logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Iraqi memos, Do these change anything?
Amlord
post Apr 12 2006, 08:21 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



The US government has had a large backlog of translating Iraqi documents since the 2003 invasion. Apparently, instead of devoting large amount of resources to translate them, they have scanned them into a database. This database is supposedly available online at http://70.169.163.24/. Boston Globe: US puts Iraqi documents on the Web

Bloggers have begun to translate these documents and several have surfaced that seem to be quite interesting.

Saddam Targeted American Assets For Terrorism

This document apparently is a call for Iraqi volunteers for suicide missions "to liberate Palestine and strike American interests."

The translation of this document has been done by several different translators and all have similar texts.

This post goes into the timing of the Iraqi "recruitment drive" in the context of 9/11 (this call for suicide attackers was not related to 9/11. The pilots of the 9/11 planes were already in the US at that time and had pretty much completed their flight training.)

Recall that an Iraqi military headquarters had a mural of an Iraqi airliner crashing into a high rise building: CNN Story

Few seem to recall that Vlad Putin had warned the US that Iraq planned on attacking us. CNN Story

QUOTE
"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received...information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations."


There are other memos, including one that says Iraqi intelligence met with bin Laden in 1995 and one that says the Taliban and Osama were in contact with Iraq. link

Do these memos, if authentic, change anything about the Iraq invasion? Would this justify the war at all?

Is it a good idea to put Iraqi memos on the internet in an open access format?


This post has been edited by Amlord: Apr 12 2006, 08:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 44)
moif
post Apr 18 2006, 12:09 AM
Post #41


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,690
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Sure they are, the problem is that our administration is inept. A smart administration could handle multiple diplomatic issues simultaneously with grace and the military could manage several small to medium scale conflicts.
Like, for example, leaving Saddam Hussein in power because one is beholden to the demands of one's allies...?

This hypothetical administration you are referring to, which previous administration is it based on? The administration that over saw Somalia? It seems to me that your wishing on a star for something that simply doesn't exist except in utopian day dreams.

The government you have today, like any other government, represents the nation which it governs. Like it or not, GW Bush is the product of his society, not the other way around. You must accept that for to deny it is to refuse to acknowledge reality.

Now, American can change, of course it can, but that doesn't change the fact that the people of America, for what ever reason put GW Bush into power, not once but twice.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
There is a big difference between extending a hand of friendship and launching a pre-emptive invasion based on lies and half truths.

Further, I will repeat that the United States does not exist to fight the world's battles, nor should it.
Well, I'm afraid the days when the world had it own problems have long since passed Cube Jockey. Iraq is, and has been an American problem for a very long time and if you, as a nation, don't want the responsibility of dealing with Iraq, then y'all shouldn't have been supporting Saddam Hussein back in the day.

In other words, America. Its no good whining about this now. Its your own fault.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Sure it does, and all one has to do is compare the support and execution of the Gulf War to the war in Iraq today. George H. W. Bush assembled an impressive international coalition that included a lot more than moral support from other countries, they contributed significantly in a financial and military fashion. The world spoke against Hussein by their actions and their support. Regardless of the "coalition of the willing" PR the United States launched this war almost unilaterally, the only nation that even contributed something significant was the UK. The world was clearly against our actions there and it spoke with it's lack of support. This is of course ironic because we claimed to use the violation of UN resolutions in part as justification when the rest of the UN didn't agree with us.
Yeah, well, the first Gulf War left Saddam Hussein in power, so its hardly an example I'd choose to illustrate the virtues of a just cause.

So what if Daddy Bush had more support? All that really did is bind his hands so badly he had to leave Saddam Hussein in power to satisfy his allies.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Your point? The vast majority of the electorate now has buyer's remose, just look at the poll numbers.
My point is that its no good complaining the horse bolted before you closed the gate.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
I don't know moif, do you have knowledge of some vast conspiracy that I'm not aware of?
What, you've never heard of the Axis of Evil? unsure.gif


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
My point was that discussing Iran is not germane to this discussion. There are plenty of other topics to discuss it. This one specifically deals with Iraq and the justification for the war based on some memos.
Oh.... but what about 'Darfur or China or any of a 100 other places'?

hmmm.gif



QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
He was re-elected by a very small margin Moif, it wasn't as if the election was a landslide or something. Further the election was complicated by including "values issues" on the ballot in 11 states designed to get the religious right vote out in force. Further there are numerous credible allegations of voter supression and intimidation that no one seems to want to investigate.

Finally, look at how he is polling just a year into his term on any issues that matter - he's a lame duck.

