The Iraq Thread 2

[Tex -USMC- 0]

From BBC article:

Quote[/b] ]A new opinion poll shows that public support for Mr Bush's handling of the conflict has fallen nine points to 58%.

58%!  

If you are one of those 58% send me a PM. I have a bridge to sell you  

Shit, I remember the polls prior to the war where like 25% of Americans thought that Iraq was involved in the whole 9/11 thing. So, as much as I love my country, my opinion of my average fellow countryman's intelligence is... not very high lol.

[Cpt.Gumbo 0]

Who knows if going into Iraq was a good idea, right now I believe it was but maybe I am wrong. Still I think Bush is the best president we have had for atleats 12 years, maybe more. Sure there are things I dislike about Bush, but there are many things I respcet, especilly his stand for Christ. The terriost ties Iraq has, I blieve are true and thats reason enough for the U.S. to invade. I do not care what the U.N. says, infact I wish the we would pull out of the U.N., the UN is a joke. I wish we would just get some leaders in the Goverment that are not worried about offending people, worried about getting back into office, all they are worried about is doing what is best for the American people, and most of all dont give a care hwat most of Europe thinks.

[Warin 0]

Who knows if going into Iraq was a good idea, right now I believe it was but maybe I am wrong. Still I think Bush is the best president we have had for atleats 12 years, maybe more. Sure there are things I dislike about Bush, but there are many things I respcet, especilly his stand for Christ. The terriost ties Iraq has, I blieve are true and thats reason enough for the U.S. to invade. I do not care what the U.N. says, infact I wish the we would pull out of the U.N., the UN is a joke. I wish we would just get some leaders in the Goverment that are not worried about offending people, worried about getting back into office, all they are worried about is doing what is best for the American people, and most of all dont give a care hwat most of Europe thinks.

A question:

If Bush is good for promoting his rather narrow and right leaning view of Christianity, then whty are Muslims wrong for doing things that their religion says will be rewarded?

And have you ever considered that Saddam was a secular leader, and hated by the majority of fundamental Muslims almost as much as they hate the US?

[denoir 0]

The terriost ties Iraq has, I blieve are true and thats reason enough for the U.S. to invade.

Would you mind telling us exactly what terrorist ties you are talking about?

Wolfowitz himeself said that the supposed terrorist ties was the main source of disagreement in the US government. Both the CIA and the State Department were very sceptical about the administration's unsubstantiated claims. And there have not been any confirmation of those claims now, after the war.

[FSPilot 0]

Well, Saddam did pay money to Hamas terrorist's families to motivate them to attack Israel.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Well, Saddam did pay money to Hamas terrorist's families to motivate them to attack Israel.

Any hard evidence of this?

[hellfish6 7]

Yes, Saddam paid some amount of money to the families of suicide bombers. But I really don't think that such an action condones terrorism. $3000 or whatever won't make the family grateful that their son blew himself up. I'd say that he was supporting terrorism if he was paying the bombers enough to actually motivate them the blow themselves up. Until then, you can't say that he was supporting terror. He was providing some relief to the families of what he, and many millions more, considered martyrs.

[FSPilot 0]

DracoPaladore

Quote[/b] ]Any hard evidence of this?

It's a pretty well known fact.

Quote[/b] ]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-01-10-hamas-iraq_x.htm

Ganor said Hamas leaders may also want to keep ties strong with Iraq because Saddam Hussein frequently pays the families of Palestinians, including suicide bombers, who die in confrontations with Israeli soldiers.

Hellfish6

Quote[/b] ]Yes, Saddam paid some amount of money to the families of suicide bombers. But I really don't think that such an action condones terrorism. $3000 or whatever won't make the family grateful that their son blew himself up. I'd say that he was supporting terrorism if he was paying the bombers enough to actually motivate them the blow themselves up. Until then, you can't say that he was supporting terror. He was providing some relief to the families of what he, and many millions more, considered martyrs.

Do you have a source that says he only paid $3000? Even though I think the amount of money is irrelevent, I heard it was much more.

Either way, giving any amount of money to a bomber's family simply because he's a terrorist I consider supporting and motivating them.

[DracoPaladore 0]

DracoPaladore

Quote[/b] ]Any hard evidence of this?

It's a pretty well known fact.

