No Connection Between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Only if you're ignorant of the facts!

[jatkins]

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously--let me say that again, unanimously--for Resolution 1441, which found Iraq in material breach of its international obligations over the previous 16 resolutions in 12 years and offered "serious consequences" (U.N.-speak for military intervention) if Iraq continued to violate its responsibilities.

And we get to hold people accountable for failing to uphold UN dictates the moment we uphold those dictates ourselves. Billions of dollars in unpaid UN dues, a withdrawal from the UN population fund, a refusal to abide by Geneva convention rules for the treatment of our prisoners: we aren't even abiding by international law now. We're not called on it because we are powerful. In any functionally important way, the international community is irrelevant to us.

You are fundamentally missing the point of what I was saying. I did not argue that Iraq did not commit violations of international law. I was arguing that we cannot use international law as a justification for war if we do not respect it ourselves. No one can claim grievance under the law who does not himself uphold it.

Please note that I am also not equating our violations of international law with Saddam's. They are not equivalent. But it is intellectually dishonest to suddenly respect international law the moment it becomes politically convenient for us to do so. I can only hope that this cynical tactic results in a greater demand on the part of the American people for a Presidential commitment to compliance with the other international obligations we are shirking, but so far, no luck.

Iraq flagrantly violated that resolution like it did all the others. All Saddam Hussein had to do was allow the weapons inspectors to do their job--like a responsible member of the community of nations that had been ordered to do so with 17 resolutions--and there was no possible way this war would've happened.

I fail to see how this is relevant to the point I'm making. I'm saying that the rhetorical tactic of invoking the UN's authority is inconsistent with the disrespect we otherwise pay it.

Possible al Qaeda involvement with Iraq (which I believe exists, read above) was at most a very minor detail in the case for liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein. It took 12 years of diplomacy and approximately 3 weeks of war to do that.

Yes. There were three planks: WMDs, which we knew existed in North Korea, and which we knew were being built in Iran; Al Qaeda, agents of whom intelligence sources placed in Pyongyang in 2002, who were given land and aid in Sudan, who were directly funded by Syria and Jordan, and who were only by the most tenuous tissue of associations linked to Iraq; and international law, which is a laughable argument from any nation that so thoroughly disrespects it. Tell me how, out of all of that, we came up with Iraq as the biggest threat.

 

[DeadCode]

Billions of dollars in unpaid UN dues, a withdrawal from the UN population fund, a refusal to abide by Geneva convention rules for the treatment of our prisoners: we aren't even abiding by international law now. We're not called on it because we are powerful. In any functionally important way, the international community is irrelevant to us.

There are many countries with unpaid dues, but given the rate at which U.N. dignitaries violate New York City VTL codes, I'm pretty sure we break just about even.

Secondly, not funding the U.N. population fund does not hold us in violation of international law. As a matter of fact, since we're such abusers of international law, why don't you give me the numbers of the U.N. resolutions finding us in breach of our international obligations. Good luck.

Furthermore, since they are not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, the "prisoners of war" would only be protected if all of the following are true:
They are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
They bear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
They carry their arms openly.
They conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Are any of the above conditions true? No, so no Geneva convention protections for them and no violation of the convention for us.

I'm saying that the rhetorical tactic of invoking the UN's authority is inconsistent with the disrespect we otherwise pay it.

While I feel you haven't made the case that the U.S. is violating international law, it is somewhat irrelevant. The oath the President of the United States takes while sworn in is not to the U.N. or to international law. It is to the Constitution, which in no small part, requires the common defense of this nation.

There were three planks: WMDs, which we knew existed in North Korea, and which we knew were being built in Iran...Tell me how, out of all of that, we came up with Iraq as the biggest threat.

I'll tell you exactly how. Remember the president's Axis of Evil speech? You got it: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Now, let's take a look at things from a pure military invasion point of view. If you were to choose one of those three countries to invade that would a) garner the most international support to form a coalition, b) not result in California staring down the business end of a nuclear warhead housed in an intercontinental ballistic missile, c) potentially promote the collapse from within of another bordering Axis of Evil country, d) be the easiest to defeat militarily, e) had already started 2 wars in as many decades with its neighbors, and f) was already promised an invasion by the entire U.N. Security Council, which would it be?

 

[NotJus4NE1]

The thing is so many lies have been told about the reasons for going to war, you'll never know if in fact they were connected. Yeah we can debate and spew our opinions until we're blue in the face, it's becoming a lot clearer that lies were told to invade Iraq.

