Leaving Iraq would give terrorist groups a literal convenience store. Afghanistan would be nothing compared to Iraq being abandoned in terms of funding, arms gathering, plus the people there are much more educated in some senses. Not to mention much more modern services.
Also you run the risk of a good percentage of the world's oil supply possibly being controlled by them. I speak of terrorists in the sense of Palestinian, global, and domestic terrorism (against other Iraqis). The fact is even partitioning the country would be a huge mistake since one side will ultimately declare war on the other.
So this might be a war we wait out for a while. Then again it's not uncommon for some wars to carry on for 20-30 years.
That's quite the commitment though. In light of Vietnam (hey look, it's in the thread title!), I very much doubt the U.S. population is willing to fight a 20-30 year war. The war in Iraq hasn't lasted for half the time the Vietnam war did, and already the general population is sick of it.
<!--quoteo(post=1587252:date=Dec 12 2006, 12:30 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 12 2006, 12:30 AM) [snapback]1587252[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> That's quite the commitment though. In light of Vietnam (hey look, it's in the thread title!), I very much doubt the U.S. population is willing to fight a 20-30 year war. The war in Iraq hasn't lasted for half the time the Vietnam war did, and already the general population is sick of it.
Oh, and how 'bout a thread summary? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Vietnam was a stupid police action. End of story.
If anything Iraq is a reinforcement of our current policy on terrorism and terrorist states. Washington intelligence has been eyeing Saddam for years simply because (at the time) was the richest terrorist.
Except he wasn't. There was nothing linking the Saddam regime to terrorism, remember? And certainly no Dubbya-Em-Dees, which everyone seems to have forgotten about.
There was nothing linking Saddam to <b>9/11</b>. Thats far different from saying he had no links to Terrorism. Furthermore, while he didn't actually <i>have</i> WMDs, he was doing his best to pretend he did...he even convinced his own generals, not to mention the intelligence agencies of most major world powers.
I'm not mixing my facts. I know of no connection between Saddam and terrorism. The man was a doubleplusungood guy (it's depressing that the only adequate expressions for characterising Saddam Hussein I can get past the swear filter these days are in newspeak, hello 1984), but as far as I know he did not not engage in terrorism, only in suppression of parts of his own population and general, legitimate (by today's standards) warfare.
<!--quoteo(post=1587707:date=Dec 12 2006, 11:01 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 12 2006, 11:01 PM) [snapback]1587707[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'm not mixing my facts. I know of no connection between Saddam and terrorism. The man was a doubleplusungood guy (it's depressing that the only adequate expressions for characterising Saddam Hussein I can get past the swear filter these days are in newspeak, hello 1984), but as far as I know he did not not engage in terrorism, only in suppression of parts of his own population and general, legitimate (by today's standards) warfare. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually there's plenty of evidence to back up the claim that he outright supported terrorist organizations international and domestic.
BTW, thanks for 1984ing the thread. It needs it like a Goodwiner.
<!--quoteo(post=1587867:date=Dec 13 2006, 04:54 AM:name=Revlic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Revlic @ Dec 13 2006, 04:54 AM) [snapback]1587867[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Actually there's plenty of evidence to back up the claim that he outright supported terrorist organizations international and domestic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose its good enough that we just accept that statement at face value? got any back up that doesnt boil down to maybes, and 'pretend support'?
dont mean to have a dig, but the onus is on you here.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited December 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1587707:date=Dec 12 2006, 07:01 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 12 2006, 07:01 PM) [snapback]1587707[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'm not mixing my facts. I know of no connection between Saddam and terrorism. The man was a doubleplusungood guy (it's depressing that the only adequate expressions for characterising Saddam Hussein I can get past the swear filter these days are in newspeak, hello 1984), but as far as I know he did not not engage in terrorism, only in suppression of parts of his own population and general, legitimate (by today's standards) warfare. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> His support was very limited as far as I know, but he often used the Palestinian struggle for political gain. I don't know of any evidence that he funded actual attacks against Israel, but he very publically offered 30,000 dollars to the surviving family of any Palestinian suicide bomber.
