Iraq, Getting better or worse? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

powerclown · 01-07-2005, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Invading Iraq was the worst thing you guys could have done for your security.

I'd be curious to know how you quantify this statement.
There have been a grand total of 0 terrorist attacks in the US since entering Iraq.

OFKU0 · 01-07-2005, 10:15 AM

I voted things have stayed the same. As long as there are daily bombings that kill people, it pretty much seems business as usual.

Manx · 01-07-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I'd be curious to know how you quantify this statement.
There have been a grand total of 0 terrorist attacks in the US since entering Iraq.

Mephisto's statement is the equally valid inverse version of the "Iraq is part of the War on Terror" statement.

powerclown · 01-07-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Mephisto's statement is the equally valid inverse version of the "Iraq is part of the War on Terror" statement.

I don't think this is true.

Its a quantifiable fact that there haven't been attacks in the US since entering Iraq.
At the very least, the statement "Iraq is part of the War on Terror" is a matter of opinion.

I don't see any equality in it at all.

roachboy · 01-07-2005, 11:01 AM

your argument resembles the following, powerclown:

since i began moving my coffee cup back and forth across my desk, it has not snowed in philadelphia.
when i am not typing this post, i have spent some time pushing my cup back and forth and looking out the window.
my cup was just moved again.
it is still not snowing.

obviously my actions are warding off snow, and making philadelphia a safer place to drive around in.

powerclown · 01-07-2005, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

your argument resembles the following, powerclown:

since i began moving my coffee cup back and forth across my desk, it has not snowed in philadelphia.
when i am not typing this post, i have spent some time pushing my cup back and forth and looking out the window.
my cup was just moved again.
it is still not snowing.

obviously my actions are warding off snow, and making philadelphia a safer place to drive around in.

That's a quaint analogy rb, but answer me this:

Has there been a terrorist attack in the states since entering Iraq?

I stand by my assertion that the statement: "Invading Iraq was the worst thing you guys could have done for your security." is simply an opinion.

smooth · 01-07-2005, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

That's a quaint analogy rb, but answer me this:

Has there been a terrorist attack in the states since entering Iraq?

I stand by my assertion that the statement: "Invading Iraq was the worst thing you guys could have done for your security." is simply an opinion.

if that's the point you were making, rest assured that mephisto knows his statement was an opinion.

roachboy · 01-07-2005, 11:37 AM

the logic of your post is a problem, powerclown----it correlates unrelated elements in order to draw arbitrary conclusions.

on the other hand, i am still moving my coffee cup back and forth.
(there it goes again)
it is still not snowing.
(just look out my window)
q.e.d.

powerclown · 01-07-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

if that's the point you were making, rest assured that mephisto knows his statement was an opinion.

That's all I was questioning...
One can't know for sure what another is thinking until they come out and say it.
--------------------------------------
rb, I don't think the elements are unrelated at all.

Critics of this war insist that this undertaking in Iraq has only put the US in more danger, but where is the proof? Where are the legions of people lining up to destroy America? Where are all these fresh, new recruits of al-Qaeda that this situation has supposedly caused?? Where are the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-'colonialism', anti-'resource-plundering', anti-anti-UN fighters who are supposed to be taking out their revenge on the US?

01-07-2005, 01:08 PM

It would seem that many of them are in Iraq, attacking, killing and injuring Americans right now - current estimates sugest there are about a quarter of a million of them.

powerclown · 01-07-2005, 01:53 PM

The key phrase here is: ...attacking, killing, injuring....in Iraq.
Not...in America.

Hey, I don't wish to be the de facto Defender of the Iraqi War here. I have a certain amount of criticism of aspects of this war myself. The ball has been dropped repeatedly, opportunities have been squandered, mistakes have been made - I will be the first to acknowledge episodes of incompetence. But, as I said, there is no manual for this extremely complicated undertaking - a large part of this is learning on the job, as they go. The reason I'm willing to accept some setback is because I believe the overall cause is worthwhile.

roachboy · 01-07-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

there is no manual for this extremely complicated undertakinG

in complete agreement with you on this.

pinoychink790 · 01-07-2005, 07:29 PM

last option makes sense to me

Mephisto2 · 01-07-2005, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I'd be curious to know how you quantify this statement.
There have been a grand total of 0 terrorist attacks in the US since entering Iraq.

I explained it in the post. Reread it.

The reason it's made you unsafer is:

- becuase you are now a larger target
- because American soldiers and citizens are being killed daily in Iraq (or do these not count in your opinion?)
- because there are now millions of angry muslims who are more likely to tacitly support anti-Americanism
- because there are now hundreds of thousands more angry militants who are more likely to act upon their anger becuase the invasion of Iraq
- because the invasion of Iraq is probably the best recruitment aid for Al Queda and probably in their favour
- because Iraq was not a threat to the US before the invasion, but now it is
- because, because, because...

I could go on. I'm suprised you believe otherwise.

With regards to their being no attacks since the invasion, I think you're mixing up cause and affect. I'll tell you what. There hasn't been any attacks since Janet Jackson's tit fell out. Therefore her tit must be helping protect America.

As we say in Ireland, "same difference"

Mr Mephisto

Konichiwaneko · 01-08-2005, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I explained it in the post. Reread it.

The reason it's made you unsafer is:

- becuase you are now a larger target
- because American soldiers and citizens are being killed daily in Iraq (or do these not count in your opinion?)
- because there are now millions of angry muslims who are more likely to tacitly support anti-Americanism
- because there are now hundreds of thousands more angry militants who are more likely to act upon their anger becuase the invasion of Iraq
- because the invasion of Iraq is probably the best recruitment aid for Al Queda and probably in their favour
- because Iraq was not a threat to the US before the invasion, but now it is
- because, because, because...

I could go on. I'm suprised you believe otherwise.

With regards to their being no attacks since the invasion, I think you're mixing up cause and affect. I'll tell you what. There hasn't been any attacks since Janet Jackson's tit fell out. Therefore her tit must be helping protect America.

As we say in Ireland, "same difference"

Mr Mephisto

this is sort of a catch-22 that comes with the situation. I recognize all of the problems you listed above but actually see the benifits outweigh it.

The biggest things I see though is what I mentioned above

Iraq = the symbol of America's failure in the middle east before this war. We basically let their tryant dictator go back to his cubby hole and abuse his people, and turned a blind eye to that.

Iraq = a battle ground we can fight those terrorist in (who in did are coming from other countries) other then fighting them on our own soil, where they are basically hidden until the bomb goes off.

Iraq = A place where while fighting those terrorist, we can also try to rally the citizans either through our actions or maybe even propaganda to start a wave of change for hopefully what is the better.

So yes, maybe we have stirred the bee hive, but we have beekeepers (our military) helping out, rather then having to tend those bee's ourselves (the citizans).

powerclown · 01-08-2005, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

The reason it's made you unsafer is:

- becuase you are now a larger target
- because American soldiers and citizens are being killed daily in Iraq (or do these not count in your opinion?)
- because there are now millions of angry muslims who are more likely to tacitly support anti-Americanism
- because there are now hundreds of thousands more angry militants who are more likely to act upon their anger becuase the invasion of Iraq
- because the invasion of Iraq is probably the best recruitment aid for Al Queda and probably in their favour
- because Iraq was not a threat to the US before the invasion, but now it is
- because, because, because...

You say these things as if they were factual. Where is the proof for any of it?

sob · 01-09-2005, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

How could invading a country that had no involvement with Al Queda make you feel safer? If anything, it's added to the recruitment drive for terrorists and made America a bigger target; therefore making you unsafer.

Mr Mephisto

Wow. Now that's a statement.

Quote:

Clear link between Iraq and al-Qaeda
The San Diego Union - Tribune; San Diego, Calif.; Jan 28, 2003; William Safire;

In the days following the Sept. 11 attacks, Secretary of State Colin Powell could find "no clear link" between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

One soon appeared. On Sept. 24, 2001, I reported: "The clear link between the terrorist in hiding (Osama) and the terrorist in power (Saddam) can be found in Kurdistan, that northern portion of Iraq protected by U.S. and British aircraft. . . . Kurdish sources tell me (and anyone else who will listen) that the Iraqi dictator has armed and financed a fifth column of al-Qaeda mullahs and terrorists. . . . "

The CIA would not listen. Through credulous media outlets, the agency -- embarrassed by its pre-Sept. 11 inadequacies -- sought to discredit all intelligence about this force of 600 terrorists. Called Ansar al Islam, and led by Osama's Arabs trained in Afghanistan, they were sent in with Saddam's support to establish an enclave in the no-flight zone. One assignment was to assassinate the free Kurds who made up the only anti-Saddam leadership inside Iraq.

Well-armed and financed by both Iraq and Iran, this affiliate of al-Qaeda has since provided a haven for bin Laden followers leaving Afghanistan. They tried to assassinate Kurdish leader Barham Salih, killing several bodyguards, but their target escaped and several killers were captured. Our National Security Council members reportedly did not learn about this bloody engagement until they read about it in The New York Times.

