Iraq, Zarqawi and the 'al-Qaeda link'

[Dinner]

One could say Saddam was detered from using Chemical or Biological weapons because of the explicit threats made by Bush, Major, & Shamir that Iraq would be nuked if they did.

A few Scuds here and there aren't anything big as nation wise but chemical or bio attacks would be.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The UN does not allow for "posses". It is the UN Sec Council that approves and the UN Sec Council and it alone that gets to legitimize action to enforce resolutions.

As you are undoubtedly aware the UNSC resolutions passed in the wake of the gulf war merely ratified the obligations that Iraq took upon itself in its ceasefire agreement with the US. Passage of the resolutions added wieght to those obligations, they did NOT forfeit US right to act unilaterally. Had teh US been aware at the time that the UN would not enforce its resolutions, and that the UN and others would deny the right of the US to enforce the cease fire agreeement, it is most unlikely that the US would have agreed to the ceasefire, and most likely that we would have continued the war. Given that we had the Republcian guard on its knees, and that even without US help the Kurds and Shiites liberaed about 80% of the country, its hard to see how that could have resulted in anything less than regime change.

[lord of the mark]

"Tenet said two dozen members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which he called "indistinguishable" from al Qaeda, and two senior planners have been "operating freely" in Baghdad."

ONLY 2 dozen AQniks??? ONLY 2 senior planners??? Come on, its not casus belli till the whole damned organization is there. We need at least 10 mid level to senior planners, and at least 50 memebers to have a casus belli. and there has to be a training camp thats located more than an hours drive from Bagdad, in territory populated by Sunni Arabs. And training with Ricin or other toxins isnt enough - it has to be a TRANSMISSIBLE germ to count. Right???? Its all about oil - yada yada.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin

A few Scuds here and there aren't anything big as nation wise but chemical or bio attacks would be.

At the time there was great concern that israels failure to respond directly did long term harm to israels own deterrent. Given what even the western press at the time said about Shamir, it is hard to believe that Saddam was CERTAIN that Israel would not respond with nukes. And yet he launched anyway. Leading me to beleive that he doesnt care a hell of a lot about Iraq being nuked, if he can go down in a blaze of glory. Which leaves me unwilling to trust deterrence theory in this case.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"Tenet said two dozen members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which he called "indistinguishable" from al Qaeda, and two senior planners have been "operating freely" in Baghdad."

ONLY 2 dozen AQniks??? ONLY 2 senior planners??? Come on, its not casus belli till the whole damned organization is there. We need at least 10 mid level to senior planners, and at least 50 memebers to have a casus belli. and there has to be a training camp thats located more than an hours drive from Bagdad, in territory populated by Sunni Arabs. And training with Ricin or other toxins isnt enough - it has to be a TRANSMISSIBLE germ to count. Right???? Its all about oil - yada yada.

I was interested in exploring the Al Qaeda link not because I thought the handful of men represented a case for war per say but it did show there were clear links; links which probably continue to grow if we do nothing. Now is the time to make an example and show what happens to states which support terrorism because if we wink and turn our heads the problem is going to start popping up in a number of muslim states.

The legal justification for war should be that Saddam violated 17 UNSC resolutions and has prosued WoMD despite signing treaties it wouldn't. People can argue about the fairness of not letting everyone who wants WoMD have them but clearly the best interests of the world are for as few of these weapons to exist as possible.

That we'll knock off that SOB Saddam in the process, deliver a set back to terrorist opporations, and remove a long standing thorn in our side is just icing on the cake.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

As for my pessimism of the aftermath:

1 Today we say we are out to liberate Iraqis. That means the Iraqi people are non-complicit with their state and thus we have no more legitimacy to try to impose a system on them anymore than their current government, even when we win a war, since if Saddams rule by force is illegitimate, so is ours.

