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 (1 - 19)
barnaby2341
post Apr 12 2006, 10:20 PM
Post #2


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 648
Member No.: 5,682
Joined: December-1-05

From: St. Louis, Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Amlord it is quite apparent that you are attempting to link Saddam Hussein and 9-11. Every link you posted was either a Red Herring or wholely baseless.

The mural of the trade towers might be interesting if it was found before 9-11-2001, but since it was not it is conjecture to think it defines a link between Saddam and al Qaeda. Would you really go to war over a picture? I would hope not.

The warnings from Russian came from the same faulty intelligence that had Saddam with stockpiles of WMDs.

It is clear that you are grasping at anything to try to justify this war. Internet Interpretations? Rather embarrassing.

And finally, to assume the worst, that Saddam Hussein was financing and supplying Osama bin Laden, you still come to a dead end because Saddam does NOT HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

Georgie's Justifications were as follows:
1. Saddam has WMDs
2. Saddam has ties to terrorism
3. Saddam tortures his people

A logical decision could be reached:
If 1 and 2 were true, then war IS justified.
If either 1 or 2 is false, war IS NOT justified.
3 is irrelevant because America doesn't care about suffering unless it's their own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Apr 12 2006, 10:57 PM
Post #3


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,521
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



Do you know what these memos tell me?

The Iraq war is a solution in search of a problem.

No matter what these memos say, nobody in our intelligence had seen them or they wouldn't be waiting on the general public to be interpreting for them. The only benefit that could come from these documents, is satisfying war monger urges. Meaning, if something is found, it will be used as an excuse to invade another country when nothing can be proven. Clearly intelligence available to Bush has shown that there was reason to doubt the seriousness of the problem with Iraq. Instead, Bush followed his gut and can't come to grips that he was wrong. Now, lies and deception are the only means of defense he has because at the end of the day, he was 100% wrong about every single facet of this war.

Finding something meaningful just gives him less he has to lie about. Unfortunately, anything found to substantiate what he has said in the past will be proof of a lucky guess.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Apr 12 2006, 11:28 PM
Post #4


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Apr 12 2006, 03:57 PM)
Do you know what these memos tell me?

The Iraq war is a solution in search of a problem.
*


I don't think anyone can or will say it better than DaytonRocker just did.

You don't justify a war after the fact, you present solid evidence before you start dropping bombs and putting boots on the ground. This administration presented the illusion of evidence which we later found out to be lies, half-truths and omissions. Had the case been fully and accurately presented we would not have set foot in the country, at least not at that time. Who knows what a historical fork we didn't take would have brought.

What the release of these memos tells me is that the administration wants to just throw all of this noise out there and hope that some enterprising citizens pick it up and try to do exactly what you are suggesting - justify the war. In fact I think I first saw some of these memos at a right wing blog and later read that the information was completely debunked.

If these documents had any value whatsoever then they would not be publicly available and someone within the government would be spending time and effort to translate and make sense of them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kuni
post Apr 13 2006, 01:16 AM
Post #5


*****
Century Mark

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

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE
and strike American interests."
Define ‘American Interest’? Was it Allawi, who worked for us and set off car bombs in Iraq; that American Interest?

“Interests” seems a bit of a stretch when it comes to a “smoking gun”. Why didn’t you quote the document that indicated that Saddam has issued orders for his Security Apparatus to be on the lookout for Zawahiri so they could arrest him?

This post has been edited by Kuni: Apr 13 2006, 01:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemov
post Apr 13 2006, 01:08 PM
Post #6


******
sleeping is giving in...

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 448
Member No.: 5,152
Joined: June-17-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



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

These documents only reinforce what some of us always knew and some of us have chosen not to believe. While Saddam wasn’t behind the 9/11 attack Iraq was a terrorist state. Some on the left have tried to compartmentalize the whole war on terror down to only those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It’s funny how some of the new revelations have come from the NY Sun which also brought the new Libby leak stuff to light. Is the Sun a tool of the Right?

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

I’m stunned that the government does not have sufficient resources to do this themselves, but it’s a great idea to let the information be made public. It’s obvious the press doesn’t care to change the current perception.
QUOTE
In fact I think I first saw some of these memos at a right wing blog and later read that the information was completely debunked.