The Kurds induced the captives and some defectors to reveal that the Ansar cell of al-Qaeda had begun producing poisonous chemicals for export. One product was reported to be a cyanide cream being smuggled through Turkey. The operation was set up, informants said, by a key bin Laden lieutenant, Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi. (I misspelled that name a few weeks ago.)

The CIA continued to pooh-pooh any connection between Ansar and Saddam. But reporter Jeff Goldberg of The New Yorker and more recently C.J. Chivers of the Times went into Iraq and interviewed some of the captured terrorists. Such reporting eroded the "no clear link" line put out by opponents of action against Saddam.

Late last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared publicly, "There are al-Qaeda in a number of locations in Iraq," which was met with a derisive "no one's got proof" headline. The CIA resisted a proposal to send a covert force into Iraqi Kurdistan to destroy the secret chemical weapons lab.
On Oct. 8 of last year President Bush made public a little more of what we learned. "Some al-Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq," he told a Cincinnati audience. "These include one very senior al-Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks."

That was Zarqawi. Long sought in Jordan for terrorist attacks (most recently the assassination of the U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in Amman), he joined bin Laden in Afghanistan. After the Taliban defeat, Zarqawi slipped out of that country through Iran and made his way to a Baghdad hospital, where his injured leg was treated or amputated, certainly with the knowledge of Saddam's secret police. He was then dispatched to al-Qaeda's Ansar cell in Iraqi Kurdistan, reported the captives who worked with him in the mountains, to create the terrorist poison laboratory.

British intelligence believes the limping terrorist took one of his products, ricin, to Algerian contacts in Turkey. This is a poison that can be delivered in warheads and one well known to Iraqi chemists, who cannot speak to U.N. inspectors. Two weeks ago, a British detective, Stephen Oake, was killed arresting Algerians suspected of making ricin in North London.

U.S. "counterterrorism officials" are still in angry denial about the pattern they refused to see that connects al-Qaeda terrorists in hiding with Iraqi terrorists in power.

But even the Bush administration's most reluctant warrior has come to accept the validity of the link that embattled Kurds have been trying to warn us of since Sept. 11: Saddam and the followers of bin Laden are bedfellows.
Iraq, concluded Powell last weekend in Switzerland, has "clear ties to terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda."

Credit: THE NEW YORK TIMES

On a less documentary note, I've sure noticed a lot of Al Quada decapitations in Iraq for a country with no connection to them.

sob · 01-09-2005, 08:46 PM

Just found this, too:

Quote:

The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections
By Richard Miniter

Every day it seems another American soldier is killed in Iraq. These grim statistics have become a favorite of network news anchors and political chat show hosts. Nevermind that they mix deaths from accidents with actual battlefield casualties; or that the average is actually closer to one American death for every two days; or that enemy deaths far outnumber ours. What matters is the overall impression of mounting, pointless deaths.

That is why is important to remember why we fight in Iraq -- and who we fight. Indeed, many of those sniping at U.S. troops are al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq. And many of bin Laden's men were in Iraq prior to the liberation. A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.

Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man. (Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

* As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to theOctober 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.
Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists like bin Laden.

In fact, there are plenty of "Stalin-Roosevelt" partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common purposes and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing defeat which he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and believes that non-Muslims shouldn't have military bases on the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda's avowed goal for the past ten years has been the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, where they stood in harm's way solely to contain Saddam.

The most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Saddam is money. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in federal courts that the terror network was always desperate for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100 difference in pay between Egyptian and Saudis (the Egyptians made more). One al Qaeda member, who was connected to the 1998 embassy bombings, told a U.S. federal court how bitter he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to see a doctor.

Bin Laden's personal wealth alone simply is not enough to support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin Laden's fortune is probably not as large as some imagine. Informed estimates put bin Laden's pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small school district, not a global terror conglomerate. Meanwhile, Forbes estimated Saddam's personal fortune at $2 billion.

So a common enemy, a shared goal and powerful need for cash seem to have forged an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources."

The Iraqis, who had the Third World's largest poison-gas operations prior to the Gulf War I, have perfected the technique of making hydrogen-cyanide gas, which the Nazis called Zyklon-B. In the hands of al Qaeda, this would be a fearsome weapon in an enclosed space -- like a suburban mall or subway station.

Mr. Miniter is a senior fellow at the Center for the New Europe and author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" (Regnery) which is now on the New York Times' bestseller list.

sob · 01-09-2005, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

The key phrase here is: ...attacking, killing, injuring....in Iraq.
Not...in America.

Hey, I don't wish to be the de facto Defender of the Iraqi War here. I have a certain amount of criticism of aspects of this war myself. The ball has been dropped repeatedly, opportunities have been squandered, mistakes have been made - I will be the first to acknowledge episodes of incompetence. But, as I said, there is no manual for this extremely complicated undertaking - a large part of this is learning on the job, as they go. The reason I'm willing to accept some setback is because I believe the overall cause is worthwhile.

While there is no manual, I submit that this isn't a bad way to go:

Quote:

L. Paul Bremer

Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator

Opening Remarks

Press Conference 9 October 2003

Six months ago today Coalition Forces liberated Baghdad. I am sure that many of you were as thrilled as I was to see Saddam’s statue and his regime fall.

Most, but not all, of what has happened since then is good.

The Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of our strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq. That plan has four elements:

Create a Secure Environment.

Begin Restoration of Essential Services.

Begin to Transform the Economy.

Begin the Transformation to Democracy.

Before taking your questions I would like to review briefly some of the progress in each of these areas.

Create a Secure Environment.

Six months ago there were no police on duty in Iraq.

Today there are over 40,000 police on duty, nearly 7,000 here in Baghdad alone.

Last night Coalition Forces and Iraqi police conducted 1,731 joint patrols.

Six months ago those elements of Saddam’s military that had not been destroyed in combat had buried their airplanes and melted away.

Today the first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty.

Across the country over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.

Six months ago there were no functioning courts in Iraq.

Today nearly all of Iraq’s 400 courts are functioning.

Today, for the first time in over a generation, the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.

As today’s events have made clear, much remains to be done to establish an acceptable security environment. Even so, things have improved enough to ease the curfew in Baghdad to only four hours.

Begin Restoration of Essential Services.

Six months ago the entire country could generate a bare 300 megawatts of electricity.

On Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts—exceeding the pre-war average.

Please notice these photos of central Iraq:

The first was taken February 1, 2003.

The second was taken April 11.

The third was taken October 1.

If we get the funding the President has requested in his emergency budget, we expect to produce enough electricity for all Iraqis to have electrical service 24 hours daily—something essential to their hopes for the future.

Six months ago nearly all of Iraq’s schools were closed.

Today all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.

Many of you know that we announced our plan to rehabilitate one thousand schools by the time school started—well, by October 1 we had actually rehabbed over 1,500.

Six months ago teachers were paid as little as $5.33 per month.

Today teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

Six months ago the public health system was an empty shell. During the 1990’s Saddam cut spending on public health by over 90 percent with predictable results for the lives of his citizens.

Today we have increased public health spending to over 26 times what it was under Saddam.

Today all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.

Today doctors’ salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.

Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.

Since liberation we have administered over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq’s children.

Six months ago three-quarters of Iraq’s 27,000 kilometers of irrigation canals were weed-choked and barely functional.

Today a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of those canals. They now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.

Additionally, we have restored over three-quarters of pre-war telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.

Before the war there were 4,500 Internet connections and important services, such as instant messaging were forbidden.

Today there are 4,900 full-service connections.

We expect 50,000 by January first.

Begin to Transform the Economy.

Six months ago Iraq’s economy was flat on its back.

Today anyone walking the streets can see the wheels of commerce turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.

Six months ago all banks were closed.

Today 95 percent of all pre-war bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.

Today Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.

Today the central bank is fully independent.

Today Iraq has one of the world’s most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.

Six months ago Iraq had two currencies.

Next week Iraq will get a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

Begin the Transformation to Democracy.

Six months ago there was no freedom of expression. Satellite dishes were illegal. Foreign journalists came on 10-day visas and paid mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for “minders” and other government spies.

Today there is no Ministry of Information.

Today there are more than 170 newspapers.

Today you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.

Today foreign journalists and everyone else are free to come and go.

Six months ago Iraq had not one single element—legislative, judicial or executive-- of a representative government.

Today in Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad’s first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.

Today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.

Today 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq’s history, run the day-to-day business of government.

Today the Iraqi government regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.

Six months ago Shia religious festivals were all but banned.

Today, for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

In six short months we have accomplished a lot.

We are also aware that the progress we have made is only a beginning. A quarter century of negligence, cronyism and war mongering have devastated this country. Such profound damage cannot be repaired overnight.

Bringing Iraq up to minimum self-sufficiency will require the full $20 billion the President has asked of Congress in his supplemental budget request.

We are fighting terrorism here and we will continue to fight it until it no longer threatens the hopes of Iraqis, the hopes of the world.

The importance and urgency of this task was underscored for all of us today when terrorists car-bombed a police station and assassinated a Spanish diplomat.

As the President just said, “We will wage the war on terror until it is won.”

This may be old news, but I haven't seen anyone post it.

