Ansar Al Islam

[The Duchess of Zeon]

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6572

The link between Atta and Iraq was never disproven to the U.S. government. President Havel and his spokesman have denied it at later dates, but the infamous phone call never took place, or at least we have no proof of it. So the weight of evidence against the Atta-Iraqi connection, though remaining, is certainly weaker than commonly believed.

[Vympel]

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6572

The link between Atta and Iraq was never disproven to the U.S. government. President Havel and his spokesman have denied it at later dates, but the infamous phone call never took place, or at least we have no proof of it. So the weight of evidence against the Atta-Iraqi connection, though remaining, is certainly weaker than commonly believed.

Didn't read the whole thing, but the words CIA and FBI doesn't even appear in this article.

The meeting is in dispute by them because the CIA and FBI do not believe that Mohammed Atta ever left the United States during April 2001.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Apr30.html

EDIT: wierd- the title is there but the article is gone. Wtf ...

[Vympel]

Found it!

Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra.

Point one: it's a "claim", made by Iraqi POWs, obtained by military interrogators. Rock solid stuff.

At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, according to the Iraqi prisoners of war.

A dozen members.

It was believed that last night (Thursday) British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up.

No report since on what happened to this strike.

A senior British military source inside Iraq said: "The information we have received from PoWs today is that an al-Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr. There are possibly around a dozen of them and that is obviously a matter of concern to us."

May be, possibly are, a dozen terrorists in Iraq. Most impressive evidence.

If terrorists are found, it would be the first proof of a direct link between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.

So, were terrorists found? Obviously not.

[Axis Kast]

A dozen members of al-Qaeda are a dozen members of al-Qaeda are a dozen members of al-Qaeda. That is especially the case when they happen to be “coordinating” attacks – i.e., acting as combat advisors to Iraqi irregulars.

Your argument that we’ve lambasted Saddam’s command-and-control is full of holes. You are positive that no basic radio contact is had between any unit in the field and any temporary headquarters of Saddam Hussein? You are positive that certain irregulars are not coordinating their movements with Iraqi Army troops and taking part in an ad-hoc defensive organized by a local commander? That’s still connection to the Baath Party hierarchy during wartime. It leads back, ultimately, to Saddam Hussein himself.

As for your continued argument that I’m trying to use the consequences to justify the action? No. That is incorrect.

Durandal suggests that at some point prior to our actual invasion, al-Qaeda might have approached Hussein, normalized relations temporarily, and then made an appeal that they might, via a Devil’s pact, offer some assistance to the Iraqi defenders. Believing them suitably detached from Bin Laden – but nevertheless part of an organization that advocates global war against the United States -, Saddam agreed, harried on all sides and absolutely terrified that the end was near anyway. Why not deploy everything at his disposal? There’s only one problem.

Alliances of this sort take time. I refuse to believe that al-Qaeda showed up at Saddam’s door and was permitted to go gallivanting off within eleven days’ time. So now the argument becomes: “Well, what if they aligned during the months when inspections seemed likely to give way to war?” First of all, that fully justifies George Bush’s claim that Iraq was linked to terrorism. Secondly, it begs the question: “At what point would Saddam have felt himself cornered?” The man is paranoid to the point that he would probably be fearful of assassination or invasion even were we still in the inspections stage. Al-Qaeda could conceivably have approached him immediately subsequently to the “Axis of Evil” speech, when Iraq reappeared on our radar. But that leads to more concerns. Could we ever have fully contained Saddam – via threats of force – if he was liable to take all action on our part as indicative of his impending doom and thus consecrate an alliance of opportunity with al-Qaeda anyway? Better not to take that risk.

And why hasn’t Hussein used WMD yet? His troops won’t do it. He’s holding out for civilian uprising; the signs from his point-of-view are encouraging. Or would you care to explain why we found over 3,000 chemical warfare suits lying around in a Nasariyeh hospital?

[Vympel]

A dozen members of al-Qaeda are a dozen members of al-Qaeda are a dozen members of al-Qaeda. That is especially the case when they happen to be “coordinating” attacks – i.e., acting as combat advisors to Iraqi irregulars.

You don't get it, do you? This article is completely unconfirmed, is based on what a POW told an interrogator, and more than a week later, no such accusations were followed up on. This is a fart in the wind.

[Axis Kast]

No, it's a piece of circumstantial evidence. I gave you my analysis.

[Vympel]

No, it's a piece of circumstantial evidence. I gave you my analysis.

And your analysis is based on massive hurrican level spin you've put on an article that does not support your analysis in the slightest. The only thing the article says is that there may be a cell of at least a dozen terrorists in Az Zubayr, and furthermore, this information is a week old and there has been no follow-up.

You have taken this little fart of an article and blown it up out of all propotion to suggest that Iraq has had long standing ties to terror because 12 terrorists *may* have been in one Iraqi town- and at this point it looks like this story is dead

[Axis Kast]

It stands to reason that if there are al-Qaeda in Iraq moving about with the Iraqi troops, lasting ties were established with the Hussein regimé.

[Vympel]

It stands to reason that if there are al-Qaeda in Iraq moving about with the Iraqi troops, lasting ties were established with the Hussein regimé.

No, it stands to reason that *if* this report was true (and it doesn't look like we'll ever hear about it ever again), then it by no means means there must be some sort of *lasting* alliance between the two, or, indeed, any sort of organized pact at all. See below.

Alliances of this sort take time. I refuse to believe that al-Qaeda showed up at Saddam’s door and was permitted to go gallivanting off within eleven days’ time.

Ah yes, *maybe* a dozen crazy Arabs are in one town in Southern Iraq, and this qualifies in your mind as 'showing up at Saddam's door'. Did it occur to you that these supposed dozen Al-Qaeda members didn't need to anyone's permission to kill Americans in Iraq, not least of which Saddam Hussein holed up in Baghdad, unable to effectively command his troops, is gonna be concerning himself with 12 psychos in Az Zubayr, nor that this is indicative of any organized ties in any way shape or form.

But that leads to more concerns. Could we ever have fully contained Saddam – via threats of force – if he was liable to take all action on our part as indicative of his impending doom and thus consecrate an alliance of opportunity with al-Qaeda anyway? Better not to take that risk.