CJ, you know better than to use “I think I saw…” : )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Apr 13 2006, 01:26 PM
Post #7


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

Yes. Certainly the Congress and the Administration thought Iraq was a danger to the US. Had WMD and the ability to make more and had a strong desire to attack the US. That they trained terrorists is clear and this memo makes that even more so. Iraqi military did not then or now (as insurgents) carry out suicide attacks – thus the “volunteers” would be recruited from the ranks of hammas etc.

Certainly more of this will come out of translations of documents and recordings. Skeptics will downplay it of course.

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

Great idea. Independent translations like this make it much harder for the media to blow it off and/or ignore it. Many of us felt Saddam had a burning desire to get back at us and this just confirms this. IMO the idea that he would not deal with terrorists because of “philosophical differences” was always questionable – at best.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Apr 13 2006, 01:43 PM
Post #8


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



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

There is a site that posts the declassified and translated Iraqi documents, located at FMSO DOC-EX, here.

One of the more interesting purported translations contains the following text:

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.


Can't comment on the validity of the report or if any action was taken, but it certainly raises some questions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Apr 13 2006, 02:04 PM
Post #9


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,521
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(nemov @ Apr 13 2006, 08:08 AM)
While Saddam wasn’t behind the 9/11 attack Iraq was a terrorist state.

That's the problem with this debate. You say that as if it's true when in fact, that's completely false. I have never found evidence of Saddam supporting international terrorism ever. While he was brutal inside his own borders (which unfortunately, is what it takes to keep 3 factions from going into civil war), Saddam has never exported terrorism. This is an important point in terms of these memos. If you wish to dispute my response, start a new thread about Saddam's links to international terrorism - I dare you. Bring your A game however, because if you're relying on talking points, they will never overcome the mounds of evidence that prove your statement is not true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nemov
post Apr 13 2006, 02:14 PM
Post #10


******
sleeping is giving in...

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 448
Member No.: 5,152
Joined: June-17-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Apr 13 2006, 10:04 AM)
That's the problem with this debate. You say that as if it's true when in fact, that's completely false. I have never found evidence of Saddam supporting international terrorism ever. While he was brutal inside his own borders (which unfortunately, is what it takes to keep 3 factions from going into civil war), Saddam has never exported terrorism. This is an important point in terms of these memos. If you wish to dispute my response, start a new thread about Saddam's links to international terrorism - I dare you. Bring your A game however, because if you're relying on talking points, they will never overcome the mounds of evidence that prove your statement is not true.
*



Dayton, isn’t that what this thread is about? Saddam’s régime according to this memo (which has been translated by 3 different sources) was actively recruiting suicide bombers for international terrorism. There is no doubt that Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists. Even the most liberal interpretation of Saddam before the war would have him turning a blind eye at terrorists inside Iraq’s borders. Please, spare me the A game threats. This isn’t a game.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Apr 13 2006, 05:24 PM
Post #11


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I'll begin with a quote from Amlord, concerning the Downing Street memo:
QUOTE
The Downing Street memo simply does not jive with some other available evidence.

source

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

I'm not sure that one, or even several memos are grounds for anyone to jump to any conclusions. How ironic that Amlord asks us if perhaps this translated memo can justify an entire war. I'm afraid that some more damning evidence is needed.

Indeed, the right-wing punditocracy (including many on this site) has made practically a career of attacking and minimizing so-called hearsay damnation of the Bush administration by people who were formerly a part of it. Why should this memo cause us to to suddenly justify this crazy war? Of the many credible insiders have come out of the Bush administration and damned it in one way or another, how many of them have been brutally slandered by the right? All of them, near as I can tell. And yet, now, someone translated a scrap of a memo and suddenly Iraq was a terrorist state? Where's your probing for truth now? Where's your desire to dismiss un-corroborated pieces of paper? Gone as soon as the paper says something you agree with? For shame.

As Amlord said in the quote, this memo does not jive with other available evidence. It might be true, it might be nothing.

The most ironic part is this: if I were to construct an argument stating that the writer of this memo was acting on his own, without the approval of Hussein, that he was a liar and not representing Iraq, I would be called an apologist and worse. And by the same people, of course, who find ways to justify everything going on in the Bush administration, every time some former insider makes a claim. sad.gif zipped.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bucket
post Apr 13 2006, 06:12 PM
Post #12


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,259
Member No.: 1,459
Joined: October-14-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None




QUOTE(DaytonRocker)
I have never found evidence of Saddam supporting international terrorism ever. While he was brutal inside his own borders (which unfortunately, is what it takes to keep 3 factions from going into civil war), Saddam has never exported terrorism.

