Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 57

I agree 100% with Mr. Martin Eden and therefore no reason to elaborate on my previous statements.

However (may not be the place) I must state that I'm not anti-american To the contrary, I enjoy going to the States, love the people and admire what the USA has accomplished in term of space/technology,new products, it's sense of business and above all the patriotism of the American people.

That said, I'm very much anti-Bush and against HIS war in Iraq. He lied to all of us in his justification to go to war. I sincerely believe he (Bush)is the most dangerous man on the planet.

As for the American argument that Saddam did not obey UN resolutions, this simply enrages Europeans, Canadian, Asian, Arabs etc...when we all know that Israel has ignored over 60 UN resolutions in addition to numerous Geneva Convention principles/International agreements and all this with the blessing of the USA. How can the Word see the USA (under Bush) has credible and fair. It's impossible.

In closing, I sure hope the American people will vote Kerry, but it is none of my business.

Iraq War Post

We have a thread about that very issue. Have you seen it? I agree with you that the US allows Israel to do things it would not tolerate from any other country. This is wrong. It does not, however, justify allowing Iraq to do what it did in violation of UN sanctions. First of all, the sanctions and resolutions were put in place as conditions of surrender from a war that was fought to remove Iraq from Kuwait. This is a bit different from what Israel is fighting. I am not justifying Israel's behavior, I am just saying it is apples to oranges because Iraq was an invading force into another UN Member country and the sanctions were in place and agreed to by them as terms of surrender in order to help ensure they wouldn't repeat the behavior.

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

You are right the conditions were different, but what is important, which is the point I'm trying to make, is that the world, countries, people do not make that distinction or assessemt . What we see or perceive, is the fact that whatever (right or wrong) Israel does the USA supports. Terrible US policy

So how will the US convince the Iraqis people and the muslim world that the US is just and fair??? There are even stories circulation that the US had Isreali interogators in Iraq and in Guantanamo. If this is true, or perceived has true by Iraqis
The USA needs to up-date its foreign policy and if it wants to make inroads with the Arabe states, the USA must be seen has fair and juste.

Page 57 Iraq War Post

Why is it that so many people say "Bush lied", yet refuse to give details?

What exactly did he lie about? Presence of WMDs? Then so did France, Germany, Russia, the UN, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, etc, etc, etc, etc. And more and more evidence of WMDs is coming to light.

Was it that Iraq supported terrorism, including Al Qaeda? That is a well established, well documented fact.

Was it that Iraq presented a credible threat to the US? Well, last week Vladimir Putin confirmed this threat.

So, what did he lie about?

Iraq War Post

Response to Tenaheff

Fiirst QUOTE was regarding the 71% of Americans who came to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11:

Personally I paid a great deal of attention to multiple news sources on television, in print, and on the internet. Being well informed, I supported our pursuit of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and opposed the invasion of Iraq. However, most Americans did not make this kind of effort. They watched the TV news, and they listened to their president. Television media most definitely failed in its responsibility to keep the public accurately informed -- mainly because it failed to challenge the picture that was being painted by the White House, which staged a very successful misinformation campaign that was more or less parroted by the press. I did not believe that Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda, but I was in the minority.

The UN resolutions at the end of the Gulf War demanded that Saddam eliminate his weapons of mass destruction. This demand was essentially complied with, as our own team under David Kay verified.

The primary contradiction in using the UN resolutions as justification for the war -- besides the absence of WMDs -- is the fact that the U.S. defied the UN by invading. The Security Council created the resolutions, and only by its authority can the resolutions be enforced.

In the months before the invasion the UN inspectors had been re-admitted into Iraq, and were not denied access to any site they chose to inspect. While this process was going on, Iraq most definitely did not pose an imminent threat. The inspectors were forced to leave -- not by Saddam Hussein, but by George W. Bush.

I agree with your statement. I do not, however, think that military invasion is the best strategy regarding every country that funds terrorists -- especially if the terrorists aren't a direct threat to America. If Saddam financially supported Al Qaeda, it might be another matter. The first Congressional report traced a good deal of the funds used by the 9/11 hijackers to Saudi Arabia. Our friends the Saudis are the primary source of the extremist Wahabbi version of Islam, which is the spiritual backbone of the terrorists. Saudi Arabia funds the Madrassah Islamic schools which teach little besides the Koran and hatred of the West.

