Monochromaticism.

[Queeb Salaron]

So now, that being said, who is the real killer of Sadaam's people? Is it him, or is it us?

[Beowulf]

You know, there's a reason for the "Oil for Food" program. Iraq sells oil, they get food and medical supplies. This does, however, suppose that the cash from the sale of oil doesn't go to bulk up the Republican Guard...

[phongn]

You know, there's a reason for the "Oil for Food" program. Iraq sells oil, they get food and medical supplies. This does, however, suppose that the cash from the sale of oil doesn't go to bulk up the Republican Guard...

What was often done is that the Iraqis would demand an additional fee on top of the price of oil (which would total still less than than the normal going price for crude), so that some money went into the UN-controlled account while the rest would be used for other purposes.

[Axis Kast]

So now, that being said, who is the real killer of Sadaam's people? Is it him, or is it us?

We don't line them up in courtyards and mow them down with hundreds of rounds from an AK-47 and then bill the relevant families for spent bullets.

As for the charges of terrorism? Try the Secretary of State's 'Patterns of Global Terrorism, 1990: Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism'. Where can you find it? http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_90/sponsored.html

[Queeb Salaron]

As for the charges of terrorism? Try the Secretary of State's 'Patterns of Global Terrorism, 1990: Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism'. Where can you find it? http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_90/sponsored.html

A) The document was forged 13 years ago and holds little relevance anymore. Find something recent, like within the past 4 years, and I'll start believing it. I asked for a current link between Iraq and terrorism, because I haven't seen any.

B) They forgot to put the USA on that list. Need I remind you of The School of the Americas where we pay for the training of strategic non-military terrorists?

C) The article cites the fact that back in 1990, Hussein held tons of hostages post-invasion on 2 August, all of which he released unharmed after Resolution 669. Similarly, Ashcroft called for the detaining and interrogation of Arab-Americans, a process that lasted weeks and severely disabled the livlihood of American citizens, both Arab and otherwise.

D) Iraq allegedly aided and abetted Abu Abbas in 1985. But the PLF was completely dismantled in 1990. Iraq can no longer have such a connection. Same goes for the ANO, though they more faded out than anything. Abu Ibrahim is reportedly dead.

E)

There were reports that Iraq planned to put these words into effect and that Iraqi officials, as well as Baghdad's Palestinian surrogates, conducted surveillance against various coalition targets.

Don't you love how they have to tie in Iraq with Palestine? I want to know why when Palestine kills civilians it's called terrorism, but when Israelies use US-bought tanks to blow up Palestinian civilian apartment complexes, it's war. But I digress. So you can disregard point E altogether if you so desire.

There is STILL no apparent (and current) link between Iraq and terrorism, or at least none that I've seen. Someone please prove me wrong. It'll save me a lot of grief.

[Axis Kast]

The document was forged 13 years ago and holds little relevance anymore. Find something recent, like within the past 4 years, and I'll start believing it. I asked for a current link between Iraq and terrorism, because I haven't seen any.

It’s history. Fact. You cannot deny that these events took place. What makes you think that Hussein has had a change of heart? Why would those training camps just disappear?

A current link between Iraq and terrorism? The Sydney Morning Herald suggests that Hussein now provides thousands of dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. One representative of the liberation movement went so far as to suggest that Hussein was actually responsible for smuggling weapons to the fighters themselves.

They forgot to put the USA on that list. Need I remind you of The School of the Americas where we pay for the training of strategic non-military terrorists?

Ah. Strawman. We’re dealing with Iraq, not the United States. This discussion covers Iraqi support for terrorism, not Washington’s.

The article cites the fact that back in 1990, Hussein held tons of hostages post-invasion on 2 August, all of which he released unharmed after Resolution 669. Similarly, Ashcroft called for the detaining and interrogation of Arab-Americans, a process that lasted weeks and severely disabled the livlihood of American citizens, both Arab and otherwise.

