Al Qaeda Backed Suicide bombers in Northern Iraq.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Hussein, being the decent guy he is, doesn't harbor resentment that the liberation took place in 1991.
"No fly" ? How about walking then?

And Che, stuff it; you pan-handling shock jock.

He's not allowed to send troops in either. Northern Iraqi is totally free of Hussein's influence. Which makes it interesting that an abandoned chem factory there (in the part controlled by Ansar al-Islam) was cited by Powell as evidence that Hussein is linked with al-Qaeda.

"Pan-handling shock jock?!?" I haven't been a jock for years!

[SlowwHand]

Hell, Frogger. He does what he wants so far.
You think the U.N. is going to act, if they "walk in" ?
Proposes debate. I'm still trying to recover from that side-splitter.

[KrazyHorse]

Hell, Frogger. He does what he wants so far.
You think the U.N. is going to act, if they "walk in" ?
Proposes debate. I'm still trying to recover from that side-splitter.

You're breaking up here. What the hell are you trying to say?

[lord of the mark]

1. the no fly zone does not rule out iraqi control. The shiite south is also a no fly zone, but is under saddams control, as are the Northern cities of Kirkuk and Mosul, despite being in the no fly zone.

2. The PUK zone is outside of Saddams control. AL ansar dominates a small area just south of the PUK zone. I believe the Saddam ruled zone begins is just south of that. So if Saddam were to move into the the Al ansar zone, its unlikely either the PUK or the US would stop him.

3. Powell stated that Iraq has a high level agent in Al ansar.
Now he didnt say how he knows that, so those who think Powell was lying can dismiss it. Additionally he did not clarify the position of that agent - is he a liason between al ansar and Iraqi intel, or is he a mole???

Previously Jeff Goldberg writing in the New Yorker cited ties between Iraq and al ansar based on interviews with Al ansar prisoners held by the Kurds (PUK) of course the response to that is that the info is unreliable, since the prisoners were in custody of the Kurds, who have motive to link Saddam to terrorism.

So basically we dont know. But we should at least keep our arguments logical.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Hell, Frogger. He does what he wants so far.
You think the U.N. is going to act, if they "walk in" ?
Proposes debate. I'm still trying to recover from that side-splitter.

The UN doesn't have to "act" since they've already set up the continuous mechanism for enforcement of the no-fly zones. (US and UK aircraft operating from Saudi, Turkish, Kuwaiti and Bahraini bases)

The northern no-fly zone is separate from the Kurdish autonomous zone, but the enforcement "rights" and mechanism is already in place. Iraqi ground forces would be slaughtered from the air.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Hell, Frogger. He does what he wants so far.
You think the U.N. is going to act, if they "walk in" ?

No, the US will, and has. He was kicking Kurdish ass until the US said, the Kurds are under our protection now, drew a line in the sand, and said, don't cross it. He hans't for roughly twelve years.

It is possible that he's aiding Ansar al-Islam, as they're fighting the Kurds, but no links have been shown as of yet. So far only the fact that they exist in Iraq has been offered as proof that Iraq is helping al-Qaeda, even if it's in a part Hussein doesn't control.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So far only the fact that they exist in Iraq has been offered as proof that Iraq is helping al-Qaeda, even if it's in a part Hussein doesn't control.

see my post above for the evidence that has been offered and the rejoinders

[Shi Huangdi]

We don't want to allow Saddam in that region, nor could we trust him to cooperate against terrorists if he was back in Northern Iraq. Thus it becomes preferable if Saddam could be removed so forces could be introduce to that region to fight the pro-Al Queda fighters.

[SlowwHand]

I don't want him to go there, I'm merely pointing out that he's not knocking people over, hurrying to rectify the situation.

[KrazyHorse]

And we're merely pointing out that if he tried he'd get his ass kicked.

[lord of the mark]

if the no fly zones give us the right to hit anything we want, why havent we hit Iraqi forces in MOsul and Kirkuk, or the IRaqi forces that control the South????

This represents a complete misunderstanding of the no-fly zones - they are areas where Iraqi airplanes cant fly - they are patrolled by US and UK aircraft, who attack Iraqi air defenses that threaten the US and UK aircraft in question.
They do not target Iraqi ground forces. In the case of the PUK and KDP, the major Kurdish groups, the Kurds have sufficient ground force to hold off the Iraqi army, as long as the Iraqi army doesnt have use of the air. That is not so wrt to the Shia in the south, which is why Saddam holds the South. Nor did the Kurds have the strength to hold any part of the north outside their mountain strongholds.

It may be that without airpower Saddam does not have the strenght to take on Al ansar, but I very much doubt it.