Despite all this, I am not advocating a military invasion of Saudi Arabia.

The Palestinians, including the organizations fighting Israel, receive considerable support throughout the Arab world. To Arabs they are freedom fighters, and to Israelis they are terrorists. One of the tactics the Israelis employ to discourage terrorist attacks is to bulldoze the homes of suicide bombers. Saddam Hussein sought to buy Arab public opinion by giving money to the families left homeless. Some of these family members may indeed have been terrorists themselves, and some most certainly were not. On the scale of financing terrorist operations, money given to these families after their homes were destroyed ranks pretty far down the list.

Terrorism is not confined to Arabs or the Middle East, because terrorism is a tactic long employed by diverse groups who were no match militarily for their enemies. The Irish Republican Army and their Protestant counterparts have committed acts of terrorism. Various Central and South American death squads -- rebels and government-sponsored -- have terrorized and murdered villagers caught in the middle. The United States has given considerable aid to some of the right-wing dictators responsible for these crimes.

If we were to make a list of every group that fits a reasonable definition of terrorist, and of all their sources of funds, we could not possibly wipe all this out through military action. In my opinion, we should go after the terrorists who have attacked us or who are likely to attack us -- and military invasion is not always the best strategy. In regards to Saddam Hussein, evidence and logic lead to the conclusion that he neither attacked us nor had an operational alliance with those who would.

The invasion of Iraq cannot be justified in terms of UN resolutions, WMD, or combating terrorism. Its long term effect on our national security is debatable. But even if a good case can be made along these lines -- the timing of the invasion, the way it was handled diplomatically, and the mismanagement of the postwar situation have created conditions that may pose a greater threat to our national security than Saddam's Iraq ever did.

Post War Iraq

News
Of 'Lies' and WMD
The Senate vindicates President Bush and exposes Joe Wilson as a partisan fraud.

Edited: tenaheff on 12th Jul, 2004 - 6:59pm

Post War Iraq - Page 57

I will just about bet we don't hear anything about this in the news. I bet it won't be much in the news anywhere in the world because it might put Pres. Bush in a good light.

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 57

I attempted a few days ago to post this reply to Nighthawk's posts of July 6&7, but then I learned I couldn't post consequtively. Now I find this reply of mine is "too long," so I'll post the first part of it now, which deals with the use of the term "fascism," and Iraq's alleged alliance with al Qaeda.

Nighthawk, I won't dispute the definitions of fascism you offered or deny that Iraq under Saddam Hussein met some of those criteria. I only mildly objected to your use of the term because if it were applied to every autocratic regime it would blur distinctions between the many forms of tyranny. But hey - a rose by any other name still has sharp thorns.

What I strongly disagree with is your tendency to make little or no distinction between the "fascism" of Saddam Hussein and that of the terrorists, who you refer to as "Islamofascists."

You certainly give the impression you believe that Saddam and the Islamic extremists were working together, which is why I went on at length in my previous post to demonstrate why that isn't true. If Saddam supported the Islamic extremists he would share their goals (including the spread of Islamic extremism) which he most certainly did not.

That statement contradicts the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies and congressional investigations, and defies logic. These two kinds of "fascism" are mutually incompatible. Saddam Hussein was an Arab nationalist whose role model was Joseph Stalin, the godless communist. He neither supported nor "used" the Islamic extremists, who are part of an ideological movement to spread the extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism known as Wahabbism. Their goal is to unify the Muslim world under theocratic rule. Secular dictatorships like that of Saddam Hussein are to be overthrown. The "Islamofascists" as you call them were a threat to Saddam's power. They were his enemy, not his ally. We did them a favor by getting rid of him, creating a situation in Iraq that may or may not result in the system we are trying to impose.

The war in Iraq had nothing to do with combating terrorism, until our removal of the existing regime and failure to secure the borders made it possible for the terrorists to expand their theater of operations. This war has facilitated the spread of terrorism, and fueled the rage that feeds it. We supported Saddam in his war against Iran because Iraq was a bastion against the Islamic revolution.

On what do you base that assertion? Here are the findings of the Senate Report on Intelligence, released 7-9-04:

(U) Conclusion 93. The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.

(U) Conclusion 96. The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise.
Link to official document:
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5403731

The idea that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were allies is one of the major lies perpetrated by the Bush administration. You asked me to post the lies.

(to be continued ...)