The last time you tried to float this idiotic Iraq will use/ give WMD to terrorists argument, I challenged you to tell me what Iraq's got to profit by it. You then proceeded to contradict yourself (claiming that Iraq would use terrorists to attack Israel with WMD so it wouldn't be traced back to him, but then in the same breath saying he'd do it to gain support from the Arab World- i.e. ignoring that it wouldn't be traced back to him, so he wouldn't get any credit) and never posted to that thread again. You want to try again?

And why hasn’t Hussein used WMD yet? His troops won’t do it. He’s holding out for civilian uprising; the signs from his point-of-view are encouraging. Or would you care to explain why we found over 3,000 chemical warfare suits lying around in a Nasariyeh hospital?

Wtf? His enemies are WITHIN his gates and you think he's waiting to use them against a civilian uprising? Where the fuck will that get him? Certainly not anywhere near a victory, that's for sure, and it would utterly fuck any international sympathy he has. As for 3,000 chemical warfare suits, I defy you to find any serious army in the world that does not have such suits in its inventory. It's proof of absolutely nothing- they could think the Americans are going to gas *them*.

[Axis Kast]

No, it stands to reason that *if* this report was true (and it doesn't look like we'll ever hear about it ever again), then it by no means means there must be some sort of *lasting* alliance between the two, or, indeed, any sort of organized pact at all. See below.

The article considers the possibility that al-Qaeda are in Iraq, a theory first put forth by prisoners-of-war. As I have pointed out many times already, it is likely at this point that Osama Bin Laden’s organization and Saddam Hussein’s military enjoy open communication. That tilts the scale against Iraq, does it not?

Ah yes, *maybe* a dozen crazy Arabs are in one town in Southern Iraq, and this qualifies in your mind as 'showing up at Saddam's door'. Did it occur to you that these supposed dozen Al-Qaeda members didn't need to anyone's permission to kill Americans in Iraq, not least of which Saddam Hussein holed up in Baghdad, unable to effectively command his troops, is gonna be concerning himself with 12 psychos in Az Zubayr, nor that this is indicative of any organized ties in any way shape or form.

I’ll acknowledge the possibility that the al-Qaeda members could be acting independently – but why? It’s rather dangerous, don’t you think? Hussein’s got loyalists working everywhere in Iraq, even if not very effectively. Couldn’t they always infiltrate the unit in question and take over themselves? More likely is that al-Qaeda and Iraq came to some sort of agreement – potentially before the war even began.

Saddam Hussein probably directs his forces via absentee orders and periodic – if unreliable – radio communication. From time to time, the al-Qaeda in Iraq probably receive some form of direction from local commanders “suggesting” they take part in this or that small-time counteroffensive.

The last time you tried to float this idiotic Iraq will use/ give WMD to terrorists argument, I challenged you to tell me what Iraq's got to profit by it. You then proceeded to contradict yourself (claiming that Iraq would use terrorists to attack Israel with WMD so it wouldn't be traced back to him, but then in the same breath saying he'd do it to gain support from the Arab World- i.e. ignoring that it wouldn't be traced back to him, so he wouldn't get any credit) and never posted to that thread again. You want to try again?

You misunderstood my argument.

Saddam Hussein might make the jump of logic that a strike at Israel would be justified whether or not he was caught. In his mind, arming terrorists with WMD would probably be rather easy and safe. After all, it might have seemed more likely – prior to the invasion – that Iran was the culprit. Saddam could content himself with the justification that being “found out” was unlikely. He’d score a strong, personal blow to Israel – good for the Iraqi state in any case – and probably avoid major fallout – in his point of view.

But he’s also covered in another sense. Even if the weapons are traced back to Iraq, Saddam might anticipate wide-scale support in the Arab world. He could reason that even if the risk failed and he was proven guilty, Europe might still try to prevent conflict and Bush might still face dissent on the homefront.

These are not necessarily good lines of logic for the average human being, but we know that Saddam has focused exclusively on Israel in the past – to his own detriment.

Wtf? His enemies are WITHIN his gates and you think he's waiting to use them against a civilian uprising? Where the fuck will that get him? Certainly not anywhere near a victory, that's for sure, and it would utterly fuck any international sympathy he has. As for 3,000 chemical warfare suits, I defy you to find any serious army in the world that does not have such suits in its inventory. It's proof of absolutely nothing- they could think the Americans are going to gas *them*.

No. I think he’s betting on a civilian uprising. Why waste the WMD in that case?

You have to admit that 3,000 chemical-warfare suits tilts the scale against Saddam, if anything.

[Durandal]

It also lends strong evidence to the argument that Hussein had been cultivating ties with terrorist groups prior to the start of the war.

I'd hardly call this evidence "strong." As I said before, it is most likely an alliance of opportunity, and it does not indicate anything more than a momentary cooperation between the two toward a common goal of repeling American troops.

?Hussein and al-Qaeda deciding to work together to kill Americans in the past few months? is clearly evidence of Iraq?s link with terror whether or not you?d like to admit it. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Saddam is providing members of that group safe haven and even the benefits of a temporary alliance. He has most likely been doing so for some time. That the Baath could have coordinated this level of cooperation in the past eleven days is extremely unlikely.

Enough of this strawman false dilemma bullshit of yours. Saddam didn't have to have been cooperating with them for years on end if the alliance hadn't been thrown together in the past eleven days. The alliance could have started when Iraq was labeled as part of the Axis of Evil, or when it became clear that Bush was going to invade with or without the consent of the UN. Those months are plenty of time to seed some Iraqi units with al Qaeda commanders and train them how to work together.

You base your argument on the assumption that we tilted Saddam?s hand and somehow forced him into willing collusion with al-Qaeda.

We didnt force him, but our impending invasion made him a lot less discriminatory of the help he accepted. We put him in a situation where he'd be up against a vastly superior force, so he wouldn't really give a fuck about who was offering him support. Jesus, do I have to explain every little detail to you?

But if your argument is correct and Osama?s agents made an appeal to Saddam?s situation ? i.e., ?They?re coming no matter what!? -, then isn?t it conceivable that they would have made this case even had we backed down, gone the route of inspections, and played ?containment? just a bit longer? After all, Saddam was already convinced that he was dead. The man no longer appears in public but once or twice every six months. How much more paranoid can you get?

Who cares? We weren't going to back down, and everyone, everywhere knew it. Invading Iraq was a certainty on Capitol Hill months ago. Hell, back in January, people were saying that they expected to go to war in 6 weeks! I'm surprised it took this long.