Quote[/b] ]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-01-10-hamas-iraq_x.htm

Ganor said Hamas leaders may also want to keep ties strong with Iraq because Saddam Hussein frequently pays the families of Palestinians, including suicide bombers, who die in confrontations with Israeli soldiers.

My bad. 3:35am in the morning kinda brain-farts.

[hellfish6 7]

$3000 was an abstract figure. Hence why I added "or whatever" immediately after it.

Well... America supported the Contras in Honduras, the ZANLA and ZIPRA forces in Rhodesia, UNITA in Angola, Mobutu in the Congo (and dozens of others) all of whom could be considered terrorists. At least Saddam took care of the civillian victims and never actually supported the ACT of terror. Last I checked, the Vietnamese were still suffering from Agent Orange and mass graves were still being dug up in Central America.

[Longinius 1]

"Well... America supported the Contras in Honduras, the ZANLA and ZIPRA forces in Rhodesia, UNITA in Angola, Mobutu in the Congo (and dozens of others) all of whom could be considered terrorists. At least Saddam took care of the civillian victims and never actually supported the ACT of terror. Last I checked, the Vietnamese were still suffering from Agent Orange and mass graves were still being dug up in Central America.´"

Thats different. Because America is good, Saddam is bad. US is always right, everyone else not in agreement is wrong. And

[FSPilot 0]

Actually, I heard figures around $25,000 (probably not US though )

Quote[/b] ]Well... America supported the Contras in Honduras, the ZANLA and ZIPRA forces in Rhodesia, UNITA in Angola, Mobutu in the Congo (and dozens of others) all of whom could be considered terrorists. At least Saddam took care of the civillian victims and never actually supported the ACT of terror. Last I checked, the Vietnamese were still suffering from Agent Orange and mass graves were still being dug up in Central America.

So are US soldiers, so I wouldn't call it terrorism, it was an accident.

[hellfish6 7]

Actually, I heard figures around $25,000 (probably not US though )

Quote[/b] ]Well... America supported the Contras in Honduras, the ZANLA and ZIPRA forces in Rhodesia, UNITA in Angola, Mobutu in the Congo (and dozens of others) all of whom could be considered terrorists. At least Saddam took care of the civillian victims and never actually supported the ACT of terror. Last I checked, the Vietnamese were still suffering from Agent Orange and mass graves were still being dug up in Central America.

So are US soldiers, so I wouldn't call it terrorism, it was an accident.

[sarcasm]Yeah... ha... ha... Agent Orange was an "accident". [/sarcasm]

Millions of gallons of untested (at least on humans) defoliant knowingly sprayed hardly amounts to an "accident." More like "War Crime" or "Crime Against Humanity" to me.

[Gollum1 0]

Actually, I heard figures around $25,000 (probably not US though )

Quote[/b] ]Well... America supported the Contras in Honduras, the ZANLA and ZIPRA forces in Rhodesia, UNITA in Angola, Mobutu in the Congo (and dozens of others) all of whom could be considered terrorists. At least Saddam took care of the civillian victims and never actually supported the ACT of terror. Last I checked, the Vietnamese were still suffering from Agent Orange and mass graves were still being dug up in Central America.

So are US soldiers, so I wouldn't call it terrorism, it was an accident.

HAHAHA...Accident, oh man that´s rich

[FenderHSS 0]

You know what I think about all this?  Bush is an imbacile.  Clinton was a much better president.  Just look at the economy!  Economic Stimulus package my ass! He's going to ruin us all! Clinton built up the economy!  So what if he was a ladies' man, every president (almost) has had a little play on the side!  Now Bush is going to start up another war!  Just so he can gain support for the next election!

Was going back to Iraq a good idea?

The YES side:  Saddam was dangerous to world peace.  We know Iraq had a bio-chemical weapons program.  They offered no hard evidence that they had destroyed their caches of biological warheads.  We removed a vicious dictator and gave the Iraqi people liberty to choose their own government. (at least that's what's planned)

The NO side: The entire Islamic world is extremely distrustful of the U.S.  All eyes are on the Bush administration.  If they screw this up it would be a international political nightmare!  The whole of the Middle-East would hate the U.S. even more!  And you know what, Bush is screwing up worse as the days go by.  This was our chance to show the Arabs that we're not after their oil, their land, we're not trying to make a "puppet state" of Iraq, and provide them with a model (Rebuilt Iraq) of how good Democracy and Capitalism can be for a nation.   Well, the Islamic world isn't exactly seeing our best foot forward. Now, we're going after another dictator while Iraq still lies in shambles?  They must think we're really true to our word...