And you sure don't hear it on the news.

smooth · 01-09-2005, 09:29 PM

Looks like it was a press conference. Where'd you hear about if it wasn't on the news?
Or did you mean old news as in October 2003?

sob · 01-09-2005, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Looks like it was a press conference. Where'd you hear about if it wasn't on the news?
Or did you mean old news as in October 2003?

I heard about it via e-mail, and referenced it on the internet.

I sure didn't hear it on See BS with Dan Rather.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-09-2005, 09:38 PM

Also there is speculation that Iraq had terror links with Al Qaeda all the way back in 1993 in and around the Olympic Motel and Somalia. This was ofcourse run out of Khartorum.

Mephisto2 · 01-09-2005, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

You say these things as if they were factual. Where is the proof for any of it?

SIGH

Where is the proof for anything?

There's certainly no proof that you are safer.

Everything is relative.

Mr Mephisto

Konichiwaneko · 01-09-2005, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

SIGH

Where is the proof for anything?

There's certainly no proof that you are safer.

Everything is relative.

Mr Mephisto

or that we are in more danger, thus why I stand by my belief that as a whole I feel safer.

Mephisto2 · 01-09-2005, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

Wow. Now that's a statement.

What's your point?

Quote:

On a less documentary note, I've sure noticed a lot of Al Quada decapitations in Iraq for a country with no connection to them.

Even by your standards sob, you should be able to see the difference.

When the US invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in power. The 9/11 Comission itself found that there was no link between Iraq and the attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

Of course, since the invasion, Hussein is no longer in power and there are lots of opportunities for terrorists to get involved.

Your statement also assumes that all (or maybe you mean "most") decapitations are the actions of Al Queda. I think you'll find that most of them are the actions of insurgent groups; repugnant as they are, they are not all Al Queda.

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 · 01-09-2005, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

or that we are in more danger, thus why I stand by my belief that as a whole I feel safer.

I'm not arguing with you Konichiwaneko. You gave a considered and intelligent response. I understand your position, whilst disagreeing with it.

In my mind I can't see how you can feel safer. I believe you if you say you do, but at least you explained why rather than make a one or two sentence quip.

Mr Mephisto

roachboy · 01-10-2005, 07:37 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...387460,00.html

this article is about fallujah after the americans detroyed it.
it is quite at odds with other material on the battle, and is worth having a look....

host · 01-10-2005, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

SIGH

Where is the proof for anything?

There's certainly no proof that you are safer.

Everything is relative.

Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto, for myself and the 40+ percent of Americans who know why
you "SIGH", it is time to accept that we can not persuade the other side with
"facts". If William Safire's syndicated column, dated January 28, 2003,
(SOB's contribution) contained "facts", would Bush not have cited that
informatiom when he was questioned by the press, just three days later?
(See first quote box below). Would the Bushco not have used Safire's "facts"
for the last 24 months. to justify their Iraqi operations, if there was any
merit in them ?

The "facts" are all there, Mr. Mephisto, for those who do not rely on Bushco
shills like Safire and Richard Miniter for reliable information. The Bush quote
below on the Iraq Al Queda connection, or lack of connection, is from the
white house website, and the Powell quote regarding Saddam's lack of WDM
in 2001 is from the Dept. of State website. Dr. Rice is quoted from a CNN
program transcript. It is much more convenient to leave it to Safire and
Miniter to edit and consolidate what you then use to frame your "informed
opinion", than to do your own research and attempt to seperate the facts
from the spin of columnists and the Bushco's massive psy-ops.

Trouble for me is, I just can't do it, and you, obviously, can't either. We will
convince Bushco apologists and supporters of nothing. They are the enablers
of this scary, disfunctional, destructive, administration, because they are
misinformed and quite content to remain so. They find their resolve in their
own ignorance. They react to those who compare them to the citizens of
Germany in the late 1930's by calling us "fringe" or "X-file" groups.

They have refused to accept the determination of U.S. and U.N. weapons
inspectors that there no WMD found in Iraq that legitimized statements made
by Bush and his appointees making a case for an invasion of Iraq on grounds
that Saddam posed an "imminent threat" to the security of the United States.

They have refused to accept the determination by the 9/11 commission and
of former CIA director George Tenent that no reliable intelligence exists to
legitimize the claim that Saddam was a supporter of and a conspirator with al queda.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html</a>
THE PRIME MINISTER: Adam.

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

They have refused to accept that the insurgents fighting against U.S. troops
in Iraq are nearly all Iraqis, or that Bush's claim that we are fighting them
"there" so that we won't have to fight them "here", has no basis in fact.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm</a>
Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700 captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1501802&postcount=5">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1501802&postcount=5</a>
But according to top U.S. military officers in Iraq, the threat posed by foreign fighters is far less significant than American and Iraqi politicians portray. Instead, commanders said, loyalists of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime — who have swelled their ranks in recent months as ordinary Iraqis bristle at the U.S. military presence in Iraq — represent the far greater threat to the country's fragile 3-month-old government.

"The vast majority of the insurgents in Iraq are local and not foreign fighters," said Captain Ben Connable, the intelligence deputy for the US 1st Marine Division, in charge of the western al-Anbar province.

They ignore the fact that senior Bush administration officials Powell and
Rice made public statements before 9/11 that directly contradicted the
Bushco post 9/11 propaganda attempt to justify invading Iraq:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm</a>
We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose.<h4> That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq,</h4> and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

Quote:

<a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html</a>
National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice, date July 29, '01:
"(Larry) KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

(Dr. Condoleeza) RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
<h4>
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.</h4>

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that."

Finally, there is this in your recent "Economist Article on Iraq" thread:

Quote:

In bold contrast to his masters in Washington, General George W. Casey Jr, the commander-in-chief of coalition forces in Iraq, credits foreigners with a minimal role in the insurgency. Of over 2,000 men detained during the fighting in Fallujah, fewer than 30 turned out to be non-Iraqi. In Ramadi, the marines have detained a smaller number of foreigners, including a 25-year-old Briton two weeks ago, who claimed to be pursuing "peace work" but whose hands were coated with explosives. Pleased to find an enemy who understood English, marines say they queued up to taunt him; one told him he would be gang-raped in Abu Ghraib.

sob · 01-10-2005, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

Wow. Now that's a statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

What's your point?

My point was that your statement was inaccurate. I just tried to word it more politely than this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Even by your standards sob, you should be able to see the difference.

Quote:

When the US invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in power. The 9/11 Comission itself found that there was no link between Iraq and the attacks.

Ooooh, that was good. You switched from "al Qaeda" to "attacks." Your statement was that Iraq was "a country that had no involvement with Al Queda." Even though that long post of mine was titled, "Clear link between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

Unless you believe that every al Qaeda cell was involved in the attacks, your statement is irrelevant to what I said.

However, what I said is borne out on page 66 of the 9/11 report.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Your statement also assumes that all (or maybe you mean "most") decapitations are the actions of Al Queda. I think you'll find that most of them are the actions of insurgent groups; repugnant as they are, they are not all Al Queda.

That misrepresentation wasn't nearly as good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

On a less documentary note, I've sure noticed a lot of Al Quada decapitations in Iraq for a country with no connection to them.

"A lot."

Not "all." Not "most."

"A lot."

Now for a little more:

Link

Quote:

INTERVIEW SABAH KHODADA

After your service in the army, you worked for a secret part of the Iraqi government?

Some of it is not very secretive. But there's another part, which has a lot to do with international terrorism and this kind of operation -- this is very secretive.

Maybe you could tell me what this section is called, and who runs it. And what did it do?

It's called the Division of Special Operations. ... This whole camp where their training is run by the Iraqi [security service]... The government organization [that] basically possesses or have control of the camp is the Iraqi intelligence. But different training people who come, they are headed or sent by different people in the Iraqi government.

You say that this is a secret camp. But what was it like? Was it something you drove by and could see on the highway? Did you need special clearance to go there? How would you describe this place, this location?

If you're driving on those farm roads, you could probably see the edges of the camp, but you wouldn't realize this is a special camp. The camp is huge. And the locations for the training are far from anybody can see them from the outside. But even when we have visitors, even at the level of a minister, or even higher than a minister in the Iraqi government, they will have to drive around the camp or be driven in the camp inside very specific type of a vehicle. They will sit on the back seat, for example, of this vehicle and they would have ... in addition to the shaded windows, they will have to pull down curtains and they snap those curtains on the bottom, to make sure nobody can see anything outside this vehicle while they're driven around.

This is even government officials [who] are not allowed to see this kind of training?

Yes. At the very highest level, they cannot see this training.

What kind of training went on, and who was being trained?

Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism.

The people being trained were Iraqis in one group, and non-Iraqis, or foreign nationals, in another?

Non-Iraqis were trained separately from us. There were strict orders not to meet with them and not to talk to them. And even when they conduct their training, their training has to occur at times different from the times when we conduct the Iraqis our own training.

Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak (see Khodada's hand-drawn map of the camp), an area south of Baghdad. In this translated interview, conducted in association with The New York Times on Oct. 14, 2001, Khodada describes what went on at Salman Pak, including details on training hijackers. He emigrated to the U.S. in May 2001.[Editors Note, June 2004: A year after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein.]

