inferences, and your conclusion that Hussein supported the Kurdish radical Islamic terrorists is based on evidence that is at best extremely weak and of very questionable reliability.

The weakness of these arguments do not overcome what IMO would be the natural improbabilty that Hussein would support a terrorist organization that would have the goal of overthrowing him and seceding from his country. They also do not, in my opinion, come anywhere near the level of connection I would want to see before committing to an military invasion and occupation that costs scores of thousands of deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars, and creates the risk of much greater destabilization of a region than existed when Hussein was in control.

BRAVO!!! Absolutely outstanding deconstruction and rebutal of the argument.

If this guy doesn't get it after this, he's not worthy of further exchange. The level of misinformation and lack of analytical ability of the pro-war people on this thread is appalling. And to think, some of them gloat about being involved in military intelligence. Some of these guys better stick to playing GI Joe. Being well read means nothing when they have no ability to objectively analyze.

Without a doubt the REAL motivation to invade Iraq was to gain a geopolitical foothold in the Middle East. US policy in the middle east was codified by the Carter Doctrine much the same as our SE Asia policy was codified by the Truman Doctrine. The existence of vast oil supplies in the region is precisely the motivation for establishing and continuing continued US military presence in the Gulf, the earlier Soviet influence notwithstanding. Only a simpleton would think otherwise just because gas prices remain high. You can bet oil company profits will remain high too..LOL. And wars are waged and benefit the interest of the MIC and multinational corporations. Maj. General Smedley Butler, USMC, offered that sobering reality early in the 20th Century. You can also bet that as China comes on line, access to oil will cause tensions between the competing powers. China is already starting to exert influence with the Saudis and forged yet another unholy alliance with the Russians. My predictions. Within the next 10 years we'll be firing shots on the African continent for these same reasons. Another thought, Russia reminds me of post WW1 Germany. They aren't terribly happy being a has been after vitual parity with us during the cold war years.

The way I look at this is if I were a CEO of a corporation and I had to justify ROI on the invasion of Iraq given that resources are scant, and we don't have sufficient resources focused on our main product (bin Laden), I'd be fired.



And just another comment...it just frosts me that naive idiots believe that fighting in Iraq is going to protect us from terrorism at home. It was 9 years between attacks on the WTC. Islamists bide their time. 9 years is like 9 months to these people. With a wide open southern border, you can bet the next act are already in the country.


TwoPops

 

[DivineComedy]

Why did we invade Iraq?

For the umpteenth time to have an end to CONTAINMENT and sanctions which UNICEF claimed killed 500,000 Iraqis during the lukewarm “liberal” arts of war of the Democratic Clinton Administration, especially considering that Iraq and Al Quacka claimed ONE MILLION Iraqi deaths were attributable to Bill Clinton‘s America. Remember, Operation Desert Fox is what is being talked about in Al Quacka’s One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq February 23, 1998, fatwa of war. Since enfranchisement is philosophically incompatible with terrorism, in an Iraq that has the vote, it would be unlikely that the magical “they” would get invited over for tea, and doubtful that after maneuvers the politician would be able to say in his statecraft that the magical “They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” So it only made sense to pursue a policy of Iraqi freedom so the people of Iraq could eventually police themselves, and build automobiles or whatever, instead of us trying to police in a hostile swamp while denying a people the chemical processes of great civilizations.

Now some claim that a “Peace Corps” could win the hearts and minds of those whom believe that no compulsion in religion and belief being distinct from error means that “Allah…controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: ‘But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)…’” They believe they can end the war with a Peace Corps. France is going to try Peace Corps thing, in France. I think that is a good idea, we should have one here at home too. Peace Corps ME and then see if I turn against the war. Solar panels would be nice, and a well, don’t forget the well.

*****

1997: “Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq’s national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

1998: One (“The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people…”), Two (“despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance…”), Three (“if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq…”)! http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

“Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

“But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda 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 Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants.” (Transcript of the great Psychic Powell's U.N. presentation)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.09/