DaytonRocker your argument amazes me....I can't understand such determination to clear Saddam Hussein's record of abuses to such a degree as I have seen from you. Is it that important for you to so poorly portray the current US policy in Iraq that you must distort the facts so terribly?

Hussein is notorious for his support of "international terrorism" In fact I would say it is probably a legacy he is quite proud of. 9/11 is not the only terrorist event to have occurred nor is al Qaeda the only terrorist group to have ever existed. I don't think the war on terror makes this distinction, I thought terrorism in general was no longer going to be so conveniently ignored and unacted on.

If you are unaware of Saddam's legacy of a "philanthropist" in the Islamist terror network there is plenty of information already available....

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

source

Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) is the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also known as the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, MEK is led by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. MEK was added to the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997.

When Saddam Hussein was in power, MEK received the majority of its financial support from the Iraqi regime.

source


U.S. forces captured the leader of a Palestinian terror group accused of masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the Italian Achille Lauro cruise ship, during which an American was murdered.
Abbas, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Front during the 1980's and 90's, has been living in Baghdad under the protection of Saddam Hussein's government.

source




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Apr 13 2006, 07:10 PM
Post #13


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,521
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(bucket @ Apr 13 2006, 01:12 PM)
DaytonRocker your argument amazes me....I can't understand such determination to clear Saddam Hussein's record of abuses to such a degree as I have seen from you.

I've never denied the abuses although I will say they've been exaggerated to some extent. For example, Saddam did not pull innocent women and children from their homes and torture them. Saddam did not drop chemical weapons in downtown Bagdad. But if you crossed him, God/Allah help you. This being said, I don't know how you decided I was defending his abuses.

The international terrorism aspect is quite different. Of course he contributed financially to Hamas - just like every other Arab country in the region. Our good friend and ally - Saudi Arabia - had freaking telethons to raise money for terrorists for pete's sake.

But at the end of the day, Saddam did not shoot up Olympic villages, send suicide bombers out, or hijack airplanes. Never did he do that. After 9/11, that's all I cared about. He could kill all the Muslims he wanted for all I care as that means there is less to hate us. But as long as he kept it in his own borders - much like a half dozen African countries who are far, far worse - I'm for defending Americans.

You're making an argument towards something I've never stated.

This post has been edited by DaytonRocker: Apr 13 2006, 07:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Apr 13 2006, 11:35 PM
Post #14


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(bucket @ Apr 13 2006, 10:12 AM)
QUOTE(DaytonRocker)
I have never found evidence of Saddam supporting international terrorism ever. While he was brutal inside his own borders (which unfortunately, is what it takes to keep 3 factions from going into civil war), Saddam has never exported terrorism.

DaytonRocker your argument amazes me....I can't understand such determination to clear Saddam Hussein's record of abuses to such a degree as I have seen from you. Is it that important for you to so poorly portray the current US policy in Iraq that you must distort the facts so terribly?

Hussein is notorious for his support of "international terrorism" In fact I would say it is probably a legacy he is quite proud of. 9/11 is not the only terrorist event to have occurred nor is al Qaeda the only terrorist group to have ever existed. I don't think the war on terror makes this distinction, I thought terrorism in general was no longer going to be so conveniently ignored and unacted on.

If you are unaware of Saddam's legacy of a "philanthropist" in the Islamist terror network there is plenty of information already available....

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

source

Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) is the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also known as the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, MEK is led by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. MEK was added to the U.S. State Department’s list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997.

When Saddam Hussein was in power, MEK received the majority of its financial support from the Iraqi regime.

source


U.S. forces captured the leader of a Palestinian terror group accused of masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the Italian Achille Lauro cruise ship, during which an American was murdered.
Abbas, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Front during the 1980's and 90's, has been living in Baghdad under the protection of Saddam Hussein's government.

source
*



But "philanthropy of terror" is beside the point. One could make a solid argument that the US, as the world's largest supplier of arms and military materiel, is far more of a "philanthropist of terror" than Hussein could have ever hoped to be. Consider Turkey, who has massacred thousands of Kurds using arms and helicopters from the US. Consider Indonesia, supported by the US, committing genocide in East Timor. Consider Iran and Iraq themselves. We helped fund their war with eachother. We even had a third-rate (not to mention criminal) president in the 80s who funded and supplied arms for wars all through Central America.

Do you really think we haven't funded and supported people as bad or worse than Hamas?