So you were training Iraqis, Saddam's fedayeen, members of the militia in Iraq. And someone else, other groups, were training the non-Iraqis?

They were special trainers or teachers from the Iraqi intelligence and al-Mukhabarat. And those same trainers or teachers will train the fedayeen, the Iraqi fedayeen, and also the same group of those teachers will train the non-Iraqis, foreigners who are in the camp. Personally, my profession is not this kind of training. My profession is to train people on infantry, typical infantry training, such as training on machine guns, pistols, hand grenades, rocket launchers on the shoulder and this kind of training. The special training that I'm talking about, such as the kidnapping and so, is conducted by those trainers who are not from the army; they are from ... al-Mukhabarat.And there was a person who is very famous. They call him Al-Shaba. [ph]. This is Arabic word means "The Ghost," who was responsible for all the training, and those trainers or the teachers.

Why was he called the Ghost?

I don't know exactly why he's being called the Ghost. I came there and his name was the Ghost. But I know that he has conducted several terrorist operations in Lebanon and in other countries all over the world. And I know that he told us that he's been requested to be arrested by the Interpol. This is probably why he called himself the Ghost.

And the foreign nationals, the Arabs who are there, but who are not Iraqis -- what were they like? Were they Egyptians, Saudis? Do you know where they came from?

They look like they're mostly from the Gulf, sometimes from areas close to Yemen, from their dark skin and short bodies. And they also are Muslims. ...

Were they religious?

I don't know exactly because I saw them seldom very [briefly]. But some of them has beards, long beards, which is an indication of being a religious Muslim. ...

How long were you at this base, at this secret location?

Approximately six months.

What was your job?

Administrational things, such as providing food, leave of absence permissions, general training. Ammunition ... providing them with ammunition when needed.

How did you meet the Ghost? And what did he say?

I meet him several times a day. We usually meet in the morning when they go to training. We meet in the afternoon or the noontime when they come back from training. And several times, we'll meet at the evening to drink tea. And he will come, him and other teachers who always with him. They always talk about their operations proudly. For example, they were telling us about how they were able to penetrate the American forces during the 1990 Gulf War, where they went inside the Saudi Arabia territory, and they were able to bring exact coordinates of the Dharan airbase where it was hit by the Scud missiles and many Americans were killed.

He is an Iraqi, the Ghost?

Yes.

Did he explain what kind of training they were giving to the people who were there, especially to the non-Iraqis?

He tried not to talk about training as much as possible. I even, out of curiosity, asked him about those Arabs. Sometime he told me, "Don't ask about them. This is something we're not supposed to talk about."

So the Ghost said, "I can't talk to you about these Arabs who are training, or what we're training them in."

Yes.

So did you find out what kind of training was going on?

I don't necessarily know what kind of training they do, but they were trained exactly at the same locations, and they were trained by the same teachers who were training ... [the fighters for] Saddam. Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities, sabotaging villages, sabotaging houses, assassinations.

And the training also included how to prepare for suicidal operations. For example, they will train them how to belt themselves around with explosives, and jump in a place and explode themselves out as part of the suicidal training. I think the trainings of the Arabs was much harsher, and much stricter, than the training of the Iraqis.

Why?

Because we know that Arabs, non-Iraqis who come to train in these kind of camps, are going to be sent to very dangerous and important operations outside Iraq; not inside Iraq. And they will be conducting very specific operations and dangerous operations in their own cities, or in their own countries, or other countries all over the world. Those Arabs are real volunteers. They come in small numbers, and they come with the intention to do some real suicidal operations. ...

There are other types of training, such as physical training, which we are all familiar with. But there's another kind of special training, which is called "self-confidence training." ... For example, a bunch of the fedayeen will be taken in a helicopter. They will fly them away to an unknown area, and they will be asked to jump out of the plane without knowing if there is underneath them a desert or a house or there's water. But they're supposed to jump. So, they will jump.

Another type of self-confidence training would be, for example, they will pull the pin of a hand grenade, and they will throw the hand grenade from one to another until the last one will throw it in the air and it will explode in the air. Another type of self-confidence training would be, they will put a hand grenade in a pipe, and they will pull the pin and throw it in the pipe, and stand near the pipe saluting the hand grenade until it explodes.

Other type of self-confidence training would be holding a rocket launcher, which is an Army GB-7, and holding it vertically, then shooting the rocket vertically, which is very unusual, but the backfire of this hand grenade will hit the ground next to you. And if you don't have self-confidence, you cannot do it. This is another kind of self-confidence training.

And they trained people to hijack airplanes?

Yes.

For what purpose?

... It has been said openly in the media and even to us, from the highest command, that the purpose of establishing Saddam's fighters is to attack American targets and American interests. This is known. There's no doubt about it.

All this training is directed towards attacking American targets, and American interests. The training does not only include hijacking of planes and sabotage. ... Some other people were trained to do parachuting. Some other areas were training on how to penetrate enemy lines and get information from behind enemy lines. But it's all for the general concept of hitting and attacking American targets and American interests.

Who controlled this operation?

In terms of training, they will train in this special camp. But after this training, they will go in small groups. These small groups are directly connected with Saddam, or to Saddam's son. For example, the Iraqi fighters, they will be spread all over the country. Occasionally those individual groups, very small groups, will be called for. They might encounter different kind of special training beyond this training on specific things. I'll give you an example. They were calling for some of these groups to train intensively to learn English language, Persian language, Hebrew language, to be sent out to different places of the world to conduct such kind of ... different kind of operations. I suspect that the higher level of training, or the additional training they encounter, has a lot to do with what happened. And there's a lot of similarity with what happened with New York and Washington on September 11.

That was your reaction on September 11 -- that some of these people might be involved?

I assure you, this operation was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam. And I'm going to keep assuring the world this is what happened.

Osama bin Laden has no such capabilities. Why? Because this kind of attacks must be, and has to be, organized by a capable state, such as Iraq; a state where they can provide high level of training, and they can provide high level of intelligence to do such training.

How could Osama bin Laden -- who's hiding in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan in small caves and valleys -- train people and gather information and send people to do such high-level operation? We all know this is a high-level operation. This cannot be done by a person who does not even own a plane in Afghanistan, who cannot offer such training in Afghanistan. This is definitely done by a mastermind like Saddam. ...

And the camp has a 707 that they train on?

Yes, there's a real whole 707 plane, a whole real plane, standing in the middle of the training area in this camp.

And they train people on how to get access to the cabin, to the crew?

Yes.

And how to take over the plane using weapons? How?

They will get trained on how to get weapons inside the plane. If there is a security weakness that they know of, they will prefer to get weapons. But I am sure that, before the attack of September 11, those people made a very thorough study. And they learned that getting weapons into the plane might not be a very good idea. But in this camp, I saw them getting trained on this kind of situations where security will not allow you to get weapons into the plane -- then what you need to do is to use all available methods and very advanced terrorizing method.

These methods are used to terrorize the passengers and the crew of the plane. They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane. ... They are trained how to plant horror within the passengers by doing such actions. Even pens and pencils can be used for that purpose they were trained. They can do it, and they can overcome any plane because they are very well physically trained, and they are very strong, and they can do it. They can overtake a plane in a very efficient manner. ...

Recently, here in Washington, you met with the FBI.

Yes.

Did you tell them all of this?

Yes.

What was their reaction? Did they say they already knew about this, or did they act like this was all new to them?

No, they do not know about it. But I told them everything I know, hoping that they can make it useful to them. I did that to protect the peace, not only for America; the peace in America and the peace of the world. People must know such training and such preparation for terror is happening in Iraq. Otherwise, it's going to happen again and again. And it's up to those people, meaning the FBI, to take action about it. ...

Where is the camp located near? You could describe where it's geographically located.

Yes. It's southeast of Baghdad, about 25 kilometers from outside of Baghdad ... . I think the American government should have pictures of this camp from the air. I know for a fact that on January 1995, the United Nations came and took pictures of this camp. But they don't know -- neither the United Nations nor the American government -- what's going on inside this camp.

But they can see the 707, or the train?

On a Friday, which is equivalent to Sunday here, it's a holiday, was on January 1995. They came and the United Nations inspectors visited us. They went all the way inside the camp. They saw the plane, they saw the train, and they didn't care anything about it, because the story was, they told ... his commanders told the United Nation, "This is a camp to train police, anti-riots police."

Anti-riot police?

Yes.

And it really was a terrorist training camp?

Yes.

I can hear someone saying to me, "This is one person claiming that this happened. How are we going to check?" How do we prove or, if you will, test what you have to say?

... If you want to make sure about it, go back to pictures of your government, aerial pictures of your government, and go back all the documents that showed this camp is existing. And go back to my friend who is in Turkey, who could also tell you the same thing that I'm telling you now.

Addition to that, maybe you can find archives of Iraqi TV, showing on the Iraqi TV Saddam's fighters ... putting bombs belted on their bodies, wearing masks. Maybe you should be able to get these archives and see something what's shown openly on Iraqi TV.

The training of Saddam's militia was shown on Iraqi TV?

