azraelle Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 ADM: Atomic Demolitions Munition ABM: Anti-Ballistic Missile ICBM: Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile Are you sure you mean ABM? Or would an ICBM do the trick? "All that you can decide, is what to do with the time that is given you."--Gandalf, "Life is not tried, it is merely survived -If you're standing outside the fire."--Garth Brooks
Highluc Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 Are you sure you mean ABM? Or would an ICBM do the trick? Nobody mentionned ABM so far, we only referred to the standard atomic bomb, without even mentionning a delivery vector. Be youself, enjoy any footwear you like and don't care about what others think about it, it's your life, not theirs. Greetings from Laurence
azraelle Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 Sorry--I meant "ADM", which you have mentioned. "All that you can decide, is what to do with the time that is given you."--Gandalf, "Life is not tried, it is merely survived -If you're standing outside the fire."--Garth Brooks
Bubba136 Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 IntoSkirts wrote: "For the record I do not think the USA should be the worlds policeman" If the unvarnished truth were to be known, I believe there a whole bunch of people in the USA that would like to see this country not ever playing any sort of leadership role in the world. Most of the really basic, life-threatening problems in societies today are politically created. Politics is an "internal" national situation and every country should be left alone to react as they can. I believe in not sending any kind of aid, relief or assistance to any country under any circumstances. If the government of Zimbabwe wants to kill all of it's European farmers, why should we to care? I could care less if the Turks want to annihilate the Kurds, the Serbs want to kill the Crotes or the Sudanese want to starve the Christians to death. Live and let live. It's their country. It's their problem. Let them sort it out for themselves. After all, if circumstances are so bad, then the citizens of those nations can change their form of government. Besides, any sort of aid or assistance given to these countries by the United States isn't appreciated anyway. Why throw a rope to those that are drowning when they’re causing their boat to sink? Do you actually believe I would favor even lifting a finger to aid the people of Sweden if a natural disaster occurred in their country? I don't believe one more American life should ever again be given to help any Frenchman, German, or Belgian under any circumstances. (And I'm currently trying to form an opinion about the British as to whether or not they deserve our help in the future.) In situations where other nations and groups of people want to cause harm to my country, my family or me, then, it's lower the boom time. Poke me in the nose and I'll cut your knees off at your ba**s. And, I’ll be damned if I’ll let a bunch of socialist thugs, any world organization or group of people who’s agenda is not in the best interests of my country, dictate who I take action against, when I take action, or in what form action will be. Suffice it to say, play ball with me or I’ll shove the bat up your rectum. Like my father used to say, don't let your problems become my problems. And, if you don’t support me in my times of adversity, don’t ask for my support when your a** is in a crack. Rest assured. The United States will do whatever is necessary to protect it's territory, citizens and quality of life. We American's don't need acquiescence of the United Nations or any European government in order to protect our own. It's time for you guys to make up your mind because when you aren't part of the solution, you become part of the problem. Believe me when I say that within the next 4 or 5 weeks or so, we're going to cause the Iraq problem disappear from the radar screen of world problems. It's time to lead, follow, or get out of the way. Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public.