So it’s okay that Hussein regularly holds people hostage so long as he returns them once his work is done, so to speak?

Ashcroft’s actions are reprehensible, yes. But again, that’s a Strawman since the argument is over whether Saddam Hussein is worthy of being removed.

Iraq allegedly aided and abetted Abu Abbas in 1985. But the PLF was completely dismantled in 1990. Iraq can no longer have such a connection. Same goes for the ANO, though they more faded out than anything. Abu Ibrahim is reportedly dead.

You actually believe Saddam doesn’t support new liberation organizations across Palestine because all the old ones have somehow melted away?

[Next of Kin]

The Sydney Morning Herald suggests that Hussein now provides thousands of dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. One representative of the liberation movement went so far as to suggest that Hussein was actually responsible for smuggling weapons to the fighters themselves.

Axis, we've had this debate before on the Sydney Herald and I believe that arguement surrounding Hussein and Al-qaeda was based on speculation. The last article that you linked did not contain any evidence to link Hussein to this organization. The article showed that Hussein sent martyr money to families in Palestine. As for the arms, again, got proof other than speculation based on what someone said?

[Axis Kast]

I said "suggests," didn't I? The truth of the matter is that this will always be based on speculation because no idiot is going to come out and say, "Hey! Hussein supports me!" It's a matter of what kind of analysis you bring to the table.

[Queeb Salaron]

Iraq allegedly aided and abetted Abu Abbas in 1985. But the PLF was completely dismantled in 1990. Iraq can no longer have such a connection. Same goes for the ANO, though they more faded out than anything. Abu Ibrahim is reportedly dead.

You actually believe Saddam doesn’t support new liberation organizations across Palestine because all the old ones have somehow melted away?

::Shrugs:: I support Palestine. Does that make me a terrorist? Rather, does that give me a viable link to terrorism? If so, how does that make me any worse than the US gov't who supports Israeli militarily-sanctioned terrorism? Yes, it's strawman, but it needs answering. Because if Sadaam's link to terrorism was simply through providing money to the families of martyrs (which is speculation) or smuggling arms across the borders (which is also speculation), then that makes his actions no different than what the US is doing with Israel.

[K. A. Pital]

I can just say... anti-war folks, I'm with you.


War can be reasonable, but not this one.

[Axis Kast]

::Shrugs:: I support Palestine. Does that make me a terrorist? Rather, does that give me a viable link to terrorism? If so, how does that make me any worse than the US gov't who supports Israeli militarily-sanctioned terrorism? Yes, it's strawman, but it needs answering. Because if Sadaam's link to terrorism was simply through providing money to the families of martyrs (which is speculation) or smuggling arms across the borders (which is also speculation), then that makes his actions no different than what the US is doing with Israel.

It's a complete Strawman. You cannot judge one situation by the other in this case.

So you support an independant Palestine. So do I. Big deal. Get back to the issue of Hussein. I am telling you that there is enough circumstantial evidence and credible (from my point of view) speculation out there to tarnish this guy as a terrorist.

[K. A. Pital]

Axis Kast

credible (from my point of view) speculation out there

Credible speculation? You attack an independent state because of some speculative accusations of terrorism bounds, which have been proved by nothing?
Well, it's so serious: credible speculation. I have credible speculation that America wants all us under it's rule, direct or indirect. Do I believe it? NO. Because it's foolish, as the "credible speculation" of Iraq-terrorism bounds.

[Queeb Salaron]

Axis Kast

credible (from my point of view) speculation out there

Credible speculation? You attack an independent state because of some speculative accusations of terrorism bounds, which have been proved by nothing?
Well, it's so serious: credible speculation. I have credible speculation that America wants all us under it's rule, direct or indirect. Do I believe it? NO. Because it's foolish, as the "credible speculation" of Iraq-terrorism bounds.

