Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 56

A 'funny' question was asked recently and I thought I would post it here to see what you think...

Will Saddam get a fair trial?

Iraq War Post

Do you believe in the ability for people to receive fair trials in general? If so, why wouldn't he get one? Of course, usually you are asked if you have any knowledge of the case and also if you have formed an opinion already as to guilt or innocence. It might be difficult to find a jury that hasn't heard of the atrocities and/or already formed their opinion of guilt or innocence.

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

This post is in reply to some things MrB wrote on another topic.

I'm sorry, also, that you don't realize that, while it is true that Iraq probably wasn't involved directly in 9/11, the US and the rest of the civilized world is at war (which it didn't start) with the barbarian fascists who have developed in the Middle East.

9/11 was just the wake up call to the rest of the world. That should be obvious from the recent attack in Madrid. The Islamofascists want to change the world, into their image. This is just as bad for people in Canada and Trinidad as it is for people in the US, Britain and Israel. Their ideology is more oppressive and more brutal than the Nazi form of fascism would ever have become.

The war in Iraq is, and always has been, about stopping a brutal dictator from exporting more of his brand of fascism into other countries, through the sponsorship of terrorist activities. This is a long term war. If you don't want it to be, that is too bad. Even if the US gave up and turned away from it, it would continue, as the Islamofascists would continue to plan and execute attacks on the innocent, of whatever country just happens to be the target of the day.

The US is in Iraq under the same authority that Canada is in Afghanistan. It is in our national security interest. There is even more evidence of that now that Vladimir Putin has publicly confirmed that Russia warned the US just a few months before the US invastion that Iraq had WMDs and was planning on using them against the US in the near future (probably summer of 2003). This was information that the US was unable to make publicly available.

MrB, your anti-Americanism is showing. IMHO.

Page 56 Iraq War Post

In my opinion, I think he should get the same exact kind of trial that he gave to all those he annihilated.

Iraq War Post

This is very hard to answer. I do hope that he will.

Post War Iraq

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he was not an Islamic extremist. Quite the contrary -- Islamic revolutionaries in general were his enemies. Osama bin Laden referred to Saddam as an "infidel." The United States supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980's precisely because his secluar regime was a bastion against the Islamic revolutionaries of Iran. President Reagan sent a special envoy -- Donald Rumsfeld -- to Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein:
https://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Saddam Hussein brutally repressed any person or organization that was a threat to his power. International terrorist orgainizations like Al Qaeda wanted to overthrow secular regimes like Saddam's and install totalitarian theocratic states.

The extent of Iraqi support for terrorism basically consisted of the money he gave to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. This was often cited by the same people who argued that Saddam would use terrorist proxies to attack America with weapons of mass destruction, but that argument falls apart when you consider that not a single Palestinian attack was carried out with chemical or biological weapons.

Even if Saddam possessed WMD, he was highly unlikely to give these weapons to terrorist organizations he could neither trust nor control. This article by the CATO Institute written two weeks before the invasion explains this situation very well:
https://www.cato.org/dailys/03-05-03.html

President Bush was very successful in persuading the public there was no distinction between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or Saddam and Osama. After the Al Qaeda leader evaded capture in Afghanistan, Bush basically made no mention of him. Instead, he put Saddam, terrorism, and 9/11 together in so many speeches, it is not surprising that at one time 71% of Americans believed Saddam was at least partly responsible for 9/11.

Bush, Cheney, and others kept pushing a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, despite the conclusion of the intelligence community that no operational alliance existed. This commentary by Paul Sperry (who voted for Bush in 2000) lists details of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and subsequent statements by Bush which illustrate that YES, BUSH LIED:
https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=34930

The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are indeed revolutionaries who want to spread their fundamentalist (call it fascist if you like, though that's a poor definition) version of Islam throughout the Middle East, toppling the existing regimes (including Saddam's).

If Iraq is now the "central front in the war on terror," it is because our invasion has opened the gates for jihadists who relish the opportunity to fight Americans. Defenders of this war like to point out that the real hardcore terrorists are not Iraqis, but foreigners. This pretty much makes my point. Terrorist organizations couldn't flourish under Saddam's tight-fisted rule -- except in the "no-fly" zones where his reach was limited. Now they are more prevalent in the country.

In order to invade Iraq, we diverted resources and attention from Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been been able to survive. Most of the country outside the capital city of Kabul is unsafe. Creating a peaceful and stable Afghanistan was an extremely difficult nation building project just by itself. Now we are engaged in two simultaneous nation building projects, and the long term prospects for both are precarious and uncertain.

Marine general Anthony Zinni, a lifelong Republican and former Chief of Central Command (the Middle East) is highly critical of the decision to invade Iraq and the egregious mismanagement of the postwar situation:
https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/...ain618896.shtml

Iraq was thoroughly contained, not allied with Islamic extremists, and posed no imminent threat to the United States. By invading Iraq we not only diverted attention and resources away from the terrorists who attacked us, we have EXPANDED the terrorists' base of operations and fueled the rage which the Islamic extremists exploit to their advantage.

Bush's war against terror is self-perpetuating -- creating on a regional scale the endless cycle of violence we have witnessed between the Israelis and Palestinians. His disastrous foreign policy is spreading our military precariously thin, draining our treasury, alienating our friends, multiplying our enemies, and making us LESS safe. But don't take my word for it. Diplomats & Military Commanders for Change, consisting of 27 men and women who have served the United States in senior diplomatic, national security, and military positions in both Republican and Democratic administrations, have this to say:
https://www.diplomatsforchange.com/project/statement.shtml

In the interests of peace and security, Bush must not be given another four years.

Post War Iraq - Page 56

If this is true, it isn't Bush's fault, but the fact that the vast majority of US citizens don't really pay attention to what is truly going on or being said. They listen to the main teasers out of the mouths of reporters and don't look any further. Yes, it was suggested that Saddam supported terrorism, but the main reason being pushed all along really did remain the UN resolutions and how they were being ignored. If you paid attention to the news stories and actually thought about what was being reported and the manner in which it was reported, you should have been able to see this.

As far as I am concerned, if you give money to terrorist organizations, of any kind, knowingly, you are a terrorist. Terrorism will never end as long as the stream of money going to support terrorist activities is as strong as it is.

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 56

In the interests of national security, President Bush MUST be given another four years. The alternative isn't even thinkable, as the alternative has proven over and over and over and over that he doesn't have a single care in the world about US security, but only for socialist world domination idealism.

I never indicated that Hussein was an Islamic extremist. I said he was a fascist. He used Islamic extremist fascists, and supported them, in an attempt to export his brand of fascism into other countries.

You objected (mildly) to my description of Islamic extremists as fascists. Here is a definition that I searched out:
Fascism: An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected individual freedom, liberal individualism, democracy, and limitations on the state.

Also, from Bartleby.com: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Both of these definitions accurately describe the Islamic extremists and Hussein. The difference is that the Islamic extremists are following an imaginary form of nationalism that requires that the world become an Islamic nation, following Sharia law, and submitting to oppression and lack of individual liberty.

Iraq is the center of the war on terror, because it supported terrorists under Saddam Hussein, because there was a credible assessment that he had WMDs, and was planning on using them against the US. Remember, even Vladimir Putin has confirmed this report.

More and more WMDs are now turning up in Iraq, along with the credible reports that many trucks fled into Syria as the US Marines and Army approached Baghdad. More and more sarin gas and mustard gas are being found in Iraq, along with enriched uranium.

BTW, you keep saying that Bush lied about Iraq. Would you care to list the lies?