Highluc Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 Sounds like Big Brother is going to smash the little brother against the wall a few times just because the little one pinched him in his ankles. Being the strongest means you also should be able to be reasonable and only use your strength when really needed and against equally strong opponents. The last 50 years we had a form of peace in the world thanks to a balanced deterrence between a few strong nations. This led most nations to diminish defence spending and army sizes and sign disarmament treaties. The money could then be used into boosting the economy, increase development aid to reduce the potential North South conflicts and avoid massive economical immigration etc…During more than a decade this worked fine and military power was mostly used after UN consent to smother local conflicts or push back invading armies. After the cold war we saw slow but successful results reuniting populations that had been split generations ago, mostly thanks to never ending political negotiations from United Nations ambassadors and officials. Free economic markets blossomed throughout the world, most world nations agreed in Kioto something had to be done to preserve our atmosphere from further decay. The USA had been a forerunner of all these peacetalks (SALT agreements), ratification of the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, supporting the German unification, providing STOL aircraft to deliver food help throughout Africa etc… Only the last years we note the USA refuses to participate in the world program to minimise exhaust of gasses and heath into the atmosphere, instores unrealistic import duties on such products as steel etc, unilaterally pulls out from the ABM treaty and starts to develop a new ABM systems, continuously reduced its UN contributions and negates the forum’s resolutions (ie against Israel), believes they are entitled to police the world by enforcing no fly zones over sovereign territories, refuses to recognise the neutral aspect of the International tribunal of The Hague, etc No wonder some of the strongest pro USA believers from the past (like me) start to have doubts about this hegemony trend of one nation versus the world. Not being pro does not mean being against (as you suggest), but allow people to at least be neutral and think about the long term advantages and disadvantages of some drastic unilateral decisions. With the global economy and multicultural society we now live in it is potential long term suicide to start unilaterally declared actions. Of course you can try to pursue the Far West mentality and only think short term for the benefits of your economy but be ready for some furious response from others who feel neglected or threatened. Be youself, enjoy any footwear you like and don't care about what others think about it, it's your life, not theirs. Greetings from Laurence
Trolldeg Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 Like my father used to say, don't let your problems become my problems. And, if you don’t support me in my times of adversity, don’t ask for my support when your a** is in a crack. Rest assured. The United States will do whatever is necessary to protect it's territory, citizens and quality of life. We American's don't need acquiescence of the United Nations or any European government in order to protect our own. in what way is attacking Iraq protecting the US territory? in what way is attacking Iraq protecting US citizens? in what way is attacking Iraq protecting the american way of life?
Highluc Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 Bubba, don't forget to read my reply on your message, I'm afraid it got lost as the last message on previous page and you might not read it if only checking the last page. No hard feelings, just another opinion. Be youself, enjoy any footwear you like and don't care about what others think about it, it's your life, not theirs. Greetings from Laurence
Dr. Shoe Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 Do you actually believe I would favor even lifting a finger to aid the people of Sweden if a natural disaster occurred in their country? I don't believe one more American life should ever again be given to help any Frenchman, German, or Belgian under any circumstances. (And I'm currently trying to form an opinion about the British as to whether or not they deserve our help in the future.) We are not discussing natural disasters here Bubba. We are talking about anihilating a country just because two men are of the opinion that it's the thing to do. On Sept 11th which was the first country to offer condolence, direct aid, and to speak out against the perpetrators even before it was known who they were? UK based specialist teams were on their way to New York within an hour of the attack. As much as the average Englishman mildly dislikes his french neighbour, we would never hesitate to supply them with aid in the event of a natural disaster, major terrorist attack or disease epidemic. We would probably not support them in a military action unless this had the full support of the UN. At the moment, this is not forthcomeing in the case of Iraq. Moreover, IMO it is wrong to confuse military action against a country that is not a direct threat with humanitarian aid. Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects.
Stu Posted February 5, 2003 Author Posted February 5, 2003 Feb. 5 is going to be an extremely critical day, as Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. could well make the difference between war and peace. IMHO, Powell's most important challenge will be to convince Europe (specifically France, Germany and Russia) that there is sufficient justification for a war. If he can get them to go along, Bush will probably get the U.N. resolution that he insists he doesn't need, but in reality he needs very badly. Opinion polls in the U.S. show that a strong majority of Americans favor a war with Iraq only with the support of the U.N. I'm in that majority, and I think it makes good sense for the U.S. not to act unilaterally but to be willing to take out threats like Hussein as long as there is an international consensus for doing so. It is sad, in some ways, that Americans in effect trust the opinions of foreign leaders more than they trust their own president, but that is essentially the situation that exists in America right now. I think we Americans are conscious at some level that we have a right-wing cowboy as president, and we're OK with him being the leader of the posse...as long as we have a posse. (P.S. Don't blame me, I voted for Gore, as did the largest share of American voters.)
Highluc Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Just couldn't refrain myself from sharing this Be youself, enjoy any footwear you like and don't care about what others think about it, it's your life, not theirs. Greetings from Laurence
Julietta Posted February 5, 2003 Posted February 5, 2003 Come back Clinton all is forgiven! Highluc - excellent as ever and so true. Bubba136 - wars are man made and natural disasters are just that, natural. No one here hates Americans we just hate the thought of needless destruction that only war can bring. Think of all the male members of your family that will be thrown into this war whether they want it or not. I'll be damned if they take my son. Why should he go and fight people he knows nothing about just because Blair or Bush says so. Why should all that bloody studying for his future be wasted because of this whim of two political people. I'm sorry that you feel suddenly so angry at anyone not wanting this as I feel it means that the spin doctors in America are winning their war with brainwashing their people. I just want to carry on living my mundane but healthy life and hope that all my family and friends are able to have the same. Peace to all Julie xx Let calm be widespread May the sea glisten like greenstone And the shimmer of summer Dance across your pathway "Communication is a two way thing"
Dr. Shoe Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Well said Julie. Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects.