While I do believe there is such a thing as "credible speculation," I don't think that any speculation I have seen on TV, in the newspapers, or in any other media is credible in the slightest. The most evidence I have seen brought forth as to Iraq's link to terrorism is Bush's statement that "we have found a clear link between Iraq and terrorists," (all well and good... but WHAT IS THAT LINK??) and the constant claims that the US is seeing weapons that the UN is apparently blinded to (If the countries in the UN share information so well, as Bush claims, then why don't other countries know about the weapons of which the USA allagedly has evidence?). In either case, there has been no documentation made public to satiate the nay-sayers like myself other than a document written 13 years ago. And even that document was vague and nebulous. It essentially said "There is a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence that may or may not indicate Iraq as a terror threat. Either way, the US should call for its disarmorment, just in case." Well here it is thirteen years later, and there has been no terrorist activity to speak of that has been directly linked back to Iraq, or at least none that has been publicly documented. And we're still calling for Iraq to disarm. After 13 years of apparent terror-free activity, we're still passing UN resolutions. Granted, Sadaam was told to disarm years ago and didn't fully do so. But at the same time, all of his weapons just sat there and collected dust. Yes, he should have disarmed a long time ago, but as we can plainly see, there is no tangible evidence (to the best of my knowledge) to support claims that Iraq ever had any intention of using these weapons. And let's not forget that Sadaam WAS disarming when this war started. He publicly destroyed his WMDs. Hans Blix specifically said that while there were certain biotoxins that were as of yet unaccounted for, the search was not yet complete. And Sadaam said that he would comply with the will of the UN inspectors. Scott Ritter said that 96% of Iraq was disarmed 8 or 9 years ago during the LAST round of UN inspections. That does not mean that 96% of the hazardous weapons were destroyed, he explained, but rather that if it took 100 parts to effectively launch WMDs, Iraq was only in posession of 4 of those parts.

In summary, while I can see where you would think that there is enough "credible speculation" to tarnish Sadaam as a terrorist, I'm telling you that all the textual FACT that I've seen points in the other direction.

[Axis Kast]

Credible speculation is all we have to go, Stats Bush.

This “independent state” possesses weapons of mass destruction and was proven by weapons inspectors to be in comprehensive violation of Resolution 1441 – the seventeenth such declaration demanding the Iraqi government immediately disarm. The links to Palestinian terrorism are the “icing on the cake” if you will – just another reason why Hussein needs to go now before it’s too late.

While I do believe there is such a thing as "credible speculation," I don't think that any speculation I have seen on TV, in the newspapers, or in any other media is credible in the slightest. The most evidence I have seen brought forth as to Iraq's link to terrorism is Bush's statement that "we have found a clear link between Iraq and terrorists," (all well and good... but WHAT IS THAT LINK??) and the constant claims that the US is seeing weapons that the UN is apparently blinded to (If the countries in the UN share information so well, as Bush claims, then why don't other countries know about the weapons of which the USA allagedly has evidence?). In either case, there has been no documentation made public to satiate the nay-sayers like myself other than a document written 13 years ago. And even that document was vague and nebulous. It essentially said "There is a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence that may or may not indicate Iraq as a terror threat. Either way, the US should call for its disarmorment, just in case." Well here it is thirteen years later, and there has been no terrorist activity to speak of that has been directly linked back to Iraq, or at least none that has been publicly documented. And we're still calling for Iraq to disarm. After 13 years of apparent terror-free activity, we're still passing UN resolutions. Granted, Sadaam was told to disarm years ago and didn't fully do so. But at the same time, all of his weapons just sat there and collected dust. Yes, he should have disarmed a long time ago, but as we can plainly see, there is no tangible evidence (to the best of my knowledge) to support claims that Iraq ever had any intention of using these weapons. And let's not forget that Sadaam WAS disarming when this war started. He publicly destroyed his WMDs. Hans Blix specifically said that while there were certain biotoxins that were as of yet unaccounted for, the search was not yet complete. And Sadaam said that he would comply with the will of the UN inspectors. Scott Ritter said that 96% of Iraq was disarmed 8 or 9 years ago during the LAST round of UN inspections. That does not mean that 96% of the hazardous weapons were destroyed, he explained, but rather that if it took 100 parts to effectively launch WMDs, Iraq was only in posession of 4 of those parts.