Reference to Godwin's law, I take it. The 1984 analogy wasn't aimed at the thread, it was aimed at the forum swearfilter. The thread, thus, should not be affected.
<a href="http://www.husseinandterror.com/" target="_blank">Actually, Saddam Hussein knew plenty about terrorism. </a> In essence, he owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training, and even medical attention.
<!--quoteo(post=1587904:date=Dec 13 2006, 07:30 AM:name=Melatonin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Melatonin @ Dec 13 2006, 07:30 AM) [snapback]1587904[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think he means 'Godwinned'. I suppose its good enough that we just accept that statement at face value? got any back up that doesnt boil down to maybes, and 'pretend support'?
dont mean to have a dig, but the onus is on you here. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I cited what I said then I would be credible. But yeah the whole...citing everything then not having anyone read the crap I type. I mean I could go into detail on how he had numerous assassination attempts even middle eastern dignitaries and our own president.
I could also point out how Iraq sheltered Abu Nidal. That group alone nailed 900 people in over twenty countries.
I could go into further detail about his intifada support, which gave families of suicide bombers $10,000-25,000 for completing terrorist attacks.
The point is, even if I did make a credible statement. Your opinions wouldn't change. That's because your senseless pride prevents you from conceding the argument. In the end all it comes down to is "Was it worth going to war over." and no matter what I say or do your all never going agree with me.
<!--quoteo(post=1587976:date=Dec 13 2006, 02:43 PM:name=Lanfear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lanfear @ Dec 13 2006, 02:43 PM) [snapback]1587976[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Oh look another conservative website, based off of more conservative views from a conservative.
How about a bipartised review?
Oh that is probably above your ability to find. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you look at the bottom, there's a nifty citation page which goes to several nonpartisan news sources. Then again your like my above post. No amount of evidence will convince you.
//off topic
This new editing system is awesome, plus my quotes merge!
Im not claiming that Saddam was a lovely guy, all I asked was for a little evidence somthing from a reputable news organisation. look, heres an example.
all it took was 10 seconds in google, and now we have somthing which I would class as factual (if slightly outdated) to discuss.
Actually, while we are talking about it, lets take a closer look at the article
<b>"The Iraqi president's programme of giving money to families of Palestinians killed by Israelis is winning him popularity, which he hopes will help bolster his position in the Arab world."</b>
hmmm. seems a little at odds with the statement you made about funding suicide bombers. lets read on.
<b>"There are follow-up calls to see how they are. One particular family received $10,000 - equivalent to one year's salary - from the Iraqi leader after their son Majed was killed by an Israeli shell."</b>
If you have any other <i>documented and credible</i> information on this topic, Ide love to hear it. if not, I wonder, will your senseless pride keep you from reassessing your position?
as for your claims about Abu Nidal; im assuming you mean the ANO (formerly known as Black June), who were led by Abu Nidal? you can read more about them <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal" target="_blank">here</a> (please bear in mind this article is wiki). there are a few interesting points in that article, though like I say, it is wiki, so im not investing 100% trust. <b>"Abu Nidal is known to have entered Iraq in 1999 after being expelled from Libya by Gaddafi"</b>
<b>"Iraq's chief of intelligence, Taher Jalil Habbush, held a press conference on August 21, 2002, at which he handed out photographs of Abu Nidal's bloodied body, along with a medical report purportedly showing he had died after a single bullet had entered his mouth and exited his skull. Habbush said that Iraq's internal security force had arrived at Abu Nidal's house to arrest him on suspicion of conspiring with the Kuwaiti and Saudi governments to bring down Saddam Hussein"</b>
and as for your point about the various assassination plots saddam had indulged in, are you going to provide me any kind of evidence, or shall I take your word for it?
Also just wanted to back up Lanfear, in saying that I dont consider that kind of website to house any kind of credible or useful information, <i>regardless of whether i agree with it or not</i>.
