Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-17-2004, 07:02 AM   #16
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:01 PM
A_Wanderer:

You're right - after we invaded Iraq success is verry important so that democratic structures can sperad, western politics can be called credible and therefore al-quaeda looses linfluence!

If i remember it correctly CIA mentioned about 60 countries who harbour al-quaida terrorists, some of them even having training camps for them (remember al-quaida? the organisation who is responsible for 9/11?) and - i hope i remember that correctly Iraq wasn't on that list.
Surprisingly one of the top al-quaida supporters - Pakistan (Chances are pretty good that they harbour Mr. Bin Laden) is now our ally against terrorism.

For several years the public wasn't informed what lead to 9/11. Which mistakes lead to the desaster of 9/11.
Did http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjc...i/3610_01a.pdf
AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS) on 9/1
lead to 9/11 because NORAD and FAA couldn't act like before?
Is there any direct responsibility of Mr. Rumsfeld because of these new directives?

Learning from mistakes is verry important so that 9/11 can't hapen again

Ok sorry now i'm loosing focus on the subject Iraq too.

So back to the 60 countries who harbor or support al-quaida according to Mr. Tennet. Do you think it's a good idea to go to war against these 60 countries, do you think that makes this world a safer place?

It's much more likely that Pakistan would sell WMDs to al-quaida than the former iraq and Pakistan has allready the atomic bomb.
Do you think it was a wise decision to focus first on Iraq?

Don't get me wrong. It's important that after all these years of glorification of terrorism (supoorted freedom fighters as long as the terror hits an enemy of the US) there is a mayor change in judging these people.
Terrorism is never a good thing and in the end democracy and international laws are damaged most.
But i think the war against terrorism isn't done by invading countries - terrorism isn't like the traditional enemies if you bomb afghanistan they move to pakistan they don't care about the country you bomb.
In the end they might even profit from western attacks.
Afghanistan is controlled by warlords again except the capitol city which is controlled by UN troops. Why? maybee because we wasted military engergy in iraq instead of turning Afghanistan into a democratic lighttower?
It would be EXTREMELY helpful if the war against terror would care more about:

-priorities
-lasting effectiveness
-not feeding your enemy with dishonest or questionable actions
(comparison Arafat he almost lost his support in Palestine before Sharon started his actions against him)

We can't defend democracy and our lifestyle in the world by copying or supporting the behaviour of people we officially condemn.

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 07:29 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:01 AM
See now we get to the key problem, war is a tool at our disposal and one that must be used sparingly (you cannot fight 1.1 billion muslims, it just won't work). Saddam Husseins Iraq is a situation where I think millitary action was the only way to force a resolution, he knew how to manipulate diplomatic efforts and obfuscate weapon inspectors. Unlinke Iraq Pakistan is a country that has many competing interests within it, you have the ISI running operations within Afghanistan backing Al Qaeda while at the same time Musharraf is waging war against these same men, unlike Iraq we can use these various groups in a carrot and stick type way to force compliance, provided we play our cards right and can use them properly we can prevent these weapons falling into the hands of nasty customers. We cannot allow this type of action to blind us to human rights abuses or dictatorship so again we must use leverage to encourage change within these countries, the worst thing the US could do in this current climate is to make deals with regimes coming in from the cold (Libya anyone?) in which we don't make conditional human rights obligations. If force is used properly in the right situations it can be a good thing however in the vast majority of situations diplomatic and economic pressure can force resolution.

I don't think that it is as likely Pakistan in its current state would sell its weapons to Islamist terrorists, I think the real risk is another coup in which islamists find themselves in possesion of a bunch of nuclear weapons. Here we have a problem, if we force Musharraf to democratize to quickly it is entirely possible the country becomes unstable and a taliban type regime siezes control, there are a few stops to this happening (Millitary, Intelligence Service and Foreign Intervention) but the threat is still there.