Look, no one here is saying Hussein was a good guy. No one is claiming he never harbored a grudge against the US.

As for the memo, none of us knows whether or not it is even indicative of an actual reality in Husseins government. Certainly it isn't enough to turn anyone into a supporter of the war. Even if true, it doesn't justify invasion. We have certainly acted 'against the interests' of many countries over the years. Are any of them justified, therefor, in invading us? Somehow I doubt you would think so.

If Iraq had placed sanctions on us for ten years, after destroying our infrastructure, sanctions that led to malnutrition deaths of half a million children, and throughout the ten years continued almost daily bombing sorties against us, do you suppose we might have been interested in 'striking against Iraqi interests?' My guess is the answer would be 'yes.' And I imagine we wouldn't be too concerned about how those 'strikes' got carried out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fife and Drum
post Apr 14 2006, 03:04 AM
Post #15


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 480
Member No.: 2,098
Joined: December-30-03

From: Louie Ville KY
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted)
That they trained terrorists is clear and this memo makes that even more so.

Not really, it may prove the opposite. If they “trained terrorists” why would they ask for volunteers?

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

I don’t recall the president saying we’re going to invade Iraq because they may have written some nasty memos about us.

Even still, this pales in comparison to the very real threat of having an even worse enemy waving their nuclear ambitions in our faces. Odd how you want to justify a war over “memos” that are less threatening than actual actions recently taken by Iran.

And you have to consider the precedent. Every time we intercept a memo or email with similar content off we go?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Apr 14 2006, 03:14 PM
Post #16


***********
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
DatonRocker
But at the end of the day, Saddam did not shoot up Olympic villages, send suicide bombers out, or hijack airplanes. Never did he do that. After 9/11, that's all I cared about. He could kill all the Muslims he wanted for all I care as that means there is less to hate us. But as long as he kept it in his own borders - much like a half dozen African countries who are far, far worse - I'm for defending Americans.

I agree with Bucket. Saddam was a major supporter of terrorism but he went well beyond Saudi Arabia. Sure lots of Arab countries allowed citizens to collect money for Hammas but this was not direct government support as with Saddam.

And none of the other countries invaded a neighbor (obviously not inside his “borders”), produced massive amounts of WMD and defied even UN resolution after being tossed out of an invaded country.



http://www.husseinandterror.com/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Apr 14 2006, 05:01 PM
Post #17


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,521
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Ted @ Apr 14 2006, 10:14 AM)
And none of the other countries invaded a neighbor (obviously not inside his “borders”), produced massive amounts of WMD and defied even UN resolution after being tossed out of an invaded country.   

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

There is hardly one thing you've gotten correct here. Iraq invading another country? Sure...you got that one right. But I suppose you expect us to believe that was the first war in the middle east that was a result of a land dispute? And what does that have to do with international terrorism anyway?

Produced massive amounts WMD? That's only a half-truth. Actually, they couldn't produce squat without the materials we sent Saddam to help defeat Iran. So, your point should have been "Saddam and the US produced massive amounts of WMD to defeat Iran". Although I'm sure you'll find it hard to find countries that have used WMD in war...*cough*Hiroshima...*cough*Nagasaki*.

And to support your argument, you provided a stellar link to prove your point. Three in the list are Palestinians. How about you save us a little time here and name one Arab country in that region that didn't support the Palestinians. You've painted those contributions as the exception when you know it's the rule.

And especially Ansar Al-Islam. That's what discredits that entire link. Ansar Al-Islam was/is 700 strong and has never contributed to international terrorism. But even if they did, what could Saddam do about it? Nothing. Not a damn thing. Ansar Al-Islam was protected by the no-fly zones so in effect, we (The United States) supported Ansar Al-Islam more than Saddam did. Saddam couldn't touch them even if he wanted to.

And the Abu Nidal Organization? Saddam loved them so much that he expelled that group back in the 80's. News flash Ted...this is the new millennium...seriously.

You suck this type of spin up to reconcile the failure that is called the Iraq War. You hold out for nuggets in a pile of papers to vindicate your blind support for the most liberal president this country has ever seen since Jimmy Carter. Stalin and Lenin would be proud to know dimwits like Bush are following their idealology methods.

These papers will only show what you want them to show. But the evidence on the ground is clear. Bush was 100% wrong about every single facet of this war. He couldn't even get one thing correct. Instead of taking a united country and world with him to fight actual terrorists, he bet everything on a losing horse. Now he's trying to turn it into a winner with the help of people who refuse to face the facts.