nicjasno Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 Yeah, a war is the worst possible sollution. This could easily become world war 3. http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml This link is supposed to be funny, but it somewhat illustrates, a worst case scenario. And it really scares the hell out of me. www.nicjasno.com
micha Posted February 6, 2003 Posted February 6, 2003 I agree to Julie. And I'm still rotating on the floor because of HighLuc's posting. Another question: Why isn't it possible to kill the dictator Saddam Hussein without a total war against Iraq? For example with a satellite steered missile. The CIA, NSA or DOD get hundreds of billions of dollars. I can't believe that it's absolute impossible to get knowledge of his place of residence. Or are these organizationsy only money swallowing paper tigers? My conclusion: It's NOT the primary goal of G.W. Bush, to kill this damned dictator. Possibly more the intention to get control over the Iraq oil reserves. Simply neglecting several thousands of civil victims. As a conscientous objector it wasn't easy for me to change my mind and to support the war against the Taleeban and the Al Quaidah terrorists. But I'm not willing to accept any war. Remember always the consequences of a war. The misery of mutilated, burned or amputated people, and particularly the children! micha The best fashion is your own fashion!
Waisted_Giraffe Posted February 7, 2003 Posted February 7, 2003 Answer to the original question..... NO Dubya and his pet Blair (yes I know he is our Prime Minister) should stop rattling Saddam`s cage, he`ll only bite back if he is provoked, basic laws of engagement.....not that I agree with the way he has treated his own countrymen, not that the Kurds etc are historically his countrymen, It`s Britains fault in the first place, we shouldn`t have carved up the middle east 100 years or so ago. And another thing, by all accounts Saddam and Bin Laden are on opposite sides of their own spectrums, it just depends where you stand..... sorry I`ll get off my soap box now...
PJ Posted February 7, 2003 Posted February 7, 2003 I have listened to arguments from both sides of this issue for some time now. Each side does bring up some good points. But I still have some unanswered questions: 1. The United Nations has been concerned about the repression of some of the Iraqi population by it's own government. Those affected are the Kurds in northern Iraq, and the Shi'a in southern Iraq. As a result, the UN Security Council issued Resolution 688 in 1991 to condemn Iraq and demand the cesation of this repression. See http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/scres91.htm for the details. It also called for the UN members to assist with humantarian efforts to assist these repressed people. The USA, Great Britian and France used this resolution as an excuse to create two No Fly Zones (one over northern Iraq and one over southern Iraq). Currently the USA and Great Britain are flying armed combat aircraft over territory belonging to a country we are not at war with and without their permission. By what authority? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm 2. The US politicians have stated that many Iraqi people do not support Saddam Hussein. But if we went to war, how can we be assured that we can eliminate the oppressive governement while minimizing injury and death to the oppressed population? http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/21/bush.iran/index.html 3. If war began in Iraq, how prepared are we to deal with the potential of terrorists attacking targets of opportunity in other countries, including the USA ? http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/06/agriculture.terror.ap/index.html and http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/01/sprj.irq.suicide.bomber/index.html click .... click .... click .... The sensual sound of stiletto heels on a hard surface.
Bubba136 Posted February 7, 2003 Posted February 7, 2003 While everyone is taking potshots at the USA. How about these in retaliation? http://pictures.ehowa.com/unsecuritycouncil.jpg http://pictures.ehowa.com/frenchvictory.jpg Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public.
Dr. Shoe Posted February 7, 2003 Posted February 7, 2003 While we're on the subject of scary, did you know that Armageddon is only about 600 miles from Bagdad? The modern name for the place is Megiddo and it is in Northern Israel about 20 miles from Afullah. Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects.
Firefox Posted February 8, 2003 Posted February 8, 2003 You must have a different version of Google, Bubba. I just searched for "french military victories" and got 57,000 documents But back to the topic, I don't know anyone out of my friends, family, or aquaintences in the UK that supports this crazy war. Blair should listen to British public opinion and dissuade Bush from this infantile behaviour.