They will show some of their training. For example, they will show clips of their jumping from the helicopters. But there was also parades, military parades, and they will show off Saddam wearing this explosive around themselves with their masks on. ... I even heard it on Arabic BBC when they were saying, when they were describing them, not as Saddam's fighters -- they describe them as "the terrorists of Saddam" -- wearing explosives and looking like crocodiles, black crocodiles. I'm very surprised that you, in America, don't know about these things.

To you, then, the likely suspect here is the government of Iraq and Saddam in all this terrorism. And yet we're looking the wrong way?

I assure you, and I'm going to keep assuring you, that all these things are obvious. I don't know why you don't see it. When we were in Iraq, Saddam said all the time, even during the Gulf War, "We will take our revenge at the proper time." He kept telling the people, "Get ready for our revenge."

We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes, to put explosives. How could anybody not think this is not done by Saddam? Even the grouping, those groups were divided into five to six people in the group. How about the training on planes? Some of these groups were taken and trained to drive airplanes at the School of Aviation, northern of Baghdad ... .Everything coincides with what's happening.

In addition to that, we heard in the news about meeting some of those hijackers with the Iraqi intelligence people in Prague, and even getting money to get trained on flying airplanes in the United States from the Iraqi intelligence.

[Did you hear that some of those training at the camp were working for] Osama bin Laden?

Nobody came and told us, "This is Al Qaeda people," but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained. They didn't tell us they were part of Al Qaeda; there's no such thing. ... In this camp, we know that those are Saudis, or Arabs are getting trained. Nobody will talk about Al Qaeda or any other organization.

They're just people.

Yes.

Who clearly wanted to ... or were interested in doing terror, becoming terrorists?

This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world. ...

In the conversations that you had with the Ghost and with others, was it clear that they were involved in international terrorism -- that that's what the object here was, to send people out to do missions?

They all say it. On January 1, 1996, we all met with Saddam personally. And he told us we have to take revenge from America. Our duty is to attack and hit American targets in the Gulf, in the Arab world, and all over the world. He said that openly. When you volunteer to become Saddam's fighter ... they will tell you the purpose of your volunteer[ing] is to attack American targets and American interests, not only in Iraq, not only in the Gulf, [but] all over the world, including Europe and America. That's how Saddam was able to attract those Arabs and Muslims who came to train, because that's exactly what they want to do.

I just wanted to understand that in the camp itself, when you were sitting down with the trainers and they were describing what they were doing, did they say they were getting people ready for missions in Europe, in the United States?

Those people who are in the camp ... do the training, and the rest will be conducted by the higher command. For example, after you finish the training, there will be groups of five to six people, sometimes four people, but most likely between five to six people, not exceeding six. Maximum number will be six people.

Or they would be able, for example, to call for a specific group for a specific purpose to Baghdad. And nobody knows what this group is going to do. They will go to Baghdad. They will be briefed on what they're going to do, or trained about something specific. They will be sent, and we don't know where they go, and they come back to us. That's how it works. It's not like the trainers in the camp know what's going on. The operations are headed directly from the top.

But when someone would hear about an incident, like there was an attack on the U.S. military in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia in 1995, or the Khobar barracks was blown up in Saudi Arabia, you didn't hear anyone say, "We took part in that," or, "That was one of ours," during this period of time.

They don't talk specifics. The only specific thing they talked about in front of me is ... location coordinates during the Gulf War. But I hear them talking about operations in Saudi Arabia, operations other places, in Lebanon. But I never hear the details from them.

Any evidence of biological or chemical warfare training?

This type of training, if it happened, it occurred outside our camp...

Can you explain what's on this map that you drew?

The surrounding area around this camp is an area for fitness training. This is a Boeing 707, where they trained how to hijack it. And also they were trained how to resist or stop hijacking operation.

Next to it, there's a double-decker bus in which they could do the same thing -- training, hijacking. And this is next to it, there is a village, built houses like a model of a village. They will train how to plant TNT and explosives. And very next to it, there's a single house, where they're trained how to enter it, or sabotage it or explode it.

The railway track is where the train is. That's where they would have the same training for hijacking of a train. I would like to also tell you that this is a village where farmers would live. Those farmers, by the way, are employees by the Iraqi intelligence -- all of them. They look like normal families, but they are not as you think. They are employees of the Iraqi intelligence to put cover and protection to the base. ...

What's the method that's taught, in terms of hijacking? It's not just taking on weapons, is it?

Training will include the way they would sit in the plane, how they enter the plane, provided they got the right documents from the top levels of Iraqi Intelligence, such as passports. ... They will, for example, sit in two's, and they will assign who will sit to the right of the other guy, and who will sit to the other side. Two will sit in the front, two will sit in the back, and two will sit, for example, in the middle. They are trained to jump all at one time, and make a declaration that "We are going to take over the plane. And nobody [move], don't move, don't make any moves."

They will probably use a pencil or a pen, or even sunglasses or prescription glasses. Somebody will hold the crew members of the plane from their chins upward tightly, and you will pull it on his neck. He will think you are going to slaughter him and kill him. Including in this training is terrorizing by making very, very loud noises and screaming all over the plane. That will take over the planned horror, and will terrorize the plane, including the crew.

Why are you coming forward with this information?

I'd like to tell the whole world, and American people, that I wish peace ... in this world. And I want to tell you that what you have seen is very little from what we have seen done to the Iraqi people by Saddam. If somebody use chemical weapons such as in Halabja on his own people, what do you think he would do to different parts of the world? I call for the world and the Iraqi people and every Muslim not to believe the propaganda by Saddam and bin Laden. Those are murderers, and they have nothing to do with Islam.

Here in the United States, as a Muslim, I was never been harassed or treated badly, and nobody stopped me from my prayers, or stopped me from being a Muslim. So what Saddam is doing is exactly what's against Islam, against the world, and against peace of the world.

Now mind you, the following is only circumstantial, but just for the fun of it, here's a satellite photo of Salman Pak--25 miles south of Baghdad. Before the Marines blew the shit out of it.

Notice anything interesting in it?

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XQCqAjIdKm*Q!RZLgC5fodsCcF8pcPuyQHWTcJwBAQZwSQEFDRezIdv5ETkUiev*DWUGcDPNh!0XLmMbAd2KGgxdniiLq14byq4LlPLXcrVbPtzreJISp1qV683!N0GyLnd3ljzfQpw/photo_2.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg?dc=4675505372460097691></img>

Mephisto2 · 01-10-2005, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

What's your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

My point was that your statement was inaccurate. I just tried to word it more politely than this:

How could an opinion be inaccurate? I have mine, you have yours.

And, and with reference to my statement "Even by your standards sob", I wasn't trying to be impolite. I was stating that I don't believe that most or all (or just "a lot") of the decapitations are the actions of Al Queda. Personally I think that Al Queda is credited with a lot more than it already carries out. I believe it has inspired a lot of groups, but I think as an effective force it was probably destroyed in Afghanistan and by subsequent arrests and targetted assassinations by the US and its allies. Of course, once again, that's just my opinion.

You continue to search for reasons to take offence at my posts. You've even ignored personal messages I've sent clarifying your misunderstanding of certain things I've posted and compliments I've made.

I can't really do anything if you want to be insulted.

Quote:

Ooooh, that was good. You switched from "al Qaeda" to "attacks." Your statement was that Iraq was "a country that had no involvement with Al Queda." Even though that long post of mine was titled, "Clear link between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

Unless you believe that every al Qaeda cell was involved in the attacks, your statement is irrelevant to what I said.

SIGH

You're splitting hairs. If you want to dissect every sentence, word for word, then there's likely to be no value in further discussion.

I don't really want to play games. I come here for engaging, educational and enjoyable repartee with fellow board-members. Despite my attempts, my interaction with you has proven to be none of the above.

I wish you well and will try, in any subsequent discussion, to be more exacting, should I choose to comment on your posts.

Mr Mephisto

host · 01-10-2005, 11:34 PM

sob, your reference to the 707 airliner at Salmon Pak is examined in an
article by Seymour Hersh. Hersh won a pulitzer prize for his investigative
reporting on the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam, after army officer Colin Powell,
ordered at that time to determine whether the event took place, reported back
to his U.S. Army superiors that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre">"In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Later, Powell's refutation would be called an act of "white-washing" the news of the Massacre, and questions would continue to remain undisclosed to the public.</a>

The reader reviews of Hersh's new book on the Iraq invasion and occupation
are illuminating in that the opinions of the reviewers are as polarized as they
are on this forum. There is no middle ground ! <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0060195916/002-1623418-2797669?">
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0060195916/002-1623418-2797669?</a>

Quote:

SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?
Issue of 2003-05-12
Posted 2003-05-05

They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. In the past year, according to former and present Bush Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and analysts, who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi. By last fall, the operation rivalled both the C.I.A. and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the D.I.A., as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda. As of last week, no such weapons had been found. And although many people, within the Administration and outside it, profess confidence that something will turn up, the integrity of much of that intelligence is now in question.............

..............................According to the Pentagon adviser, Special Plans was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States..............