The situation in Iraq isn't quite as bad as it was in Vietnam, but I think it's fairly apparent that our goals aren't being met. The fact is that the case for going to war with Iraq was based on fabrications and lies. Iraq was never a threat, even if it did have mass caches of WMD (Which it did not), simply because any act of aggression would've meant the international community would come down like a rock on them. Living conditions in Iraq have degraded, the quality of life has dropped drastically - the war certainly hasn't benefitted the population in Iraq. The US has spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives with no appreciable results except the capture of a dictator that can be easily replaced.
And of course, we now have quite a dilemna. Withdrawing our troops might prevent us from losing more people, but it does little for the country of Iraq. At the same time, keeping them there doesn't seem to be doing any good either. At this point, we're probably better off cutting our losses by retreating.
I don't buy the argument that leaving Iraq will somehow increase the number of attacks directed towards us. Resources spent on the war is resources not spent at home, and it's not as though Iraq is some magical fortress that terrorists must overrun before they can attack us.
<!--quoteo(post=1588135:date=Dec 13 2006, 11:14 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Dec 13 2006, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1588135[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> [...]The US has spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives with no appreciable results except the capture of a dictator that can be easily replaced.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dare I say it? DARE I say it? It's a can of worms, but eh, here goes:
The endnotes to the webpage I referenced above contains many valid sources, which appear to have gone unnoticed by the dis-believers. One worth mentioning is <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml" target="_blank">Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked</a>.
Rather than take punches at the site and attempt to discredit it, why not find us evidence of the untruths? I maintain the burden of proof is on the dis-believers.
<!--quoteo(post=1588168:date=Dec 13 2006, 05:38 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 13 2006, 05:38 PM) [snapback]1588168[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Dare I say it? DARE I say it? It's a can of worms, but eh, here goes:
Oil. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which would be a much more credible theory, if the US was actually getting any Oil out of Iraq. Since we aren't, theres simply no evidence to suppose that Iraq's oil reserves were related to the decision to go in.
Now, an increase in overall Middle Eastern Stability would probably increase our access to Oil, but I don't know how you can consider that a bad objective anyway.
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
<!--quoteo(post=1588179:date=Dec 13 2006, 06:54 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 13 2006, 06:54 PM) [snapback]1588179[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The endnotes to the webpage I referenced above contains many valid sources, which appear to have gone unnoticed by the dis-believers. One worth mentioning is <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml" target="_blank">Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked</a>.
Rather than take punches at the site and attempt to discredit it, why not find us evidence of the untruths? I maintain the burden of proof is on the dis-believers. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Questions that require answering:
<i>Beasley called Baer's finding "a significant victory" because it represented the first time a judge linked al-Qaida and Iraq in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.</i>
How many judges did they go through first? Do they have real evidence? <i> Baer said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors' descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.</i>
Not really evidence. So ...
<i>"We have uncovered the financial connection between Iraq and al-Qaida," he said. </i>
OK, they have one piece of evidence. Can I see it please?
<i>In his ruling, Baer concluded that lawyers for the two victims "have shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida" and collaborated in or supported al-Qaida's Sept. 11 attacks. </i>
How "barely" is that?
Whilst Saddam is indeed IMO a scumbag, this article doesn't really prove anything unless we get more facts. :-/ It just says one judge said that it can barely be proven that Saddam kinda might have given money to somebody who used the money in a bad way.
<!--quoteo(post=1588230:date=Dec 13 2006, 10:05 PM:name=Private_Coleman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Private_Coleman @ Dec 13 2006, 10:05 PM) [snapback]1588230[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Questions that require answering:
<i>Beasley called Baer's finding "a significant victory" because it represented the first time a judge linked al-Qaida and Iraq in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.</i>
How many judges did they go through first? Do they have real evidence? <i> Baer said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors' descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.</i>
Not really evidence. So ...