Part II: A conspiracy!

When Bush took office, I was very upset.  Most people say Gore wouldn't have been any better, but you know what?  He would have still had Clinton's cabinet, the financial wizards that helped our economy grow 1992-2000.  International relations were also better under Clinton.  Bush should have slapped Israel on the wrist and told them to back off when they started military action in Palestine.  The whole situation did nothing but strain Muslim and Western relations.  Israel way overstepped their bounds on several ocasions.  On to the conspiracy part of this post...  I have noticed the Bush administration is moving towards constriction some of natural rights.  Ashcroft and his "Homeland Security" are reaching the point of not being unconstitutional.  Freedom of speech is being restricted.  There are less personal freedoms now, especially for Middle-Eastern minorities.   There's much more to complain about, but I don't have the room in this post.  I have a great interest in government and international politics, including history (especially the rise of republic government, and governments throughout history) and I am noticing some very scary parallels between the Bush admin. and another political party that existed in the 20th century.  Their name: The Third Reich, beter know to most as the Nazi party.  (By the way NAZI in German is an acronym for Socialist Laborors' something-or-the-other-party)  Both the Nazis and the Bush administration are invasion happy.  Even Bush's cabinet resembles the heirarchy of the Nazi party.  Bush is Hitler.  The same, incompeten man, with no military or political wit.  John Ashcroft is Joseph Goebbles, Hitler's propaganda cheif.  Goebbles had a "Homeland Security" too.  You know what it was?  "Shut the hell up, after all, you do love the Fuhrer, don't you?"  Now , it's just, "What are you complaining about?  You shouldn't mind if we monitor all comunications and invade your privacy.  After all, you're not a terrorist, are you?" Oh, and good 'ol vice president Dick?  His character bears remarkable resemblance to that of Martin Bormann.  For those of you who haven't studied the Nazi party and the Holocaust, Martin Bormann was Hitler's right hand man.  Recently, I was watching a CNN special on Cheney.  They discribed him as a backseat political figure, but one with great influence and power.  Always eager to help the president with no ambitions of glory for himself.  Bormann was a backseat figure, but in many ways, he ran the Nazi party.  He would do anything to please the Fuhrer, much as Dick Cheney is so eager to assist our president.  Okay, we're not purpotrating genocide, but give us a massive economic depression (we're not that far off) remove all Bush's opposition in Congress, throw out the constitution, add a dash of ambitious nationalism, and we're there.  Doesn't this sound like the America we all dream of:  "Heil to the Cheif!" or "Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Bush!"  Do you know what Hitler did to gain support when the great depression struck Germany?  He blamed the Jews!  

Now, let's see.  Who would be an easy target to pin our current economical crisis on?  Gee, let me think a moment...  Hmmm.  everything really  went down hill when the terrorists attacked...  Couldn't have been the Economic Stimulus thingy before that, because, after all, Bush is the savior of America....  I know, it's the Arabs!  They're a threat to our way of life!  Let's go on a worldwide conquest to eradicate them and round up all the ones at home and send them off to death camps.  Oops, did I say death camps?  I meant "Concentration Centers" where we will temporarily relocate them for their benefit.  

What scares me is, I think bush would do it to create a surge of blind nationalis to get himself re-elected.  But that's just my opinion.  

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

Comments?  I really want to hear them.  Politics is my favorite thing to talk about.  Thanks for reading.

[FallenPaladin 0]

/me waits for FSPilot`s answer to the post above

Finally we get a discussion between US citizens of both parties Pro-Bush and Contry Bush.

[Placebo 29]

Actually, I heard figures around $25,000 (probably not US though )

Quote[/b] ]Well... America supported the Contras in Honduras, the ZANLA and ZIPRA forces in Rhodesia, UNITA in Angola, Mobutu in the Congo (and dozens of others) all of whom could be considered terrorists. At least Saddam took care of the civillian victims and never actually supported the ACT of terror. Last I checked, the Vietnamese were still suffering from Agent Orange and mass graves were still being dug up in Central America.

So are US soldiers, so I wouldn't call it terrorism, it was an accident.

Many American people financially supported the IRA for many many years, would you call that supporting terrorism? The funding only really dried up post 911 when they learned what it's like to be the victims of terrorists.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Saddam did finance the People's Mujahhedin of Iran as well as fund Black September back in the day.