...................................Rumsfeld and his colleagues believed that the C.I.A. was unable to perceive the reality of the situation in Iraq. “The agency was out to disprove linkage between Iraq and terrorism,” the Pentagon adviser told me. “That’s what drove them. If you’ve ever worked with intelligence data, you can see the ingrained views at C.I.A. that color the way it sees data.” The goal of Special Plans, he said, was “to put the data under the microscope to reveal what the intelligence community can’t see. Shulsky’s carrying the heaviest part.”....................

.......................If Special Plans was going to search for new intelligence on Iraq, the most obvious source was defectors with firsthand knowledge. The office inevitably turned to Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. The I.N.C., an umbrella organization for diverse groups opposed to Saddam, is constantly seeking out Iraqi defectors. The Special Plans Office developed a close working relationship with the I.N.C., and this strengthened its position in disputes with the C.I.A. and gave the Pentagon’s pro-war leadership added leverage in its constant disputes with the State Department. Special Plans also became a conduit for intelligence reports from the I.N.C. to officials in the White House.

There was a close personal bond, too, between Chalabi and Wolfowitz and Perle, dating back many years. Their relationship deepened after the Bush Administration took office, and Chalabi’s ties extended to others in the Administration, including Rumsfeld; Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy; and I. Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. For years, Chalabi has had the support of prominent members of the American Enterprise Institute and other conservatives. Chalabi had some Democratic supporters, too, including James Woolsey, the former head of the C.I.A.

There was another level to Chalabi’s relationship with the United States: in the mid-nineteen-nineties, the C.I.A. was secretly funnelling millions of dollars annually to the I.N.C. Those payments ended around 1996, a former C.I.A. Middle East station chief told me, essentially because the agency had doubts about Chalabi’s integrity. (In 1992, Chalabi was convicted in absentia of bank fraud in Jordan. He has always denied any wrongdoing.) “You had to treat them with suspicion,” another former Middle East station chief said of Chalabi’s people. “The I.N.C. has a track record of manipulating information because it has an agenda. It’s a political unit—not an intelligence agency.”....

.............................The advantages and disadvantages of relying on defectors has been a perennial source of dispute within the American intelligence community—as Shulsky himself noted in a 1991 textbook on intelligence that he co-authored. Despite their importance, he wrote, “it is difficult to be certain that they are genuine. . . . The conflicting information provided by several major Soviet defectors to the United States . . . has never been completely sorted out; it bedeviled U.S. intelligence for a quarter of a century.” Defectors can provide unique insight into a repressive system. But such volunteer sources, as Shulsky writes, “may be greedy; they may also be somewhat unbalanced people who wish to bring some excitement into their lives; they may desire to avenge what they see as ill treatment by their government; or they may be subject to blackmail.” There is a strong incentive to tell interviewers what they want to hear.

With the Pentagon’s support, Chalabi’s group worked to put defectors with compelling stories in touch with reporters in the United States and Europe. The resulting articles had dramatic accounts of advances in weapons of mass destruction or told of ties to terrorist groups. In some cases, these stories were disputed in analyses by the C.I.A. Misstatements and inconsistencies in I.N.C. defector accounts were also discovered after the final series of U.N. weapons inspections, which ended a few days before the American assault. Dr. Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in political science at Cambridge University, compiled and examined the information that had been made public and concluded that the U.N. inspections had failed to find evidence to support the defectors’ claims.

For example, many newspapers published extensive interviews with Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a civil engineer who, with the I.N.C.’s help, fled Iraq in 2001, and subsequently claimed that he had visited twenty hidden facilities that he believed were built for the production of biological and chemical weapons. One, he said, was underneath a hospital in Baghdad. Haideri was apparently a source for Secretary of State Colin Powell’s claim, in his presentation to the United Nations Security Council on February 5th, that the United States had “firsthand descriptions” of mobile factories capable of producing vast quantities of biological weapons. The U.N. teams that returned to Iraq last winter were unable to verify any of al-Haideri’s claims. In a statement to the Security Council in March, on the eve of war, Hans Blix, the U.N.’s chief weapons inspector, noted that his teams had physically examined the hospital and other sites with the help of ground-penetrating radar equipment. “No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far,” he said.

Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and “Frontline,” the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation “was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,” and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.

In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”

Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war. ........
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact">http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact</a>

Thread readers: check out the last sentence about Salmon Pak in the above
quote box and determine what source you think might be more credible;
Seymour Hersh, the reporter who exposed Colin Powell's 1969 whitewash of
the My Lai massacre....or SOB's reference to the unsubstantiated PBS.org
report about a terrorist hijacker training center, complete with a 707
passenger jet, used as a hijacker training tool.

Tarl Cabot · 01-11-2005, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Thread readers: check out the last sentence about Salmon Pak in the above
quote box and determine what source you think might be more credible;
Seymour Hersh, the reporter who exposed Colin Powell's 1969 whitewash of
the My Lai massacre....or SOB's reference to the unsubstantiated PBS.org
report about a terrorist hijacker training center, complete with a 707
passenger jet, used as a hijacker training tool.

And check the date on this article: 2003-05-05.

I guess that means the airplane in the picture didn't really exist.

Neither the meaningless detour to Vietnam or the attempt to change the subject to the attacks (again) had anything to do with his statement.

roachboy · 01-11-2005, 07:13 AM

SOURCE:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...D7AE75F9B8.htm

Quote:

Cheerleader excuse for Iraq abuse

Tuesday 11 January 2005, 2:51 Makka Time, 23:51 GMT

A reservist sergeant, Graner faces up to 17 years in jail

A lawyer representing one of the alleged ringleaders in the Iraq prison abuse scandal has said piling naked prisoners into pyramids was comparable to cheerleader shows.

Charles Graner's lawyer, Guy Womack, told the 10-member US military jury at the Texas court martial on Monday that leashing detainees was also an acceptable prisoner control.

In opening arguments at the reservist sergeant's trial in Fort Hood, Womack asked: "Don't cheerleaders all over America form pyramids six to eight times a year. Is that torture?"

Graner and Private Lynndie England, with whom he fathered a child and who is also facing a court martial, became the faces of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal after they appeared in photographs that showed degraded, naked prisoners.

The trial is expected to last at least a week. The 36-year-old faces up to 17 years in prison. He has pleaded not guilty.

But four of seven accused members of Graner's unit have already pleaded guilty to abuse charges and three have been sentenced to prison.

Court martial debate

The prosecution showed some of those pictures in their opening argument, including several of naked Iraqi men piled on each other and another of England holding a crawling naked Iraqi man on a leash.

Graner's lawyer compared this to a cheerleading formation
Womack said using a tether was a valid method of controlling detainees, especially those who might be soiled with faeces.

"You're keeping control of them. A tether is a valid control to be used in corrections," he said. "In Texas we'd lasso them and drag them out of there."

He compared the leash to parents who place tethers on their toddlers while walking in shopping malls.

Bigger picture

However, pictures of the humiliating treatment of the prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad prompted outrage around the world and further eroded the credibility of the US, already damaged in many countries by the 2003 Iraq invasion.

The Bush administration has said the actions were those of a small group and were not part of a policy or condoned by senior officers.

But investigations have shown many prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and at the US navy base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba also suffered abusive treatment after the government considered ways to obtain information in its "war against terror".

this is just obscene.

regardless of where you might stand of the surreal matter of post-hoc justifications for bushwar (largely a psychological excersize, it seems to me), the ongoing everyday attrition of this war on the american position--political, ethical, discursive---cannot be denied. the foulness outlined in this article seems but a symptom.

it also seems a good moment for consideration of the effects of conservative discourse more generally: this defense was taken from limbaugh---the attempt to trivialize torture is a conservative monopoly---strange to consider the question of how this could possible square with "morality"....

host · 01-11-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarl Cabot

And check the date on this article: 2003-05-05.

I guess that means the airplane in the picture didn't really exist.

Neither the meaningless detour to Vietnam or the attempt to change the subject to the attacks (again) had anything to do with his statement.

SOB did not include the following, which appeared on the same page
(on the right side.....) that he copied and pasted into the last quote box in his post (above). It is a PBS Frontline editors note, dated one year after 2003-05-05:

Quote:

.[Editors Note, June 2004: A year after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein.]
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html</a>

What is "meaningless", is not the reference I offered to compare Colin Powell's
credibility concerning My Lai, to that of journalist Seymour Hersh.........
and it is not, "my attempt".....as you called it, "to change the subject to
the attacks (again)".

No, Tarl Cabot, what is "meaningless" is the reasoning that the Bushco and
their supporters have advanced to justify 10,000+ American military casualties, to date in their Iraq folly, including <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailynews/010/nation/A_daily_look_at_U_S_military_d:.shtml">1355 dead</a>.
Meaningless "Bushshit", such as this quote from the "war prezzdent":

Quote:

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-02-bush-iraq-troops_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-02-bush-iraq-troops_x.htm</a>

More than 1000 additional U.S. troops have died in Iraq since Bush invited
the opposition, which the links I included in my last post clearly demonstrate
are primarily Iraqis, "to bring them on".

Is it "misleading" to point out, as I did in a preceding post, that Powell said
this:

Quote:

That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq,
<a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm">http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm</a>

Then this......

