Powell to Present Iraq Evidence to UN... Finally!

[germanos]

Originally posted by Darius871
I went further to say that therefore Osama Bin Laden likely doesn't detest him enough to refuse mass destruction weapons if offered.

So do you have any sort of facts or quotes, or are you indeed speculating?

I'm not talking about what Osama would do if he got them offered, I am saying not a hair in Saddams mostache is thinking about giving them to al-Qaeda.

Speculating, offcourse. I'm not a secret al-Qaeda operative, nor an agent of the Iraqi mukhabarat.
I have been giving ample arguments to support my case though. So far I have seen only speculation on the US side, and they have not been avle to put a single piece of evidence to support their case.
The best reasoning I have heard so far is: Saddam is our enemy + Osama is our enemy = they work together.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


Most important American political speeches have rhetoric involving "God" in them. I guess that makes the US a theocracy.

Look at the LAWS in Iraq, and compare them to, say, Saudi Arabia. Saddam is not implementing sharia. Saddam is secular.

IIUC Iraq does partially implement sharia - for example muslims are not allowed to buy alcohol, but non-muslims are. And mosques are built with state funds. This make Iraq "unsecular" in western terms, but i admit is par for the course in the islamic world and is nothing like Saudi. It is not mistaken to call Saddams regim secular.

Of course secular Syria has managed to ally with Shiite fundie Iran and Hezbollah. Shiite Hezbollah and Iran have manged to ally with Sunni fundamentalist Hamas. Secular Iraq has provided support to Sunni fundametalist Hamas.
I see no reason a priori to rule out an alliance of convenience between secular Iraq and Sunni Fundamentalist (wahabi/salafi) Al qaeeda. I will wait and see what evidence is presented.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by germanos


Well, certainly YOU never said that Saddam supports al-Qaeda, but this thread was what the 'paranoid' (sic!) whateveryoucalledthem would say when Powel would present the irrefutible evidence that Saddam does. I am responding to THAT.

You used the words "support of Osama's ambition to found a islamic fundamentalist Middle-East", not "support of Al-Qaeda". There's a HUGE difference. Giving finanical aid, training, intelligence, safe harbor, and/or weaponry to Al-Qaeda for the purpose of weakening the U.S. does not necessarily imply support of OBL's ideology.

Originally posted by germanos
Question: do you consider the USA a secular state? I do, for the fact that 'state' and 'religion' are seperated, by law (constitution). The same is the case in Iraq.
But if you argue that the USA isn't secular, since you pledge allegance (sp?) to the flag by saying the words: "one nation, under God", then I have misunderstood your meaning of 'secular'.

Having the word's 'under God' in the pledge of Allegiance or saying that our inalienable rights are endowed by the Creator, etc. are a FAR cry away from the lengths Hussein goes to, so it's an invalid comparison.

Originally posted by germanos

I don't read arabic well enough to dig through Osama-speaches to supply you with quotes, and even so, it would be very hard to find the name of Saddam in them.

All of his publicly released videos are translated. Come to me with something real.

Originally posted by germanos
Hell man, he hates the Saudi Royals, and you can hardly call THEM not being fundamentalistic!

Well I could easily say he hates the Saudis for their alliance to the U.S. and not that their government isn't fundamentalist. This could be extended to say that he wouldn't hate Iraq because of their belligerence towards the U.S.

Originally posted by germanos

But was is truly amazing about this thread developing: Instead of Powel going to put forward evidence of the Iraq/al-Qaeda link, now it is going in the way it has to be proven Saddam and Osama condamn eachother publicly?

It's not getting off-topic; you spoke of how Osama hates Saddam because he is secular, and I ask for evidence instead of speculation.

Originally posted by germanos
I'm not talking about what Osama would do if he got them offered, I am saying not a hair in Saddams mostache is thinking about giving them to al-Qaeda.

[Hypothetically] if it was proven that he has provided conventional assistance to them, would you admit then that he would probably be willing to give them WMD?