[FallenPaladin 0]

And Saddam Hussein was financed by the USA to fight a war against Iran. This "He did that, you did that" discussion leads to nothing. When it comes to supporting or financing certain terrorist groups I think the USA and Saddam Hussein are even.

[denoir 0]

Just about every country with any ambition in interntational politics has supported terrorist movements one way or another. Saddam did indeed until the end of the Iran-Iraq war fund terrorists. These connections were however used against Iran and not against the western world - not even Israel. After the Iran-Iraq war Iraq lost all interest in supporting terrorism.

The claim of the Bush administration that Iraq was somehow connected to the 11th september attacks are not true. On the contrary, Islamic fundamentalist were a common enemy to both USA and Iraq.

Saddam is not stupid. He learned his lesson in the first Gulf War and it is very unlikely that he would have put a gun to his own head by attacking America, directly or indirectly. As a matter of fact interviews with former Iraqi government employees have clearly indicated that his WMD program was dismantled in the mid-90's because the political cost of it being discovered was too high.

Furthermore, something that is readily omitted by the media and by officials is that Saddam's Iraq was in no shape to attack anybody. Saddam did not even have complete control over Iraq's territory. To retake the northern parts of Iraq that were not under his control would have been a much higher priority than to go and pick a fight with another country.

I think that the general problem is that people look at the world in black and white. Good and evil:

Saddam is bad, he is a dictator and kills civillians. Terrorists are bad, they kill civillians and more outrageously American civillians. So therfor Saddam and the Big Bad Terrorists are bad guys: i.e on the same team. If they're on the same team then they surely must work together.

The statement that "My enemy's enemy is my friend" is seldom true in international politics.

[Cpt.Gumbo 0]

Quote[/b] ]A question:

If Bush is good for promoting his rather narrow and right leaning view of Christianity, then whty are Muslims wrong for doing things that their religion says will be rewarded?

And have you ever considered that Saddam was a secular leader, and hated by the majority of fundamental Muslims almost as much as they hate the US?

Why are muslims wrong? Becuase killing people is wrong if you do it just becuase they do not believe in your religion, or becuase you are so worried about going to hell you go kill somebody who is not a muslim. Christians dont go around killing people becuase they dont believe in God, well the shouldnt. Anyways this is not a religious discussion, if we want of those lets open another thread, but Ill try to stay on topic at this point. Also Saddam I do not believe is trruly hated by muslims, why? Becuase he hates America.

Quote[/b] ]Would you mind telling us exactly what terrorist ties you are talking about?

Lets see their is the payments to the suicide bombers, and the terrorist training camps found in Iraq......

Quote[/b] ]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Saddam paid some amount of money to the families of suicide bombers. But I really don't think that such an action condones terrorism. $3000 or whatever won't make the family grateful that their son blew himself up. I'd say that he was supporting terrorism if he was paying the bombers enough to actually motivate them the blow themselves up. Until then, you can't say that he was supporting terror. He was providing some relief to the families of what he, and many millions more, considered martyrs.

Uh that would not be ties to terriost? I think most of the famalies support their kids in blowing themselves up. If anybody considers those people martyrs they are sick twisted individuals.

Quote[/b] ]sarcasm]Yeah... ha... ha... Agent Orange was an "accident". [/sarcasm]

Millions of gallons of untested (at least on humans) defoliant knowingly sprayed hardly amounts to an "accident." More like "War Crime" or "Crime Against Humanity" to me.

America may have gone to pot, but I still find it hard to believe we would do this on purpose. I may be living in awicked nation,sadly still the best, but doing this on purpose, I think not.

Quote[/b] ]You know what I think about all this? Bush is an imbacile. Clinton was a much better president. Just look at the economy! Economic Stimulus package my ass! He's going to ruin us all! Clinton built up the economy! So what if he was a ladies' man, every president (almost) has had a little play on the side! Now Bush is going to start up another war! Just so he can gain support for the next election!

You know the ecnomy was going down when clinton left, andclinton gained a good ecnomy from Bush Sr. Also Clinton had a Republican congress for awhile to kepp him from messing up. So dont say that Clinton was a better president based on the economy. I doubt Bush will start another war just to gain support, but that would be no worse than putting our soldiers over in Kosovo and Bosina like Clinton did.

