Putin reveals intelligence confirming Saddam planned attack on America

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
If they know iraq was planning something, why would they not back the US?

Maybe to maintain good relations. If an Iraqi attack had occured, we would have been very disturbed and probably even angry if they had not warned us.

Besides, just because Russia is a friend does not mean that they have to join us in a war in Iraq. They can be friends and therefore want to warn us of a possible threat and still not be interested in going as far as joining us in a real war.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Russia warned the United States on several occasions that Iraq's Saddam Hussein planned "terrorist attacks" on its soil, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.
"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.

The Kremlin leader, who was speaking in the Kazakh capital, said Russian intelligence services had many times received information that Saddam's special forces were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets."

dont mean anything. i bet we've got plans of attack against all sorts of countries, including Canada, Russia, and France. does that mean they need to attack us for security reasons?

[lord of the mark]

'The Kremlin leader, who was speaking in the Kazakh capital, said Russian intelligence services had many times received information that Saddam's special forces were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets." '


The attempt to compare this (which MAY have included active preparations, its not clear from the Putin quotes in the media) with Pentagon planning office exercises is really reaching the bottom of the barrel.


I mean the US has just suffered 9/11, and heres a self proclaimed enemey of the US, that the US fought 12 years earlier, and that shoots at US planes in the no fly zones on a regular basis, and russia tells Bush that they know of Iraqi plans to commit TERRORIST acts INSIDE the US - 90% of Americans are gonna consider that as justifying the war. And I bet alot of Europeans, for that matter.

You think Kerry is going to say that plans dont represent a threat? I dont think so.

Chirac, and the Lib Dems in the UK might.


I think GePap is on a warmer track, attack the intell itself.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Besides, just because Russia is a friend does not mean that they have to join us in a war in Iraq. They can be friends and therefore want to warn us of a possible threat and still not be interested in going as far as joining us in a real war.

This was not the tune I heard when France "backstabbed" the US by precisely refusing to join its war in Iraq.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The attempt to compare this (which MAY have included active preparations, its not clear from the Putin quotes in the media) with Pentagon planning office exercises is really reaching the bottom of the barrel.

why is it different? do terrorist attacks invovle taking the life of people? yes. do military attacks invovle the taking of life of people? yes. so its the same thing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

This was not the tune I heard when France "backstabbed" the US by precisely refusing to join its war in Iraq.

1. First France had the sovereign right to backstab us, just as Russia did. Neither Russia failing to support us, nor France failing to support us, are as bad as if Russia had INFORMATION on Iraqi terrorist plans and had not shared them. The point here is not that all is forgiven to Russia, but simply to reconcile the info Russia had with their decision not to support invasion

2. that aside, the anger at France is greater than the anger at Russia for two reasons A. France IS our ally (as those in the US who opposed the war never tire of pointing out) We expect more of you. B. France seems to have played a more active role in organizing the opposition to the US on the UNSC than Russia did.
The combination of A and B is particularly "galling".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


why is it different? do terrorist attacks invovle taking the life of people? yes. do military attacks invovle the taking of life of people? yes. so its the same thing.

There are instances where military attacks are justified. That is the stated reason for the Dod to make all those plans.

You may well believe that in some instances terrorist acts are justified. I wont argue that here, but I will say that such a position finds few backers in the US, and I suspect few in the UK or Australia.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

There are instances where military attacks are justified. That is the stated reason for the Dod to make all those plans.

really? is korea a reason? is vietnam a reason? is gulf war I a reason? is gulf war II a reason? is grenada is reason? is afghanistan a reason? is nicaragua a reason? is lebanon a reason?

You may well believe that in some instances terrorist acts are justified. I wont argue that here, but I will say that such a position finds few backers in the US, and I suspect few in the UK or Australia.

and that makes me wrong how?

[Geronimo]

This was not the tune I heard when France "backstabbed" the US by precisely refusing to join its war in Iraq.

I think the people who whine that France "backstabbed" the US don't see lack of willingness of France to join the war as the 'backstab'. After all, Canada, Germany and several other US allies also took no part but have avoided any accusations of betrayal. I think the whiners who accuse France of betraying the US are thinking of Frances efforts in the UN to actively prevent the US from involving the UN in its plans to attack Iraq. They feel that an ally should have at most, only passively opposed the invasion and not attempt to directly derail the US efforts.

For the record I think a true ally might actively oppose the US in an action that they were convinced would be harmful to US interests as well as their own. Friends don't let friends do really stupid self destructive things.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


really? is korea a reason? is vietnam a reason? is gulf war I a reason? is gulf war II a reason? is grenada is reason? is afghanistan a reason? is nicaragua a reason? is lebanon a reason?



LOTM - no, those arent reasons, those are countries (except GW 1 and 2, of course)


and that makes me wrong how?

I got you mixed up with one of the folks who thought this was a silly little story. If what you mean to say is that you believe terrorist acts can be justified, or are at least no different from any other military acts, and that therefore the existence of plans for such terrorist acts no more constitutes casus belli for the US than the existence of US war plans constitutes casus belli against the US, in your view, than I must admit that your logic seems to impeccable. I would expect all those who share your premis will share your conclusion.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

This was not the tune I heard when France "backstabbed" the US by precisely refusing to join its war in Iraq.

Well, I actually don't believe that France backstabbed us. They had their own reasons for not wanting to participate in a war against Iraq. I respect that.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
do terrorist attacks invovle taking the life of people? yes. do military attacks invovle the taking of life of people? yes. so its the same thing.

Your reasoning is flawed. Two objects can share one characteristic and still be different.

Is my car white? yes.
Is my shirt white? yes. So they are the same thing. Obviously not. They may both be white but they have many differences.

[Spiffor]

The Diplomat

[Odin]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Well, you guys don't trust the CIA. Maybe the KGB can do a better job?

The CIA are the good guys, Bush is scapegoating them so poeple don't figure out a lot of this stuff was made up by the NSA and Chalabi to legitamate the war. But now the CIA is leaking info to the media, so the truth shall be heard, and Chimpy will be history.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Odin


The CIA are the good guys, Bush is scapegoating them so poeple don't figure out a lot of this stuff was made up by the NSA and Chalabi to legitamate the war. But now the CIA is leaking info to the media, so the truth shall be heard, and Chimpy will be history.

George Tenet "slam dunk case"

BTW, do you mean the NSC? the National Security Advisor (NSA) is Condi Rice. The only agency called the NSA is the National Security Agency = the Puzzle Palace = No Such Agency. You dont mean all those cryptologists made stuff up, do you?