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I've seen that info, Dino, and I'm willing to accept it as true. However, this has only come out recently. So what was their excuse for the previous two months?

Some things that come to my mind are:

- possibly the intelligence services were spending that amount of time to make sure that the sources of the intelligence were safe and secure from any possible retaliation from Saddam?

- Or possibly he was waiting for the last minute (ie, after going through the whole UN rigamarol, building up the case, preparing the nation for war, getting troops into the region), and once everything was set up and the stakes were high enough, then showing his hand in a geopolitical game of poker?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan
- Or possibly he was waiting for the last minute (ie, after going through the whole UN rigamarol, building up the case, preparing the nation for war, getting troops into the region), and once everything was set up and the stakes were high enough, then showing his hand in a geopolitical game of poker?

I think this is the case. The pot, however, is war. That's all Bush has wanted all along and he's just playing the game so he'll be allowed to have it. He's not interested in actually disarming Iraq.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Darius871
You used the words "support of Osama's ambition to found a islamic fundamentalist Middle-East", not "support of Al-Qaeda". There's a HUGE difference. Giving finanical aid, training, intelligence, safe harbor, and/or weaponry to Al-Qaeda for the purpose of weakening the U.S. does not necessarily imply support of OBL's ideology.

Yes, to some that is a huge difference, but not to everybody. F.e., the US has supported the Aghani mujaheddin , propably with the same reasoning in mind. We all know how that has backfired on the US. The same goes for Israeli support of Hamas, when it was still weak and a threat for Arafat. I wouldn't bet that Saddam is doing the same.

Having the word's 'under God' in the pledge of Allegiance or saying that our inalienable rights are endowed by the Creator, etc. are a FAR cry away from the lengths Hussein goes to, so it's an invalid comparison.

The arabic langauge is often very elaborate and speaches drown in words, analogies etc. Some consider it a poetic language. Take a look for instance a your quote: the endless repetative of Allahu Akbhar. It is indeed difficult to compare two languages, cultures. To you it might seem a far cry, it does not necessarry mean that THAT is the FACT.

And who says Saddam is not refering to the Creator in general as well? It is rather ethnocentric to say that the american use of God is refering to the Creator 9neutral), but as soon as it is Allah, it isn't. For Christsake, the Iraqi deputy-president (Tareq Aziz) is a christian!

All of his publicly released videos are translated. Come to me with something real.

I can't be bothered, read them yourself and you will see: Osama hates all that is not with him, nor a religeous zealot.

It's not getting off-topic; you spoke of how Osama hates Saddam because he is secular, and I ask for evidence instead of speculation.

Point taken: I'll just wait for Powel NOT being able to provide any evidence Saddam is supporting al-Qaeda.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I think this is the case. The pot, however, is war. That's all Bush has wanted all along and he's just playing the game so he'll be allowed to have it. He's not interested in actually disarming Iraq.

Well, Iraq certainly isn't which is the whole point.

If the US had shown locations of WMDs befor the inspection process, Saddam would have either cleaned it up, or if the proof was overwhelming, admitted to it, but show that he was willing to have it destroyed. Which would do nothing to secure my confidence that he was going to willingly disarm all that WMD technology that the US doesn't have intelligence about.

Saddam had a chance to fully comply and show the inspectors they were serious about disarmament. They failed to do so. And, at this point, I don't see much hope of any inspections being fruitful in showing that Iraq has disarmed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I think this is the case. The pot, however, is war. That's all Bush has wanted all along and he's just playing the game so he'll be allowed to have it. He's not interested in actually disarming Iraq.

War presents numerous side benefits in terms of strategic position between Iran and Saudi, liberating the Iraqi people, and removing a bitter enemy of the United States, which disarmament alone does not. However Iraq'a WMD's ARE a big concern. The US has been aware from the beginning that if Iraq disarmed we would not go to war, and we would have to find another way to deal with the other issues. Our motivations include but go beyond the formal casus belli - that hardly invalidates the casus belli, which is quite real (unless you believe that Saddam has disarmed, as Iraq claims)

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


The only time he's used WMD's was against targets who couldn't respond in kind. Why would he suddenly do otherwise knowing full well that his regime and country would be instantly annihilated? Even bush's own intelligence apparatus indicated that Hussein wouldn't bring the house down around him.