In summary, while I can see where you would think that there is enough "credible speculation" to tarnish Sadaam as a terrorist, I'm telling you that all the textual FACT that I've seen points in the other direction.

The most evidence is that Hussein himself has admitted to supporting the families of Palestinian terrorists and that there have been, in the past, clear links between Iraq and Palestinian liberation groups – as in one provided training for the other. Hell, Palestinian officials – like the one interviewed in the Sydney Morning Herald – now claim that Hussein is a source of weaponry for the Infitada.

And the fact of the matter is that Iraq has not fully disarmed. They do have weapons of mass destruction. You just made the admission. Blix acknowledged it. Certain chemicals are unaccounted for. UNMOVIC found what it originally sought: weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was in clear violation of Resolution 1441. “Serous consequences” should have been discussed. Legally, Iraq was in breach of the 1991 cease-fire. Yet France and Blix hit together upon this novel idea: let the inspectorate disarm the Iraqis. Great. So we had this piece-meal tooth-pulling directed by a man admittedly trying to avoid war it all costs. And one that kept finding more evidence of violations no less.

Scott Ritter? His testimony is shit. Why? He testified before Congress in 1998 that Iraq was still in possession of WMD. Then he turns around a few years later and walks all over those same admissions.

Saddam was disarming. But that’s a Catch 22. You’re now going to claim that had we not initiated this war, UNMOVIC would eventually have taken the guns and other bad stuff away from the madman. That’s as circumstantial as my own position.

Perhaps Stats Bush, a Russian, feels rather safe from the potential hazards Iraq now poses. I as an American do not. My President, as an American leader, does not. We’re not going to wait for the international community – which is, by and large, unaffected by Iraq – to green light an action we now view as legitimate self-defense.

[Queeb Salaron]

Perhaps Stats Bush, a Russian, feels rather safe from the potential hazards Iraq now poses. I as an American do not. My President, as an American leader, does not. We’re not going to wait for the international community – which is, by and large, unaffected by Iraq – to green light an action we now view as legitimate self-defense.

Excuse me for knocking at your Patriotism, but self-defense from what? From the numerous and detailed attacks that Iraq has launched agains the USA since August 2nd, 1990? From the threats and promises of terror made by Iraq on us Americans? Maybe defense from piratistic gouging of oil prices on Iraq's part?

...Oh wait... none of that ever happened.

[Axis Kast]

North Korea has never attacked the United States outright since 1950, but I believe you'll agree that with nuclear weapons, Kim Jong-Il is a clear and very present danger. We're attempting to preempt that same sort of achievement in Iraq.

I am also a believer in the circumstantial speculation that Iraq is now supporting Palestinian terrorists whose training is being turned toward al-Qaeda. I'm convinced that those the Iraqis helped to harm Israel are now in turn being privately recruited by Bin Laden. I'm also worried that Hussein might attack Israel were we to back down - he's been known to make ridiculous leaps of logic in the past - and thus force us into war anyway - on his terms.

[Queeb Salaron]

North Korea has never attacked the United States outright since 1950, but I believe you'll agree that with nuclear weapons, Kim Jong-Il is a clear and very present danger. We're attempting to preempt that same sort of achievement in Iraq.

Flawed logic. Hussein doesn't have nukes. If he did, this would be an entirely different ballgame. He doesn't even have long-range missiles, never mind WMDs of that proportion. Any unreasonable power with nuclear weapons is a hazard to those around them, plain and simple. What this has to do with Hussein, I don't know.