The current position of al-Qaeda in Iraq tells us that ties probably go back to the months before the war. Bush ? whether or not you want to chalk this up to fancy footwork on al-Qaeda?s part ? was correct. There is a danger that Saddam might function with terrorists.

Yeah, the months before the war when everyone knew it was going to happen. I'm not going to keep going around in circles with you. You keep saying that Saddam's supposed cooperation with al Qaeda because of our invasion justifies our invasion. Do yo realize how insanely stupid this is? Why don't I just say, "If we invade, he's going to kill our troops! So let's invade and kill that motherfucker for murdering our troops!"? I don't even know if there's a name for that kind of logical fallacy.

No. I am telling you that the fact that Hussein allied with terrorists when we invaded is probably evidence of deeper and more lasting ties than you?d like to admit.

And yet, you can't offer any more evidence than that. We captured a top al Qaeda guy in Pakistan along with lists of his contacts. Was Saddam Hussein on that list? No.

Saddam Hussein is admittedly in support of Palestinian terrorism and for certain offered both money and training prior to the Gulf War. Palestinian terrorists have in the past several months killed numerous American citizens. Bingo. Guilt by extension and empowerment.

And therefore he must be doing the same thing now, even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support that claim. Oh, wait. Just admit it. You have absolutely no fucking direct evidence for your claim. You have circumstance and conjecture that you're taking and running with.

Hussein would probably have been susceptible to that argument even if containment was the chosen method of approach. He was already convinced we planned to put a bullet in his skull regardless. I don?t see how our invasion did more than speed up what now appears to have been inevitable collusion.

Well let's see, there's a bit of a difference between us going to assassinate him and say ... invading his country with hundreds of thousands of troops and bombing the shit out of his infrastructure. Cooperating with al Qaeda doesn't help him in trying to avoid a sniper bullet. Cooperating with them does help him kill more American troops.

Why not? First of all, it?s not the only basis on which I support the President?s actions. Secondly, the entire situation smacks of long-term communication, not an off-the-cuff embrace.

Ah, there's your refrain again, which you sing to drown out any other possibilities. It "smacks of long-term communication," and therefore it must be indicative of Saddam supporting al Qaeda during the September 11th terrorist attacks.

No. We should invade Iraq because they refuse to disarm and are probably a source of aid for al-Qaeda.

I'm still waiting for any kind of direct evidence of the second reason.

It doesn?t hurt my argument that Iraq is now working with operatives of the al-Qaeda movement however. You?ve got to look beyond the immediate. You?re not. This current collusion indicates deeper ties.

Baseless conjecture. Again.

That last sentiment is opinion. And poor one at that.

No, it's a simple application of Occam's Razor. The most straightforward conclusion is that it is an alliance of opportunity, formed in the months before the war. Your ridiculous "conspiracy theory" extensions and extrapolations aren't required in the explanation, as they have no direct evidence to back them up.

Earlier, you argued that from the moment Bush lumped Iraq with the Axis of Evil, Saddam was on the road to welcoming al-Qaeda as a source of possible assistance. Thus President Bush was correct to say that Baghdad was in league with terrorists. You try and rest your argument on the fact that if we are going to invade, Saddam will pull out all the ropes anyway. But he was already convinced we were going to invade from the moment Bush went on television. And this situation implies that any attempt at containment on our part would have left the Baath susceptible to al-Qaeda pressure for collusion on the basis of potential invasion. You?re caught in your own web.

More of the same. Again, "If we invade, he's going to kill our troops! So let's invade and kill that motherfucker for murdering our troops!" is not a valid reason to invade.

It implies he?s been preparing to do so for some time. He would have likely taken such steps whether or not we decided to invade. His point of view is different from ours. Once he appeared on our radar, he began getting shifty. Even had Hans Blix stuck around and containment been our only goal, Saddam still would have been open to al-Qaeda?s argument ? and probably cooperation or the beginning of a working relationship as well. Baghdad would have become a mecca for terrorists who could render potential service. Unacceptable.

Slippery slope. Bush didn't give a shit what Hans Blix said, and that much was obvious. War was a foregone conclusion as far back as Late December.

I'm sick of having to follow your insanely fucked up reasoning, and I'm sure everyone else reading the thread is, as well. So I'll summarize for their benefit.

1. You state that unconfirmed reports of cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraqi forces to repel Coalition troops are indicative of long-standing ties between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. You have offered no direct evidence for this, and you've ignored the fact that Saddam is never mentioned in any al Qaeda records we have captured.
2. When it is pointed out to you that this alliance is probably just an alliance of opportunity brought about by America's threats of invasion, which any sane person knew was inevitable anyway, you claim that Saddam's cooperation with al Qaeda because of our invasion vindicates Bush in claiming that Saddam has been cooperating with terrorists as a reason for our invasion.
3. When it is pointed out that this is utterly flawed reasoning, you sing your refrain "It smacks of long-term communication" and go back to your first claim, and the entire cycle repeats itself.

I'm getting a little tired of entertaining your conspiracy theory-like reasoning and vainly trying to lead you by the hand through a logically valid train of thought. I'll leave you to spar with Vympel until he gets sick of you, as well. Then we can both leave you alone, assured that Bush is always right, no matter what.

[Axis Kast]

I'd hardly call this evidence "strong." As I said before, it is most likely an alliance of opportunity, and it does not indicate anything more than a momentary cooperation between the two toward a common goal of repeling American troops.

It indicates cooperation that could have begun as early as the moment we began containment. That means that any approach against Iraq – even if only peaceful – could have thrown Saddam into the arms of terrorists. It adds weight to the White House position: Iraq cooperates with terrorists.

Enough of this strawman false dilemma bullshit of yours. Saddam didn't have to have been cooperating with them for years on end if the alliance hadn't been thrown together in the past eleven days. The alliance could have started when Iraq was labeled as part of the Axis of Evil, or when it became clear that Bush was going to invade with or without the consent of the UN. Those months are plenty of time to seed some Iraqi units with al Qaeda commanders and train them how to work together.

Perhaps not years, but certainly months.

The Alliance could have begun – and probably did begin – when Iraq was labeled a member of the “Axis of Evil.” But at that point, containment was still technically on the table. It doesn’t absolve Iraq of anything. It’s just more proof that had we sought to preempt Saddam on any level, he’d have turned to al-Qaeda.