<i>"We have uncovered the financial connection between Iraq and al-Qaida," he said. </i>
OK, they have one piece of evidence. Can I see it please?
<i>In his ruling, Baer concluded that lawyers for the two victims "have shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida" and collaborated in or supported al-Qaida's Sept. 11 attacks. </i>
How "barely" is that? Whilst Saddam is indeed IMO a scumbag, this article doesn't really prove anything unless we get more facts. :-/ It just says one judge said that it can barely be proven that Saddam kinda might have given money to somebody who used the money in a bad way. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A court of law ordered it, and unless it was appealed you cannot reverse that.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A federal judge Wednesday ordered Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others to pay early $104 million to the families of two Sept. 11 victims, saying there is evidence – though meager - that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This was only ONE of the endnotes that proved it - thumb through the rest. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
edited December 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1588246:date=Dec 13 2006, 11:14 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 13 2006, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1588246[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> A court of law ordered it, and unless it was appealed you cannot reverse that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whilst it is most likely true, this doesn't automatically make it infallible. Especially when he admits the evidence is rather dodgy, and the ones that should (according to the legal system) have to prove involvement shape their case around hearsay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This was only ONE of the endnotes that proved it - thumb through the rest. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I acknowledged a similarly worded sentence. It still has the same meaning. There is one piece of evidence - financial evidence. Without further information this could mean anything, really. It could be "hey guy I borrowed a dollar off you yesterday, here it is back" or "here take this billion dollar cheque and pwn america thx". Either way is financing terrorism. How extreme may vary. "Financial Connection" is pretty vague.
<!--quoteo(post=1588228:date=Dec 14 2006, 04:01 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Dec 14 2006, 04:01 AM) [snapback]1588228[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Which would be a much more credible theory, if the US was actually getting any Oil out of Iraq. Since we aren't, theres simply no evidence to suppose that Iraq's oil reserves were related to the decision to go in.
Now, an increase in overall Middle Eastern Stability would probably increase our access to Oil, but I don't know how you can consider that a bad objective anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, no, your Big Oil Companies are actually getting lots of oil.
<!--quoteo(post=1588340:date=Dec 14 2006, 05:44 AM:name=Private_Coleman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Private_Coleman @ Dec 14 2006, 05:44 AM) [snapback]1588340[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Whilst it is most likely true, this doesn't automatically make it infallible. Especially when he admits the evidence is rather dodgy, and the ones that should (according to the legal system) have to prove involvement shape their case around hearsay. Yeah, I acknowledged a similarly worded sentence. It still has the same meaning. There is one piece of evidence - financial evidence. Without further information this could mean anything, really. It could be "hey guy I borrowed a dollar off you yesterday, here it is back" or "here take this billion dollar cheque and pwn america thx". Either way is financing terrorism. How extreme may vary. "Financial Connection" is pretty vague. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you'd like to dispute the ruling of the court, all evidence should be a matter of public record. Rather than argue here for ther sake of argument, why not check the public records if you are a disbeliever?
The Endnotes I referred to are not just related to this court case - read on.
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
edited December 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1588385:date=Dec 14 2006, 07:56 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Dec 14 2006, 07:56 AM) [snapback]1588385[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If you'd like to dispute the ruling of the court, all evidence should be a matter of public record. Rather than argue here for ther sake of argument, why not check the public records if you are a disbeliever?
The Endnotes I referred to are not just related to this court case - read on. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will in good time. I am not trying to argue with you just for the sake of arguing. We're on the same page here. I believe that he is indeed a scumbag and deserves to pay a lot more. I'm actually trying to use this as an example to make sure everyone has their facts on hand before accepting everything as truth, as a lesson to the kids not to take websites such as this at face value.
<!--quoteo(post=1588361:date=Dec 14 2006, 05:34 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Dec 14 2006, 05:34 AM) [snapback]1588361[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> No, no, your Big Oil Companies are actually getting lots of oil. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't understand. I go by the Depot method. "The burden of proof is on the dis-believers." Since you dis-believe me, YOU have to provide links, not me!
