US abandoning plans to bring democracy to Iraq, say Kurds

[GePap]

I am sorry, but let me be blunt:

The Iraq- Al Qaeda "connectioin" is by far the weakest, least substantiated of the four main arguments given for this war. Which is why the admin. barely mentions it to the press, why Powell spent so little time on it in his 2/5 piece, comapred to the other bits.

You guys can't show me a single article that even makes the claim Iraq has given Al qaeda chemical explosives. The two 'serious links" are that : 1. Iraq may have give safe harbor to a man who is part of Al Qaeda, though whether they gave him anyting else, if he remain in Iraq, had any meetings with officials, if he planned or did anyting while in Iraq, no body knows. The second is that an Al Qaeda affiltited group exist in northern Iraq, a bit which also happens to be outside of Saddams' grasp. These are the only two "links" Powell demeed worthy to mention, and they are sad.

There are four main arguments to go to war with Iraq, and ther one you seem to favors is the one that is pathetically weak, and bases purely on fear, and no worthwhile evidence. Perhaps it is time you gave the other three arguemnts, all of them far better (even if I still disagree with them) than this one, a look.

[Ted Striker]

Of course it's a weak case. But it's there.

Ramzi Yousef
Abu Sayaaf
Al Queda

Oh, and I've been saying we should kill Saddam for the last 12 years.

[DuncanK]

GePap,

A will try and find an article I read yesterday. It didn't offer any proof, but it speculated that Iraq doesn't even have WoMD in Iraq. That they moved them to other countries in Africa. These are the kinds of things you would not find proof about unless you were just lucky.

I think that all the reasons to go to war with Iraq are crap except that they probably are working together with other rogue nations and terrorist groups, sharing information and helping each other out in various ways. Sure there is no proof of this so the administration has to try to use some other justification for attacking such as violation of 1441.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Andrew1999
the Palestineans were better off under the occuation than they are now,

Actually, that's not true. Incomes and standards of living for Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories dropped precipitously after they became occupied.

and the Chechens were better off in the USSR than they are now.

This is true of the entire USSR and even Eastern European nations. The end of Soviet domination has been a disaster for them. In general, most countries prefer their own sovreignty to the supposed benefits of being a colony.

DuncanK, I find it curious that of all the reasons given for attacking Iraq, you chose to believe only the most specious of them.

[DuncanK]

Che,

I don't think anyone chooses to believe. Although people may choose to pretend to believe, that is not the case for me.

[Ramo]

I think that all the reasons to go to war with Iraq are crap except that they probably are working together with other rogue nations and terrorist groups, sharing information and helping each other out in various ways.

1. Why do you think this is so?
2. Which "rogue nations" and "terrorist groups" do you think he is working together with in particular?
3. Why does this warrant an invasion that likely will leave the situation far worse than it currently is?

[Agathon]

This about sums it up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/opinion/21KRUG.html

[Drake Tungsten]

Krugman sucks...

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ramo


1. Why do you think this is so?

It's in their common interest to cooperate with each other.

Originally posted by Ramo
2. Which "rogue nations" and "terrorist groups" do you think he is working together with in particular?

I don't know really. I'm sure he would work with Al Qaeda.

Originally posted by Ramo
3. Why does this warrant an invasion that likely will leave the situation far worse than it currently is?

I think the current situation is very bad, and an invasion would be better. The best thing about an invasion is that Saddam would be gone and things can start to get better. Saddam is a scab that keeps itching. Instead of scratching him over and over again let's let the scab heal.

[chequita guevara]

A collection of Colin Powell's useful facts relating to the proposed actions in the Gulf region.

A: Seven proofs of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

1. On an audiotape, Osama bin Laden calls Iraq a "stinking cesspit of socialist debauchery". This criticism is much less hostile than the sort of thing he says about America, thus proving al-Qaeda has warm feelings towards Saddam Hussein.

2. Our surveillance has picked up chatter from al-Qaeda operatives talking about organising a "rendezvous". "Rendezvous" is a French word, and France has constantly obstructed American attempts to impose regime change in Iraq. So again, we see a clear connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

3. Our spy planes have photographed Saddam's deputy prime minister being driven in a motorcade of Mercedes cars. Mercedes is a German car, and Germany is in league with France to destroy America, like al-Qaeda. Therefore, etc.

4. The number plate on one of these cars was A03A0 1A, which, in the rear mirror of the car in front, spells al-Qaeda.

5. The motorcade was moving in an easterly direction through Baghdad. If you move in an easterly direction through France, you get to Germany.

6. Saddam is another Hitler. Germany had a Hitler. Again, a direct link with al-Qaeda.

7. Al-Qaeda operatives have recently been arrested in London. The Prime Minister of London, Tony Blair, then visited France for a meeting with Jacques Chirac. Chirac then visited Bonn to celebrate 40 years of his alliance with Gerhard Schroeder of Germany. Schroeder had a meeting with Putin of Russia, who then received Hans Blix, who went to Baghdad. Again, proof of a direct link.

