 |
| |
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Wow. There are a lot more links and arrangements than you credit. There is that whole arrangement with Zarqawi that stank of an alliance.
As well, there is evidence that Oil for Food was being used to finance OBL. |
1. Zarqawi had links to Al Qaeda, but intelligence doesn't suggest he was a card-carrying member.
2. He only received medical treatment in Baghdad in 2002, and that is the extent of the link; nothing else.
That hardly "stinks of an alliance" between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Even Rumsfeld said he knew of no good evidence supporting a link between the two.
I can find no credible evidence that even gives the hint of a money link from the Oil for Food progam. Saddam, as far as I know, used that money to prop up his military and keep his palaces in good order.
One thing you have to remember is that Saddam wasn't very interested in going head-to-head with the U.S. He mostly hated Isreal and wanted to become a hero of the Arab world. However, because of Saddam's secular nature and government, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda saw him as just as bad in many was as America. They were enemies and would never have worked together. They were just too philosophically opposed.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Drach, referring to 1991, just what was it that Kerry thought would pursuade Saddam to voluntarily leave Iraq that justified further delay, a delay that would endager our troops due to hot weather? Saddam had been given a deadline by the UN -- withdraw by Jan. 15 or else be expelled. Why did Kerry vote no in face of such a UN deadline?
Did he have a plan? Was there something real behind his no vote? |
I assume he thought we should put more pressure on Saddam and try negotiations over a decent period of time.
If you remember back to 90-91, we went in there really, really fast. There was no time to really try peaceful negotiations with such short deadlines.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
1. Zarqawi had links to Al Qaeda, but intelligence doesn't suggest he was a card-carrying member.
2. He only received medical treatment in Baghdad in 2002, and that is the extent of the link; nothing else.
That hardly "stinks of an alliance" between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Even Rumsfeld said he knew of no good evidence supporting a link between the two.
I can find no credible evidence that even gives the hint of a money link from the Oil for Food progam. Saddam, as far as I know, used that money to prop up his military and keep his palaces in good order.
One thing you have to remember is that Saddam wasn't very interested in going head-to-head with the U.S. He mostly hated Isreal and wanted to become a hero of the Arab world. However, because of Saddam's secular nature and government, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda saw him as just as bad in many was as America. They were enemies and would never have worked together. They were just too philosophically opposed.
-Drachasor |
Drach, Zarqawi took over command of a terrorist base while in Iraq. When some of his people were arrest, Saddam intervened and had them released. As to the Oil for Food program, Saddam was clearly funding the Muslim Brotherhood and they apparently had links to OBL.
Al Qaeda's budget in 2001 was $30 million per year. The 9/11 commission said that OBL himself could not afford this; but they did not identify where the money was coming from.
We still have to see the other shoe drop on the Saddam-OBL links.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
I think you have forgotten that the 9/11 Commision found no good evidence a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Rumsfeld, who is someone that would know, has backed this up. There were contacts here and there, but no cooperation, that is the conclusion of the 9/11 Commision, which examined all of the evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Drach, Zarqawi took over command of a terrorist base while in Iraq. When some of his people were arrest, Saddam intervened and had them released. As to the Oil for Food program, Saddam was clearly funding the Muslim Brotherhood and they apparently had links to OBL. |
Zarqawi is not a member of Al Qaeda, he merely has some contacts to that organization. If you have to say well, "Iraq knew this guy, who knew these guys" to get to "Iraq and Al Qaeda were allies" then the arguement falls apart. Additionally, latest intelligence indicates Zerqawi links with Al Qaeda have lessened in recent times.
You use a similar circuitous route with the Food for Oil program, though I'd like to see your evidence for this, for I have seen, nor can find, any credible evidence indicating Food for Oil money was being funneled to that organization. I have only seen evidence indicating that Saddam used Food for Oil fraud to help maintain his palaces and power base. In any case, have links to a group which has links to another group, does not mean you have direct links to that second group.
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Al Qaeda's budget in 2001 was $30 million per year. The 9/11 commission said that OBL himself could not afford this; but they did not identify where the money was coming from. |
So it must have been coming from Saddam? You know, there really isn't any evidence for that. There is evidence that money from Saudi Arabia and Iran (among other places) goes to Al Qaeda, and there are many ways to get money beyond this.
If find it especially ironic you quote the 9/11 commision which, as I said above, found *no collaboration* between Saddam and Al Qaeda. They even reported that Osama tried to have training camps in Iraq and other Iraqi help, but Saddam never responded to those requests.
There is simply no collaboration here, only a few random interactions here and there.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Perphaps, but the vote took place after the international community itself had given Saddam a 1/15/01 deadline. That UNSC resolution was in November, IIRC. This was plenty of time for Saddam to negotiate a graceful exit, if he really wanted to leave voluntarily. Instead, he kept asking for unacceptable conditions. |
Which the U.S. greatly pressured into happening. No real negotiation was attempted, just a few ultimatums that would have resulted in an unnacceptable loss of face to Saddam (so he couldn't have said "yes" to them). A peaceful solution could have been sought that would have resulted in him leaving though. It might not have been likely to actually of happened, but civilized people must *try* to acheive them.
We didn't really try, and I think that was Kerry's point.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
Yea Right, when pigs fly, this man was never leaving his country under his own power, any other thought is simply delusional. |
My larger point was that you must put forth an effort to try in negotiate, even if it is highly unlikely the other side will listen.