It works like this: <!--quoteo(post=1588228:date=Dec 14 2006, 04:01 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Dec 14 2006, 04:01 AM) [snapback]1588228[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Which would be a much more credible theory, if the US was actually getting any Oil out of Iraq. Since we aren't, theres simply no evidence to suppose that Iraq's oil reserves were related to the decision to go in.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Link please?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The result: Iraq is importing refined oil products at record high prices at a time that it should be boosting exports to take advantage of those prices to earn money for reconstruction.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Iraq with massive oil reserves faces severe fuel shortages which were non-existent before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
The government blames insurgent attacks on pipelines for the shortages, but Oil Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, say rickety infrastructure and lack of investment are among the reasons.
Most of the country’s fuel imports come from Iran, Turkey, Syria and Kuwait.
Before the U.S. invasion Iraqi refineries churned out 700,000 barrels a day but now they are said to be running at less than half capacity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Average daily US oil imports from Iraq, 2001: 795,000 barrels Average daily US oil imports from Iraq, 2003: 481,000 barrels Average daily US oil imports from Iraq, 2006: 562,000 barrels<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To put those numbers in reference: Average daily US oil imports from all sources: 11.8 Million barrels Total average daily US oil consumption: 21.1 Million barrels
Rightyho, less oil coming out of Iraq now. This means decreased supply. I have no reason to believe that demand has fallen, though. Now, basic economics teaches us that if demand stays the same but supply decreases, the result is an inflation of price. Which is exactly the development that the U.S. has seen since the invasion of Iraq. So the american citizen is paying more for his gasoline now. That means additional money out of his pocket and into... whose pocket? Where does that additional money go? I don't think it's naive to say that a fair chunk of it goes to the Big Oil Companies. Where else would it go?
Comments
Also you run the risk of a good percentage of the world's oil supply possibly being controlled by them. I speak of terrorists in the sense of Palestinian, global, and domestic terrorism (against other Iraqis). The fact is even partitioning the country would be a huge mistake since one side will ultimately declare war on the other.
So this might be a war we wait out for a while. Then again it's not uncommon for some wars to carry on for 20-30 years.
Oh, and how 'bout a thread summary?
That's quite the commitment though. In light of Vietnam (hey look, it's in the thread title!), I very much doubt the U.S. population is willing to fight a 20-30 year war. The war in Iraq hasn't lasted for half the time the Vietnam war did, and already the general population is sick of it.
Oh, and how 'bout a thread summary?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Vietnam was a stupid police action. End of story.
If anything Iraq is a reinforcement of our current policy on terrorism and terrorist states. Washington intelligence has been eyeing Saddam for years simply because (at the time) was the richest terrorist.
There was nothing linking Saddam to <b>9/11</b>. Thats far different from saying he had no links to Terrorism. Furthermore, while he didn't actually <i>have</i> WMDs, he was doing his best to pretend he did...he even convinced his own generals, not to mention the intelligence agencies of most major world powers.
I'm not mixing my facts. I know of no connection between Saddam and terrorism. The man was a doubleplusungood guy (it's depressing that the only adequate expressions for characterising Saddam Hussein I can get past the swear filter these days are in newspeak, hello 1984), but as far as I know he did not not engage in terrorism, only in suppression of parts of his own population and general, legitimate (by today's standards) warfare.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually there's plenty of evidence to back up the claim that he outright supported terrorist organizations international and domestic.
BTW, thanks for 1984ing the thread. It needs it like a Goodwiner.
<!--quoteo(post=1587867:date=Dec 13 2006, 04:54 AM:name=Revlic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Revlic @ Dec 13 2006, 04:54 AM) [snapback]1587867[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Actually there's plenty of evidence to back up the claim that he outright supported terrorist organizations international and domestic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose its good enough that we just accept that statement at face value? got any back up that doesnt boil down to maybes, and 'pretend support'?
dont mean to have a dig, but the onus is on you here.