We didnt force him, but our impending invasion made him a lot less discriminatory of the help he accepted. We put him in a situation where he'd be up against a vastly superior force, so he wouldn't really give a fuck about who was offering him support. Jesus, do I have to explain every little detail to you?[/quote[

No, but it looks like I have to do so for you.

If we didn’t force him, then your argument is worthless.

The man could have been convinced that he was about to be invaded anyway at his level of paranoia. The moment anyone spoke about the inspectors, he might already have been closing deals with al-Qaeda.

Who cares? We weren't going to back down, and everyone, everywhere knew it. Invading Iraq was a certainty on Capitol Hill months ago. Hell, back in January, people were saying that they expected to go to war in 6 weeks! I'm surprised it took this long.

It still doesn’t mean Saddam wouldn’t have made those awful leaps of logic.

Yeah, the months before the war when everyone knew it was going to happen. I'm not going to keep going around in circles with you. You keep saying that Saddam's supposed cooperation with al Qaeda because of our invasion justifies our invasion. Do yo realize how insanely stupid this is? Why don't I just say, "If we invade, he's going to kill our troops! So let's invade and kill that motherfucker for murdering our troops!"? I don't even know if there's a name for that kind of logical fallacy.

No. I’m saying his cooperation with al-Qaeda suggests that ties to terrorists existed prior to our invasion and that he could have been open to their infiltration at any time.

And yet, you can't offer any more evidence than that. We captured a top al Qaeda guy in Pakistan along with lists of his contacts. Was Saddam Hussein on that list? No.

He probably doesn’t work with the official representatives of Osama Bin Laden but with an al-Qaeda splinter cell.

And therefore he must be doing the same thing now, even though there isn't a shred of evidence to support that claim. Oh, wait. Just admit it. You have absolutely no fucking direct evidence for your claim. You have circumstance and conjecture that you're taking and running with.

That’s right, I’m making speculation. It’s what countries do during time of crisis.

Well let's see, there's a bit of a difference between us going to assassinate him and say ... invading his country with hundreds of thousands of troops and bombing the shit out of his infrastructure. Cooperating with al Qaeda doesn't help him in trying to avoid a sniper bullet. Cooperating with them does help him kill more American troops.

No, but it helps him strike back at those who killed him. You forget hat his newfound attitude also helps to lower the likelihood that al-Qaeda will be brutalized within Iraq borders. It’s aid by inaction.

Ah, there's your refrain again, which you sing to drown out any other possibilities. It "smacks of long-term communication," and therefore it must be indicative of Saddam supporting al Qaeda during the September 11th terrorist attacks.

Now you’re just putting words in my mouth.

I'm still waiting for any kind of direct evidence of the second reason.

The article.

Baseless conjecture. Again.

No. Conjecture on the grounds that there would need to be preparation and possibly training prior to invasion.

No, it's a simple application of Occam's Razor. The most straightforward conclusion is that it is an alliance of opportunity, formed in the months before the war. Your ridiculous "conspiracy theory" extensions and extrapolations aren't required in the explanation, as they have no direct evidence to back them up.

So it’s an alliance of opportunity formed while preemption was still on the table because Hussein was absolutely convinced he was a dead man and that Iraq would fall to invasion.

He supported terrorists for months based on paranoia that is for him institutional. That means it’s probable be did and would have supported them during any kind of preemption – even non-violent disarmament by inspectorate.

More of the same. Again, "If we invade, he's going to kill our troops! So let's invade and kill that motherfucker for murdering our troops!" is not a valid reason to invade.

You are just refusing to listen at this point. I’m saying the current cooperation is indicative of deeper links.

Slippery slope. Bush didn't give a shit what Hans Blix said, and that much was obvious. War was a foregone conclusion as far back as Late December.

But for Saddam Hussein, it was probably a foregone conclusion since last September. His ties would have begun, by your reasoning, as soon as he felt threatened. But the man lives in a world where he’s targeted twenty-four hours a day!

You state that unconfirmed reports of cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraqi forces to repel Coalition troops are indicative of long-standing ties between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. You have offered no direct evidence for this, and you've ignored the fact that Saddam is never mentioned in any al Qaeda records we have captured.

It’s an alliance of opportunity, yes. But we don’t know when it began. Saddam is not sane when it comes to these evaluations. He might have cultivated ties months ago or remained open to them even if we sought only containment.

Why is Saddam mentioned in no records? Like Ansar Al Islam, the current group in Iraq is probably a splinter cells with very distant connections to Bin Laden.

When it is pointed out to you that this alliance is probably just an alliance of opportunity brought about by America's threats of invasion, which any sane person knew was inevitable anyway, you claim that Saddam's cooperation with al Qaeda because of our invasion vindicates Bush in claiming that Saddam has been cooperating with terrorists as a reason for our invasion.

We still don’t know when it was consecrated but can be reasonably sure that it was prior to the invasion – probably to the tune of several months.

When it is pointed out that this is utterly flawed reasoning, you sing your refrain "It smacks of long-term communication" and go back to your first claim, and the entire cycle repeats itself.

But it does smack of long-term communication. As Marina cogently pointed out, these things don’t happen overnight.

[Andrew J.]

Kast, it was perfectly obvious from the Axis of Evil speech, and probably before the speech was given, that we were going to invade Iraq, and that containment was not going to be considered at all. Evem if it was "technically on the table", Hussein was still smar tenough to realize it was all BS.

[Axis Kast]

Bush first spoke of the Axis of Evil after September 11th. So you're now telling me that the Iraqis have potentially been cultivating ties to al-Qaeda for over a year?

This makes preemption without sparking a terrorist response impossible. The moment Hussein throught he was being targeted or contained, he'd have turned to al-Qaeda by this reasoning.

[Vympel]

The article considers the possibility that al-Qaeda are in Iraq, a theory first put forth by prisoners-of-war. As I have pointed out many times already, it is likely at this point that Osama Bin Laden’s organization and Saddam Hussein’s military enjoy open communication. That tilts the scale against Iraq, does it not?

The scale? What scale? And no, from this article it is not likely that any open communication is enjoyed whatsoever. You have spun this article from possible 12 terrorists in some Iraqi town that is at this point almost certainly a dead story to a long-standing alliance. If you could leap to conclusions any faster, you could put on a cape and fight crime

I’ll acknowledge the possibility that the al-Qaeda members could be acting independently – but why? It’s rather dangerous, don’t you think?