In an Ideal world we would have a magic wand that would force countries to stop supporting terrorism and turn them into stalwart allies against Al Qaeda with strong human rights in exchange for trade deals and international aid, in reality we must deal with a variety of regimes in different levels of power and corruption that all require different courses of action. I do not advocate a war against Saudi Arabia or Pakistan because they have no strategic value in terms of winning the war, I do advocate a strong coercion of these countries to crack down on terrorists and cooperate in the fight against terrorism with the threat of cutting business links or exposing some of their misdeeds to the world. Politics is a very dirty game and we must make sure that when we pursue a just cause we don't loose the moral high ground, it is impossible to operate in the world without dealing with demons - we just have to ensure that we save more lives and make the world safer, it is very difficult because compromises do happen, this bloody will to power bullshit will be the death of me - I need to concentrate on this question. I strongly believe that there is a right and wrong and I also know that without proper action the western world is in serious danger, reconciling this with morality is a difficult thing to do, there is no easy answer to this and if you think it is then you are lying. Will respond when I have thought about it furthur.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 08:46 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:01 AM
Um, did my post just go through?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 09:50 AM   #19
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus


There are MANY things which are better because of this war there are some countries which are safer because of this war but I doubt that that the world is going to be safer because of this war. Maybe huge amounts of WMDs got into the hand of al-quaida because of this invasion.
Maybe because of that a terrorist strike with WMDs against the US is possible now.
Al-quaida is now also much stronger in iraq than before this war.
My little summary...
There's two arguments on Iraq, why the US did it - was it right or wrong or truthful or whatever and that can go around in circles forever and the other argument is, well, it's done, but was it successful. I think it is going to take a huge miracle for Iraq to end up a successful democracy that can function on it's own without 150,000 foreign troops watching over them. I can't see 'trouble' leaving Iraq for a long time, and I think even if on the surface it all looks great, it's only ever a heartbeat away from chaos or civil war. I think the real dark cloud is how deep the hand of Iran is in all of this. I think there's a lot more to that then we know (and even then, what is out there in the public deserves more attention) and some of the movements Israel has been making lately are pretty interesting. I don't think we are any where near out of the woods as far as a wider problem goes. I'm betting if Bush is re-elected there'll be another twist to the story. My point is, this thing still has years and years to go before a proper judgement can be made. Fully functioning democracy without 150,000 troops watching over anytime soon? Bullsh*t. It's election time.

On terrorism, I don't think Bush etc ever actually said there was a direct Iraq/911 connection, but there is no doubt that what they said was carefully managed to leave that impression. Read back over any of their speeches leading up to the war and the two (Iraq/AQ) are always mentioned very closely. And they never said there wasn't a link, just gave those fluffy non-answers that Bush is so good at. For a large % of Americans who probably only get their news from the soundbites on the 6 o'clock news, thats probably enough to get them to believe there's a connection. I don't think the fact that 80% of Americans thought there was a link was not the intention of the Administration.

On the WMD's, if you truly believe there were a lot of them there, and now they have disappeared, then you can only believe two things. They are still in Iraq and are hidden/buried/whatever, or they have left the country. Either way, if you still believe they exist somewhere, and you still believe that WMD's were the reason for the war, then you have to believe that the danger levels are higher now than ever before. Pre-war you believed they were in Iraq . You believed that Saddam Hussein may or may not use them against someone, or may or may not pass them on to a terrorist organisation. But you knew they were in Iraq and that Saddam wasn't completely insane. Why would he use them and face certain, swift destruction? And if he still did, you knew exactly where to hit back, and who to hit back at. You didn't know for certain that he ever had or ever would pass them on to a terrorist group. How about now? You have no idea where they are, no idea who has them, a guarantee that whoever has them now has them with the intent of using them, not just as a "don't f*ck with me" defence system, and if they are used you have no idea where others may be, when they will be used and really who has them.
Not good. Not better. Worse.
__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 11:51 AM   #20
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:01 PM
A_Wanderer:
Cool new haircut

I agree on most things TylerDurden said and because of that i think the war against Iraq wasn't part of the war on terror - I guess it even supported international terrorism.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 05:06 PM   #21
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 09:01 PM
A-Wanderer... war is 'a tool at our disposal'? War should be a last effort in the pursuit for peace when all else has failed, never a tool to get what we want.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 06:31 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:01 PM
The war on Iraq has done nothing to diminish terrorism in fact it's probably escalated it.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-17-2004, 11:11 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:01 PM
If one had read Paul Wolfowitz's off-hand comments on Iraq, we went to war to establish a permanent military presence somewhere in the Middle East outside of Saudi Arabia, as the Bush Administration was mindful that our military presence in the Arabian Peninsula was pissing off Al-Qaeda (so much for not caving in to terrorism, yes?). With Iraq "liberated," then the U.S. would be in a better position to deal with Syria and Iran, if need be, if based in Iraq.