Stu Posted February 8, 2003 Author Posted February 8, 2003 Highluc's posting made my day. And, while I am still sitting on the fence over the need for a war with Iraq, I'd like to take a shot at answering PJ's questions: 1. By whose authority are the US and Great Britain flying armed combat planes over a country we are not at war with? That's simple: The UN's authority. The Persian Gulf War never truly ended; The UN alliance agreed to a ceasefire under the condition that Iraq would comply with various UN resolutions. Whatever you think of Bush, he is absolutely right when he argues Iraq has violated all these resolutions. Part of the conditions under which the US, Britain and the other allies ended hositilities in 1991 was that they would patrol the no-fly zones. Iraq started the war by invading Kuwait. If Iraq truly wants to end that war once and for all, it needs to comply with the UN resolutions. It's that simple. Iraq is not the innocent party here. 2. If we go to war, how can we be assured that we can overthrow Hussein while minimizing injury and death to innocent civilians? Nobody can give absolute assurances. However, all the smart bombs and other high-tech weaponry can hit military targets and avoid "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent civilians) better than anything that could have been conceived 20 years ago. Of course, even this technology is not perfect, and Hussein doesn't make things easier for his citizens by putting important military equipment in schools and mosques in civilian neighborhoods. If and when civilians die, Hussein shoulders at least part of the responsibility. 3. If war begins in Iraq, how prepared are we to deal with terrorists attacking targets in the US and other countries? The sobering answer may be: not much. After 9/11 (and Bali), however, why do we think terrorists will only strike at us and our allies if we attack Iraq? Whether you are for or against a war with Iraq, it seems pointless to me to worry that we may do something that would provoke Al-Qaida. We have the memories of 3,000 dead people in NYC, Virginia and Pennsylvania to tell us that Al-Qaida doesn't need provocation to kill Americans. The plot to release poison gas in the London Underground should drive the same point home with Britons.
j-turbo2002 Posted February 8, 2003 Posted February 8, 2003 Yes! I finally found a credible source where all of the jealous and envious anti-American war protestors get all of their credible information as to why the U.S. should not attack Iraq! Click Here: http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/north_dakota.html The information that is in the link above should be taken as truth and as a reason why the U.S. should not attack Iraq!
Dr. Shoe Posted February 8, 2003 Posted February 8, 2003 1. By whose authority are the US and Great Britain flying armed combat planes over a country we are not at war with? That's simple: The UN's authority. The Persian Gulf War never truly ended; The UN alliance agreed to a ceasefire under the condition that Iraq would comply with various UN resolutions. Whatever you think of Bush, he is absolutely right when he argues Iraq has violated all these resolutions. Part of the conditions under which the US, Britain and the other allies ended hositilities in 1991 was that they would patrol the no-fly zones. Iraq started the war by invading Kuwait. If Iraq truly wants to end that war once and for all, it needs to comply with the UN resolutions. It's that simple. Iraq is not the innocent party here. The UN resolution called for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. British and American governments justify the no fly zones as a means to protect the Shi'ites in the south and the Kurds in the north. At no time as this been authorised by the UN which is why the French pulled out. Nobody has said that Iraq is "innocent" but without a UN resolution authorising an attack, we have no legal right to do so. 2. If we go to war, how can we be assured that we can overthrow Hussein while minimizing injury and death to innocent civilians? Nobody can give absolute assurances. However, all the smart bombs and other high-tech weaponry can hit military targets and avoid "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent civilians) better than anything that could have been conceived 20 years ago. Of course, even this technology is not perfect, and Hussein doesn't make things easier for his citizens by putting important military equipment in schools and mosques in civilian neighborhoods. If and when civilians die, Hussein shoulders at least part of the responsibility. This of course is true, however, we can reduce civilian casualties even further by not bombing in the first place. 3. If war begins in Iraq, how prepared are we to deal with terrorists attacking targets in the US and other countries? The sobering answer may be: not much. After 9/11 (and Bali), however, why do we think terrorists will only strike at us and our allies if we attack Iraq? Whether you are for or against a war with Iraq, it seems pointless to me to worry that we may do something that would provoke Al-Qaida. We have the memories of 3,000 dead people in NYC, Virginia and Pennsylvania to tell us that Al-Qaida doesn't need provocation to kill Americans. The plot to release poison gas in the London Underground should drive the same point home with Britons. Again, a valid point, however Al Qaida has no connection with Saddam Hussein or Iraq as a whole. Iraq is ruled by Sunni moslems who are by doctrine permitted to drink and not compelled to pray 5 times daily. They despise the Shi'ites in the south because of their over strict zealous religious fanaticism- much the same way as the Northern Irish Protestants hate their Catholic neighbours. Bin Laden and the Taliban are Shi'ites as are most of the residents in Saudi, UAE, Yemen, Iran, Somalia. Ironically, the no fly zones are protecting the very people who were behind sept 11th! The Iraqis, Jordanians, Syrians etc. are Sunni moslems which are actually more tolerant of the encroachment of western culture. To say that there is any more than a passing connection between Al Qaida and the Iraqi administration is a bit like saying Ian Paisley is an IRA sympathiser! Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects.
