???? Attacking the poster rather than the post is frowned on here. It's also what we typcially see from those who can't defend their positions. Rather irrelevant whether or not the actual terrorist came from there. Al Quada had camps there. Not sure Bin Laden was there when the attacks occured either although he did hide out there afterwards apparently. Again how does his being sick (one could make an argument for all such terrorist being sick by the way) or how he controled things make any difference? If a country allows attcks to be made from their territory or provides sanctuary to those making the attacks then they are alligning with the terrorist and become responsible for the same. So while it was a crime it could also be considered an act of war. No. Because those countries not only didn't provide sanctuaries they helped in the investigations. They were part of the solution and not the cause. "footage"? You really have an addiction to a rather inadequate form of information for really understanding what's going on don't you? Actuallly they weren't as we've pointed out. Not sure why you keep repeating this falsehood other than a lot of your invictive becomes invalidated if you acknowledge it. More non English sources and wiki ones at that. How usful ... Not. Did they really? Or did they just make an offer that would allow them to weasle around for a while and if necessary get him out of the country before they had to really do anything? ??? He admitted it in public!
So what we have is a pretty clear attempt to end military action and buy some time. No indication at all that it's really a good faith offer. Indeed if it had been they would have made it before military action started wouldn't they? Looking at their front page I'd certainly question any articles on their web pages. Here's a link so others can see why: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ In this article the key point is what does the FBI consider "hard evidence" remember in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 Bin Laden claimed credit for the attack. Futher more it was clear that the active terrorist were members of his organization. You may have "explained" it before but it was wrong then just as it's wrong now. The fact that they visitied in or even lived in those countries doesn't mean that they were "harboured" there. That implies that the officials knew of their criminal acts or intended criminal acts and still gave them refuge. ??? not sure how this is relevant internally much less to the discussion at hand. In case you hadn't realized it the US military is oriented toward foreign attack, and at that point almost purely foreign military attacks. Hardly And as we have explained to you, you are wrong. It was not illegal.
Not really. Those were the focus of the effort to gain support from other nations in regards to the US action but they hardly constituted the "primary reasons" for said action. No. Certain powers on the security councel didn't want to see the US take action against Iraq so they prevented the security council from aproving that action. That by no means lets one conclude that Iraq had not commited acts that allowed for a military response. Sources PLS. I have never seen anything to indicate the chemical weapons that Sadam had were supplied by the US much less given to him by the US. Very simply Sadam committed various acts of war against the US, Britain, and others. Such acts eventually resulted in the war that they deserved.
The following links show the purpose of the security council and reasons for war in Iraq as stated by the Bush administration. http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/functions.shtml http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War I don't usually use wiki for obvious reasons but the above is pretty clear. As for US giving Saddan chemical weapons.... I don't believe they were actually handed over to him but Help was given in obtaining them not just from the U.S. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0 Also what various acts of war did Saddam commit against the U.S. Great Britain and others after the gulf war? If war an Iraq was justified why did even UN secretary Kofi Anan declare it was illegal?
You can google where Saddam got his weapons from, chemical or otherwise. Everybody in Europe gave him far more than the US. I'm not talking 20% vs 80%, I'm talking 99,9% vs .01%. The "chemical" weapons bullshit comes from a few agricultural pesticides that only theoretically could be construed as chemical weapons or being products capable of being converted to chemical weapons. The simple fact is that Germany, France, China, and the USSR were his suppliers. The US didn't have anything to do with it. That won't stop the leftist bullshit from blaming the US, but reality has never stopped the left for blaming the US for all the worlds problems. And again, you ignore the simple fact that we were ALREADY AT WAR with Iraq following their invasion of Kuwait. It was a cease-fire entirely dependent on Iraq obeying the terms of the agreement and could be resumed at any single violation of the agreement. Iraq had already violated the agreement sixteen (?) times and any one of those violations was a legitimate reason to resume the fighting. I've posted the UN resolution allowing the invasion (not that we needed their permission) earlier in this thread. Why would anyone in their right mind defend Saddam Hussein? Do you really support genocide? Why would you want to keep him him in power? Please explain your support for Saddam Hussein.
