 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
I am sorry, but let me be blunt:
The Iraq- Al Qaeda "connectioin" is by far the weakest, least substantiated of the four main arguments given for this war. Which is why the admin. barely mentions it to the press, why Powell spent so little time on it in his 2/5 piece, comapred to the other bits.
You guys can't show me a single article that even makes the claim Iraq has given Al qaeda chemical explosives. The two 'serious links" are that : 1. Iraq may have give safe harbor to a man who is part of Al Qaeda, though whether they gave him anyting else, if he remain in Iraq, had any meetings with officials, if he planned or did anyting while in Iraq, no body knows. The second is that an Al Qaeda affiltited group exist in northern Iraq, a bit which also happens to be outside of Saddams' grasp. These are the only two "links" Powell demeed worthy to mention, and they are sad.
There are four main arguments to go to war with Iraq, and ther one you seem to favors is the one that is pathetically weak, and bases purely on fear, and no worthwhile evidence. Perhaps it is time you gave the other three arguemnts, all of them far better (even if I still disagree with them) than this one, a look.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
A collection of Colin Powell's useful facts relating to the proposed actions in the Gulf region.
A: Seven proofs of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
1. On an audiotape, Osama bin Laden calls Iraq a "stinking cesspit of socialist debauchery". This criticism is much less hostile than the sort of thing he says about America, thus proving al-Qaeda has warm feelings towards Saddam Hussein.
2. Our surveillance has picked up chatter from al-Qaeda operatives talking about organising a "rendezvous". "Rendezvous" is a French word, and France has constantly obstructed American attempts to impose regime change in Iraq. So again, we see a clear connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
3. Our spy planes have photographed Saddam's deputy prime minister being driven in a motorcade of Mercedes cars. Mercedes is a German car, and Germany is in league with France to destroy America, like al-Qaeda. Therefore, etc.
4. The number plate on one of these cars was A03A0 1A, which, in the rear mirror of the car in front, spells al-Qaeda.
5. The motorcade was moving in an easterly direction through Baghdad. If you move in an easterly direction through France, you get to Germany.
6. Saddam is another Hitler. Germany had a Hitler. Again, a direct link with al-Qaeda.
7. Al-Qaeda operatives have recently been arrested in London. The Prime Minister of London, Tony Blair, then visited France for a meeting with Jacques Chirac. Chirac then visited Bonn to celebrate 40 years of his alliance with Gerhard Schroeder of Germany. Schroeder had a meeting with Putin of Russia, who then received Hans Blix, who went to Baghdad. Again, proof of a direct link.
B: Five fascinating facts about Iraq.
1. Iraq is slightly more than twice the size of Idaho, occupying an area the equivalent of 500,000 American aircraft carriers.
2. Iraq has 57 kilometres of coastline. That's the equivalent of 300,000 Apache attack helicopters stretching 57 kilometres.
3. Iraq was once part of the Ottoman Empire, a land mass which, if turned into flour, would be enough to feed bread to the children of Iraq for 100 years. But Saddam refuses to do this and instead spends his money on presidential palaces, which, if converted to milk, would be enough to fill all the oil wells of the Middle East for a fortnight. That's why we have to stop him getting to the wells before he does this.
4. Iraq has 35,000 square kilometres of irrigated land. That's the equivalent of 300 million bottles of anthrax end to end. So where are they?
5. Iraqis consume 27.3 billion kWh of electricity every year, enough to power one Star-Wars style anti-missile system. So where is it, and who's it pointing at?
C: The United Nations constitution explained once and for all.
1. The UN has a 15-member Security Council, of which France, Britain, China, Russia and America are permanent members, with veto rights.
2. The UN Charter allows for the permanent members to use their veto to overrule any majority decision of the council with which they disagree.
3. This is not applicable in cases where France, China or Russia use their veto in unreasonable cases, "unreasonable" being defined as a veto against any recent council majority decisions supported by Britain or America.
4. In these cases, the charter will probably allow America or Britain to veto that veto, thus upholding the earlier unvetoed will of the council, unless the council arrives at a majority decision contrary to the wishes of America or Britain, in which case all the permanent members of the council ought to be obliged to veto it, or to veto any attempt to veto the veto.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
t's in their common interest to cooperate with each other.
I don't know really. I'm sure he would work with Al Qaeda. |
That's absurd. What, exactly, are these "common interests?" Yes, they both don't like the US, and as far as I can tell, that's about it. Saddam's secular, al-Qaeda are Wahhabists. Al-Qaeda hate his guts and would love to get rid of him, particularly considering Saddam's treatment of Islamists within his regime; the converse is true as well.
Saddam entrusting al-Qaeda with, well, anything (especially WMD's) would be suicidal. First of all, it'd be a serious threat to his regime in terms of the possibility of al-Qaeda using these weapons on him, which, frankly would be a far more rational use by al-Qaeda than on Western targets (Saddam's more impotent, Saddam is ruling an Islamic country - which means it'd be easier for a more friendly regime to take power). Secondly, it'd be a serious threat to his regime as far as increasing American militancy towards Iraq and virtually guaranteeing invasion and likely a very painful death. A terrorist attack by al-Qaeda against the US would increase Saddam's power in absolutely no way (their last one may very well have costed him his power and life).
It's clear that Saddam cooperating with al-Qaeda would be absolutely anti-thetical to his interests.
Try again. 
quote:
I think the current situation is very bad, and an invasion would be better. |
Why? The best-case scenario, given the attitudes and interests of the US gov't, is that the Kurds lose their autonomy, and another iron-fisted dictator takes power in Baghdad. Combined with loss of life and damage to the country's infrastructure this seems like a far worse situation than the status quo. The worst-case scenario, again given the interests of the US gov't and the hawkishness and lack of thought in the White House, would be a massive civil war in both the North and South, with Turkish invasions in the North, and Iranian proxy forces backing the Shia in the South, perhaps turning Iraq into an Islamist Shia state. Considering the massive losses in life and liberty that would occur, it would be unquestionably worst than the status quo. Personally, I think the situation'll turn out somewhere in the middle, but that's still very, very bad.
quote:
The best thing about an invasion is that Saddam would be gone and things can start to get better. Saddam is a scab that keeps itching. Instead of scratching him over and over again let's let the scab heal. |
Saddam's an evil, horrible man, no question about it. But he's only a small element in the equation. One must consider the other elements of the situation, namely the US, Turkey, Iran, and and the Sunni Baathists in power in Iraq. I can't possibly see how the situation could turn out better with Saddam gone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
Hussein's main enemy is the US government. Hussein has shown no real interest in killing Americans, except the ones bombing his country, and maybe possibly former President Bush (if we believe that story, which I don't, since it was given to use by the Kuwaitis).
Everyone keeps claiming Hussein wants to kill Americans, and yet there are plenty of Americans he could have killed in Iraq all along, more than ust the peace crowd types. There were plenty of American businessmen there, including Dick Cheney.
Hussein is a murderous thug, not a homocidal maniac. Thugs don't kill for pleasure, they kill for material reasons. Hussein would gain nothing by killing Americans, therefore he's not interested in killing Americans.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, the Hussein wanted to give bio/chem weapons to terorists. Why hasn't he done so 'till now? He's had at least twelve years to give them such weapons. In the last four, no one was even looking while he could have been doing it. There are no intelligence reports saying it's happened. At best we have a leader of al-Qaeda receiving free medical care in Baghdad (medical care is free in Iraq) and supposed bio/chem warfare training of al-Qaeda operatives (an accusation made by one former Iraqi scientist). Hardly evidence of a close relationship.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-02-2003 10:24
|