Anyhow, I was talking about the first Gulf War, pay attention. This was about him leaving Kuwait.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
Well, our intelligence said so, so did, Russian intelligence, Egypt's, British all 17 memebers of the security council.
If your mom, dad, sister, brother told you your house was on fire, would you believe them????
Hindsight is always a wonderful tool to measure the past. |
Except France didn't think we'd find any, and other allies were doubtful as well. We also had intelligence reports that indicated they were destroyed; those were ignored. Also, if we had just let the Weapon Inspectors do their job, we would have found out for certain, instead we kicked them out when they were begging for more time.
Bushian Blind-sight is always 20/-
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
Yea, France,
There is a measure of reliable intelligence, don't consider that they were in the Oil for food fraud with Saddam and they were in negociations with Saddam for cheaper oil if they could get the US sanctions and fly zones removed. I sure would place my bet with that country, yikes. |
Right, and the United States is running child labor camps to make shoes.
There is a difference between companies and the country they reside. Additionally, there is no evidence that there was any serious desire to have sanctions removed, or that the OfF program gave Saddam any leverage in that. The sanctions were international (U.N.) too, not just the U.S.
Lastly, you completely ignored my point about the inspectors wanting to finish their job and give us much more reliable intelligence and the fact we had some intelligence (from our own sources) indicating Saddam had gotten rid of all of his WMDs.
Lastly, the U.S. was in no immediate threat. We could afford to wait a year quite easily.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gibsie
I thought of adding "at the time we invaded second-time round", but I thought that such an obvious condition was redundant. Perhaps if Bush and co. had stated "way back in 1991" after every confident statement of how Saddam had WMD's you right-wingers wouldn't have gotten so confused over whether he had WMD's "at the time we invaded second-time round" or not  |
Everybody wants to isolate it to just us, remember, there were 17 countries on the security council who also thought it, everybody's intelligence was wrong and in order to prove it, we had to go there. They just didn't want to contribute troops because of self-serving national interests, regardless of what Drachasor says. I just saw it again tonight where Chirac's number 1 man was up to his eyeballs in oil for food fraud, as well as the UN(joke of an institution).
Drachasor,
There is no way to tell if the US was in danger within a year, we do know, Saddam put a contract out on Bush Sr., we do know Saddam used WMD, we do know at that time 17 countries on the security council thought he had WMD, we do know he was the biggest Muslim killer in the world, we do know he violate 17 security resolutions, we do know that a common enemy brings together strange bedfellows, so as Al Queda got hit in Afhanistan and Saddam could secretly get a WMD to one of their operatives, think he would? I wouldn't my life on it.
I have always said the Iraq war is not about Saddam, WMD or oil, it is all about bringing democracy to the ME. That region floats on oil, yet the ME GNP is less than that of Spain's, there is only one democratic country in the ME, there are schools teaching no tolerance for other religions, all this together creates a breeding ground for bin laden recruits, we need to give the people in the ME something to live for not to die for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
Gibsie,
Go to the records all 17 countries on the security council thought he had WMD that is why the vote was 17-0, that's not misleading. |
17-0 to go in and investigate the situation, to put pressure on so that those investigations could take place.
Not 17-0 to go to war without extensive investigations.
Given all of the sanctions and watching, especially with the investigators, Saddam was no threat as long as that was going on. We had time to let the investigators do their job. We rushed to war instead, and that was why the Security Council and most nations didn't back us. Saddam simply wasn't a threat at the time.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
There was no collaboration wrt 9/11 according to the commission. |
They concluded that, but also every piece of evidence that the administration used to justify a connection was invalidated. Additionally, the conclusion was that there was no collaboration against America's interests in general.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=203.html
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
I think you have forgotten that the 9/11 Commision found no good evidence a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Rumsfeld, who is someone that would know, has backed this up. There were contacts here and there, but no cooperation, that is the conclusion of the 9/11 Commision, which examined all of the evidence. |
To be precise, the Commission did find links between Saddam and al Qaeda, just not operational links and nothing to confirm that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
quote:
Zarqawi is not a member of Al Qaeda, he merely has some contacts to that organization. If you have to say well, "Iraq knew this guy, who knew these guys" to get to "Iraq and Al Qaeda were allies" then the arguement falls apart. Additionally, latest intelligence indicates Zerqawi links with Al Qaeda have lessened in recent times. |
He ran an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and was wounded in the war there. What more do you want. A membership card?
quote:
You use a similar circuitous route with the Food for Oil program, though I'd like to see your evidence for this, for I have seen, nor can find, any credible evidence indicating Food for Oil money was being funneled to that organization. I have only seen evidence indicating that Saddam used Food for Oil fraud to help maintain his palaces and power base. In any case, have links to a group which has links to another group, does not mean you have direct links to that second group.[\q]
I saw this on a special report two weeks ago on FoxNews. I could not find a link to the transcript of that report on their site.
[q]There is evidence that money from Saudi Arabia and Iran (among other places) goes to Al Qaeda, and there are many ways to get money beyond this. |
Iran? I was aware of Saudi Arabia.
quote:
If find it especially ironic you quote the 9/11 commision which, as I said above, found *no collaboration* between Saddam and Al Qaeda. They even reported that Osama tried to have training camps in Iraq and other Iraqi help, but Saddam never responded to those requests. |
You have to ignore the evidence of Zarqawi to make this statement.
quote:
There is simply no collaboration here, only a few random interactions here and there. |
Again, Zarqawi.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-10-2004 18:33
|