I cannot conceive of the United States nuking Baghdad even if somehow he were able to set off a Nuke in NYC. I think our days of mass slaughter of civilians is OVER!

I think Saddam knows this.

I am not sure, though, about the Israeli's. They might respond in kind.

[Jac de Molay]

Israel has already indicated they're not above a WMD retaliation. And I cannot conceive of the United States doing anything BUT nuking Baghdad in the same scenario. Saddam knows this. He's sadistic and sociopathic, but he's not stupid. That's why he didnt use any WMDs against the US or israel in the first war.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
War presents numerous side benefits in terms of strategic position between Iran and Saudi, liberating the Iraqi people,

Don't even bring them into it. The US has shown its contempt for the Iraqi people since the 1960s. If it gave a damn about them we never would have helped the Ba'athists and Hussein to power in the first place, we wouldn't have supported and armed Hussein, given him chemical and biological weapons, tricked them into invading their neigher, starved them, and then sat back and allowed the Iraqi people to be slaughtered when they revolted at the end of the last war. The Iraqi people mean exactly ZERO to this administration except as a statistical problem.

and removing a bitter enemy of the United States, which disarmament alone does not.

An enemy which can do nothing to harm us.

However Iraq'a WMD's ARE a big concern.

Why?

The US has been aware from the beginning that if Iraq disarmed we would not go to war,

Bull****. From the very begining we've said we were going to attack no matter what.

Our motivations include but go beyond the formal casus belli - that hardly invalidates the casus belli, which is quite real (unless you believe that Saddam has disarmed, as Iraq claims)

Our motivations have nothing to do with Iraq except as as easy target. It's just a continuation of establishing global hegemony.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I cannot conceive of the United States nuking Baghdad even if somehow he were able to set off a Nuke in NYC. I think our days of mass slaughter of civilians is OVER!

BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
He also made a gross miscalculation when he thought the US wouldn't respond to his Kuwait invasion. Why would he suddenly think the US wouldn't play ball in the same manner against a greater threat? We stared down someone much bigger and badder in Cuba.

Jac, Did you know he asked us first about Kuwait? We said that we would not get involved in Arab-Arab disputes.

Saddam's mistake was putting 9 divisions on the border with Saudi Arabia. That caused the Saudi's to call in their cards with the US.

He later did invade Saudi Arabia, but not in force. The Saudi's defeated him.

But the point here is that Saddam probably would have taken Saudi Arabia had we not acted promptly was we did. The Arab-Arab non interference statement was "overbroad." The US Ambassador did not limit the "permission" to Kuwait alone.

Later, after having received US "permission" to take Kuwait, he may have been surprised at Bush's insistance that he leave. But, given that the demand was limited to Kuwait, Saddam had no good reason not to simply stay and fight it out. His regime, after all, was not threatened. Had our objectives not been so limited, Saddam may have peacefully withdrawn.

The goes to show you just how bad limited objective wars can be. It is a wonder that we repeated the fundamental mistakes of both Korea and Vietnam.

This Bush seems to have learned the lesson of Korea, Vietnam and Gulf War I.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Che, what we would do is go after Saddam personally. We would not, repeat, not nuke Baghdad.

BTW, does anyone know whether Saddam is earmarked for war crime trials? What would be the charges?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Edan
If the US had shown locations of WMDs befor the inspection process, Saddam would have either cleaned it up, or if the proof was overwhelming, admitted to it, but show that he was willing to have it destroyed. Which would do nothing to secure my confidence that he was going to willingly disarm all that WMD technology that the US doesn't have intelligence about.

Not giving relevant information with regards to Iraqi BCN weapons (look, neither chemical nor biological weapons cause mass destruction) to the UN is a direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.