Quote:

For more than 20 years, by word and by deed, Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows: intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way. For Saddam Hussein, possession of the world's most deadly weapons is the ultimate trump card, the one he must hold to fulfill his ambition.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations, and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and a place and in a manner of his choosing, at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?
<a href="http://www.un.int/usa/03clp0205.htm">http://www.un.int/usa/03clp0205.htm</a>

Finally, in Sept. 2004, Powell stated the following:

Quote:

.....................SEC'Y POWELL: I have no indication that there was a direct connection between the terrorists who perpetrated these crimes against us on the 11th of September, 2001, and the Iraqi regime. We know that there had been connections and there had been exchanges between al-Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime and those have been pursued and looked at, but I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime and what happened on 9/11.........................

MR. RUSSERT: If you knew today that Saddam did not have those weapons of mass destruction, would you still advocate an invasion?

SEC'Y POWELL: I would have to look at the total picture and we'd have to sit down and talk about his intention to have such weapons, the capability that was inherent. The only thing we have not found are actual stockpiles. We have found dual-use facilities. We know that he was keeping the intellectual base intact. We know that he had the intention. All of that is there.

What we didn't get right so far, and we'll wait to see what Mr. Dulfer finally does report, the actual existing stockpiles. That doesn't mean stockpiles could not have been produced out of the capability he had in a short period of time if nobody was watching and there were no constraints. The president chose not to take that risk and we all supported him in that judgment. Would it have been a different analysis that we went through and conclusion that we came to if we knew at that time that intention and capability but no active stockpiles? I don't know. We're going to have to--I can't replay that scene. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5981265/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5981265/</a>

Powell and the Bushco do not seem to know what the fuck they are saying
or doing. How many dead Americans and Iraqis will it take until newsprint
fills up with pieces like this, <a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/10614345.htm?1c">Iraq It's beginning to look like Vietnam </a> and we haul our misdirected military resources out of Iraq ?

sob · 01-11-2005, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Powell and the Bushco do not seem to know what the fuck they are saying
or doing. How many dead Americans and Iraqis will it take until newsprint
fills up with pieces like this, <a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/10614345.htm?1c">Iraq It's beginning to look like Vietnam </a> and we haul our misdirected military resources out of Iraq ?

Hell, I saw those BEFORE any troops went over. The only difference was that you left out "quagmire."

I'm also getting bored with correcting people who misquote and misrepresent what I said. For the record, I opposed Mr Mephisto's characterization of Iraq as "a country that had no involvement with Al Queda."

So with credit to John Henke, whom I'm plagiarizing from because of a lack of interest in endlessly having to repeat what I ACTUALLY said, I'll submit the following:

Neither I nor the 9/11 Report are claiming that Iraq and Al Qaeda were engaged in an ongoing collaborative relationship. I merely point out that there was quite a history of mutual overtures, an apparent willingness to work together, and possible historic cooperation on chemical production/training.

I do not consider it relevant to the prewar calculation that Iraq was in an ongoing cooperative relationship with Al Qaeda. As Bush said, the danger from that relationship laid in the future.

I support the above statements in spite of the media-fueled opposing viewpoint: "Nope, no 'collaborative relationship' here. Move along. Bush lied."

I understand your position though. If you admit that Salman Pak was a terrorist training camp, it at least partially justifies our presence in Iraq.

And that would never do.

P.S. Has anyone told the Marines that the plane they blew up was "unsubstantiated?"

powerclown · 01-12-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

SIGH

Where is the proof for anything?

.....Everything is relative.

I don't agree here...
Here is proof for something. Something positive..
It's a start.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Election. Says Abdel Hussein al-Hindawi, the head of the Electoral Commission: "These are the first free, multi-party elections since 1954 and I can tell you that according to our 6,000 electoral agents throughout the country, there is a real fervour [to vote] even in the Sunni regions." Nearly 14 million voters are eligible to go to the polls.

Iraq is spending 250 million dollars for this landmark election. Voting papers are being printed in Switzerland to avoid counterfeiting, and a company will distribute them to the 9,000 polling stations which will be equipped with 40,000 ballot boxes.

Adds Hindawi: "We have banned any emblem showing violence or religious symbols. . . . Under this rule, we have rejected one list which depicted a tank, another which opted for a Koran with a sun, and a third which had mass graves."

-Legal. Two seminars on the rule of law in Iraq were held in October as part of a university partnership led by DePaul University to improve legal education in Iraq. The first seminar was titled "The New Iraqi Constitution" and was held in Baghdad.

-Women's Rights. Iraqi women, meanwhile, continue with their struggle for greater rights and freedoms in the new Iraq. Zainab Al-Suwaij and Ala Talabani, two Iraqi feminist activists, work on behalf of their countrywomen. Al-Suwaij, who went into exile in the U.S. after the failed Shiite uprising in 1991, "created the American Islamic Congress with the goal of promoting moderation and tolerance within and outside the Islamic community. After the American occupation of Iraq she has also spent 14 months there working to develop projects focused on improving the educational system--her schools for dropouts have a 97 percent rate of success--and empowering Iraqi women."

-Humanitarian. Thirty-four Iraqi medics, academics and police officers arrived in Britain in October to study forensic archaeology at Bournemouth University so they could identify their dead and gather evidence of genocide in their homeland. Seven of the group agreed to be interviewed about the project, paid for with nearly £1 million [$1.9 million] of British Government funds, on condition their identities were protected. Iraq will also receive other valuable foreign assistance to help deal with the tragic legacy of dictatorship.

-Economics. Alan P. Larson, the undersecretary of state for economic, business and agricultural affairs, provides an useful overview of the economic situation in Iraq before and after the liberation: In 1979 Iraq had a per capita living standard on a par with Italy. By the fall of Saddam Hussein's government, Iraq had the GDP of an impoverished developing country and had become the most heavily indebted nation in the world. This grim legacy, compounded by a serious security situation, poses big hurdles to economic development.

Despite these problems, the Iraqis are persevering and succeeding. Iraqi policies made it possible for economic output in the first ten months of 2004 to be 51.7% higher than in 2003. Per capita income in 2004 is projected to be $780, up from approximately $500 in 2003. The Iraqi government has set forth a solid medium-term economic plan. The newly independent Central Bank is keeping inflation in check, with the consumer price index rising only 5.7 percent in the first eight months of 2004 compared with 46 percent in 2003. The new dinar has appreciated 27 percent against the dollar in the past year.

Says Larson: "The economic progress Iraqis have achieved so far, under very difficult circumstances, testifies to their competence and courage. This holds especially true for the men and women who make up the new Iraqi government, who, at great personal risk, are busy building their vision of a democratic and free Iraq."

-Debt Relief. "The United States, Germany and other G7 nations agreed . . . to write off up to 80 percent or $33 billion of Iraq's Paris Club debt, which could pave the way for a wider international accord, officials said." That means, for example, that Australia will forgive Iraq $1.1 billion. The deal might have another good financial spinoff for Iraq: "The accord with the Paris Club, which holds about $42 billion in Iraqi debt, may help pave the way for Iraq to receive about $8 billion in aid from the [International Monetary Fund] and World Bank." The Kuwaiti government, meanwhile, will be asking the parliament to approve an 80% cut in Iraq's $16 billion debt, a reduction in line with the Paris Club decision. Iraq's debt to Russia will be reduced from around $10.5 billion to between $700 million and $1 billion. And Saudi Arabia has also expressed willingness to make substantial cuts in Iraqi debt.

-Financial. Despite security concerns, the Baghdad Stock Exchange continues to move ahead:
"There's a lot of interest," said Mazin Aziza, who represents one of the 13 Iraqi banks now listed on the exchange. "People like to buy and sell on the exchange. We wait for security to improve. Then there will be much more trading." . . .

-Oil. "Iraq, the fifth-largest oil producer in the Middle East, will spend more than $1 billion next year to increase oil production capacity by about 15 percent to 3.25 million barrels a day, an Iraqi official said. 'The budget is fixed for priority projects to build new export pipelines and complete modifications to our refineries,' Abdulilah al-Amir, a foreign relations adviser to Iraqi Oil Minister Thamir al-Ghadhban, said." The authorities plan to build a new refinery in the town of Zakho, in the Kurdish north, close to the Syrian and Turkish borders and along a pipeline route to Turkey. Iraqi officials also are conducting talks with Norway towards building greater cooperation in the oil industry. And the Ministry of Oil has announced that it has shortlisted five foreign companies to study the giant Rumaila oil field in the south and another four to study the oilfields around Kirkuk.

-Oil Industry. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, meanwhile, is onto the second leg of it Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) program (the first stage consisted of renovation of existing oil infrastructure):

The new program goal is to increase liquid petroleum gas (LPG) production to 3,000 metric tons. "This is what we think of as propane," said [Marcia] Meekins, [oil engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' southern district]. "And, of course, the reason they (Iraq) want to increase their production is that now, they have to import it. They want to decrease their reliance on imports." One report concludes that "the Iraqi petroleum industry, despite frequent sabotage attacks and other disruptions, is managing to pump a steady stream of oil, providing a much-needed cushion to international markets and a silver lining to the insurgency-riven aftermath of the US-led invasion.

