Kerry will never send troops overseas for oil...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by St Leo
[q] Originally posted by Ned


Heck, Saddam had been behaving himself. He wasn't sword-rattling. No spectacular human rights violations in the last twenty years (whereas the Taliban was actively violating the rights and freedoms of 50%+ of Afghanis).

You must have an interesting definition of human rights violations.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by MrFun






You must have an interesting definition of human rights violations.

I guess gassing Kurds is a necessary role of leadership.

[Drachasor]

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]

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]

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.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


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

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.

[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.

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.

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]

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

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Drachasor


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

Yea Right, when pigs fly, this man was never leaving his country under his own power, any other thought is simply delusional.

[Gibsie]

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.

There will always be people who believe that Saddam and OBL were working together, and there always will be, no matter the actual evidence. Ned probably even still thinks Saddam had WMD's.

[Defiant]

Gibbymeister,
Reality check, Saddam did have WMD, remember the Kurds or Iraq-Iran war.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Defiant
Gibbymeister,
Reality check, Saddam did have WMD, remember the Kurds or Iraq-Iran war.

*did* being the big term in your sentence. When we invaded he hadn't had any for a decade.

-Drachasor

[Arrian]

Not relevant. The question is whether he had them in 2002. Because that was the main pretext upon which Bush sold the war to America (despite the fact that Saddam wasn't being a good boy and we technically reserved the right to resume hostilities as a result). Hence, the primary reason (supposedly) for the war was false.

-Arrian

[Drachasor]

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

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Drachasor


*did* being the big term in your sentence. When we invaded he hadn't had any for a decade.

-Drachasor

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.