B: Five fascinating facts about Iraq.

1. Iraq is slightly more than twice the size of Idaho, occupying an area the equivalent of 500,000 American aircraft carriers.

2. Iraq has 57 kilometres of coastline. That's the equivalent of 300,000 Apache attack helicopters stretching 57 kilometres.

3. Iraq was once part of the Ottoman Empire, a land mass which, if turned into flour, would be enough to feed bread to the children of Iraq for 100 years. But Saddam refuses to do this and instead spends his money on presidential palaces, which, if converted to milk, would be enough to fill all the oil wells of the Middle East for a fortnight. That's why we have to stop him getting to the wells before he does this.

4. Iraq has 35,000 square kilometres of irrigated land. That's the equivalent of 300 million bottles of anthrax end to end. So where are they?

5. Iraqis consume 27.3 billion kWh of electricity every year, enough to power one Star-Wars style anti-missile system. So where is it, and who's it pointing at?

C: The United Nations constitution explained once and for all.

1. The UN has a 15-member Security Council, of which France, Britain, China, Russia and America are permanent members, with veto rights.

2. The UN Charter allows for the permanent members to use their veto to overrule any majority decision of the council with which they disagree.

3. This is not applicable in cases where France, China or Russia use their veto in unreasonable cases, "unreasonable" being defined as a veto against any recent council majority decisions supported by Britain or America.

4. In these cases, the charter will probably allow America or Britain to veto that veto, thus upholding the earlier unvetoed will of the council, unless the council arrives at a majority decision contrary to the wishes of America or Britain, in which case all the permanent members of the council ought to be obliged to veto it, or to veto any attempt to veto the veto.

[Agathon]

[Ramo]

t's in their common interest to cooperate with each other.

I don't know really. I'm sure he would work with Al Qaeda.

That's absurd. What, exactly, are these "common interests?" Yes, they both don't like the US, and as far as I can tell, that's about it. Saddam's secular, al-Qaeda are Wahhabists. Al-Qaeda hate his guts and would love to get rid of him, particularly considering Saddam's treatment of Islamists within his regime; the converse is true as well.

Saddam entrusting al-Qaeda with, well, anything (especially WMD's) would be suicidal. First of all, it'd be a serious threat to his regime in terms of the possibility of al-Qaeda using these weapons on him, which, frankly would be a far more rational use by al-Qaeda than on Western targets (Saddam's more impotent, Saddam is ruling an Islamic country - which means it'd be easier for a more friendly regime to take power). Secondly, it'd be a serious threat to his regime as far as increasing American militancy towards Iraq and virtually guaranteeing invasion and likely a very painful death. A terrorist attack by al-Qaeda against the US would increase Saddam's power in absolutely no way (their last one may very well have costed him his power and life).

It's clear that Saddam cooperating with al-Qaeda would be absolutely anti-thetical to his interests.

Try again.

I think the current situation is very bad, and an invasion would be better.

Why? The best-case scenario, given the attitudes and interests of the US gov't, is that the Kurds lose their autonomy, and another iron-fisted dictator takes power in Baghdad. Combined with loss of life and damage to the country's infrastructure this seems like a far worse situation than the status quo. The worst-case scenario, again given the interests of the US gov't and the hawkishness and lack of thought in the White House, would be a massive civil war in both the North and South, with Turkish invasions in the North, and Iranian proxy forces backing the Shia in the South, perhaps turning Iraq into an Islamist Shia state. Considering the massive losses in life and liberty that would occur, it would be unquestionably worst than the status quo. Personally, I think the situation'll turn out somewhere in the middle, but that's still very, very bad.

The best thing about an invasion is that Saddam would be gone and things can start to get better. Saddam is a scab that keeps itching. Instead of scratching him over and over again let's let the scab heal.

Saddam's an evil, horrible man, no question about it. But he's only a small element in the equation. One must consider the other elements of the situation, namely the US, Turkey, Iran, and and the Sunni Baathists in power in Iraq. I can't possibly see how the situation could turn out better with Saddam gone.

[ThePantaloonDog]

Does anyone else find striking parallels to the Allies plan for the Middle East when the Ottoman Empire fell in WW1 and Bush's plan for Iraq. And of course we all know that came out all roses...

[DuncanK]

Ramo,

I'm right on the fence. Some days I'm for this war and some days I'm not. Actually today I'm against it. I find it hard to support Bush

[Ramo]

Why are you "on the fence" when you've said that every reason to go to war except for an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection is crap, and I've just demonstrated why the possibility of a significant Iraq-al-Qaeda connection is an irrational fear?