Sure it's dangerous. These are people willing to kill themsleves to hurt the enemy- they're religious fanatics, I don't think they're worried about the danger of attacking the mightiest army on Earth whether by themselves or with some Iraqis.

Hussein’s got loyalists working everywhere in Iraq, even if not very effectively. Couldn’t they always infiltrate the unit in question and take over themselves? More likely is that al-Qaeda and Iraq came to some sort of agreement – potentially before the war even began.

If the article is true, then what it indicates to me, based on all the evidence, is that there were a dozen terrorists in Az Zubayr attacking US forces with Iraqi troops. There's nothing in the article about doling out leadership positions, and I doubt any Iraqi commander is going to turn down a dozen more guns, no matter where they're from.

Besides, this article smacks of propaganda- no follow-up in over a week, and it just sounds suspicious. How does a military interrogator get out of an Iraqi POW that some dozen guys were 'Al-Qaeda', exactly? Did they tell him? "Hi there, we're Al-Qaeda, and we're here to help. Allahu Ackbar!"

Saddam Hussein probably directs his forces via absentee orders and periodic – if unreliable – radio communication. From time to time, the al-Qaeda in Iraq probably receive some form of direction from local commanders “suggesting” they take part in this or that small-time counteroffensive.

You're extrapolating to infinity. Stick to the article please- this war has gone over how much ground, has killed how many Iraqi forces, and no Al-Qaeda have been found anywhere else?

You misunderstood my argument.

Saddam Hussein might make the jump of logic that a strike at Israel would be justified whether or not he was caught.

Now why would a secular Ba'athist do that? When he attacked Kuwait, in his mind he recieved a clear signal from the US that they didn't care. When he attacked Iran, he had the support of the entire Arab world. When he allegedly gassed the Kurds (you hear stuff about the Iranians doing that, but really who cares it was still a war crime), absolutely nothing happened to him. He has never made an egregious miscalculation based on the evidence?

In his mind, arming terrorists with WMD would probably be rather easy and safe.

Did you have coffee with him the other day? By what standard is arming the world's most well known terrorists, a bunch of religious fanatics who hate you, easy and safe?

After all, it might have seemed more likely – prior to the invasion – that Iran was the culprit. Saddam could content himself with the justification that being “found out” was unlikely. He’d score a strong, personal blow to Israel – good for the Iraqi state in any case – and probably avoid major fallout – in his point of view.

How do you know his point of view? It's obvious to all that Iraq was singled out as enemy No. 1. Iran has copped zero flak for support of terrorism ever since 9/11 (how bizarre).

But he’s also covered in another sense. Even if the weapons are traced back to Iraq, Saddam might anticipate wide-scale support in the Arab world. He could reason that even if the risk failed and he was proven guilty, Europe might still try to prevent conflict and Bush might still face dissent on the homefront.

Europe would prevent war on Iraq for a WMD attack on Israel?!?!?! Are you serious?!

These are not necessarily good lines of logic for the average human being, but we know that Saddam has focused exclusively on Israel in the past – to his own detriment.

How so? Where was this huge focus on Israel? I don't see it.

No. I think he’s betting on a civilian uprising. Why waste the WMD in that case?

What do you mean? You're sayign he's going to use them against civilians. I asked why.

You have to admit that 3,000 chemical-warfare suits tilts the scale against Saddam, if anything.

No, it's non-evidence of any intentions to use WMD. All armies have such suits. That some were found (along with thousands of tons of other military supplies) means zero.

[Axis Kast]

The scale? What scale? And no, from this article it is not likely that any open communication is enjoyed whatsoever. You have spun this article from possible 12 terrorists in some Iraqi town that is at this point almost certainly a dead story to a long-standing alliance. If you could leap to conclusions any faster, you could put on a cape and fight crime.

As Marina said, coordination takes time – even when you’re dealing with twelve men only. It’s less likely that they appeared eleven days ago than it is that they kept open lines of communication and swooped down once they had predetermined – along with their new benefactor Saddam Hussein – that invasion as “eminent.”

Sure it's dangerous. These are people willing to kill themsleves to hurt the enemy- they're religious fanatics, I don't think they're worried about the danger of attacking the mightiest army on Earth whether by themselves or with some Iraqis.

You missed the point.

Why would these people needlessly endanger themselves by trying to evade Iraqi security when they could instead cooperate? It’s possible that they are acting independently of Hussein – but not likely. As you said, these people are best known for wanting to kill him. Most likely, the al-Qaeda discussed in the article are part of a splinter faction that draws its ideology and sometime support from the larger network but is no longer directly affiliated. They made contact with and eventually established what amounts to a working – if temporary - relationship with Saddam Hussein.

If the article is true, then what it indicates to me, based on all the evidence, is that there were a dozen terrorists in Az Zubayr attacking US forces with Iraqi troops. There's nothing in the article about doling out leadership positions, and I doubt any Iraqi commander is going to turn down a dozen more guns, no matter where they're from.

Besides, this article smacks of propaganda- no follow-up in over a week, and it just sounds suspicious. How does a military interrogator get out of an Iraqi POW that some dozen guys were 'Al-Qaeda', exactly? Did they tell him? "Hi there, we're Al-Qaeda, and we're here to help. Allahu Ackbar!"

It doesn’t discuss the military interrogation, but I assume that this was (A) the product of intimidation or (B) information freely given by a man obliged to serve at the point of a gun.

You're extrapolating to infinity. Stick to the article please- this war has gone over how much ground, has killed how many Iraqi forces, and no Al-Qaeda have been found anywhere else?

Al-Qaeda aren’t exactly going to identify themselves to the U.S.

Now why would a secular Ba'athist do that? When he attacked Kuwait, in his mind he recieved a clear signal from the US that they didn't care. When he attacked Iran, he had the support of the entire Arab world. When he allegedly gassed the Kurds (you hear stuff about the Iranians doing that, but really who cares it was still a war crime), absolutely nothing happened to him. He has never made an egregious miscalculation based on the evidence?

The man miscalculated global opinion on Kuwait. You acknowledge it: “in his mind.” That’s clear evidence of failed logical processes. You think it couldn’t happen again?

Did you have coffee with him the other day? By what standard is arming the world's most well known terrorists, a bunch of religious fanatics who hate you, easy and safe?