 

[GoingNova]

The thing is so many lies have been told about the reasons for going to war, you'll never know if in fact they were connected. Yeah we can debate and spew our opinions until we're blue in the face, it's becoming a lot clearer that lies were told to invade Iraq.

Can you please be specific when say "lies were told". Can you please give some examples of these lies? Personally, I don't see this thread as opinion, I see it as fact. I also believe that the case has been made: there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

 

[NotJus4NE1]

Well where are the WMDs? Wasn't the the reason that was being yelled to anyone who would listen? Have you seen any since the war started? I sure haven't! I mean if you know where they're hiding those WMD, it would really be a relief to me and my family. I mean we did lose not 1 but 2 members fighting in Iraq. I mean please call my mom and tell her where they are, so that she wont think the man she voted for, lied and that's why her baby is dead. Can you do that?

 

[DeadCode]

First, I would like to offer my condolences on you and your family's losses, and I can understand your anger, but I am afraid it is misplaced.

Yes, there were some seemingly inaccurate statements such as:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons."

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

"The Security Council has made crystal clear that the burden remains on Iraq to declare and destroy all its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

"[Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

...and I can understand why you believe them to be lies, but you have to understand that those statements were all made by President Clinton, his Secretary of State, and his National Security Advisor, in 1998.

So no, I can't explain to you where they are (buried in Iraq's deserts, destroyed or transported to Syria in the build up to war, I don't know), but I can tell you that the WMDs were believed to be there by the entire former administration including Al Gore, as well as Democrat members of Congress (who authorized the war), and the world's intelligence community.

 

[GoingNova]

Well where are the WMDs? Wasn't the the reason that was being yelled to anyone who would listen? Have you seen any since the war started? I sure haven't! I mean if you know where they're hiding those WMD, it would really be a relief to me and my family. I mean we did lose not 1 but 2 members fighting in Iraq. I mean please call my mom and tell her where they are, so that she wont think the man she voted for, lied and that's why her baby is dead. Can you do that?

Let me begin by saying, I am very sorry for your loss.

First point: the world, not just Bush, believed Iraq had WMDs. The list of public officials making such allegations is staggering, but I will use President Clinton. On December 16, 1998, President Clinton spoke to the nation, telling them that he had ordered military action against Iraq. Three times Clinton referred to Iraq's nuclear arms or nuclear program:

1. Example 1: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
2. Example 2: "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons."
3. Example 3: "And so we had to act and act now. Let me explain why. First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years."

So, the entire world believed Iraq had WMD's, and Sadamm doesn't allow proper weapons inspections. NOT doing anything after September 11th would be foolish.

Second Point: While no stockpiles of weapons were found, enough WMD component parts were found to establish that Iraq certainly may have been developing them. Also, why is it that everyone forgets all the time BEFORE the war, in which Sadamm had months to remove all the weapons? In any event, here are some of the components:

1. 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium - BBC News
2. Old warheads with cyclosarin were found - they were supposed to have been destroyed during the 1991 - 1998 UN inspector regime, so quite clearly, not all of Iraq's WMD were destroyed, what else wasn't? - BBC News
3. 1500 gallons of chemical agents were discovered in Mosul on August 8, 2005 - Washington Post (conviently reported almost a week after the find, and buried on page 18)
4. May 17th 2004, a shell containing sarin gas was exploded near Bahgdad - another WMD supposed to have been destroyed during the 1991 - 1998 UN inspector regime that wasn't - Fox News
5. May 2004, another shell, this one with Mustard gas, was found - another WMD supposed to have been destroyed during the 1991 - 1998 UN inspector regime that wasn't Fox News

Bottom line: if we found old WMDs that were supposed to be destroyed, but were not, what else wasn't destroyed and where is it?

Also, it is very important to remember the history leading up to the way. In 1991, the United States, along with a large coalition, went to war with Iraq to force Saddam from Kuwait. We won the war, and Saddam Hussein was defeated. The UN Security Council Resolution 687 declared that Iraq accept unconditionally, the demolition of its weapons of mass destruction. This was to be overseen by UNSCOM, a team of international weapons experts. Iraq accepted the resolution, but according to UNSCOM, Saddam prevented the inspectors from visiting what was called "presidential sites", and even seized their documents. Saddam gets away with this.

Then, in 1998, Saddam decided to stop cooperating with UNSCOM altogether until the Security Council lifted the oil embargo against it. That led to the exit of inspectors from Iraq. Again, the UN does nothing.

November 2002, three entire years without ANY inspections, the UN, under pressure from the United States, passes UN Resolution 1441 and sends them back in. What was the point? Three years have elapsed. Why bother?