The fact that he was re-elected does not vindicate his foreign policy.
Then take him to court and prosecute him, or stage a revolution, because, I'm sorry but thats exactly what re-election does. It validates the government and its policies.


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
Well you are misreading that then. What I do have a problem with is all the chest thumping on your side when your country isn't paying for this excursion either in dollars or lives. You asked how Americans could be upset over it, I answered. There are numerous problems America is facing that are far more important than Iraq ever was which that money could be used for. Not even considering the domestic problems we simply aren't even fighting the war on terror anymore, we've strayed from the path.
Chest thumping?

huh.gif

In point of fact I didn't ask how Americans could be upset I said I didn't understand why they get so since this is a situation they created and which they voted to continue. I know a lot of Americans didn't vote for war, but well... all I can say to that is you need to reform your ridiculously out dated election system then! By the rules of your country, Bush won the election.

As for 'chest thumping'. I just spent the last two and half years on this forum arguing against the war, but have now had to re-evaluate my position because I've come to realise just how politically motivated and biased the anti war arguments have become for me.

At the same time I've had to accept that what I hear from Iraq doesn't correspond to the doom and gloom I hear and read in the western media.

Civil war?

Where?

I don't deny GW Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. Nor do I support him as a politician. I would never vote for him in a million years. If anything, I think this thread illustrates just how guilty GW Bush is of deception.

But why? Why did it take so many lies and half truths to finally get rid of Saddam Hussein? Why do so many people put their own selfish needs before those of their fellow human beings?
Why is not fighting a war more important than fighting for what you believe in?

Had the USA followed the course of action, you, or Kofi Annan advocate, then Saddam Hussein would still be in power. People in Iraq would still be subject to the rape, murder and sanctions. The Middle East would remain in the stagnation it has wallowed in for decades (do you really think that the region was peaceful prior to the US invasion?)

Lest you forget, Osama Bin Laden destroyed the World Trade centre prior to the invasion of Iraq. And no, I don't believe there was any connection between Saddam Hussein and al qaeda, my point is the USA was already well hated by the majority of people in the Middle East (including in Iraq I guess) and no matter what GW Bush did, he would be attacked by the leftist mentality that so utterly hates him and all he represents regardless.

What GW Bush has done, may indeed have violated US laws (so prosecute him) it might well be in breach of the UN (so prosecute him) and it might very well be in conflict with the wishes of the US people (then you all should have voted for the other guy)

...but as far as I'm concerned. He got the job done. Iraq is free and the violence there doesn't mean anything if the liberation of Iraq gives rise to a democracy where the Iraqi people decide. As I pointed out earlier and which you've ignored, even good old Ghandi made enemies!


QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
That sounds like a poor justification to me, you cannot hate the core of who someone is and not hate the person too.

Your views are well documented with recent events such as the French riots, the cartoon issue, muslim integration into Europe and your own country. I could go into a lot more detail but that would be highly off topic here. The point is I've made an accurate statement and you've simply confirmed it by saying "I don't 'hate Muslims'. Its their religion I am opposed to."
Off topic?

Do you see me in this thread debating who Cube Jockey 'hates'?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kuni
post Apr 21 2006, 04:31 AM
Post #42


*****
Century Mark

Group: BANNED
Posts: 135
Member No.: 5,280
Joined: July-18-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
Saddam Targeted American Assets For Terrorism
What’s an “American Asset”; is it like our good buddy Allawi who was setting off car bombs in Iraq?

QUOTE
There are other memos, including one that says Iraqi intelligence met with bin Laden in 1995 and one that says the Taliban and Osama were in contact with Iraq.
And . . . .? We talk with North Korea; does that mean we support them?

The 9-11 Commission already has documented that there were sporadic contacts; and NOTHING of importance came from those contacts. And in 95 bin Laden wasn’t even the radar as a ‘provable” bad guy. That Intelligence was developed in late 1996.

And there is also a Document that indicates that Saddam ordered his Security Forces to be on the lookout for Zawahiri; to arrest him. That Document alone puts to bed the Lie that Saddam had any Ties/Links to al-Qaeda.

This post has been edited by Kuni: Apr 21 2006, 04:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post May 4 2006, 03:13 PM
Post #43


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Kuni
And there is also a Document that indicates that Saddam ordered his Security Forces to be on the lookout for Zawahiri; to arrest him. That Document alone puts to bed the Lie that Saddam had any Ties/Links to al-Qaeda.


Hardly proof of anything really. So Saddam didn’t like this one person. Other evidence going back to the Clinton Admin seem to lend credence to the connection.