We’re talking about Hizbollah or HAMAS – groups known to coordinate efforts in Israel alone -, not al-Qaeda.

How do you know his point of view? It's obvious to all that Iraq was singled out as enemy No. 1. Iran has copped zero flak for support of terrorism ever since 9/11 (how bizarre).

It signals that ties might have been developed as early as the first “Axis of Evil” speech after September 11th and indicates that any time Saddam Hussein felt himself to be “on radar,” he would have reached out for help from all sources. How exactly are we supposed to contain a man like that?

Europe would prevent war on Iraq for a WMD attack on Israel?!?!?! Are you serious?!

He might make the assumption that Europe would try to moderate the American response.

How so? Where was this huge focus on Israel? I don't see it.

Try the Gulf War. The man fired missiles not at Coalition forces in Kuwait City but at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

What do you mean? You're sayign he's going to use them against civilians. I asked why.

No. I’m saying he hopes there will be a spontaneous uprising of civilians in his favor.

No, it's non-evidence of any intentions to use WMD. All armies have such suits. That some were found (along with thousands of tons of other military supplies) means zero.

Again, it’s not conclusive, but it tips the scale against him nonetheless.

And you want to know what is conclusive? Almost two dozen warheads partially filled with Sarin nerve gas.

[Vympel]

As Marina said, coordination takes time – even when you’re dealing with twelve men only. It’s less likely that they appeared eleven days ago than it is that they kept open lines of communication and swooped down once they had predetermined – along with their new benefactor Saddam Hussein – that invasion as “eminent.”

No, it's not less likely. Go by what it says in the article, not the unspoken background information which you want to be there- but isn't there.

You missed the point.

Why would these people needlessly endanger themselves by trying to evade Iraqi security when they could instead cooperate? It’s possible that they are acting independently of Hussein – but not likely. As you said, these people are best known for wanting to kill him. Most likely, the al-Qaeda discussed in the article are part of a splinter faction that draws its ideology and sometime support from the larger network but is no longer directly affiliated. They made contact with and eventually established what amounts to a working – if temporary - relationship with Saddam Hussein.

Jeezus- a dozen terrorists do not need to establish a working relationship with Saddam Hussein. There would have to be scores of terrorists cells being discovered all over the place for me to even entertain such a notion.

It doesn’t discuss the military interrogation, but I assume that this was (A) the product of intimidation or (B) information freely given by a man obliged to serve at the point of a gun.

Al-Qaeda aren’t exactly going to identify themselves to the U.S.

Then why haven't more POWs identifed Al Qaeda operatives to the US or British then? What happened to the 'raid' on this Al Qaeda 'hideout'?

The man miscalculated global opinion on Kuwait. You acknowledge it: “in his mind.” That’s clear evidence of failed logical processes. You think it couldn’t happen again?

No he didn't. He calculated correctly. April Glaspie gave him a very clear signal that the US didn't give a shit.

We’re talking about Hizbollah or HAMAS – groups known to coordinate efforts in Israel alone -, not al-Qaeda.

Firstly, we've been talking about Al-Qaeda this whole time, and furthermore, there's no evidence to suggest Iraq has done anything more than provide money to the families of dead suicide bombers, which has also been done by US ally Saudi Arabia.

It signals that ties might have been developed as early as the first “Axis of Evil” speech after September 11th and indicates that any time Saddam Hussein felt himself to be “on radar,” he would have reached out for help from all sources. How exactly are we supposed to contain a man like that?

The same way he was contained for 12 years prior would be a good start.

He might make the assumption that Europe would try to moderate the American response.

Oh for god's sake, is there any outrageous statement you wouldn't pass off by having 'might' preceding it? You basically rephrased your original outrageous claim- the notion that Europe would 'moderate' Amercia's response to WMD use- contains within it two ridiculous assumptions that no serious observer would entertain; firstly, that Europe would try to stop the US from retaliating, and second, that the US will let itself be stopped.

Try the Gulf War. The man fired missiles not at Coalition forces in Kuwait City but at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

No actually, he fired SCUDs at Saudi Arabia as well. If I had been in his posiiton, I definitely would've fired missiles at Israel- they could've joined the war and broken the Arab members of the Coalition- turning it into 'Arabs versus the evil Zionists and the Americans' or some such nonsense. Notice he hasn't tried it again; surprising considering Iraq is about to fall and Iraq is supposed to have SCUDs (none of which have been fired, apparently).

No. I’m saying he hopes there will be a spontaneous uprising of civilians in his favor.

And you know this .... how? And WMD factor into this ... how?

And you want to know what is conclusive? Almost two dozen warheads partially filled with Sarin nerve gas.

Evidence of having WMD? Yes. Evidence of using WMD? No.

But too bad, check the news. The warhead story was a telephone game distortion of another sarin gas story- it turned out to be pesticide. Sorry.

[Axis Kast]

No, it's not less likely. Go by what it says in the article, not the unspoken background information which you want to be there- but isn't there.

Analyze the situation, Vympel. It’s less likely that these men are there unofficially than it is that they struck a temporary deal with Hussein and were grudgingly permitted to join the fight by local units.

Jeezus- a dozen terrorists do not need to establish a working relationship with Saddam Hussein. There would have to be scores of terrorists cells being discovered all over the place for me to even entertain such a notion.

You think that these terrorists are acting utterly on their own? If so, why hadn’t they been killed as infiltrators?

Then why haven't more POWs identifed Al Qaeda operatives to the US or British then? What happened to the 'raid' on this Al Qaeda 'hideout'?

Apparently this sort of thing is rare.

No he didn't. He calculated correctly. April Glaspie gave him a very clear signal that the US didn't give a shit.

So in the modern era he decided to invade an oil-rich neighbor after the United States had made repeated statements regarding its vital security interests in the Persian Gulf. Real bright.

Firstly, we've been talking about Al-Qaeda this whole time, and furthermore, there's no evidence to suggest Iraq has done anything more than provide money to the families of dead suicide bombers, which has also been done by US ally Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia and Iraq exist on different playing fields.

Many Palestinians insist that Iraq is a source of sustenance. There were confirmed ties when we had wider access to Iraq in 1990.

The same way he was contained for 12 years prior would be a good start.

But he wasn’t contained. Since 1998, he’s been free to import new equipment and start new projects. You can contain the man conventionally – not unconventionally.