micha Posted February 9, 2003 Posted February 9, 2003 Hi Dr. Shoe, in your last posting are some errors: The big majority (nearly 90%) of muslims are Sunni. As the majority in Saudi Arabia and in the Emirates. Vice versa you will find in Iraq a big minority of shi'ites, just as you said. Possibly they are even the majority. Drinking of alcohol is forbidden for every muslim. That's not a question of a "doctrine". It is written down in the Koran rsp. Qur'an. Every believing muslim has to dispense with alcohol. micha The best fashion is your own fashion!
j-turbo2002 Posted February 9, 2003 Posted February 9, 2003 .......however Al Qaida has no connection with Saddam Hussein or Iraq as a whole. I'm sorry. I must have missed something. You received this false bit of information from where? Are you telling lies again?
j-turbo2002 Posted February 9, 2003 Posted February 9, 2003 For all of you morons out there who think that Al Qaida has no connection with Iraq..............think again! I would like to point you all to the speech that Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell gave to the U.N. This partial transcript comes via CBS News. Our concern is not just about these elicit weapons. It's the way that these elicit weapons can be connected to terrorists and terrorist organizations that have no compunction about using such devices against innocent people around the world. Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifada. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s. But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants. Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. POWELL: You see a picture of this camp. The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal. Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today. Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day. During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These Al Qaida affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months. Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaida. These denials are simply not credible. Last year an Al Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, ``good,'' that Baghdad could be transited quickly. We know these affiliates are connected to Zarqawi because they remain even today in regular contact with his direct subordinates, including the poison cell plotters, and they are involved in moving more than money and materiale. Last year, two suspected Al Qaida operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell, and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide. From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. We, in the United States, all of us at the State Department, and the Agency for International Development--we all lost a dear friend with the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan last October, a despicable act was committed that day. The assassination of an individual whose sole mission was to assist the people of Jordan. The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder. POWELL: After the attack, an associate of the assassin left Jordan to go to Iraq to obtain weapons and explosives for further operations. Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not credible. We know of Zarqawi's activities in Baghdad. I described them earlier. And now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice, and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go. As my colleagues around this table and as the citizens they represent in Europe know, Zarqawi's terrorism is not confined to the Middle East. Zarqawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions against countries, including France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia. According to detainee Abuwatia (ph), who graduated from Zarqawi's terrorist camp in Afghanistan, tasks at least nine North African extremists from 2001 to travel to Europe to conduct poison and explosive attacks. Since last year, members of this network have been apprehended in France, Britain, Spain and Italy. By our last count, 116 operatives connected to this global web have been arrested. The chart you are seeing shows the network in Europe. We know about this European network, and we know about its links to Zarqawi, because the detainee who provided the information about the targets also provided the names of members of the network. Three of those he identified by name were arrested in France last December. In the apartments of the terrorists, authorities found circuits for explosive devices and a list of ingredients to make toxins. The detainee who helped piece this together says the plot also targeted Britain. Later evidence, again, proved him right. When the British unearthed a cell there just last month, one British police officer was murdered during the disruption of the cell. We also know that Zarqawi's colleagues have been active in the Pankisi Gorge, Georgia and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zarqawi's network say their goal was to kill Russians with toxins. We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and Al Qaida. POWELL: Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early Al Qaida ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with Al Qaida, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with Al Qaida. We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service. Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida's appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam's former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery. From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization. Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and Al Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaida together, enough so Al Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that Al Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction. And the record of Saddam Hussein's cooperation with other Islamist terrorist organizations is clear. Hamas, for example, opened an office in Baghdad in 1999, and Iraq has hosted conferences attended by Palestine Islamic Jihad. These groups are at the forefront of sponsoring suicide attacks against Israel. Al Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaida. Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it. This senior Al Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of Al Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan. POWELL: His information comes first-hand from his personal involvement at senior levels of Al Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased Al Qaida leader Muhammad Atif (ph), did not believe that Al Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help. Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq. The support that (inaudible) describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abu Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gases. Abdula Al-Iraqi (ph) characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name. And this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal. With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take the place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies. When we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting an even more frightening future. My friends, this has been a long and a detailed presentation. And I thank you for your patience. But there is one more subject that I would like to touch on briefly. And it should be a subject of deep and continuing concern to this council, Saddam Hussein's violations of human rights.