The WMD allegations against Iraq were proved to be groundless. Normally a military attack justified by groundless or fabricated evidence is considered an aggression (Mudken, Gleiwitz etc.) even more substantial incidents like the Ual Ual wells or terrorist attacks like the Sarajevo assassination may not be an acceptable casus belli. But the UN rubberstamped the attack "after the fact" as doing otherwise would probably have meant the end of that organisation, so technically it was legal. From a moral standpoint, assuming such a thing applies to politics .... in addition to the "smoking gun" , that proved to be just smoke and no gun, I think everybody can recall the anti UN campaign of the time and the "freedom fries" ridicule, the cost to the USA in terms of credibility and goodwill was huge. We would probably be a lot better off today if Saddam Hussein had remained in power after the first war clipped his wings as the USA proved totally incapable to mange the resulting power void. And the resulting strengthening of the "pro war" lobby helped in repeating a similar mistake in Libia and Syria. You can not export democracy with guns, anyone using that phrase in a military action context is either an idiot or has a hidden agenda, democracy must come from the people, all that military action can do is create a colonial style puppy regime, and in a region full of tribal and religious divides that requires a "coaltion puppet regime" that sounds a bit like a miracle to me. Political coalitions are fragile enough constructs without adding a "silent partner" that holds the big guns to the mix. Hate having to say that but Saddam Hussein with 20/20 hindsight increasingly looks like the "lesser evil", and in politics the "lesser evil" is often the best choice available.
That's a semantic argument. We were already in a state of war with Iraq. Any violation of the agreement was cause to resume the war, and the UN documented many of them. Bush was playing the WMD card to build a coalition, he didn't need it to resume hostilities. Bush's other mistake was in not holding a plebiscite immediately after the victory and getting a popular vote to divided the country into three parts. The three main sects/ethnic groups would have been happy to do that. That's not hindsite, that was the line from many experts at the time. Iraq has been an artificial country since its creation. It's never made sense. And now that we've pulled out it's dividing into the lines we should have drawn at the time, only it's a much bloodier process.
Well Bronk you should read a little bit more about these issues, eg. what I wrote above. The so called WMDs were delivered by the WEST to Saddam while he was a friend. He used those WMDs to gass Kurds&Iranians. The West had no issues with that at that time. So later when he suddenly wasn´t that friend anymore you come up with the "WMD threat" which "we" delivered in the 1st place and didn´t care that he used them before illegally. So clearly you cannot use any WMD´s that Iraq might still had (which were more or less WW1 era anyway so quite useless vs. high tech nations) as a casus belli. Iraq was on it´s knees anyway to that point, because of sanctions etc. They posed no threat anymore. Also as others pointed out, even if Iraq was a dictatorship it was much better off then, compared to the state after the illegal war that the US&UK brought upon them. Your brave millitary and leaders left a chaos there and 100.000s innocent deaths.
Well, 1st get your facts straight, maybe we can take you more serious than. You already admitted you have no interest to research this or the 9/11 issue, so..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk35suofbYQ More??? BTW, KB I posted some stuff for you in the 9/11 thread, maybe you can invest some of your valuable time, to research a quite important event (even more so for US citizens)
and Churchill and Roosevelt left a chaos and millions dead.....Stalin was a ''friend'' in WW2.....let's be realistic here, can we?? Germany was much better off then, with hilter, than compared to the state after the illegal war the US and UK brought upon them....millions of innocent Germans dead, starving, etc....
Well it´s well known that the allegded terrorists had a cell in Hamburg, and SA does support terrorism anyway... You say their guilt is a moot point? Is this how you conduct justice where you live? Here it is, not guilty until proven (remark: This is not true for parts of the mass media). Sounds like a bananarepulic where you can declare guilt or not a moot point...but does not suprise me at all following developments in the last years... And btw. their was also a trial about these German "terror" cells, none of them proved the connection of these with 9/11. Maybe a bananarepublic can do so easily, eg. torturing someone untill he says anything you want... (Abu Graib and Guantanamo eg OOOPS). However the trials allegdedly proved the individuals were members of "terror" organisations, so they went to jail iirc. But not for 9/11.
Well you cannot compare Germany to Iraq I supose, Germany is in Europe last I checked These examples you bring up, or others that compare the "appeasement" before WW2 with today are moot, because other times, other countries involved and comletly different facts...