Problems still haunt the industry, including a major pipeline rupture last week. Even so, Iraq has been a reliable supplier this year." Arguably, this is at least partly due to hard work and determination of a new generation of experts who are trying to rebuild Iraq's oil production: Amid Iraq's rusty refineries, sabotage and fuel shortages, there is a new breed of savvy bankers, hands-on oil managers and western-educated engineers who believe oil can help build a dynamic, modern nation which will inspire the Middle East.

-Business. In Amman, Jordan, the Iraq Procurement 2004 forum and exhibition recently opened, "providing the opportunity for Iraqi businessmen to meet with representatives of global companies hoping to play a role in the rebuilding of the war-stricken state. . . . An exhibition hosting over 50 regional and global companies will be held on the sidelines of the forum, providing the companies with the chance to display their products. During the three-day event, certain projects in the fields of IT, healthcare, energy production, telecommunications, banking, agriculture, water and sewage system will be presented to foreign investors."

-Fallujah. Together, the United States and the Iraqi government have earmarked as much as $100 million for the reconstruction effort in Fallujah, according to Ambassador Bill Taylor of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office. . . . He said that the reconstruction will likely begin with infrastructure projects aimed at restoring basic services. Specifically, he identified a need to repair electricity distribution lines, sewage lines and water treatment facilities. Once basic services are restored, reconstruction efforts will turn to schools, clinics and solid waste management, he said.

The next invasion of this battered city has begun. Teams of reconstruction experts have set up shop in the municipal government complex downtown, having commandeered a former youth sports complex to serve as their headquarters. There, they have launched a crucial, large-scale effort aimed at rebuilding a city that was devastated during the U.S.-led offensive to take control of the longtime rebel stronghold.

-Transportation. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Programs and Contracting Office in Baghdad are also expected to issue contracts soon worth $36 million to Iraqi firms to renovate some 76 train stations throughout the country. Speaking of rail infrastructure, a USAID program is constructing a 45-mile railway line (link in PDF) between the southern port of Umm Qasr and Shuaibah junction near Basrah. The project should be completed by January 2005.

-Health Care. A large part of the effort to rebuild the country's health system consists of improving the skills of Iraqi doctors, who in most cases have been cut off for many years from the latest overseas medical developments. As part of that strategy, "the Japanese government will invite 10 doctors from the southern Iraqi city of Samawah and its vicinity to Japan from . . . for training in infectious disease prevention as part of its reconstruction assistance for Iraq." Already, "in March and October this year, Japan and Egypt jointly provided medical training for a total of 215 Iraqi doctors at Cairo University."

-Infrastructure. A new initiative to provide water and sanitation systems as well as hygiene awareness is improving sanitary conditions for the residents of 21 villages in eastern Kirkuk as well as the southwestern part of As Sulaymaniyah Governorate. This initiative is being implemented by an international NGO in partnership with USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. This project is supporting well drilling, construction of water storage and distribution networks, provision of household latrines, and is addressing health and hygiene education and awareness and delivering some basic health interventions.

-Medical. Just as Iraqi doctors need to catch up with the rest of the world after years of isolation, so do Iraqi academics and teachers. To help them, British academic institutions continue to provide assistance for Iraqi universities: The AOC-British Council Further Education Iraq Group was launched in February this year following discussions with Dr Hamadi and the president of the Iraqi Foundation for Technical Education.

Its vision is to help develop a "restructured, modernised and responsive" vocational education system along regional lines to support the skills needed to reconstruct Iraq. A total of ten UK FE colleges are so far involved in providing expertise in areas such as management, exchange programmes and standardised qualifications for teachers, and developing teaching and learning methods and the curriculum. Books and learning materials are also being provided by organisations such as British Education Suppliers Association and The British Publishers Association.

-Humanitarian Aid. It will clearly take years to repair the damage of decades of destruction and neglect. In the meantime, emergency aid continues to play a vital role, filling in the gaps. Assistance is coming for Iraqi hospitals:
More than eight tons of donated medical supplies will leave Detroit (DETROIT?!?!) next week bound for a storage depot in Baghdad, Iraq, to help the interim government there resupply war-torn civilian hospitals. . . . The materials were donated by doctors and hospitals. The shipment was organized by local Iraqis.

Wally Jadan, president and chief executive of the Southfield-based Arabic content radio and television network Radio and TV Orient, hopes to organize more shipments in the coming months along with a mission by Iraqi physicians living in Metro Detroit.

roachboy · 01-12-2005, 01:10 PM

not to be an ass, but could you post a source link please, sir?

powerclown · 01-12-2005, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

not to be an ass, but could you post a source link please, sir?

Yes, sir.
whitehouse.gov...

I mean, Wall Street Journal. Which has subsequent links to everything mentioned above.

Mephisto2 · 01-12-2005, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I don't agree here...
Here is proof for something. Something positive..
It's a start.

[SNIP LONG LIST]

All well and good powerclown. But that's got nothing to do with whether the US is safer or unsafer. I believe it is the latter. Sob and others took umbrage at that opinion (for some reason) and so began the petty argument.

I agree that, if we take the list you posted, at face value, then Iraq is in some ways "better off". But in many many other ways, it's a lot worse off.

I hazard a guess that if you asked the average Baghdad resident if they preferred their life today to that when Hussein was in power, that they will choose the latter. Not for any love of Hussein, but simply for a love of safety, stability and state integrity.

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2 · 01-12-2005, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Mr. Mephisto, for myself and the 40+ percent of Americans who know why
you "SIGH", it is time to accept that we can not persuade the other side with
"facts".

[SNIP]

I missed this post earlier host. Many thanks for your contribution.

You know, the sad thing is (and perhaps to the surprise of some of those who attack me and my politics on this board), I originally supported the war.

Yep. Me. Mr Mephisto. Mr "Anti-Bush, America-hater" Mephisto.

Why? Becuase I believed what Bush and Co told us. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (still do). I laud the actions of the majority of US troops there and around the world.

But guess what? Once I realised we had been lied to, that there was a much larger degree of cyncial social engineering at work, I changed my mind.

I withdrew my support for the war. I investigated further and monitored the situation; and did not rely upon Fox News or Dan Rather alone for reports. Now when I question the war, when I criticise the actions of America, I'm labeled as a lefty. Because I don't swallow the bitter pill of Bush/Cheney propaganda, I'm considered an apologist for tyranny. I'm asked "why are you so interested in US politics anyway?". I'm personally attacked and insulted.

Oh well. Such is life.

Mr Mephisto

View Poll Results: Iraq and the resistance, is it getting better, worse, or staying the same?
Better	13	15.29%
Worse	54	63.53%
Staying the same	18	21.18%
Voters: 85. You may not vote on this poll

01-07-2005, 10:15 AM	#42 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	I voted things have stayed the same. As long as there are daily bombings that kill people, it pretty much seems business as usual. __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

01-07-2005, 11:01 AM	#45 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	your argument resembles the following, powerclown: since i began moving my coffee cup back and forth across my desk, it has not snowed in philadelphia. when i am not typing this post, i have spent some time pushing my cup back and forth and looking out the window. my cup was just moved again. it is still not snowing. obviously my actions are warding off snow, and making philadelphia a safer place to drive around in. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-07-2005, 11:37 AM	#48 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the logic of your post is a problem, powerclown----it correlates unrelated elements in order to draw arbitrary conclusions. on the other hand, i am still moving my coffee cup back and forth. (there it goes again) it is still not snowing. (just look out my window) q.e.d. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-09-2005, 09:29 PM	#60 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Looks like it was a press conference. Where'd you hear about if it wasn't on the news? Or did you mean old news as in October 2003? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

01-07-2005, 01:08 PM	#50 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	It would seem that many of them are in Iraq, attacking, killing and injuring Americans right now - current estimates sugest there are about a quarter of a million of them.

01-07-2005, 01:53 PM	#51 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	The key phrase here is: ...attacking, killing, injuring....in Iraq. Not...in America. Hey, I don't wish to be the de facto Defender of the Iraqi War here. I have a certain amount of criticism of aspects of this war myself. The ball has been dropped repeatedly, opportunities have been squandered, mistakes have been made - I will be the first to acknowledge episodes of incompetence. But, as I said, there is no manual for this extremely complicated undertaking - a large part of this is learning on the job, as they go. The reason I'm willing to accept some setback is because I believe the overall cause is worthwhile.

01-07-2005, 07:29 PM	#53 (permalink)
pinoychink790 Loser Location: McDonald's Playland	last option makes sense to me

01-09-2005, 09:38 PM	#62 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Also there is speculation that Iraq had terror links with Al Qaeda all the way back in 1993 in and around the Olympic Motel and Somalia. This was ofcourse run out of Khartorum. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-10-2005, 07:37 PM	#67 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...387460,00.html this article is about fallujah after the americans detroyed it. it is quite at odds with other material on the battle, and is worth having a look.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-12-2005, 01:10 PM	#77 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	not to be an ass, but could you post a source link please, sir? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite