Putin reveals intelligence confirming Saddam planned attack on America

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Well, I've heard talks of sending troops to Iraq. Still something very diffuse, and maybe just my imagination, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is in the diplomats' minds.
Also, France could have strengthened its position as an anti-US flagwearer, as the occupation became hell. At the contrary, France kept quiet, no "I told you so", no accusations wrt the lack of substance of Bush's trashed excuses for war, etc.

That's nothing as clear-cut as Putin's decision, of course, but France could have made things look worse, from a diplomatic point of view, had we continued to play hardcore.

French troops??? with France still blocking Nato from taking over command of the Polish division, despite the majority of NATO states participating in the Coalition? Ill beleive it when I see it.

And no, I dont see how they could play hard ball now. For months theyve been pushing the US to end the occupation, and thats happening. Their principle argument against the invasion was that it would destabilized the region - well now the new Iraqi PM and Pres are asking for help to stabilize the country - theyre going to oppose even a UNSC res?? I suppose they could oppose the provisions for democratization, but that would look pretty bad, wouldnt it? Nah, France was boxed in by Allawi and Yawer. They get no credit on this.


But hats off to them for letting the EU move to a more reasonable view of Arafat and future Pal leadership. But i dont think had anything to do with helping Bush. Just keeping up with the rest of the EU.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Terrorist organizations, whether Sunni or not, are almost always religious fanatics who believe that America is fighting a war on Islam. Saddam doesn't fit this profile. If he did, he'd run a theocracy, not a secular government.

*sigh* Like I already said, terrorism is merely a tool. Non-state organizations, theocracies, secular dictatorships, democracies, and even clown colleges can use it. The fact that this tool is primarily used by religious extremists is incidental, and does not preclude others from using it.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Saddam misinterpreted American orders.

I hope you don't think April Glaspie saying we didn't care about him settling a minor border dispute constituted an order to attack Kuwait...

Originally posted by johncmcleod
If Saddam attacked the US, it would be declaring suicide. He knows this. He isn't crazy. If he was crazy enough to attack the US unprovoked he wouldn't have been able to lead a country for almost two decades. There is quite a difference between attacking a small country in the Middle East and attacking the most powerful nation in the world.

Feel free to reread my post; I said it was his refusal to withdraw from Kuwait in the face of American threats which makes me doubt his sanity, NOT the invasion of Kuwait in and of itself. The latter was a very rational decision IMO.

Originally posted by Darius871
If he was so rational and bent on mere survival, why didn't he withdraw from Kuwait then in the first Gulf War? He had to think either A) we wouldn't be willing to fight despite going through all the expense of mobilizing half a million men or B) Iraq would win if we did attack. Neither of these are rational conclusions.

[Lung]

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.

You forgot euthenasia, suicide, drunk driving resulting in death, and accidental death. They all involve taking the life of a person, so by your own reckoning, they should be included too

I consider there to be quite a difference between deliberately killing innocent women and children, and killing armed enemy soldiers. Doing so because they are of a different religion or because you decide that they are traitorous to your religion because they don't want to be a murderer like yourself makes you even worse

If you can't see a difference then you must be a moron

[Lung]

Originally posted by The diplomat


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.

So you respect the fact that they had their fingers firmly entrenched in the Iraqi pie before the Iraq war, even though it smacks of a major motivation for opposing the war? French companies having lots of defence contracts in Iraq and opposing a war that would have an adverse effect on their income is cause for your respect?

If you want to respect an opinion, you should make sure that the opinion is based purely on moral grounds, not a blatant conflict of interest.

Just about everyone has an interest in Iraq, so be careful who you support

[johncmcleod]

*sigh* Like I already said, terrorism is merely a tool. Non-state organizations, theocracies, secular dictatorships, democracies, and even clown colleges can use it. The fact that this tool is primarily used by religious extremists is incidental, and does not preclude others from using it.

So what will Saddam use this tool for? To kill himself?

I hope you don't think April Glaspie saying we didn't care about him settling a minor border dispute constituted an order to attack Kuwait...

Saddam has been supported by the US since he first came in power, he was supported when he went to war with Iran. The more powerful he became, the better for us. He probably figured he'd be supported by us. Then with things not going so well on the homefront for Bush I, he used this as an opportunity to gain some public support. Bush then got the image of a good, strong leader who was fighting evil dictators. It helped him gain support, but in the end it wasn't enough and he didn't get re-elected.

As for why Saddam didn't pull out in the first place?
I don't know. It seemed like a very stupid decision. However, I don't think he was crazy. There was probably some reason for it. I believe this because there doesn't seem to be much evidence of his insanity. There is one decision that he made that I don't know why he did it. Maybe someone else can give that answer. If he was truly insane, insane enough to commit suicide, then he would not have been able to operate a country for two decades.

This seems to completely ignore 1991. I think our utter decimation of his military plus 12 years of crippling sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombings gave him plenty of reason to hate us.

