War in Iraq not a part of the War on Terror???

Crap...not only did it help the terrorists it waisted all that funding to feed the hungry. Well good thing Saddam's dead. Whether you agree with the War on Terror or not that is a good thing.

Nice comeback Tone...to all the abuse you've had to stand for supporting the war.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Wow.

Part of the money that was sent by the West to a thirld-world country run by a despot was used to purchase weapons.

News indeed.

On the same train of thought, the US and the EU support dictatures in Africa by sending financial and material aid. Part of the money goes into the despot's pockets, and the food gets resold to the starving population. Classic. Still, the starving population eventually gets something, instead of completely starving to death.

Also, I find this article tabloid-style ad nauseam. It focuses too much on the UN program, and not enough on the corrupted Baathist government, attempting to further prove the legitimacy of Bullshit War II by underlining the malversation of a worldwide program, making it a casus belli for further Righteous Wars On Terror.

I half-expected to see the "commie pinko punks" line somewhere in it. Oh well.
 
Lost In The Rush

Lost In The Rush


The marketing of "war now" with Iraq was so narrowly focused on WMD, and the 9/11 terrorists that it, too, conveniently, lumped them all together.


While Cheney was accurately linking the connection of Saddam and the war on terrorism during his nomination acceptance speech, street level Republican partisans were running around parroting the sound bite 'Saddam equals Bin Laden' version.

To many this didn't sound quite right and when they deconstructed the message they might have lost the core fact that Saddam was an enemy of the United States, before and after 9/11. Saddam was " in our road" regardless.

The condensing into sound bites can cause a rejection of the total message.



I suggest another collateral casualty of the sound bite mentality was a pragmatic plan for pre and post invasion Iraq.


Pardon my Monday morning generalship. An invasion plan that would have allowed the deployment of the 2nd Division in time for for the kick off, might have had allowed the State Department to prove that all those career employee assets could diplomatically isolate Saddam and any of his apologists, especially Saddam's 'business associates'.

Rather then Rumsfield being the defacto State Department 'mouth' by
dis'ing "Old Europe', perhaps Colin Powell could have aggressively
executed his 'moderating influence' in foreign capitals and media markets.

The truth, now, not some fuzzy satellite photos, on how Saddam was defeating the weapons inspections AND WITH WHOM, and who was on 'the take', by a spokesman with the clout of Powell, might have been a kinder and gentler --- in your face -- for world governments then the the Secretary of Defense's diplomatic diddlings.

If you pardon my 'what if', then maybe I can suspend my disbelief, and filter out the ulterior motives of a FOX, partisan, media source. I will trust that this is information that needs to be restated, and will support the senate investigation it sights, and not
be pandering to the prurient interests that live to bash the U.N. , and will not be labeled as yet ANOTHER justification for the invasion that's two years late.


4too
 
Sorry, Tone, I don't read anything that comes from Fox News.

Seriously, what's your point? That Saddam was a brutal dictator and a corrupt criminal? Everybody knows that, and everybody knows that his overthrow was a positive outcome of the invasion of Iraq. However, the fact that he funneled away billions of dollars from the Oil-for-Food program and gave part of it to families of Palestinean suicide bombers doesn't imply his regime was connected with Al'Qaeda. Please note the word 'suicide', which was conveniently left out of the Fox article - Saddam's regime wasn't actually hiring the bombers, but rather handing out money to their families. In a twisted sense, he was aiding them. Make no mistake, however - his motives were far from charitable. His goal was likely to entice as many terrorists as possible into suicide bombings by ensuring their families are provided for after their demise. Though this practice helped prolong the perpetual circle of death and destruction in the Middle East, it does in no way prove what you are trying to establish here - that Saddam was financially aiding Al'Qaeda organization or providing haven to its terrorists.
 
The fact that the closest link that can be found between Hussein and Al-Qaida is payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is a the exact opposite of the proof we were supposed to swallow.

Plus, come on, its Fox News! Just the wording of that rag reflects how partisan that 'news agency' is. Christ, I put more trust into what I hear from The Daily Show!
 
*Sniffs post*

Right, this is about the time for a conservative response. CCR, stop jerking off to Monica Belluci (by the way, you too, welsh) and post something.

Edited for typos. Damn typos.
 
"I won't read Fox News 'cause I only like to read what I want to hear." Waaaahhh, boohoo!

Ratty, Murdoch, Fox News is not the only news agency that has reported this.

The War in Iraq is part of the (Global) War on Terror (which was started right after 9/11 with OEF). Al Qaeda is a major part of that, but not the only part.

Perhaps you two morons missed that in my topic..."War in Iraq not a part of the War on Terror???"

This is a favored line of the ignorant libs (which you two apparently belong to). I'm not saying that all liberals are ignorant here...just that many of them back tracked on the War in Iraq being a part of the GWOT.