And somehow, you're happy with all that. No wonder this party is broken.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Apr 14 2006, 05:28 PM
Post #18


***********
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
DR
Produced massive amounts WMD? That's only a half-truth. Actually, they couldn't produce squat without the materials we sent Saddam to help defeat Iran. So, your point should have been "Saddam and the US produced massive amounts of WMD to defeat Iran". Although I'm sure you'll find it hard to find countries that have used WMD in war...*cough*Hiroshima...*cough*Nagasaki*.


What “half-truth” is that. The nuke program less than 2 years from the bomb in 1991? The huge chem./bio production they admitted to? And please give me a break on the ridiculous notion we gave Saddam squat that was vital to him for weapons of any kind. He had the ability to buy (and probably did) raw anthrax bacteria from half the industrial world including his buddies in Russia. All other WMD help came from his friend in Security Council who insured him he would never have to comply with all those nasty UN resolutions – France (who even sold him weapons in the 90s illegally), Russia and Germany.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/building-bomb.html

Iraq 1992
This is the Iraqi bomb—slightly smaller than the one dropped on Hiroshima, but nearly twice as powerful—packing an explosive force of at least 20,000 tons of TNT. The official is dramatizing a drawing he has made in his notebook, based on documents seized in Iraq. He is sure that the bomb, if built to the specifications in the drawing, will work.
This is the bomb that, according to U.N. estimates, Saddam Hussein was 18 to 24 months from building when the gulf war started. It is the bomb he is still likely to build, despite the war and the most intrusive nuclear inspections in history, unless the United Nations changes its tactics.
They are pouring concrete as we speak," says a U.N. official at the next desk. Saddam, he says, is rebuilding the bombed nuclear sites in plain view of the U.N. inspectors.
"He is even planting trees and re-landscaping," he adds, "to boost employee morale." Another U.N. official has a similar story. During a visit to the Iraqi nuclear weapon testing site at Al Atheer, he says, his Iraqi hosts looked him in the eye and said, “We are waiting for you to leave."
Iraqi scientists know, for example, how to cast uranium metal into bomb parts in a vacuum furnace. The vacuum prevents molten uranium from burning in air. At Al Atheer, U.N. inspectors found vacuum furnaces made by a German firm, Arthur Pfeiffer Vakuum Technik. The inspectors rejected Iraq's claim that the furnaces were for scientific research.
The inspectors also found a large "isostatic" press, made by a Swedish-Swiss firm, Asea Brown Boveri. This, too, the Iraqis claimed was for research. But the U.N. team thinks the machine was for shaping the high-explosive charges that set off a nuclear chain reaction.


Despite the size of the Iraqi program, it had only a dozen or so scientists and engineers who were in a position to plan and implement nuclear projects. Without these key people, the nuclear program could not have existed. Before the Gulf War, the IAEA had no idea who they were or what they did, nor did Western intelligence agencies seem to have much interest. More than 400 Iraqis were trained in France and Italy during the late 1970s, yet none of them reported being approached about what they were doing. Nearly all the current leaders of the program were drawn from those trainees.
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so98hamza

In early 1979, Iraq built the first factory to produce insecticides with the help of Italian engineers. The factory was built in the region of Akashat at a cost of $50 million. A security system was also built to protect the factory that cost another $60 million. The building of this factory experienced many problems, such as espionage attempts by the Mosad, the Israeli intelligence service. The western companies that dealt with the defunct regime -- for instance Australian and Dutch firms -- exported a lot of materials related to this field of production. For instance, the Dutch firm KBS sold Iraq large quantities of Thiodilyco (name as transliterated), a material that is essential in the production of mustard gas, at a cost of 1.5 million Marks. Multinational Italian firms also supplied Iraq with 60 tons of Oxycklorure (name as transliterated), a phosphoric material that is also used in chemical industries that can be put to dual-use. As for the French companies, they exported to Iraq large quantities of a gas (not further identified) that can be used in warfare. This gas was exported across the borders from Italy and Turkey. This transaction was concluded through the mediation of the German Company Karl Kolb. A confidential report issued on 21 August 1990 by Helmut Hossman (name as transliterated), the Economy Minister of then West Germany, confirmed that the German companies had the lion's share in these transactions. The report said that since 1983, West German companies have exported to Iraq huge quantities of raw materials, equipment, and small industrial factories to produce poison gases. The report also said that these companies participated directly in building the Sa'd Project, the Iraqi chemical project, and the construction of the military complex in Al-Taji.