Which is why the frequent complaints that the US "has no plan for post-war Iraq" make no sense. We must let the iraqis find their own way, and unless we wish to give all power to the exiles and Kurds (which we do not) we must wait until the liberation is done to hear their voices. This largely comes down to how much you trust the Iraqi people. Those who see Iraq following the model of Eastern Europe, and the model of the current situation in Kurdistan, and the stated aspirations of the exiles, are confident that the Iraqis will see their way to a more open system, and may even start a new pattern in the middle east. Those who see the Western model as fundamentally culturally bound, and who see the past as destiny in iraq and the ME, see no other possibility than a new dictatorhsip or a Shiite fundamentalist regime, with hightly negative consequences.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I was interested in exploring the Al Qaeda link not because I thought the handful of men represented a case for war per say but it did show there were clear links; links which probably continue to grow if we do nothing. Now is the time to make an example and show what happens to states which support terrorism because if we wink and turn our heads the problem is going to start popping up in a number of muslim states.

The legal justification for war should be that Saddam violated 17 UNSC resolutions and has prosued WoMD despite signing treaties it wouldn't. People can argue about the fairness of not letting everyone who wants WoMD have them but clearly the best interests of the world are for as few of these weapons to exist as possible.

That we'll knock off that SOB Saddam in the process, deliver a set back to terrorist opporations, and remove a long standing thorn in our side is just icing on the cake.

Sarcasm does not work on the net, eh?

[Dinner]

No, I think I wasn't being clear. The terrorists are a related reason but not the primary reason to invade Iraq.

Does that make my position a little clearer?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Oerdin, you remember that part of Powell's speech where he talks about the training camp in Iraq?



If what Powell says is true, then here's a question: why haven't we bombed that camp?

We've been bombing Iraq for years, we fried a carload of guys in Yemen because we could, we've made it clear we're going after terrorists wherever they are, etc, etc.

But in the meantime, here's a camp that we know of, and it's producing ricin, and we haven't leveled it?

In fact, Powell was asked about this very matter by some Congressmen on Friday. His response: he didn't want to answer in "open session."

Kinda says it all.

hell thats easy. bomb the camp and you cant use it to keep gathering intel on teh saddam - al qaeeda link and other nefarious activities. Kindal like why the UK took so long to clamp down on Finsbury Park. Intel is more important than whatever is going on in the camp, especially as the camp will be shut down in a few weeks any way.

[Dinner]

About the camp: I was watching BBC World News last night and they had the footage of the Iraqi camp. The Iraqi's had evacuated the camp and the barraks was full of children's clothes and toys. The Iraqis claimed it was a orphanage ( ); and orphanage which had military parade grounds, an infantry obsticle course, and a 12 foot high barbed wire fence around it.

The best part was the fence had dozens of metal signs on it which the Iraqis had painted over with white paint. Only a single coat of paint was applied though so the reporters could still see that the signs said. They had a skull and cross bones on it with the arabic words saying "danger posion gas".

It must have been a hell of an orphanage.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
No, I think I wasn't being clear. The terrorists are a related reason but not the primary reason to invade Iraq.

Does that make my position a little clearer?

i meant my own sarcasm - i happen to think that teh al qaeeda links, if proven, do provide a casus belli - i was mocking those for whom whatever we find is never enough - "its in the treaty of westphalia that you can only go to war against a country harboring terrorists IF you can PROVE they have been provided with WMD" that sort of thing.

[Dinner]

Ah, I'm following you know. There are several people around here who will just be adimitely opposed to the U.S. no matter what. They'll keep pretending they aren't and say "it's only in this one case" yada yada yada. But in the end they're just bigots who want to create road blocks not actually have an enlightened discusion.

[uh Clem]

Under Patriot Act II, you can be expatriated for starting a new thread on this, so...

Powell Ties 'bin Laden' Message to Iraq

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Under Patriot Act II, you can be expatriated for starting a new thread on this, so...

Powell Ties 'bin Laden' Message to Iraq

Hawk spin - see we told you so.
Dove spin - Binny is saying this because he WANTS the US to attack Iraq, not cause Saddam actually supports him.

No smoking gun, no sir, but another nail in the coffin for "OBL and Saddam hate each other and could never cooperate" position.

[Dinner]

It is interesting that Powell said "The alliance is breaking itself up because it will not meet its responsibilities". Providing defensive assistence when asked by a member state, as Turkey has done, is clearly with in the NATO treaty.

It is reasonable for the Turks to assume Iraq might fire Scuds, with or without NBC warheads, into its territory so it is reasonable for them to request defensive systems which can help against that threat. The Axis is attempting to make domestic political gains by putting Turkey at risk and possibly breaking up the Atlantic Allaince.