[Axis Kast]

Red herring. Any power with nuclear weapons is dangerous, but right now we're focused on Hussein. Others - like Iran - come later.

Hussein doesn't have nuclear weapons, no. He is trying to acquire them however.

And he doesn't need missiles to harm us - just information or material with which he can arm suicide bombers in Israel.

[Beowulf]

North Korea has never attacked the United States outright since 1950, but I believe you'll agree that with nuclear weapons, Kim Jong-Il is a clear and very present danger. We're attempting to preempt that same sort of achievement in Iraq.

Flawed logic. Hussein doesn't have nukes. If he did, this would be an entirely different ballgame. He doesn't even have long-range missiles, never mind WMDs of that proportion. Any unreasonable power with nuclear weapons is a hazard to those around them, plain and simple. What this has to do with Hussein, I don't know.

Gee... maybe it could be that we're trying to prevent it turning into an entirely different ballgame? We don't want him to get his hands onto nukes, and he has show to be quite willing to try to get them.

[Queeb Salaron]

Red herring. Any power with nuclear weapons is dangerous, but right now we're focused on Hussein. Others - like Iran - come later.

Hussein doesn't have nuclear weapons, no. He is trying to acquire them however.

And he doesn't need missiles to harm us - just information or material with which he can arm suicide bombers in Israel.

A) The US needs to pull out of Israel anyway. I've talked at length about this already in other threads and I don't feel like doing it again. Regardless, that's not the point.

B) Unsupported claim. Prove to me that Hussein is actively seeking out nuclear technologies.

C) Your first sentence simply restated my argument. You drew the Red Herring, not me.

[Axis Kast]

No. You're asking me why we don't preempt other régimes that might be as or more dangerous than Hussein. That's a red herring. Why? Because Hussein is, at the moment, the easiest to preempt. He's on the radar right now.

The aluminum rods prove Hussein could be attempting to stockpile the equipment necessary for a nuclear program. He had one prior to '98 that was more or less shut down, but there was speculation as late as January of this year that the Republican Guard was forcing prisoners to mine uranium by hand within the confines of old factories. We know he has the will and the means. We need to prevent him from achieving the way.

[Queeb Salaron]

No. You're asking me why we don't preempt other régimes that might be as or more dangerous than Hussein. That's a red herring. Why? Because Hussein is, at the moment, the easiest to preempt. He's on the radar right now.

The aluminum rods prove Hussein could be attempting to stockpile the equipment necessary for a nuclear program. He had one prior to '98 that was more or less shut down, but there was speculation as late as January of this year that the Republican Guard was forcing prisoners to mine uranium by hand within the confines of old factories. We know he has the will and the means. We need to prevent him from achieving the way.

By doing what? Dethroning him? What will that do? You've seen the newspaper quotes of 17-year olds who are as militaristic as their dictator, and who worship the ground he walks on. If (mind you IF) this is representative of the mentality of that general age group, then there's reason to believe that getting rid of Sadaam is only a temporary fix. In the short-term, his droogies and underlings will take over where he left off under the guise of democracy (which the US will like). Meanwhile (::revs up the crystal ball::) the new leaders start stockpiling new weapons technologies. It could be that no one will notice in their elation that Sadaam is out of power and "democracy" has been restored.

And, like I said, even if Sadaam's underlings don't take over, you've still got a generation of kids who came out of their mothers with .22s and AKs. The reforms needed in Iraq are not, therefore, are SOCIAL, not POLITICAL.

[Queeb Salaron]

EDIT: The reforms needed in Iraq ARE social, not political.

[Axis Kast]

With regimé-change will come Western products and influence. Iraq is already quite the secular state. It will only move further along those lines. With Saddam out of power and a new government in, none of the nationalistic fundies about which you speak will have a figurehead any longer.

[Queeb Salaron]

Apparently the "nationalistic fundies" are in the majority, otherwise they would have overthrown Sadaam by now. Or is that logic flawed?