In 12 years he never made any terrorist attacks on us. Why is he all of the sudden a threat to American security that must be taken out? Hmm, maybe it is because Bush needs some support or because some of that oil would be nice.

[johncmcleod]

So you respect the fact that they had their fingers firmly entrenched in the Iraqi pie before the Iraq war, even though it smacks of a major motivation for opposing the war? French companies having lots of defence contracts in Iraq and opposing a war that would have an adverse effect on their income is cause for your respect?

France also had other reasons, such as listening to over 80% of the population. I agree with you, some of their reasons for their decision may not be altruistic, mostly because of self-interests in Iraq. But of course, they are French. America would NEVER do anything like that.

[Lung]

Originally posted by General Ludd




Or, if you like, you could substitute 'killing' for 'terror'.


Of course, I hope you can reconize the scale of difference between a mugging and the other two.

Mugging isn't the issue here. Me, like most people, see a distinct difference between killing armed enemy soldiers and defenceless innocent civilians (including women and children). Without that difference, i could let off a bomb in a supermarket and use any political gripe as an excuse to try and justify it.

Terrorism is unacceptable. It is an excuse for murder, and easily differentiated from normal warfare.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Lung
Terrorism is unacceptable. It is an excuse for murder, and easily differentiated from normal warfare.

It is also against the Geneva Convention. Terrorists have no rights.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
So what will Saddam use this tool for? To kill himself?

So I should consider this a retraction of your argument that one must be a religious zealot to use terrorism? You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Saddam has been supported by the US since he first came in power, he was supported when he went to war with Iran. The more powerful he became, the better for us. He probably figured he'd be supported by us.

Sure. However, you said that he 'misinterpreted American orders', and now you're saying that he merely assumed we would support him. You're going in circles.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Then with things not going so well on the homefront for Bush I, he used this as an opportunity to gain some public support. Bush then got the image of a good, strong leader who was fighting evil dictators. It helped him gain support, but in the end it wasn't enough and he didn't get re-elected.

Sure, but this is going off on a tangent. I was using the Gulf War as an example of Saddam's irrational nature, not defending the war's legitimacy itself. That's a totally different debate.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
As for why Saddam didn't pull out in the first place?
I don't know. It seemed like a very stupid decision. However, I don't think he was crazy. There was probably some reason for it. I believe this because there doesn't seem to be much evidence of his insanity. There is one decision that he made that I don't know why he did it. Maybe someone else can give that answer. If he was truly insane, insane enough to commit suicide, then he would not have been able to operate a country for two decades.

Ok... so standing his ground before American and allied military might wasn't crazy and suicidal, just 'stupid' (huge difference). However, having Mukhaberat operatives carry out a terrorist attack inside the United States (whilst taking extreme measures to cover up any ties to Iraq) - and then denying any involvement - would be crazy?

Maybe Saddam just rationally assumed that if the U.S. accused Iraq of perpetrating said attack, the American left and most of the world would say it was all a lie to steal Iraq's oil. Sound familiar?

Originally posted by johncmcleod
In 12 years he never made any terrorist attacks on us. Why is he all of the sudden a threat to American security that must be taken out? Hmm, maybe it is because Bush needs some support or because some of that oil would be nice.

Again you go off on a tangent against arguments that are not my own. Let's step back a sec:

1) You said that "the U.S." denied Putin's claims, and I pointed out that in fact the State Department only said it had no knowledge of such intel. It could have been passed through other channels.
2) You said Saddam had no reason to hate us, and I pointed out several obvious reasons why he should.
3) You said OBL's ilk are radical Shiites, and I pointed out that in fact they are nearly all Wahabbist Sunnis.
4) You said that Saddam wouldn't use terrorism because he's a secular dictator, and I pointed out that terrorism has nothing to do with religion, but rather is a tool sometimes used for religious purposes.
5) You said that Saddam wouldn't use terrorism because he's not suicidal/crazy enough, and I pointed out that his actions in 1991 were completely irrational.

I never said here that that I think Saddam was an unacceptable threat (I don't), and I'm not going to play devil's advocate for the hawk side. I was simply pointing out huge flaws in your post, which you brazenly declared conservatives would be afraid to respond to. I suspect they just chose not to dignify it.

[Sikander]

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.

Dumb and Dumberest.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boshko
My isn't this article interesting reading:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=2EPOOJVBVEZ3MCRBAE0CFFA?type=topNews&storyID=5460311




And another one bites the dust...

The justifications for the war are dying as fast as poor little puppies getting thrown in a river

Basically, as many of us suspected, Putin is full of BS as usual.

Note how he says that the information was passed to "our colleagues". Putin's colleagues in the U.S. are the administration itself, while his intelligence agencies colleagues would be U.S. intelligence agencies. These channels have been open for decades. Nixon ran his foreign policy almost entirely from outside the State Department, including the the beginning of the detente.

Putin may be full of BS, or not. But you really have no point worthy of the name.