So anyway, thanks for your utter non-contribution to this thread.
 
«ºTone Caponeº» said:
So anyway, thanks for your utter non-contribution to this thread.
Click to expand...

Of course I contributed! I contributed a point of view that doesn't require me to have my head up my ass! :seriouslyno:

*simmers down*

Iraq never harbored terrorists, period. If the only thing you can come up with to link Iraq and Hussein with terrorism is the support of Palestinian suicide bombers, that is pretty sad. Sad because this isn't even new information. Fox seems to have run out of good talking points to help its corporate masters keep the people scared so must rehash old ones instead. Second that this wasn't ever put forth as a reason for invading Iraq. Until recently that is.

Funny how all of the original terrorism related reasons have since been swept under the carpet (by not being reported on by everyone's favorite source of Fair and Balanced news, among others), and have been replaced by paper thin approximations of reason, none of which justify the invasion and subsequent chaos any more than the original ones.

*okay, perhaps I didn't simmer down that much*
 
«ºTone Caponeº» said:
"I won't read Fox News 'cause I only like to read what I want to hear." Waaaahhh, boohoo!
Click to expand...
No, I won't read Fox News because it's a biased, low-quality White House lapdog. I generally hate right-wing media, but when they are also directly moderated by the government, I'd rather self-amputate my foot than take their misinformation seriously.

Ratty, Murdoch, Fox News is not the only news agency that has reported this.
Click to expand...
No, but most other news agencies tried to report this in an objective manner and not feed it to clueless readers as yet another 'proof' that Bush and his administration aren't a bunch of low-life liars.

The War in Iraq is part of the (Global) War on Terror (which was started right after 9/11 with OEF). Al Qaeda is a major part of that, but not the only part.
Click to expand...
*sigh* Al'Qaeda was the organization which organized and carried out the 9/11 attacks. There is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam's regime had any connection with Al'Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks. Bottom line - Bush and his war-mongering lunatics made claims that Iraq is connected with a global terrorist network that attacked the USA and somehow represents a threat to American national security, and produced falsified evidence to back up those claims. Based on this falsified evidence, USA invaded another country. Whether or not that country had connections with terrorists in Palestine is irrelevant - not only do Palestinean suicide bombers have little or nothing to do with Al'Qaeda and 9/11 attacks, but everything about this information suggests that American public (and quite possibly US government) were unfamiliar with it until recently.

I can see what feeble assertion you are trying to establish here - that every militant on this planet is part of a global terrorist network bent on destruction of America, and that even an implied connection of a country to these militants warrants an invasion of that country. These connections are conveniently found in regions that are of strategic and economic interest to the US. I bet it won't be long before Bush and his brilliant intelligence agencies uncover irrefutable proof that governments of Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria were behind the 9/11 attacks.

Perhaps you two morons missed that in my topic..."War in Iraq not a part of the War on Terror???"

This is a favored line of the ignorant libs (which you two apparently belong to). I'm not saying that all liberals are ignorant here...just that many of them back tracked on the War in Iraq being a part of the GWOT.
Click to expand...
Insults? Wow, you are sure desperate to get your point across, no matter how erroneous it is.

Oh, and you got one thing wrong about me. I'm no liberal - I'm a socialist. Most of your so-called 'liberals' are far too right-wing for my taste.

So anyway, thanks for your utter non-contribution to this thread.
Click to expand...
Next time you post a thread with purpose of getting fellated by bob_the_rambler and other right-wing dipshits, remember to put an appropriate sign in the title, or Murdoch and I will again make the mistake of posting educated comments where they are undesired.
 
Ratty said:
The War in Iraq is part of the (Global) War on Terror (which was started right after 9/11 with OEF). Al Qaeda is a major part of that, but not the only part.
Click to expand...
*sigh* Al'Qaeda was the organization which organized and carried out the 9/11 attacks. There is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam's regime had any connection with Al'Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks. Bottom line - Bush and his war-mongering lunatics made claims that Iraq is connected with a global terrorist network that attacked the USA and somehow represents a threat to American national security, and produced falsified evidence to back up those claims. Based on this falsified evidence, USA invaded another country. Whether or not that country had connections with terrorists in Palestine is irrelevant - not only do Palestinean suicide bombers have little or nothing to do with Al'Qaeda and 9/11 attacks, but everything about this information suggests that American public (and quite possibly US government) were unfamiliar with it until recently.

I can see what feeble assertion you are trying to establish here - that every militant on this planet is part of a global terrorist network bent on destruction of America, and that even an implied connection of a country to these militants warrants an invasion of that country. These connections are conveniently found in regions that are of strategic and economic interest to the US. I bet it won't be long before Bush and his brilliant intelligence agencies uncover irrefutable proof that governments of Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria were behind the 9/11 attacks.
Click to expand...