I'm not mixing my facts. I know of no connection between Saddam and terrorism. The man was a doubleplusungood guy (it's depressing that the only adequate expressions for characterising Saddam Hussein I can get past the swear filter these days are in newspeak, hello 1984), but as far as I know he did not not engage in terrorism, only in suppression of parts of his own population and general, legitimate (by today's standards) warfare.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His support was very limited as far as I know, but he often used the Palestinian struggle for political gain. I don't know of any evidence that he funded actual attacks against Israel, but he very publically offered 30,000 dollars to the surviving family of any Palestinian suicide bomber.
In essence, he owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training, and even medical attention.
How about a bipartised review?
Oh that is probably above your ability to find.
I think he means 'Godwinned'.
I suppose its good enough that we just accept that statement at face value? got any back up that doesnt boil down to maybes, and 'pretend support'?
dont mean to have a dig, but the onus is on you here.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I cited what I said then I would be credible. But yeah the whole...citing everything then not having anyone read the crap I type. I mean I could go into detail on how he had numerous assassination attempts even middle eastern dignitaries and our own president.
I could also point out how Iraq sheltered Abu Nidal. That group alone nailed 900 people in over twenty countries.
I could go into further detail about his intifada support, which gave families of suicide bombers $10,000-25,000 for completing terrorist attacks.
The point is, even if I did make a credible statement. Your opinions wouldn't change. That's because your senseless pride prevents you from conceding the argument. In the end all it comes down to is "Was it worth going to war over." and no matter what I say or do your all never going agree with me.
<!--quoteo(post=1587976:date=Dec 13 2006, 02:43 PM:name=Lanfear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lanfear @ Dec 13 2006, 02:43 PM) [snapback]1587976[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Oh look another conservative website, based off of more conservative views from a conservative.
How about a bipartised review?
Oh that is probably above your ability to find.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you look at the bottom, there's a nifty citation page which goes to several nonpartisan news sources. Then again your like my above post. No amount of evidence will convince you.
//off topic
This new editing system is awesome, plus my quotes merge!
look, heres an example.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1475915.stm" target="_blank">Saddams Intifada envolvement</a>
all it took was 10 seconds in google, and now we have somthing which I would class as factual (if slightly outdated) to discuss.
Actually, while we are talking about it, lets take a closer look at the article
<b>"The Iraqi president's programme of giving money to families of Palestinians killed by Israelis is winning him popularity, which he hopes will help bolster his position in the Arab world."</b>
hmmm. seems a little at odds with the statement you made about funding suicide bombers. lets read on.
<b>"There are follow-up calls to see how they are. One particular family received $10,000 - equivalent to one year's salary - from the Iraqi leader after their son Majed was killed by an Israeli shell."</b>
If you have any other <i>documented and credible</i> information on this topic, Ide love to hear it. if not, I wonder, will your senseless pride keep you from reassessing your position?
as for your claims about Abu Nidal; im assuming you mean the ANO (formerly known as Black June), who were led by Abu Nidal?
you can read more about them <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal" target="_blank">here</a> (please bear in mind this article is wiki).
there are a few interesting points in that article, though like I say, it is wiki, so im not investing 100% trust.
<b>"Abu Nidal is known to have entered Iraq in 1999 after being expelled from Libya by Gaddafi"</b>
<b>"Iraq's chief of intelligence, Taher Jalil Habbush, held a press conference on August 21, 2002, at which he handed out photographs of Abu Nidal's bloodied body, along with a medical report purportedly showing he had died after a single bullet had entered his mouth and exited his skull. Habbush said that Iraq's internal security force had arrived at Abu Nidal's house to arrest him on suspicion of conspiring with the Kuwaiti and Saudi governments to bring down Saddam Hussein"</b>
and as for your point about the various assassination plots saddam had indulged in, are you going to provide me any kind of evidence, or shall I take your word for it?