The role of German companies in building the Iraqi nuclear program (subhead)
The German Company Karl Kolb that is specialized in equipping chemical laboratories played a crucial role in supplying the defunct regime over the past 30 years with toxic chemical materials through a middleman who helped Dr Amir al-Sa'di. Al-Sa'di prepared for his doctorate in chemistry in this institution and married a German woman. He worked in the Iraqi chemical project and was in charge of coordinating the defunct regime's transactions and requirements with the management of the Karl Kolb company. In October 1985, the operations of this company ceased by order of the German judiciary after it sold Iraq two electronic systems that test toxic gas inhalation levels. These are used in closed gas chambers where they measure toxic gas reactions with biological tissues. They also measure the level of their effect on animals, such as dogs, donkeys, and mules as well as humans. These gases were tested on prisoners that opposed the Iraqi regime.
The German engineering company NPI in Frankfurt expressed its regrets for the conduct of its colleagues in Karl Kolb in providing Iraq with the necessary technology to build its program to produce poison gases. These gases were used by the Iraqi regime in its wars against its neighbors and its own people. The German companies also sold Iraq seven chemical factories and launchers that could be used as chemical weapons. The Karl Kolb company, that has been under judicial investigation and prosecution since October 1985, also built a camp near Baghdad to test six laboratory units specialized in producing chemical materials to protect plants from locusts. These were sent to the complex in Al-Samarra. In the early 1980s, engineers from NVA, an East German company, built a complex near Baghdad to test chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. It was designed like the non-conventional weapons testing center in East Germany. It is equipped to protect against radiation. It consists of special buildings that are equipped with stations to remove traces of toxicity from equipment, personnel, and military materiel.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

This post has been edited by Ted: Apr 14 2006, 05:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jaime
post Apr 14 2006, 05:54 PM
Post #19


Group Icon

**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Admin
Posts: 5,941
Member No.: 4
Joined: July-25-02

From: Down where the River meets the Sea
Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



This isn't a free-for-all Iraq topic. Let's be sure to focus on the actual debate questions posed for this thread, please.

TOPICS:

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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Apr 14 2006, 06:18 PM
Post #20


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



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

I'll put this question back to you in the following way Amlord since you have yet to weigh in on your topic. You have poo-poo'ed items such as the Downing Street memo in past posts. One example is this post where you said:
QUOTE(Amlord)
The Downing Street memo simply does not jive with some other available evidence (particularly Bob Woodward's claims about the timing and about George Tenet's insistence that the case for WMD's was a "slam dunk"). Woodward tells us that Bush already knew what certain members of the administration wanted to do about Iraq and that he did not consult those members. Perhaps it was these members of the administration to which the Downing Street memo refers.


I would completely disagree with you that it doesn't jive with other evidence, especially evidence that has emerged since last year when you wrote that. However, that would be off topic here.

In your mind the memo is worthless because it doesn't jive with evidence. So moving on to these memos, why in the world would you believe them to have any meaning whatsoever even if they are authentic when it simply doesn't jive with the evidence we have (unless you are denying the evidence)? Is it because it supports your point of view? Why?

The Bush administration has desperately been seeking a smoking gun to justify this war since the war began and they simply haven't found one. They've claimed to have found one several times and it has always back fired because it is later proven to be false.

Now they dump a whole bunch of memos written in arabic on the public and you are fully prepared to believe this is a smoking gun that somehow justifies the invasion? It is a plain and simple fact that if they believed these memos had any value whatsoever they'd be working on them in some government agency, eagerly awaiting the results so they could start a "see we told you it was justified!" national tour. It is noise, plain and simple and if someone translates one of these and starts publisizing it then it only works to their benefit.

What we are seeing here is the last Hail Mary effort by the administration to improve their image on the Iraq war. Look at any poll out there, just under 2/3rd's of Americans are against what we are doing in Iraq, think it was handled badly and don't believe it is justified. The administration figures that maybe, just maybe someone will translate one of these things, it'll circulate and it may just cause enough public confusion (hopefully with the sizeable contingent of Republican voters who have turned against the war) to limit the damage at the polls in 2006.

But that's just a question for you to justify your position here, I still hold by my first post in this topic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 5th, 2021 - 10:39 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.