Saddam broke the conditions of Resolution 687. President Bush had all the legal and moral authorization he needed to attack Iraq because Saddam was not in compliance with the Gulf War's terms of surrender, therefore making the them null and void, due to breach of contract. When that happens, you revert back to the state prior to this contract, which was war. If I go to a judge to get a warrant for an arrest, and lie to the judge, then the warrant the judge issues me becomes null and void, and the arrest is overturned.

That, and that reason alone, was enough to invade Iraq. Combined with the fact that Saddam has used WMDs against his own people(the Kurds). He's used them against his neighbors (in the war of Iran vs Iraq). He's demonstrated an intention to take the territory of his neighbors (when he seized Kuwait in 1991). All of these things lead to a rational belief that he had WMDs.

Where are the WMDs now? Well, look at the facts:

* Saddam prevented the inspectors from visiting what he called presidential sites (what do you think was in those sites?)
* So first you have inspectors being told where they may and may not inspect and then Saddam EXPELS THE INSPECTORS ALTOGETHER in 1998

Is it or is it not reasonable to deduce he had the WMDs in the Presidential Sites? Then he expels all inspections in 1998. So, from 1998 until we invaded in March 2003, you don't think he had time to hide or transport them any weapons he may have had? They are generally believed to have been moved into either Iran or Syria. Can that this be proven? Not at this time, but do you think it is so unreasonable? Do you think we should have waited until some terrorist used a chemical weapon in the NYC Subway before we act?

Personally, I agree 100% with Charles Duelfer, who did not rule out that the Saddam might have had WMD and believes he may have smuggled them to Syria just before the 2003 war.

 

[Black Mage]

Thus once again reaffirming that the United States be the only nation allowed to ever actually use nukes. You guys must be proud. I can see why others want nukes besides using them to blow up their enemies. "Hey, if the Yanks can use nukes, why can't we?"

When the U.S. disarms all its nuclear weapons, I'll be very much more receptive to the idea of the U.S. making war on those that might have them. Hopefully even one day, France and Britain will do away with them as well, and we can all be happy.

As for the Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship, it appears to be simply overtures to possible co-operation, which were then denied. It takes two to tango, and it also takes to to co-operate.

 

[Brainfreeze]

The issue with Iraq should have been cleared up the first time we were there, but seeing as it wasent we are basically required to go in and babysit another country. I'm getting sick and tired of fighting wars with people we put into power in the first place (hussain, the taliban and multiple areas in Africa).

 

[GoingNova]

Thus once again reaffirming that the United States be the only nation allowed to ever actually use nukes. You guys must be proud. I can see why others want nukes besides using them to blow up their enemies. "Hey, if the Yanks can use nukes, why can't we?"

When the U.S. disarms all its nuclear weapons, I'll be very much more receptive to the idea of the U.S. making war on those that might have them. Hopefully even one day, France and Britain will do away with them as well, and we can all be happy.

As for the Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship, it appears to be simply overtures to possible co-operation, which were then denied. It takes two to tango, and it also takes to to co-operate.

So you think it would be OK for Iraq to have nuclear weapons, and you have no problem with Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons? You don't see a higher "misuse" propability with those countries than with the United States?

Let me just say, I am glad you are not in power if you answered yes to the first question and no to the second.

 

[Brainfreeze]

Personally I dint even see nukes as a weapon of war anymore, I see them more as a deterrent then anything else.

 

[Guest]

You know what really sucks about a war the people don't approve? The people take it out on the soldiers. I think that's wrong; they did it in Vietnam and they are starting to do it now. I think that is wrong; and for this reason I hate people that hate war.

 

[Guest]

War is good for the economy!

 

[Guest]

I agree; but I just hate hippies and peace lovers because they hate anyone that's in the military. They also take their anger out on the soldier's since they can't directly attack the government the way they do to the soldier's.

 

[Guest]

I don't know Chris. I knew some hippies back in the late 60's and early 70's. Even knew some draft dodgers. They didn't dislike the soldiers, they disliked the establishment; the politicians who voted to send the US to war. I don't recall them dissing the soldiers although they did call the police "pigs"!

 

[Sicander]

What I dont get is so what if there was no connection to Al Qeada? So what if he did not have WMDs? I would have supported the action to go to war even if he did not. He is an evil man who MURDERED hundreds if not thousands of people. He was driving his people to utter poverty. It was a police state where free speach was crushed! He still needed to be stopped on that fact ALONE! It is a fact that the Iraqi people are more free today DURING this war then they were before it started! For Christ's sake they just VOTED! They turned from dictatorship to a Republic in 3 years! It took us, what? 14!!! This is astounding! It is unpresidented! Hell, when this insurgency is dealt with you will see people MOVING there from the surrounding countries because of the prospect of freedom and the posibilities that presents.