[johncmcleod]

1) You said that "the U.S." denied Putin's claims, and I pointed out that in fact the State Department only said it had no knowledge of such intel. It could have been passed through other channels.

Yeah, I was wrong about that. It is a result of skim-reading.

4) You said that Saddam wouldn't use terrorism because he's a secular dictator, and I pointed out that terrorism has nothing to do with religion, but rather is a tool sometimes used for religious purposes.

Yes, but mostly used for religious purposes. That is why one would suspect Saddam less.

5) You said that Saddam wouldn't use terrorism because he's not suicidal/crazy enough, and I pointed out that his actions in 1991 were completely irrational.

Good job! You have been able to find one very stupid decision by Saddam Hussein. Does that make him completely crazy? No. He operated a country for 2 decades, and had one of the most efficient food distribution systems in the world. He made one stupid big mistake. That doesn't make him loony enough to be suicidal.

In 12 years he never made any terrorist attacks on us. Why is he all of the sudden a threat to American security that must be taken out? Hmm, maybe it is because Bush needs some support or because some of that oil would be nice.

Again you go off on a tangent against arguments that are not my own. Let's step back a sec:

My statement doesn't apply to one of your arguments in particular, it applies to the whole thing. I stated that Saddam was not a threat to America at all, you argued with me. So I am saying that a reason he isn't a threat is that he has done nothing to us for the past 12 years.

Ok... so standing his ground before American and allied military might wasn't crazy and suicidal, just 'stupid' (huge difference). However, having Mukhaberat operatives carry out a terrorist attack inside the United States (whilst taking extreme measures to cover up any ties to Iraq) - and then denying any involvement - would be crazy?

Again, you have been able to point out one stupid decision of Saddam Hussein in 20 years of running a country. Maybe he had reasons. But I guarantee you that if anyone ran a country for 20 years, they'd make at least one big mistake.

Our intelligence is the best in the world. The operation would be too risky. If any of them got caught, if any of them got killed, they'd find out that Iraqis were carrying out the attack. Now Saddam got connected to 911, and the Bush administration is still desperate for any info on him that might link him to terrorist attacks. He still gets linked with AQ, however, Saddam is ObL's enemy, he is secular. If such a terrorist attack occurred and it was discovered that Iraqi secret police carried out the attack, it wouldn't be so hard to link Saddam to it and give the US the perfect reason to invade him. Saddam knows this, and that is why he has done nothing for 12 years.

I never said here that that I think Saddam was an unacceptable threat (I don't), and I'm not going to play devil's advocate for the hawk side. I was simply pointing out huge flaws in your post, which you brazenly declared conservatives would be afraid to respond to. I suspect they just chose not to dignify it.

Well first off, I had a reason to 'brazenly' declare conservatives wouldn't respond. Everytime I have brought up these arguments, no one argues back. In fact this is the first time I have ever had an argument on the topic (on the anti-war side, that is). Second, the reason I said that was so I could actually have an argument about it for once. I like political discussion, and I've never had the argument before so I wanted to see what they had to say.

The fact that someone who doesn't even agree with the conservative position was the one that came and argued is pretty sad.

And I don't think it was because they didn't want to 'dignify' it. No one dignifies anything by arguing it. If my post was so stupid they would've argued with me to make me look bad by losing poorly.

[Sirotnikov]

Good job! You have been able to find one very stupid decision by Saddam Hussein. Does that make him completely crazy? No. He operated a country for 2 decades, and had one of the most efficient food distribution systems in the world. He made one stupid big mistake. That doesn't make him loony enough to be suicidal.

Saddam has killed his own relatives when he suspected they betrayed him.

Crazy enough?

Saddam waged a war on Iran - while his motiefs to do so were good (oil route + land + fear of shiite revolution) , his logic system compltely ignored the huge risks and the sheer impossibility of the task (over estimated his ability).

Crazy enough?

I'm not claiming he's compltely crazy. But he isn't very sane and is indeed a risk taker.

Since Saddam could not threaten the US in any conventional way, it is very possible than its pre-emprive plans against the US (just like any country has plans against others) probably involved terrorism. It doesn't mean Saddam intended to perpetrate the terror attacks until war began.

And it is exactly the goal of the new US "war on terrorism" to signal to everyone that terrorism is not a legitimate way. If you can't win by legitimate means - it doesn't that your goal justifies illegitimate means (terrorism).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Good job! You have been able to find one very stupid decision by Saddam Hussein. Does that make him completely crazy?

Given how stupid it was, yes. It's not the same as occasionally adding 2+2 and answering five.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich
[q] [SIZE=1]
Given how stupid it was, yes. It's not the same as occasionally adding 2+2 and answering five.

How stupid? It isn't his fault the US decided to make him into a cause celebre of evil-his was a problem of timing-firt big war after the Cold War.

As for his actions prior to 1990- he crushed the Kurds, and his war vs. Iran tuned into a nasty stalemate, but he did not lose the war-in 1988 the iraqis scored some major victories meaning the Iranians had to come to terms.