Quote[/b] ]Many American people financially supported the IRA for many many years, would you call that supporting terrorism? The funding only really dried up post 911 when they learned what it's like to be the victims of terrorists.

Not saying its not true, but could you give me some evidence?

Quote[/b] ]I think that the general problem is that people look at the world in black and white. Good and evil:

You know, you are either good or evil, there is no middle.

[denoir 0]

Uh that would not be ties to terriost? I think most of the famalies support their kids in blowing themselves up. If anybody considers those people martyrs they are sick twisted individuals.

Yes like the US government that has the nerve to give financial aid to the families of KIAs. How sick and twisted to support the families of those that fought for what you believe in!

Quote[/b] ]

You know, you are either good or evil, there is no middle.

So Saddam, Osama and others were good in the 80's when they recieved military and financial aid from the US, but now they are evil?

Quote[/b] ] the terrorist training camps found in Iraq

What terrorist camps? There has been no proof at all of any terrorist activity. The only training camps found were of various separatists up north that fought against Saddam.

Edit: I might add one thing. It's funny how some things that have been proven wrong still stick around. The claim that Saddam is paying the families of suicide bombers was a Fox story published in mid-september 2002. They refered to information form an Iraqi informant. The story was rejected by every serious news agency as bogus. It was basically rejected as pure BS. Yet it is still around. People still believe it's true. I think I even heard a US official refer to it once (don't remember who). Basically everybody with any knowledge of the situation has dismissed it as absurd.

[Placebo 29]

Quote[/b] ]Many American people financially supported the IRA for many many years, would you call that supporting terrorism? The funding only really dried up post 911 when they learned what it's like to be the victims of terrorists.

Not saying its not true, but could you give me some evidence?

First link I found in Google....

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=34

Quote[/b] ]Provisional Irish Republican Army, The Provos

The following information is based on "Patterns of Global Terrorism" - US State Dept.

This group is a radical terrorist group formed in 1969 as clandestine armed wing of Sinn Fein, a legal political movement dedicated to removing British forces from Northern Ireland and unifying Ireland. The organization has a Marxist orientation, and is organized into small, tightly knit cells under the leadership of the Army Council.

Structure

They have several hundred fighters and thousands of supporters and sympathizers amongst the Irish Catholic population. The group is led by Sinn Fein, and is a legal political movement organized into several small cells led by the Council. They receive financial support and aid from sympathizers in the U.S., and have received arms and training in Libya and from the PLO. Similarities in operations suggest links to the ETA.

Activities

The IRA used bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, extortion, and robberies. Before its 1994 cease-fire, its targets included senior British Government officials, British military and police in Northern Ireland, and Northern Irish Loyalist paramilitary groups. Since breaking its cease-fire in February 1996, IRA's operations have included bombing campaigns against train and subway stations and shoppping areas on mainland Britain, British military and Royal Ulster Constabulary targets in Northern Ireland, and a British military facility on the European Continent.

Article mentioning group of businessmen who raise money for Sinn Fein (political wing of the IRA).

I remember an anecdote about an Englishman sat in a New York pub having a quiet drink when somebody came up to him rattling a tin asking him to contribute to the IRA cause, he mentioned that maybe they should start collecting for Al Queda as well (this was just after 911), I guess he was lucky to get out of the pub alive but I can understand his sentiment

[theavonlady 2]

Edit: I might add one thing. It's funny how some things that have been proven wrong still stick around. The claim that Saddam is paying the families of suicide bombers was a Fox story published in mid-september 2002. They refered to information form an Iraqi informant. The story was rejected by every serious news agency as bogus. It was basically rejected as pure BS. Yet it is still around. People still believe it's true. I think I even heard a US official refer to it once (don't remember who). Basically everybody with any knowledge of the situation has dismissed it as absurd.

I don't know what funnies you read in Sweden but we've got local Arab papers who say they know better than you:

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=12732

[denoir 0]

Did you read the article you posted? Saddam gave money to organizations that gave humanitarian financial support to palestinians. The families of suicde bombers got special attention.

There is nothing odd about it. Every Arab country does that. The biggest donor of money to the families of suicide bombers is the good US friend Saudi Arabia.  

But yes, technically you are correct. I had a wrong recollection of it and I expressed myself wrongly. The money isn't BS. It does exist, but singling out Saddam for doing it is rubbish.