Also just wanted to back up Lanfear, in saying that I dont consider that kind of website to house any kind of credible or useful information, <i>regardless of whether i agree with it or not</i>.
And of course, we now have quite a dilemna. Withdrawing our troops might prevent us from losing more people, but it does little for the country of Iraq. At the same time, keeping them there doesn't seem to be doing any good either. At this point, we're probably better off cutting our losses by retreating.
I don't buy the argument that leaving Iraq will somehow increase the number of attacks directed towards us. Resources spent on the war is resources not spent at home, and it's not as though Iraq is some magical fortress that terrorists must overrun before they can attack us.
[...]The US has spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives with no appreciable results except the capture of a dictator that can be easily replaced.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dare I say it? DARE I say it? It's a can of worms, but eh, here goes:
Oil.
Rather than take punches at the site and attempt to discredit it, why not find us evidence of the untruths? I maintain the burden of proof is on the dis-believers.
Dare I say it? DARE I say it? It's a can of worms, but eh, here goes:
Oil.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which would be a much more credible theory, if the US was actually getting any Oil out of Iraq. Since we aren't, theres simply no evidence to suppose that Iraq's oil reserves were related to the decision to go in.
Now, an increase in overall Middle Eastern Stability would probably increase our access to Oil, but I don't know how you can consider that a bad objective anyway.
The endnotes to the webpage I referenced above contains many valid sources, which appear to have gone unnoticed by the dis-believers. One worth mentioning is <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml" target="_blank">Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked</a>.
Rather than take punches at the site and attempt to discredit it, why not find us evidence of the untruths? I maintain the burden of proof is on the dis-believers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Questions that require answering:
<i>Beasley called Baer's finding "a significant victory" because it represented the first time a judge linked al-Qaida and Iraq in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.</i>
How many judges did they go through first? Do they have real evidence?
<i>
Baer said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors' descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.</i>
Not really evidence. So ...
<i>"We have uncovered the financial connection between Iraq and al-Qaida," he said. </i>
OK, they have one piece of evidence. Can I see it please?
<i>In his ruling, Baer concluded that lawyers for the two victims "have shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida" and collaborated in or supported al-Qaida's Sept. 11 attacks. </i>
How "barely" is that?
Whilst Saddam is indeed IMO a scumbag, this article doesn't really prove anything unless we get more facts. :-/ It just says one judge said that it can barely be proven that Saddam kinda might have given money to somebody who used the money in a bad way.
Questions that require answering:
<i>Beasley called Baer's finding "a significant victory" because it represented the first time a judge linked al-Qaida and Iraq in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.</i>
How many judges did they go through first? Do they have real evidence?
<i>
Baer said lawyers relied heavily on "classically hearsay" evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell's remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors' descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.</i>
Not really evidence. So ...
<i>"We have uncovered the financial connection between Iraq and al-Qaida," he said. </i>
OK, they have one piece of evidence. Can I see it please?
<i>In his ruling, Baer concluded that lawyers for the two victims "have shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida" and collaborated in or supported al-Qaida's Sept. 11 attacks. </i>
How "barely" is that?
Whilst Saddam is indeed IMO a scumbag, this article doesn't really prove anything unless we get more facts. :-/ It just says one judge said that it can barely be proven that Saddam kinda might have given money to somebody who used the money in a bad way.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A court of law ordered it, and unless it was appealed you cannot reverse that.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A federal judge Wednesday ordered Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others to pay early $104 million to the families of two Sept. 11 victims, saying there is evidence – though meager - that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This was only ONE of the endnotes that proved it - thumb through the rest. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
A court of law ordered it, and unless it was appealed you cannot reverse that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whilst it is most likely true, this doesn't automatically make it infallible. Especially when he admits the evidence is rather dodgy, and the ones that should (according to the legal system) have to prove involvement shape their case around hearsay.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This was only ONE of the endnotes that proved it - thumb through the rest. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I acknowledged a similarly worded sentence. It still has the same meaning. There is one piece of evidence - financial evidence. Without further information this could mean anything, really. It could be "hey guy I borrowed a dollar off you yesterday, here it is back" or "here take this billion dollar cheque and pwn america thx". Either way is financing terrorism. How extreme may vary. "Financial Connection" is pretty vague.