So why WMDs? Well, they needed a justification for such military aggression, and since they did have prior UN resolutions on Iraq, it was a justification for war that "all sides could agree upon." That's really why Bush only supported the resumption of UN weapon inspections insincerely; almost as soon as they were in Iraq, Bush was ready to declare it ineffective, and anyone paying attention to the media could tell that he was itching for war.

But there's the problem: there are no WMDs to be found even by the U.S. "Oops." That's the problem with a "faith-based war." When you are searching for justifications for a pre-planned war, you'd better find a justification that you can actually follow through with. The Bush Administration clearly failed in that matter; if you're going to lie to the American public, to the UN, and to the entire world, the least you can do is pick something that you know you can follow through with. And that's where WMDs came in; they just miscalculated.

The commission is likely right on target with Al Qaeda and Iraq. The fundamentalist leadership of Al Qaeda was in direct contrast to the secular dictatorship of Iraq. Sure, they might have hated America, but this would be comparable to getting the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shiites to get along and work together--a nice thought, but it just won't happen (the Shiites are looking forward to bullying the other two by their sheer numbers and Al Qaeda hates both the Kurds and the Shiites; a happy Islamic family! ).

Bush, frankly, is grasping for straws; it would have been incredibly convenient for him to be able to link Saddam to Al Qaeda, but the logic just isn't there. A mutual hatred of America isn't enough to get the Islamic world to stop hating each other.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 12:27 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 10:01 PM
No Melon, President Bush is very serious about stopping the spread of WMD. Please notice how he's punished Pakistan for their pretty much open trading of nuclear info and technology to Iran and North Korea. President Bush is just waiting for God to tell him which sand dune the WMD's are hidden under in Iraq, and then you will see how wrong you are. Paul Wolfowitz is always taken out of context by the anti-American, pro-terrorist left wing media, and besides he's a cheap drunk and gets muddled sometimes. President Bush liberated Iraq so that they could be free and enjoy liberty which is the opposite of tyranny in case you didn't know.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 02:19 AM   #25
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Ties with terrorists and aiding in the 9/11 attacks are two different things.
Not according to some of the pro-war folk who post on Interference. Some here have been insistent on such linkage since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq but they are thinking with their hearts and not their heads.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 06:38 AM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler


Not according to some of the pro-war folk who post on Interference. Some here have been insistent on such linkage since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq but they are thinking with their hearts and not their heads.
Name them.....

I am curious.....

And please....link me to the post....so I know for sure who said it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 09:41 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 10:01 PM

Bush Insists on Iraq-Al Qaeda Links Despite Report

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush, on the defensive over the Iraq war, insisted on Thursday that Saddam Hussein had a dangerous relationship with al Qaeda, a day after the independent Sept. 11 commission reported no evidence of collaboration between the two.

Responding to the latest challenge to his policy in Iraq, Bush asserted that there were "numerous contacts" between Saddam and al Qaeda operatives that justified the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 11:06 AM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:01 PM
First, we should verify if we are all talking about the same thing. There is a sliding scale between Saddam and Osama planning 9/11 together on one side, and terrorist ties to Iraq on the other side. Both sides have been playing word games on this scale.

While there has always been a gap between public knowledge (what the 9/11 Commission could discover) and secured knowledge (what the CIA, NSA, etc. knows), I am not happy with the abuse of this gap with these follow-up statements. If evidence of a link between Saddam and al Qaeda exists, I would hope more evidence would be release to substantiate the statements.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 02:18 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:01 PM
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 02:18 PM   #30
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 01:01 PM
The 9/11 commission did find that there were links between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Sudan set up some meetings between Saddam and representatives of al-Qaeda in the mid-90s, and they also had some contact after bin Laden moved operations to Afghanistan. However, the 9/11 commission report found that these meetings ultimately did not produce an operational relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda. So while yes, there are links, they did not amount to anything. Though what Bush and Cheney are saying is factually correct, it is intellectually dishonest when the "links" are put into their proper context.
__________________

__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com