New Saddam Documents Detail Terror Training (1 Viewer)

[ANAV]

I have heard of the thousands of documents that are currently be translated and analyzed. I hope the administration does release them soon. It will put to end the question as to whether pre-war claims were true or not.

I think terrorist training camps are just going to be the tip of the iceberg. Before people start to say it I will; "The article does not connect Iraq to specifically al-Queda or 9/11." But the documents may prove that Saddam did in fact support, harbor, and train Islamic terrorist.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/231235.shtml

 

[G-Man]

I have heard of the thousands of documents that are currently be translated and analyzed. I hope the administration does release them soon. It will put to end the question as to whether pre-war claims were true or not.

I think terrorist training camps are just going to be the tip of the iceberg. Before people start to say it I will; "The article does not connect Iraq to specifically al-Queda or 9/11." But the documents may prove that Saddam did in fact support, harbor, and train Islamic terrorist.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/231235.shtml

Which pre-war claim is this??? The one about Saddam having WMD and Nuclear stockpiles and threatening the West??

On a seperate point you have headed the thread 'New Saddam Documents Detail Terror Training' but you have not seen the documents nor have they been released to the public. How exactly can you form an opinion on this matter without having any of the facts whatsoever?? Obviously your opinion on this is already made up and to have a debate on the matter would be pointless. Maybe you should take off the Bush blinkers and try a bit of independent thinking to reach an opinion.

 

[KCConservative]

Which pre-war claim is this??? The one about Saddam having WMD and Nuclear stockpiles and threatening the West??

On a seperate point you have headed the thread 'New Saddam Documents Detail Terror Training' but you have not seen the documents nor have they been released to the public. How exactly can you form an opinion on this matter without having any of the facts whatsoever?? Obviously your opinion on this is already made up and to have a debate on the matter would be pointless. Maybe you should take off the Bush blinkers and try a bit of independent thinking to reach an opinion.

The same you you take what is unknown and call the president a liar.

 

[G-Man]

The same you you take what is unknown and call the president a liar.

Fair enough, I have heard all about the intelligence and what the President said and formed an opinion. You have also done likewise - albeit to a different conclusion. However, to make rash judgements/conclusions on documents upon which you have no knowledge (and haven't even been released yet) clearly demonstrates a desire to argue for one side - regrardless of any available info. This ,as I said, makes a debate on the issue pointless.

 

[Stinger]

Which pre-war claim is this??? The one about Saddam having WMD and Nuclear stockpiles and threatening the West??

On a seperate point you have headed the thread 'New Saddam Documents Detail Terror Training' but you have not seen the documents nor have they been released to the public. How exactly can you form an opinion on this matter without having any of the facts whatsoever?? Obviously your opinion on this is already made up and to have a debate on the matter would be pointless. Maybe you should take off the Bush blinkers and try a bit of independent thinking to reach an opinion.

This is based on the reporting of Stephen Hayes in the newest edition of the Weekly Standard. This is not the first report of the documents which are being investigated and he reports that 11 government officials who are involved in the investigation have confirmed their existence and content.

Why at I fine amazing is the knee-jerk reactions here (and in another thread concerning this). The leftest do NOT want this to be true. And while the accept claims from blogs without any substance try to dismiss this out of hand. It will just kill you to learn that Saddam was in fact help terrorist groups won't it.

 

[Stinger]

Fair enough, I have heard all about the intelligence and what the President said and formed an opinion. You have also done likewise - albeit to a different conclusion. However, to make rash judgements/conclusions on documents upon which you have no knowledge (and haven't even been released yet) clearly demonstrates a desire to argue for one side - regrardless of any available info. This ,as I said, makes a debate on the issue pointless.

In further reporting on the matter

"(3) Another set of Iraqi Intelligence documents were recovered by two journalists scouring the bombed-out headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Baghdad. The documents, taken from the IIS accounting department, show that on February 19, 1998, the Iraqi Intelligence Service had finalized plans to bring a "trusted confidant" of bin Laden's to Baghdad in early March. The following comes from the Telegraph's translations of the documents: The envoy is a trusted confidant and known by them. According to the above mediation we request official permission to call Khartoum station to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him.
A note at the bottom of the page from the director of one IIS division recommends approving the request, noting, "we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden." Four days later, on February 23, final approval is granted. "The permission of Mr. Deputy Director of Intelligence has been gained on 21 February for this operation, to secure a reservation for one of the intelligence services guests for one week in one of the first class hotels.""


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/566igaww.asp?pg=2

 

[G-Man]

This is based on the reporting of Stephen Hayes in the newest edition of the Weekly Standard. This is not the first report of the documents which are being investigated and he reports that 11 government officials who are involved in the investigation have confirmed their existence and content.

Why at I fine amazing is the knee-jerk reactions here (and in another thread concerning this). The leftest do NOT want this to be true. And while the accept claims from blogs without any substance try to dismiss this out of hand. It will just kill you to learn that Saddam was in fact help terrorist groups won't it.

Knee-jerk reaction??? I have made no statement in relation to these documents and what evidence they provide. I only argued that to pass judgement whilst having no knowledge on the detail shows a great deal of ignorance and also a desire to argue for one side, regardless of the available info.

Whether I want this to be true or not is irrelevant, Mr Hayes has not released any of his evidence, nor have these documents been made public, so again how can you form an opinion on these documents? You may wish to take the word of the govt. officials but they also told us Saddam had stockpiles of WMD (including nuclear weapons according to Cheney) which turned out to be completely bogus. When I see the evidence I'll believe it...until then I'm not convinced.

 

[Binary_Digit]

The leftest do NOT want this to be true.

That's bull. Maybe in your partisan world but not mine. I would really like it if these turned out to be true, and maybe after that we can find these elusive WMD's. Perhaps then we wouldn't look like fools for invading a country based on misinformation while letting UBL slip through our fingers. I would honestly be dancing in the streets if that happened.

 

[Stinger]

Knee-jerk reaction??? I have made no statement in relation to these documents and what evidence they provide. I only argued that to pass judgement whilst having no knowledge on the detail shows a great deal of ignorance and also a desire to argue for one side, regardless of the available info.

He gives details of what the documents contain and in previous reporting he gives even more detail of what we are uncovering. And these are not things we didn't know, just further confirmation. Show I think the ignorance is shown by those who are ignorant of the facts and haven't bothered to research it themselves.

Whether I want this to be true or not is irrelevant, Mr Hayes has not released any of his evidence,

It's not his he is reporting on what the government has according to his sources and actual listing of the document they are cataloging, certainly as much if not more evidence than that supporting such leftest favorites as the NSA accusations and the Plame case.

nor have these documents been made public, so again how can you form an opinion on these documents?

Well by reading the reporting of Mr. Hayes which he claims and has been confirmed by his editors is being confirmed by eleven sepreate government officals who are involved in the project. And that it confirms what we already knew.

You may wish to take the word of the govt. officials but they also told us Saddam had stockpiles of WMD

We both take the word of government officials all the time and we judge it against the evidence. As for the WMD he did have stockpiles of WMD, according to Saddams own claims and the according to the the UN Inspectors. He even used them several times. We just don't know what he did with this left overs, but having stockpiles ready to go was the least of our worries, stockpiles can be disposed of and replenished quite easily.

(including nuclear weapons according to Cheney)

Which is not true, and if you are going to take the mis-statement he made on Hardball, when after stating several times that Saddam was reconstiuting his nuclear PROGRAM, he in one single statement left out the word PROGRAM, and an urban myth has grown that he was claiming Saddam had a nuclear weapong, well that is bogus. Read the entire interview and then his subsequent statement that of course it was never the position of the Bush adminsitration that Saddam was reconstituting a nuclear weapon. You see in order to "reconstitute and nuclear weapon" he would have had to have had one then lost it or something, which of course he did not. And of course if we had believe he was on the verge of "reconstituting" a nuclear weapon we would not have waited 14 or gone to the UN, he would have been gone the next day. So don't even go there with that bogus claim.



Now here are some of the document titles that the investogators are looking at

• Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)
• Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents
• Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)
• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs
• Ricin research and improvement


• Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam • Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)
• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team
• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment
• Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002) • Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)


Still other reports suggest that Iraq's ties to al Qaida were far deeper than previously known, featuring headlines like:


• Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)
• Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity
• Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq
• Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals
• Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims
• Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan

 

[G-Man]

He gives details of what the documents contain and in previous reporting he gives even more detail of what we are uncovering. And these are not things we didn't know, just further confirmation. Show I think the ignorance is shown by those who are ignorant of the facts and haven't bothered to research it themselves.



It's not his he is reporting on what the government has according to his sources and actual listing of the document they are cataloging, certainly as much if not more evidence than that supporting such leftest favorites as the NSA accusations and the Plame case.




Well by reading the reporting of Mr. Hayes which he claims and has been confirmed by his editors is being confirmed by eleven sepreate government officals who are involved in the project. And that it confirms what we already knew.




We both take the word of government officials all the time and we judge it against the evidence. As for the WMD he did have stockpiles of WMD, according to Saddams own claims and the according to the the UN Inspectors. He even used them several times. We just don't know what he did with this left overs, but having stockpiles ready to go was the least of our worries, stockpiles can be disposed of and replenished quite easily.



Which is not true, and if you are going to take the mis-statement he made on Hardball, when after stating several times that Saddam was reconstiuting his nuclear PROGRAM, he in one single statement left out the word PROGRAM, and an urban myth has grown that he was claiming Saddam had a nuclear weapong, well that is bogus. Read the entire interview and then his subsequent statement that of course it was never the position of the Bush adminsitration that Saddam was reconstituting a nuclear weapon. You see in order to "reconstitute and nuclear weapon" he would have had to have had one then lost it or something, which of course he did not. And of course if we had believe he was on the verge of "reconstituting" a nuclear weapon we would not have waited 14 or gone to the UN, he would have been gone the next day. So don't even go there with that bogus claim.



Now here are some of the document titles that the investogators are looking at

• Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)
• Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents
• Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)
• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs
• Ricin research and improvement


• Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam • Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)
• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team
• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment
• Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002) • Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)


Still other reports suggest that Iraq's ties to al Qaida were far deeper than previously known, featuring headlines like:


• Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)
• Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity
• Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq
• Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals
• Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak
• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims
• Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan

Stinger...I will research the facts when they are available...thats my point. You can believe Mr Hayes all you like (its a free world) but he has presented no evidence to back up his claims..other than to say 'documents uncovered' and confirmed by 'eleven seperate govt officials' prove this. Who are they? Where are the documents available? Mr Hayes either refuses or is unable to answer these questions. Also, outlining the supposed document headings hardly constitutes as proof in my book.

Its a bit like me saying there's a top secret document at the whitehouse which outlines plans drawn up to invade Iraq as long ago as XXXX. It confirms that we will overthrow Saddam, take over his oil industry and use the 'cover' of the War on Terror to legitimise it. Eleven members of the administration of have seen it but you are not allowed because it is classified. You'll just have to take my word its all true.

And yes he did have WMD in the past..but that ain't what we were told. Heck, the British even went as far as saying he could launch WMD against the West within 45 minutes notice. As I said, all this turned out to be crap and we should be slightly more cautious about blindly believing our political masters without proof in the future.

 

[Stinger]

G-man it's not necessary to repost my entire post in your reply, just the particulars you are responding to.

Stinger...I will research the facts when they are available...thats my point. You can believe Mr Hayes all you like (its a free world) but he has presented no evidence to back up his claims..

He's certainly given as much if not more than Risen for his reporting. He has cited his sources, in this case unnamed as for instance the Plame case, and given particular of the documents that are being investigated. So yes so far his is provide facts, confirmed to his editors by eleven different government officals certainly a higher standard than say the NYT, and evidence listings of the documents.

other than to say 'documents uncovered' and confirmed by 'eleven seperate govt officials' prove this. Who are they?

Maybe some of the same government officials the Washington Post cites or the LA Times or Newsweek.

Where are the documents available? Mr Hayes either refuses or is unable to answer these questions.

Mr. Hayes addresses that in his article so obviously you are trying to debunk and article you haven't even read. The Weekly Standard also has more reporting on this and it was even reported on by the AP in my local paper.

Also, outlining the supposed document headings hardly constitutes as proof in my book.

Proof of what, or are you going to claim that Hayes has made this up out of thin air. Again I don't think you have read the articles. Else what do you think the documents are about if not Saddam's WMD and terrorist contacts, they certainly aren't about how to make camel stew are they.

Its a bit like me saying there's a top secret document at the whitehouse which outlines plans drawn up to invade Iraq as long ago as XXXX.

Well they probably weren't kept in the WH but they were probably over at the Defense deparment but I don't see the connection you are trying to make. Do you know about Sen. Hoekstra's involvement in this?

It confirms that we will overthrow Saddam, take over his oil industry and use the 'cover' of the War on Terror to legitimise it.

And who reported this and in what publication?

Eleven members of the administration of have seen it but you are not allowed because it is classified. You'll just have to take my word its all true.

So are you saying that you have spoken with eleven government officials involved in this? Has a board of editors reviewed this before you state it as fact?

No it isn't just as if YOU said it here. Mr. Hayes is a well respect reporter on these matters and he works for a board of editors and managers which vent whatever is published in their magazine. Tell you what you present what you are saying to the editorial board and news managers over at the Washington Times and if they believe you and are confident enough to publish what you are stating as fact then I'll take it more seriuosly.

And yes he did have WMD in the past..but that ain't what we were told.

Yes that is part of what we were told, how much he had and how much we knew was destroyed and how much we knew was left, according to the UN inspectors.

So what happen to it? He was required to tell you. Else be removed from office. So you must know what happened to it so please tell us.

Heck, the British even went as far as saying he could launch WMD against the West within 45 minutes notice.

If you mean the West as the UK and the US, post where an official of the British government claimed Saddam had the power to "launch a WMD" attack on the West from Iraq.

As I said, all this turned out to be crap and we should be slightly more cautious about blindly believing our political masters without proof in the future.

Oh it'd didn't turn out to be crap at all but what you are doing is trying to change a discussion of the terrorist training camps and the confirmations of what we already knew into one now of WMD. Start another thread about that if you want to discuss it so this can remain on topic.

 

[G-Man]

G-man it's not necessary to repost my entire post in your reply, just the particulars you are responding to.

He's certainly given as much if not more than Risen for his reporting. He has cited his sources, in this case unnamed as for instance the Plame case, and given particular of the documents that are being investigated. So yes so far his is provide facts, confirmed to his editors by eleven different government officals certainly a higher standard than say the NYT, and evidence listings of the documents.QUOTE]

He cites unnamed sources as proof? Surely a contradiction because no-one can ask them if this is true or not - no-body even knows who they are!!

He gives particulars of documents being investigated but does not present them for our perusal...and you regard this as proof?? He does not give us 'facts', he gives us his opinion on these 'supposed documents'..but refuses to let us see the documents and form our own opinion.

I'll perhaps return you to the original post and link -

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/231235.shtml

And the following exertion :-

"IF TRUE, the documents represent a bombshell finding that shatters the claims of Iraq war critics who have maintained for three years that Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Islamic terrorism."

Note please the first two words.

That is exactly my point - IF TRUE. Even the article itself recognises that the statement/views expressed by Mr Hayes have not as yet been backed up by any proof.

Going back to my original point - when he releases the evidence I'll have a read and then form an opinion.

Your constant arguement that he has proved these allegations (without providing his document evidence or naming his sources) is dumbfounding. If he went to court and tried to use this as evidence he would be laughed out. When he comes up with the good we'll talk again.

As regards the 45 minute claim - check out

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf.

This is the OFFICIAL British govt. assessment of Iraqi arms - presented to MP's before they voted on whether to use force against Iraq.

Pls read point 6 on page 8 - detailed below :-

6. As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq has:

● continued to produce chemical and biological agents;
● military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including
against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable
within 45 minutes of an order to use them;

This is direct from the horses mouth and backed up by document evidence - unlike Mr Hayes.

I suppose you still argue the Brits never said he could use WMD within 45 mins??

 

[Stinger]

He cites unnamed sources as proof? Surely a contradiction because no-one can ask them if this is true or not - no-body even knows who they are!!

ROFL oh gee that's new to news reporting isn't it.

He gives particulars of documents being investigated but does not present them for our perusal...and you regard this as proof??

He does not give us 'facts', he gives us his opinion on these 'supposed documents'..but refuses to let us see the documents and form our own opinion.

So you think he's made it all u[.

I'll perhaps return you to the original post and link -

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/6/231235.shtml

And the following exertion :-

"IF TRUE, the documents represent a bombshell finding that shatters the claims of Iraq war critics who have maintained for three years that Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Islamic terrorism."

OK so I take it we will not see you supporting the claims of Risen, and the Plame case and Delay and most of the reporting which comes out of Washington.

Going back to my original point - when he releases the evidence I'll have a read and then form an opinion.

Which again shows you haven't even read his articles, it's not for him to release.

Your constant arguement that he has proved these allegations (without providing his document evidence or naming his sources) is dumbfounding.

Where I have used the word "proved"?

If he went to court and tried to use this as evidence he would be laughed out. When he comes up with the good we'll talk again.

No if he went to court he could supena them but then it would be civil and only require a perponedernce of the evidence.

As regards the 45 minute claim - check out

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdfThis is the OFFICIAL British govt. assessment of Iraqi arms - presented to MP's before they voted on whether to use force against Iraq.

Pls read point 6 on page 8 - detailed below :-

6. As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq has:

● continued to produce chemical and biological agents;
● military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including
against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable
within 45 minutes of an order to use them;

This is direct from the horses mouth and backed up by document evidence - unlike Mr Hayes.

And I posted similar, do I need to repost the list of the titles of the documents that are being investigated, from Mr. Hayes and in fact the British claim has not been debunked, it doesn't take long to lob a chemical shell at someone.

But here is another source for you to read and dismiss out of hand

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200601130811.asp

January 13, 2006, 8:11 a.m.
The Butcher with the Terror Ties
The evidence mounts.


Drip, drip, drip.
Drop by drop, isolated news stories and emerging documents are eroding the popular myth that Saddam Hussein had no connections to Islamofascist terrorists. These revelations undermine war critics’ efforts to whitewash Baghdad’s ancien regime — such as when Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid declared: “There was [sic] no terrorists in Iraq.” Likewise, Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) describes a “nonexistent relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.”
Reid, Levin, and others who dismiss the Baathist-terrorist nexus would struggle to do so if the Bush administration unveiled the evidence tying Hussein to Osama bin Laden and other extremists. President Bush immediately should release papers discussed in the January 9 Newsweek and the January 16 Weekly Standard.......................

 

[G-Man]

So you think he's made it all u[.

Where I have used the word "proved"?

And I posted similar, do I need to repost the list of the titles of the documents that are being investigated, from Mr. Hayes and in fact the British claim has not been debunked, it doesn't take long to lob a chemical shell at someone

1) I don't like to make any claims on his report but until he provides evidence supporting his views then we cannot regard it as fact. Something he has, as yet, not done.

2) I'm glad to see we are in agreement that Mr Hayes has not 'proved' the allegations in his report and have nothing to add.

3) As you rightly pointed out this thread is in relation to Mr Hayes report..I suggest opening another thread should you wish to debate other points...but you can't lob chemical shells at anyone without chemicals.

 

[Stinger]

1) I don't like to make any claims on his report but until he provides evidence supporting his views then we cannot regard it as fact. Something he has, as yet, not done.

I'll remember your high standard. And as I have posted he has provided evidence such as the listing of documents being researched. Now if you are going to say he made it completely up then do so and call him a liar. But along with the vetting of the evidence by his editor and the eleven government officials backing his reporting, an his unnamed sources are just as good as the next guys, we do have some things that seem to be what he says. And he has released details of what the reports state as I have posted elsewhere to you in this thread. And as noted elsewhere Deroy Murdock is reporting that Newsweek is coming out with it;s own reporting on these findings in it's next issue. Is it absolutely conclusive, no but then when was that the standard.

2) I'm glad to see we are in agreement that Mr Hayes has not 'proved' the allegations in his report and have nothing to add.

Well it depends on what you mean by proved, and what level of proof before our suspicians are raised. Now I guess Saddam could have been sitting around just creating phoney documents, hundreds of thousands of phoney documents just to fool us if we every overturned him. Or I guess a reasonable mind could imagine that all these documents we recoverd are what they say they are.

3) As you rightly pointed out this thread is in relation to Mr Hayes report..I suggest opening another thread should you wish to debate other points...but you can't lob chemical shells at anyone without chemicals.

Yes and the fact that Saddam had them stored away at his ammo dumps with shells to fire them was quite telling. But then if you want to go there then start another thread so we can keep this one on the topic of terrorist contacts and training.

So that being said if in fact you are just going to dismiss the reporting on this out of hand, so be it. I see nothing else to discuss with you concerning it. If you want to try and rebut it then do so, if you just want to discuss the implications of it then do so, but once dimissed there's nothing to discuss.

 

[Billo_Really]

Saddam Hussein was, at one time, our ally. He was doing nothing in Iraq that he wasn't doing 20 years ago when we knew all about him. And in this day and age of satellite technology, to think that anything could go on on this level that we would not know about is ludicrous.

One thing to note, terrorism is on the increase, not decrease. This is a direct result of our involvement in that region.

 

[akyron]

Saddam Hussein was, at one time, our ally. He was doing nothing in Iraq that he wasn't doing 20 years ago when we knew all about him. And in this day and age of satellite technology, to think that anything could go on on this level that we would not know about is ludicrous.

One thing to note, terrorism is on the increase, not decrease. This is a direct result of our involvement in that region.

Ive never heard him referred to as a US ally before.

Iraq successfully gained some military and financial aid from the United States, the Soviet Union, and France, which together feared the prospects of the expansion of revolutionary Iran's influence in the region.


To me it seems like it was more of a balance maintaining strategy when Iran was beating him down after the airport fiasco. Saddam was a dumbass for messing with Iran in the first place without the oomph to finish them off. But then of course he would have had massive oil resources and continue the takeovers of nearby oil rich countries. Yes..having both economies suffer was likely in the best interest of global stability at the time but not in either Iran or Iraq's best interest long term.
Losing 1.7 million people between them must have really sucked too.


You could say terrorism has increased but thats like saying you have more roaches after you bugbomb your house. They were already there. By actively engaging them you have brought them to light.


Not engaging them at all? Ouch.

Anyone heard about the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by akyron
Ive never heard him referred to as a US ally before.

Now that's strange.

 

[akyron]

Now that's strange.

Allies are usually a two way street. What was Saddam supposed to do for the US? He was selling oil internationally but that served global interests more than anything.

 

[Hoot]

I thought eveyone knew, at this point, that Saddam supported terrorism?!

That's never been an issue with me. I've read accounts about how Saddam would promote terrorism to disrupt the governments of neighboring nations, thus, in his own deluded mind, further strengthening his own grip on power.

Now...Saddam supporting terrorism against the U.S.? That's another story, isn't it? Saddam feared retaliation from the U.S. and it's never been established that he supported terrorism against our nation.

As far as any documents...blah blah blah...it's also been fairly well established that Saddam had false documents and gave false intel to those within his own circle, knowing that some might defect, and upon interrogation, would pass any truth test that Iraq had WMD, and swear to such, because they had seen the "documents."

Ohh...scary! Just another ploy by Saddam to make himself look like one bad dude and someone his neighbors should not mess with.

Any documents transcibed from Iraq need to be taken with a grain of salt, and should NEVER be taken at face value.

 

[Stinger]

Saddam Hussein was, at one time, our ally.

That's an urban myth, we never had an alliance with Saddam Hussien or Iraq, but even if we had SO WHAT? Since the mid-90's it was the formal policy of the United States to remove him from power by any necessary means.

We actually did have an alliance with the Soviet Union at one time did the preclude us from winning the cold war?

One thing to note, terrorism is on the increase, not decrease. This is a direct result of our involvement in that region.

Not against us, except for the battles we wage against them in Iraq and Afghanistan where we are killing them at a rate of about 20 to 1.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by akyron
Allies are usually a two way street. What was Saddam supposed to do for the US? He was selling oil internationally but that served global interests more than anything.

Isn't it an interesting coincidence that just before sanctions were to be lifted against Iraq enabling them to sell oil on the open market, of which there was no way they would sell any to the US after all of this, we attack!

 

[Stinger]

Now...Saddam supporting terrorism against the U.S.? That's another story, isn't it? Saddam feared retaliation from the U.S. and it's never been established that he supported terrorism against our nation.

And you have some evidence that Saddam told Al qaeda and Hamas and the Islamice Jihad that he would support what them EXCEPT for anything against the United States????? Geezzz

As far as any documents...blah blah blah...it's also been fairly well established that Saddam had false documents and gave false intel to those within his own circle, knowing that some might defect, and upon interrogation, would pass any truth test that Iraq had WMD, and swear to such, because they had seen the "documents."

How about the docuements concerning his ties with terrorism, you're claiming he created these millions of documents as a charade and that, while you certainly haven't been fooled, all our intelligence experts have been.

Ohh...scary! Just another ploy by Saddam to make himself look like one bad dude and someone his neighbors should not mess with.

And so he got what he deserved didn't he.

Any documents transcibed from Iraq need to be taken with a grain of salt, and should NEVER be taken at face value.

Ahhh and again you know better than the intelligence experts?

 

[Stinger]

Isn't it an interesting coincidence that just before sanctions were to be lifted against Iraq enabling them to sell oil on the open market, of which there was no way they would sell any to the US after all of this, we attack!

The more telling point is that thankfully we had a president who removed him before the sanctions were lifted and Dr. Kay and Dr. Duelfers findings came to pass.

 

[Stinger]

Now that's strange.

Why? I can post pictures of our leaders shaking hands with all kinds of people we didn't have alliances with. Where do you get the idea that merely a picture of two people shaking hands creates an alliance.

You do know that an alliance is a very specific thing.