Which would be a much more credible theory, if the US was actually getting any Oil out of Iraq. Since we aren't, theres simply no evidence to suppose that Iraq's oil reserves were related to the decision to go in.
Now, an increase in overall Middle Eastern Stability would probably increase our access to Oil, but I don't know how you can consider that a bad objective anyway.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, no, your Big Oil Companies are actually getting lots of oil.
Whilst it is most likely true, this doesn't automatically make it infallible. Especially when he admits the evidence is rather dodgy, and the ones that should (according to the legal system) have to prove involvement shape their case around hearsay.
Yeah, I acknowledged a similarly worded sentence. It still has the same meaning. There is one piece of evidence - financial evidence. Without further information this could mean anything, really. It could be "hey guy I borrowed a dollar off you yesterday, here it is back" or "here take this billion dollar cheque and pwn america thx". Either way is financing terrorism. How extreme may vary. "Financial Connection" is pretty vague.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you'd like to dispute the ruling of the court, all evidence should be a matter of public record. Rather than argue here for ther sake of argument, why not check the public records if you are a disbeliever?
The Endnotes I referred to are not just related to this court case - read on.
If you'd like to dispute the ruling of the court, all evidence should be a matter of public record. Rather than argue here for ther sake of argument, why not check the public records if you are a disbeliever?
The Endnotes I referred to are not just related to this court case - read on.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will in good time. I am not trying to argue with you just for the sake of arguing. We're on the same page here. I believe that he is indeed a scumbag and deserves to pay a lot more. I'm actually trying to use this as an example to make sure everyone has their facts on hand before accepting everything as truth, as a lesson to the kids not to take websites such as this at face value.
No, no, your Big Oil Companies are actually getting lots of oil.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Link please?
It works like this:
<!--quoteo(post=1588228:date=Dec 14 2006, 04:01 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Dec 14 2006, 04:01 AM) [snapback]1588228[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Which would be a much more credible theory, if the US was actually getting any Oil out of Iraq. Since we aren't, theres simply no evidence to suppose that Iraq's oil reserves were related to the decision to go in.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Link please?
After all, I spoke first. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Edit: If I wait around for you to provide evidence, I'll be waiting forever, since there isn't any. So I'll go first...
<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/04/28/low_iraq_output_pushes_oil_prices_higher/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News" target="_blank">Link 1</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The result: Iraq is importing refined oil products at record high prices at a time that it should be boosting exports to take advantage of those prices to earn money for reconstruction.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/10361" target="_blank">Link 2</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Iraq with massive oil reserves faces severe fuel shortages which were non-existent before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
The government blames insurgent attacks on pipelines for the shortages, but Oil Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity, say rickety infrastructure and lack of investment are among the reasons.
Most of the country’s fuel imports come from Iran, Turkey, Syria and Kuwait.
Before the U.S. invasion Iraqi refineries churned out 700,000 barrels a day but now they are said to be running at less than half capacity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec3_8.pdf" target="_blank">Link 3</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Average daily US oil imports from Iraq, 2001: 795,000 barrels
Average daily US oil imports from Iraq, 2003: 481,000 barrels
Average daily US oil imports from Iraq, 2006: 562,000 barrels<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To put those numbers in reference:
Average daily US oil imports from all sources: 11.8 Million barrels
Total average daily US oil consumption: 21.1 Million barrels
So the american citizen is paying more for his gasoline now. That means additional money out of his pocket and into... whose pocket? Where does that additional money go? I don't think it's naive to say that a fair chunk of it goes to the Big Oil Companies. Where else would it go?
The preservation of the petrodollar is a core priority of US foreign policy.