ARE AL QAEDA'S links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.

For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant's top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant's opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant's general manager.

Iraq also admitted to having a $199,000 contract with al Shifa for goods under the oil-for-food program. Those goods were never delivered. While it's hard to know what significance, if any, to ascribe to this information, it fits a pattern described in recent CIA reporting on the overlap in the mid-1990s between al Qaeda-financed groups and firms that violated U.N. sanctions on behalf of Iraq.
The al Shifa plant in Sudan was largely destroyed after being hit by six Tomahawk missiles. John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News, reported the story on August 25, 1998:

Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas.

Then, the connection:
The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...03/527uwabl.asp

This post has been edited by Ted: May 4 2006, 03:14 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vladimir
post May 4 2006, 08:31 PM
Post #44


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Member No.: 4,213
Joined: January-6-05

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Communist



Do these memos, if authentic, change anything about the Iraq invasion? Would this justify the war at all?

As I have said elsewhere, it really is preposterous to spin theories out of the many muddled and contradictory reports that came out of Iraq in the years and months leading up to the war. The big picture has already been painted by intelligence specialists far more capable of evaluating this kind of information than anyone on this thread or in the blogosphere, and that is, Iraq was not substantially involved with al Qaeda. That, I would point out, makes perfect sense in view of the particular aims of the Ba'athist regime, by far the most important of which was to keep control of Iraq.

So we have, on the one hand, the more or less unanimous view of top-level intelligence analysts, common sense, and a growing national consensus; we have on the other, torturous interpretations of confusing and uncertain sources by a few right wing ideologues bent on retroactive justification of the invasion of Iraq. Not being an expert oneself, one is nevertheless forced to conclude that the conjectured Iraqi-al Qaeda alliance is but one example the bizarre conspiracy theories that capture the imaginations of some people these days. We might as well debate whether Castro killed Kennedy as continue to hash this over.

Is anyone actually maintaining that Iraq was obtaining enriched uranium from Niger? And doesn't the Administration's willingness to tell that big lie suggest that they were willing to lie on this point, also? These people didn't care what the intelligence said, for heaven's sake.

Rather than pore over these memos, we might just as well find proof of Iraq-Al Qaeda connections in the predictions of Nostradamus or the Book of Revelations, or seek to decypher them from hidden encryptions in the notebooks of Leonardo.

Is it a good idea to put Iraqi memos on the internet in an open access format?

I am all for public access to as much information as possible concerning the actions of the government, so I would have to say yes. But I am highly suspicious of an adminstration that strives to keep everything secret, particularly anything to do with intelligence operations, deciding to expose these particular documents to the light of day. One suspects that it was an invitation to the right-wing bloggers to cook up retroactive justifications for the war.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TedN5
post May 7 2006, 06:04 PM
Post #45


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,947
Member No.: 4,454
Joined: February-3-05

From: Olympia, Washington
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
(Valadimir)
I am all for public access to as much information as possible concerning the actions of the government, so I would have to say yes. But I am highly suspicious of an adminstration that strives to keep everything secret, particularly anything to do with intelligence operations, deciding to expose these particular documents to the light of day. One suspects that it was an invitation to the right-wing bloggers to cook up retroactive justifications for the war.


Valadimir said it pretty well. These "memos" are posted in electronic format and so there is no way to really authenicate them. Consider this whole discussion in the context of this exercise in "war propaganda" in 2004 when the administration was trying to exagerate Zarqawi's role in the Iraqi resistance and leaked a letter that he supposedly wrote.

QUOTE
Christopher Dickey, the Middle East regional editor, on February 13, 2004, asked: “Given the Bush administration’s record peddling bad intelligence and worse innuendo, you’ve got to wonder if this letter is a total fake. How do we know the text is genuine? How was it obtained? By whom? And when? And how do we know it’s from Zarqawi? We don’t. We’re expected to take the administration’s word for it.”

Rod Nordland, the magazine’s Baghdad bureau chief, on March 6 wrote: “The letter so neatly and comprehensively lays out a blueprint for fomenting strife with the Shia, and later the Kurds, that it's a little hard to believe in it unreservedly. It came originally from Kurdish sources who have a long history of disinformation and dissimulation. It was an electronic document on a CD-ROM, so there's no way to authenticate signature or handwriting, aside from the testimony of those captured with it, about which the authorities have not released much information.”
(Editor and Publisher Article)

This post has been edited by TedN5: May 7 2006, 06:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 2nd, 2021 - 10:44 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.