azraelle Posted February 9, 2003 Posted February 9, 2003 I don't think Colin Powell is a liar--he has no political axe to grind--he has repeatedly made it clear that he doesn't want to be president--this in spite of the fact that if he did run, for whichever party, even as an independent, it would be no contest. Whomever the other candidates might be, they might as well sit back and watch, because they would know they wouldn't have a chance. It all boils down to trust, and he has it internationally in spades, if you'll pardon an unintentional pun. "All that you can decide, is what to do with the time that is given you."--Gandalf, "Life is not tried, it is merely survived -If you're standing outside the fire."--Garth Brooks
Firefox Posted February 9, 2003 Posted February 9, 2003 Al Qaida has connections in Iraq, it has connections in the UK, it has connections in the USA. That's the nature of an organisation like that. Invading Iraq will only enourage it to undertake another world trade centre style attack on the US. The USA is not clean when it comes to supporting terrorism. For many years, open fund rasing in New York and other places supported NORAID, an organisation which supplied bombs and guns to the IRA in Northern Ireland under cover of various guises. You can't fight a war against terrorism by invading countries. These people have no alleigence to countries or anyone but their cause. Afghanistan was a possible exception as the training camps were open, and therefore easy targets but Bush got quite a lot of popularity by invading Afghanistan after 9/11 and thinks he can do the same thing with Iraq.
Bubba136 Posted February 9, 2003 Posted February 9, 2003 FF wrote: "The USA is not clean when it comes to supporting terrorism. For many years, open fund rasing in New York and other places supported NORAID, an organisation which supplied bombs and guns to the IRA in Northern Ireland under cover of various guises." A list of organizations in the USA that raise money for various causes around the would is very long. Some of the more noteworthy causes are actually front organizations that support illicit activities in friendly countries. It is extremely difficult for state and local governments, under who's jurisdiction (usually the office of the state's Secretary of State) for oversight falls, to control where these funds eventually wind up. The number of people of Irish extraction in the United States is greater than the population of Ireland. It is only natural, it would seem, that some of these citizens would be sympathetic to the IRA's causes. To say that "The USA is not clean when it comes to supporting terrorism" places his statement in the context that supporting terrorism caused by the IRA is official U.S. Government policy. This is not the case. Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public.
j-turbo2002 Posted February 9, 2003 Posted February 9, 2003 Invading Iraq will only enourage it to undertake another world trade centre style attack on the US. I strongly disagree with you on this issue. You can't fight a war against terrorism by invading countries. Not necessarily! These people have no alleigence to countries or anyone but their cause. Somewhat true. However I have too disagree. Afghanistan was a possible exception as the training camps were open, and therefore easy targets..... How do you know that they were easy targets? You make it sound like the U.S. just walked right in and cleaned up house in a matter of minutes which is somewhat true. However we are still fighting many small "cells" to this very day.
j-turbo2002 Posted February 9, 2003 Posted February 9, 2003 I would also like to say "Thank you" to the Brits for getting the U.S. into this mess in the first place. To make a long story short, If the Brittish would not have carved up the counrty of Iraq like they did (i.e., kept her hands off of it) yet alone appoint a false leader/ruler (a Saudi Prince) who sold the Brits oil at "rock-bottom" prices (which really angered the muslims living in Iraq which led to roits and brutal killings) the world would probably be a much better place. Could the real reason as to why the Brittish people are protesting the U.S. led war in Iraq (and other parts of Middle East) be that they are jealous and envious that the U.S. about ready to go ahead and fix one of England's biggest failures?
Recommended Posts