Oh for god's sake, is there any outrageous statement you wouldn't pass off by having 'might' preceding it? You basically rephrased your original outrageous claim- the notion that Europe would 'moderate' Amercia's response to WMD use- contains within it two ridiculous assumptions that no serious observer would entertain; firstly, that Europe would try to stop the US from retaliating, and second, that the US will let itself be stopped.

I didn’t say I believed it. I said that he might rely on Europe to shield him a bit through diplomatic shell games. Saddam was prone to believing the US would prevent any international response in 1991, wasn’t he?

No actually, he fired SCUDs at Saudi Arabia as well. If I had been in his posiiton, I definitely would've fired missiles at Israel- they could've joined the war and broken the Arab members of the Coalition- turning it into 'Arabs versus the evil Zionists and the Americans' or some such nonsense. Notice he hasn't tried it again; surprising considering Iraq is about to fall and Iraq is supposed to have SCUDs (none of which have been fired, apparently).

Apparently the Australian SAS and American special forces destroyed several SCUDs. That was said by FOX news and MSNBC at the beginning of the war.

And you know this .... how? And WMD factor into this ... how?

No. I’m suggesting that’s why he hasn’t used WMD on his cities. That’s why we haven’t seen them deployed. He’s probably just as surprised as we that his population hasn’t royally fucked him yet.

Evidence of having WMD? Yes. Evidence of using WMD? No.

But too bad, check the news. The warhead story was a telephone game distortion of another Sarin gas story- it turned out to be pesticide. Sorry.

If you have them, you can use them, no?

I want links.

And why would he fill rockets with pesticides?

[The_Nice_Guy]

And why would he fill rockets with pesticides?

Well, to be fair, you did say

The man miscalculated global opinion on Kuwait. You acknowledge it: “in his mind.” That’s clear evidence of failed logical processes. You think it couldn’t happen again?

Apparently we shouldn't apply logic to Saddam, though I personally disagree. The guy is one smart, calculating bastard. Just too bad he had to run up against an idiot who couldn't care less.

Right now, are we trying to dispute current terrorist links with Iraq(IMO, I find this undisputable), or are we trying to establish a casus belli for invading Iraq in the first place(now this one is more tricky)?

That is to say, was the invasion of Iraq carried out due to its links to terror organizations valid reasoning? Remember, one of the basic premises for Bush's stand was that he believed that terrorist groups might cooperate with Iraq to carry out attacks against the US.

If so, then it has to be proven/disproven that the current evidence suggest that there was prior contact and cooperation before the invasion, or even better, before Resolution 1441 was tabled, or the best of all, before 9/11.

The Nice Guy

[Axis Kast]

Right now, are we trying to dispute current terrorist links with Iraq(IMO, I find this undisputable), or are we trying to establish a casus belli for invading Iraq in the first place(now this one is more tricky)?

I'm attempting to make clear that Bush's position is probably vindicated considering that it would be likely that the relationship between those men and Saddam Hussein was long-term if anything.

If so, then it has to be proven/disproven that the current evidence suggest that there was prior contact and cooperation before the invasion, or even better, before Resolution 1441 was tabled, or the best of all, before 9/11.

Immediately after the first "Axis of Evil" speech - so, for all intents and purposes, after 9/11.

[Vympel]

Analyze the situation, Vympel. It’s less likely that these men are there unofficially than it is that they struck a temporary deal with Hussein and were grudgingly permitted to join the fight by local units.

How is it less likely? You're operating from the ridiculous assumption that terrorists need people's permission to be somewhere- something made painfully incorrect by every terrorist attack ever made. These people don't care about national sovereignty.

You think that these terrorists are acting utterly on their own? If so, why hadn’t they been killed as infiltrators?

Because they're killing Amercians?

Apparently this sort of thing is rare.

IMO this article is hogwash.

So in the modern era he decided to invade an oil-rich neighbor after the United States had made repeated statements regarding its vital security interests in the Persian Gulf. Real bright.

Completely ignores what Ambassador Glaspie said. Concession accepted.

Saudi Arabia and Iraq exist on different playing fields.

Oh? How so? You know how many of th 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia?

any Palestinians insist that Iraq is a source of sustenance. There were confirmed ties when we had wider access to Iraq in 1990.

Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world is also a source of 'sustenance'. So what?

But he wasn’t contained. Since 1998, he’s been free to import new equipment and start new projects.

Considering that the end of inspections in 1998 was the fault of the US, and inspections since restarted, this is a ridiculous argument to make.

You can contain the man conventionally – not unconventionally.

At no point have you ever provided a scenario based on good reasoning on why Iraq would threaten unconventional attacks on the United States, or Israel.

I didn’t say I believed it.

No, but you think Saddam would. Even though you know jack shit about him, or the reasons for why he felt it safe to attack Kuwait, apparently.

I said that he might rely on Europe to shield him a bit through diplomatic shell games. Saddam was prone to believing the US would prevent any international response in 1991, wasn’t he?

Considering that Europe would never make a US-style "we have no interest in Israel" (we don't give a shit about them) statement that the US made to Saddam, this is a very silly idea

Apparently the Australian SAS and American special forces destroyed several SCUDs. That was said by FOX news and MSNBC at the beginning of the war.

Proof?

No. I’m suggesting that’s why he hasn’t used WMD on his cities.

Wasn't talking about that. Why hasn't he used WMD- period?

That’s why we haven’t seen them deployed. He’s probably just as surprised as we that his population hasn’t royally fucked him yet.

Would you stop dancing? First you said he's waiting for a civilian uprising. Then you said there will be a spontaneous uprising of civilians in his favour. Now you're back to if his population royally fucked him, he'd use them.

And I repeat: you know this ... how?

If you have them, you can use them, no?

You CAN use them Not necessarily WILL use them. So why hasn't he? Either the Iraqis are smart enough to realize that it won't help them and will just fuck them up even worse, or they don't have them. Whichever, really.

I want links.

The pesticide clarification is all over the place, on all major network sites, last I checked. I don't need to do your work for you in that regard.

And why would he fill rockets with pesticides?

Currently, the rocket story is almost entirely unacknowledged by the media. None of the major news outlets have carried it. Until Rumsfeld himself is questioned and talks about it (though he recently was quoted as saying nearly all WMD find stories turn out to be false the first time round), it is a non-event.