 

[Guest]

I don't know Chris. I knew some hippies back in the late 60's and early 70's. Even knew some draft dodgers. They didn't dislike the soldiers, they disliked the establishment; the politicians who voted to send the US to war. I don't recall them dissing the soldiers although they did call the police "pigs"!

Well by no means are all of them like that. But if you look back you will see many instants when the soldiers came back they were spitted on and disrespected. In fact when my father was in the navy in the early 70's he couldn't wear his uniform while outside in fear that he would be attacked.

 

[jatkins]

Furthermore, since they are not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, the "prisoners of war" would only be protected if all of the following are true:
They are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
They bear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
They carry their arms openly.
They conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

No, but we are a signatory to the United Nations DHS. We have two choices: one, recognize these people as prisoners of war covered under the Geneva convention, or recognize them as international criminals entitled to protection under the DHS. We are refusing to grant them either status, and so are holding them in violation of international law. And while we claim to be upholding the Geneva convention, one requirement of Geneva has not been met: allowing international inspectors view the conditions in which our prisoners are living. Much was made of the Gonzales memo, but it was never made public, and the bush administration has not made the argument that these prisoners shouldn't be treated under Geneva: he's simply not letting anyone know.

On the other hand, the Red Cross did get one chance to inspect, and they found the treatment they witnessed to be in violation of international law. This should be for the ICJ to decide, but we refuse to submit ourselves to that. I'm not saying that we should throw ourselves at the feet of international judgment. I'm saying we cannot invoke the world's laws if we are not willing to uphold them.

I have an econ stats test now, but I should be back later.

 

[Black Mage]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Mage
Thus once again reaffirming that the United States be the only nation allowed to ever actually use nukes. You guys must be proud. I can see why others want nukes besides using them to blow up their enemies. "Hey, if the Yanks can use nukes, why can't we?"

When the U.S. disarms all its nuclear weapons, I'll be very much more receptive to the idea of the U.S. making war on those that might have them. Hopefully even one day, France and Britain will do away with them as well, and we can all be happy.

As for the Iraq-Al Qaeda relationship, it appears to be simply overtures to possible co-operation, which were then denied. It takes two to tango, and it also takes to to co-operate.


So you think it would be OK for Iraq to have nuclear weapons, and you have no problem with Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons? You don't see a higher "misuse" propability with those countries than with the United States?

Let me just say, I am glad you are not in power if you answered yes to the first question and no to the second.

I do realise what I wrote seems rather... slanted. I was too lazy to change it in the time since. Rest assured though, that my intent was that I shall be much happier when nukes are done away with from our planet, nay our solar system.

As for the likelyhood of the United States using nukes over other nations such as North Korea, I would say that the United States is much more likely to use them. There was even some talk of the U.S. using tactical nuklear strikes in this latest round in the Gulf. Remember, it's U.S. 2, rest of the World 0. I wouldn't consider that a good score either.

 

[GoingNova]

No, but we are a signatory to the United Nations DHS. We have two choices: one, recognize these people as prisoners of war covered under the Geneva convention, or recognize them as international criminals entitled to protection under the DHS.

Or, since they are not soldiers, as defined by the Geneva Convention, and they are more than just "criminals" we could simply establish a new way of dealing with them, which is what we are in the process of doing now. I believe the Supreme Court has just decided to hear the case.

Jatkins, and all others who defend these people, I just don't understand it. These people are part of an organization that has no qualms about murdering children, and yet you defend them as though they were just ordinary criminals. These people, if given the chance, would walk into a shopping mall, and slaughter as many men, women and children as they could, and yet you defend them.

Don't me wrong, if we were subjecting them to torture, I mean REAL TORTURE, as in the kind that John McCain was subjected to, I could maybe understand your objection. But they are not. Sorry, I think what was done in Abu Grav was misconduct, I would not call it torture. Overall, we have detained more than 68,000 people since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and there have been 325 complaints of mistreatment. 68,000 people, and only 325 complaints, does that sound like we are mistreating them? Further investigations have found that of those 325 cases, 100 were legitimate. Guess what? 100 people have been punished. Doesn't sound like torture to me. Given the circumstances, and what these people are cable of doing, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what we are doing. Further, I think treating them as soldiers or criminals would endanger the lives of our soldiers and our citizens, and frankly, they come first.

Just my opinion. I respect yours, I just don't understand it.