You missed the boat again...how many times did I mention Al Qaeda in this thread? Only in response to you mentioning it. Please re-read everything because you're jumping to the wrong conclusions.
 
By Desmond Butler
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Wednesday, November 17, 2004


NEW YORK -- Saddam Hussein diverted money from the U.N. oil-for-food program to pay millions of dollars to families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out attacks on Israel, say congressional investigators who uncovered evidence of the money trail.
The former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan -- where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program -- to reward the families up to $25,000 each, investigators told The Associated Press.

Documents prepared for a hearing today by the House International Relations Committee outline the new findings.

Today's hearing, however, will focus on a French bank that handled most of the money for the program. An audit by a U.S. regulatory agency of a small sample of transactions out of the $60 billion U.N. escrow account managed by BNP-Paribas has raised serious questions concerning the bank's compliance with American money-laundering laws, investigators said.

"There are indications that the bank may have been noncompliant in administering the oil-for-food program,"

committee chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said. "If true, these possible banking lapses may have facilitated Saddam Hussein's manipulation and corruption of the program."

While acknowledging that U.S. regulators have raised routine issues with BNP on compliance with banking laws, a lawyer for BNP said Hyde's statement was unfair.

"No departure from any standard caused or contributed in any way to the abuse at the oil-for-food program," the bank's lead counsel, Robert S. Bennett, said. "There are simply no connections."
Click to expand...
 
There's a big difference between providing money to the family of terrorists and officially supporting terrorists. Now ask yourself, "Where did Saddam get the money?"

[edit]Please disregard this last part. It's a fuck up of the first order on MY part, not his.[/edit]

Oh, and I'm glad you decided to double post so you could quote a news source (to which you already supplied a link) that would be called unreliable at best.
 
I can cite articles too:
March 18 said:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein's regime made billions of dollars more than originally estimated from the United Nations' Oil for Food program and smuggling, the General Accounting Office said Thursday.

Saddam reaped $10.1 billion in illegal oil revenues from 1997 to 2002, GAO Director of International Affairs and Trade Joseph Christoff told a House Financial Services subcommittee Thursday. Originally, GAO had estimated the Iraqi regime acquired only $6.6 billion.

Christoff said $5.7 billion was from oil smuggled out of Iraq and $4.4 billion came from illicit surcharges on oil sales and after sale charges on suppliers involved in the Oil for Food program.

The program, which was set up after the 1991 Gulf War, allowed Iraq to sell specific quotas of oil, with the proceeds earmarked to pay for food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Other oil sales were barred under a U.N. embargo.

"The sanctions did not prevent Iraq from acquiring billions in illegal revenues from these proceeds," said Christoff. "Oil was smuggled through Syria, Jordan and the Persian Gulf. The government levied surcharges of up to 50 cents a barrel against oil purchasers. It extracted commissions of 5 to 10 percent against commodity suppliers. Based on this information, we estimate that the former regime acquired 10.1 billion in illegal revenues."

At the same hearing, Treasury Department officials said they were freezing the U.S. assets of 16 family members of Saddam and other top members of his regime. The list includes Saddam's two wives, Sajida Khayrallah and Samira Shahbandar, and three of his daughters.

"Those names are being notified to the U.N. to make that part of the mandatory freeze list, to allow our counterparts around the world to freeze those assets and repatriate them," Deputy Assistant Secretary Juan Zarate said.

Member nations must freeze accounts and financial assets that might hold Iraqi money as required by a U.N. Security Council resolution.

In addition to the individuals, the Treasury Department is submitting 191 Iraqi entities to the United Nations.

"Everyday the hunt for Iraqi assets unveils more and Hussein's thievery from the Iraqi people," said Zarate. "Taking international action to identify and freeze funds pilfered by the fallen regime is crucial to the reconstruction efforts in Iraq."

So far, the Treasury Department says the United States has frozen $4.5 billion in Iraqi assets.
Click to expand...

This whole issue is not new. What is new is the spin that the money was used to reimburse suicide bomber's families.

Fact is, the money that Hussein skimmed went into a central pool, that he used to bribe, cheat, steal and generally flaunt the UN mandate put on him since the First Gulf War. Do you find it that unreasonable that he used a tiny fraction of that money to support suicide bombing? It's not like that would be out of character for him or anything. This whole thing is just one more spin on the great tilt-o-wheel of lies the American public is subjected to daily. I for one got off the ride long ago, want to join me?

I take your posting this to mean that you are citing this as evidence that Hussein aided terrorists. If this is not the case, please correct me. If in fact this is what you meant, then let me reiterate my point that I am not impressed by this so-called link. As ratty said earlier, Hussein was simply using the bombers like so many others do: to further their own selfish interests.

Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda have no link, now or ever. That is a fact that no amount of spinning or repeating will change.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
There's a big difference between providing money to the family of terrorists and officially supporting terrorists. Now ask yourself, "Where did Saddam get the money?"

Oh, and I'm glad you decided to double post so you could quote a news source (to which you already supplied a link) that would be called unreliable at best.
Click to expand...

Why do I have to explain myself....

1. I'm sure the money provided to the families of homicide bombers was given to worthy charities, say the Red Crescent/Red Cross, NRLC, etc...

2. There were 55 minutes between posts and you're calling that double posting? Additionally, I'm quoting a different news source. The top link quotes Fox News. If you look at the top article, it says the title, date and has the Fox News logo. If you go to this link you'll notice the title, date and "Associated Press." One place to get your news, multiple sources.

So...let me guess, the Associated Press is unreliable? The news article was posted to show that more than Fox News was reporting the same info...since so many people had a problem with Fox News.

Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda have no link, now or ever. That is a fact that no amount of spinning or repeating will change.
Click to expand...

I've said Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda have a link how many times in this thread? I said it once in The Order's forums and then retracted my statement. Do you guys pay attention???

I take your posting this to mean that you are citing this as evidence that Hussein aided terrorists. If this is not the case, please correct me. If in fact this is what you meant, then let me reiterate my point that I am not impressed by this so-called link. As ratty said earlier, Hussein was simply using the bombers like so many others do: to further their own selfish interests.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what impresses you. Hussein was using bombers just like UBL was using the 9/11 pilots...to further his own selfish interests. This is evidence that Hussein was aiding terrorism.

Keep in mind a phrase I've used here: "(Global) War on Terror"

You guys are the ones trying to inject Al Qaeda in this. The first person to mention the group was Ratty, you were second. I followed up by trying to remove Al Qaeda from the conversation...you guys brought it back.

So what's next?

LATE EDIT:

This whole issue is not new. What is new is the spin that the money was used to reimburse suicide bomber's families.

Fact is, the money that Hussein skimmed went into a central pool, that he used to bribe, cheat, steal and generally flaunt the UN mandate put on him since the First Gulf War. Do you find it that unreasonable that he used a tiny fraction of that money to support suicide bombing? It's not like that would be out of character for him or anything. This whole thing is just one more spin on the great tilt-o-wheel of lies the American public is subjected to daily. I for one got off the ride long ago, want to join me?
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the money being used to reimburse suicide bombers is spin, yet you're also saying that it isn't unreasonable that he would do it in such a way that we should have expected it...what exactly is your point?

I think you got off the wrong ride. Nice of you people trying to pin it on Fox; I'm sure as it becomes convenient you'll say the rest of the news sources are unreliable too.
 
I hope this doesnt cause me to be part of a "side", but I need to jump in defense of Tone. HEY PEOPLE HE NEVER MENTIONED AL-QIEDA IN HIS POST! It was really about corruption in the Oil-for-food program...

Besides the topic was about this "Not being a part of the war on terror" and since Al-Qieda wasnt involved I'd have to say thats true.

Now please dont shoot me!

o.o,
The Vault Dweller
 
I am happy that you had another news source. But it is still another useless excuse for unilateral invasion of another country. Bush wanted to go to war, the administration was given BS intelligence and they accepted it...because they wanted to go to war.

Going to war is still not justified and it is still wrong. What did you want us to debate? Is the money paid to the families of terrorists a reason to have a war in Iraq? The tenuous links to terror are a bonus for Bush, but the main enemy was Saddam, who might have caused trouble with US access to oil.

Some fun facts.
The interim PM, Iyad Allawi, was a senior Baath Party member, until he got too cosy with western intelligence operatives, and was attacked with a hatchet. He became leader of one of the resistance movements, funded by the CIA, and his organizations carried out a number of bombings during Saddam's regime. That's not terrorism though, because he was fighting for democracy. He told the CIA that he almost pulled off a successful coup against Saddam, but really, he just managed to get a couple of military officers brutally executed due to his inept plotting. Some people have made allegations that it was he who ordered a bomb the other opposition leader's group, as it was gaining more power. So why did he become the interim PM. Ahmed Chalabi allegedly gave intelligence to the Iranian government, losing favour with the US. Allawi also supposedly still has support among some of the officers.
 
«ºTone Caponeº» said:
Question, since I'm not that familiar with it...why did we go to war in Yugoslavia?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Yugoslavia#Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia

I'd say NATO went there because Tito was all that held Yugoslavia together and his death caused all hell to break loose.
I have no idea why you're dragging the Kosovo Liberation Army into this discussion tho. You don't have some weird proof that Saddam founded them or something, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top