[Axis Kast]

How is it less likely? You're operating from the ridiculous assumption that terrorists need people's permission to be somewhere- something made painfully incorrect by every terrorist attack ever made. These people don't care about national sovereignty.

Al-Qaeda aren’t well-liked in Iraq. Chances are they’d be shot by Fedyaheen if acting in concert with Iraqi troops – unless under the de-facto protection of the regimé itself. That implies tacit approval.

Because they're killing Amercians?

These people are institutionally hated and hunted by Saddam Hussein. I doubt al-Qaeda could show up in Iraq “for the party” unless it had some kind of overhead protection from the regimé itself.

Completely ignores what Ambassador Glaspie said. Concession accepted.

And what did Ambassador Glaspie say?

So now the Americans invited Saddam to occupy Kuwait? That’s funny! Tell me another, Vympel.

Oh? How so? You know how many of th 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia?

This war is about Iraq – not Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world is also a source of 'sustenance'. So what?

So we’re kicking in the door on one of the most vulnerable.

Considering that the end of inspections in 1998 was the fault of the US, and inspections since restarted, this is a ridiculous argument to make.

The man had eight years during which to hide his stockpiles.

And Iraq kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq; we didn’t.

At no point have you ever provided a scenario based on good reasoning on why Iraq would threaten unconventional attacks on the United States, or Israel.

Saddam would hit Israel expecting the full support of the Arab world. Hell, it’s 50/50 he’d even consider getting caught.

No, but you think Saddam would. Even though you know jack shit about him, or the reasons for why he felt it safe to attack Kuwait, apparently.

I think Saddam would. Look at how he fucked up the military operations. And as for the Israeli plan, it soon became obvious that they would have none of it; why not fire on Coalition bases instead?

Considering that Europe would never make a US-style "we have no interest in Israel" (we don't give a shit about them) statement that the US made to Saddam, this is a very silly idea.

I’m not sure. They’d go along – but grudgingly.

Proof?

It was on FOX news at the beginning of the crisis.

Wasn't talking about that. Why hasn't he used WMD- period?

Either he hasn’t deployed them yet or his troops are refusing to carry out the orders.

Would you stop dancing? First you said he's waiting for a civilian uprising. Then you said there will be a spontaneous uprising of civilians in his favour. Now you're back to if his population royally fucked him, he'd use them.

And I repeat: you know this ... how?

No. I said he is anticipating a civilian uprising. Or was. It’s good speculation.

Currently, the rocket story is almost entirely unacknowledged by the media. None of the major news outlets have carried it. Until Rumsfeld himself is questioned and talks about it (though he recently was quoted as saying nearly all WMD find stories turn out to be false the first time round), it is a non-event.

FOX news was carrying it.

And why the hell are his rockets full of “pesticide.” What’s he going to do? Bomb his fields if they don’t grow?

[Vympel]

Al-Qaeda aren’t well-liked in Iraq. Chances are they’d be shot by Fedyaheen if acting in concert with Iraqi troops – unless under the de-facto protection of the regimé itself. That implies tacit approval.

Tacit approval on what level? We're talking a dozen terrorists here. If they even exist, which I doubt. And since when is the Fedyaheen some sort of political commisar group? They're literally 'martyrs for Saddam'.

These people are institutionally hated and hunted by Saddam Hussein. I doubt al-Qaeda could show up in Iraq “for the party” unless it had some kind of overhead protection from the regimé itself.

Ah. Fully admitted how much Iraq hates these people, yet you continue to pretend that this is ome sort of justification for attacking Iraq, when the US started this supposed cooperation by itself, and then engaging in rampant speculation based on one article that long term communications must've existed. Quite frankly, I think it's time to reiterate the shittyness of this evidence:

"Who are you?"

"We're from Al-Qaeda. We have direct orders to be here from Saddam Hussein. Now let's go attack Americans! Allahu Ackbar!"

And what did Ambassador Glaspie say?

So now the Americans invited Saddam to occupy Kuwait? That’s funny! Tell me another, Vympel.

Happy to oblige you:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)"

U.S. State Department reinforced this message by declaring that Washington had " no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait."

One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Lol! Not all of it, just some of it!

Now, before you attempt to change what it is that we were talking about, I would remind you that the subject was whether Saddam was crazy to occupy Kuwait or not.

This war is about Iraq – not Saudi Arabia.

Now you're fucking getting on my nerves again:

You said: "Saudi Arabia and Iraq exist on different playing fields."

So, do you want to justify that statement, or just try to change the subject? Saudi Arabia supports terrorism. Their own citizens attacked America. Killed 3,000 people. Iraq had nothing to do with it. Where's the different playing field?

So we’re kicking in the door on one of the most vulnerable.

Ah, so every Arab state that supports the Palestinians is lined up in the crosshairs.

The man had eight years during which to hide his stockpiles.

Look! It's the mighty-morphing argument! First, it's "since 1998", now it's "all eight years!". Whatever makes you comfortable at the moment I guess.

And Iraq kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq; we didn’t.

Lie. Richard Butler pulled out the inspectors unilaterally, without asking the Security Council. Iraq didn't kick anyone out. It's amazing how the truth 'morphs' in five years. If you want the history behind that sordid little incident, I'd be happy to educate you.

Saddam would hit Israel expecting the full support of the Arab world. Hell, it’s 50/50 he’d even consider getting caught.

Why would he hit Israel, considering it's his death sentence?

I think Saddam would. Look at how he fucked up the military operations.

Red herring. His military operational skill has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

And as for the Israeli plan, it soon became obvious that they would have none of it; why not fire on Coalition bases instead?

Coalition bases were fired upon. Dozens were killed and over 100 were wounded in one SCUD strike.

I’m not sure. They’d go along – but grudgingly.

Go along with what?

It was on FOX news at the beginning of the crisis.

Link.

Either he hasn’t deployed them yet or his troops are refusing to carry out the orders.

So you think it's a matter of time? As for refusing to carry out orders, I don't buy that for a second.

No. I said he is anticipating a civilian uprising. Or was. It’s good speculation.

He has not used WMD because he is anticipating a civilian uprising in his favour?

FOX news was carrying it.

Past tense. As I said on the other thread, wait for Rumsfeld. And I repeat- just because you have WMD doesn't mean you will use them.

And why the hell are his rockets full of “pesticide.” What’s he going to do? Bomb his fields if they don’t grow?

Who said any rockets were filled with pesticide? That's the *barrels*.