Not really. It is true that Iraq didn't at the time have a functioning chemical warfare capability. However they had both produced and used them in the past and still had both the capability to make more and an ongoing R&D program. Furthermore Sadam was saying on one had that he had gotten rid of his chemical weapons and on the other hand that he hadn't and acting in ways that indicated the latter was likely the case and as reported some chemical weapons were found. If that were the only justification you might be correct but there were numerous acts of war committed by Sadam prior to the opening of combat operations. The chemical weapons aspect was simply the main public rational used to gain support for the operaation. That is highly debateable. It was the invasion of Iraq that lead to the most serious defeat Al Quada suffered up to that point. While adimitedly it was due to their missteps after the invasion it was the invasion that gave them the opertunity for the face plant they managed so well. That is clearly not the case as modern Germany and Japan illustrate. The problem in Iraq is the US never went in with the clear intention and dedication necessary to give a really strong foundation to an insipient democracy. They did give it a chance and there is still a chance but there's a lot of traditon and pressure fighting it.
Sources please. Wrong, the West was pretty much universal in its condemnation of the gassing of both the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. The conemnation of gassing the Iranians was also there from what I recall although a bit more muted. Looks like a bunch of faulty assumptions and some poor logic leading to very questionable conclusions. Not much of a surprise there though. Or not, Indeed most likely not. ??? Actually I think you will find that we have researched both this and 9/11. By the way a couple of photos and a you tube video hardly represent "reasearch". If you would actually post something worthwhile certainly. If all you want to do is waste bandwidth by posting pictures and videos no.
Hit the quote limit so needed to break this into two posts: And your point is? Sources please. Why not? And your point is? Are they? Some obviously don't think so, indeed in some cases the analogies are pretty clear.
LWD, sorry if you even don´t know from whom S. got his "WMDs", than It´s moot to follow your posts (as I already gave up in the Ukraine thread).. Also you use still your old tactics of just denying anything without reason and evidence. Pls. prove me wrong that WMDs were not delivered by the west, that the US means CIA/GOV did not know about their useage...etc. Also you can disable to see pics in posts, if you don´t like them or still live in the middelages of the internet..... well waste of time with you LWD, sorry.... These pictures show US politicians shaking hands with Saddam as he was their good friend, you don´t think they are valid ? Well then nothing will be vaild for you, and so your case is a waste of time. You also can use the nets to look for yourself btw. These helpless child attitude of yours and maybe others here disturbs me a bit tbh. But I see KB (thanks!) did also the work that YOU could have done easily. Also if you have trouble using the internets, there are countless BOOKS out there on these subjects.
I don't have time to wade through all this long-debunked crap. The US "support" to Saddam the lowest among all the developed countries. That support was a fraction of what Europe gave. The British Foreign Office's Report on Strategic Export Controls 2. In light of these figures, and the rhetoric of war against Iraq, some points need to be made. Given that Saddam is often described as a man who is willing to kill his own people by using chemical weapons, it's worth examining who armed him in the first place. 3. In the 1970s, Saddam approached the USSR, until then his conventional weapons supplier, to buy a plant to manufacture chemical weapons, but his request was refused. Saddam then began courting the West, and received a much more favourable response. 4. An American company, Pfaulder Corporation of Rochester, New York, supplied the Iraqis with a blueprint in 1975, enabling them to construct their first chemical warfare plant. The plant was purchased in sections from Italy, West Germany and East Germany and assembled in Iraq. It was located at Akhashat in north-western Iraq, and the cost was around $50 million for the plant and $30 million for the safety equipment. 5. British, French and German multinationals turned the request down on moral grounds or because the Iraqi delivery schedule couldn't be met—not because their governments objected. 6. The United States took other steps to ensure that Saddam's rule was strengthened. Mobile phone systems were mainly in the military domain at the time, but the United States government approved the 1975 sale by the Karkar Corporation of San Francisco of a complete mobile telephone system. The system was to be used by the Ba'ath Party loyalists to protect the regime against any attempts to overthrow it. 7. The United States also supplied Saddam with satellite pictures of Iranian positions during the Iran-Iraq war. 8. France provided Saddam with extended-range Super Etendard aircraft capable of hitting Iranian oil facilities in the lower Gulf. 9. While Britain's Margaret Thatcher mouthed platitudes about not supplying either Iran or Iraq with lethal weapons, Britain's Plessey Electronics supplied Saddam with an electronic command center. 10. Iraq was also able to buy French-built Mirage-1 aircraft and Gazelle and Lynx helicopters from the British company Westland. 11. In 1976, while on a visit to France, Saddam concluded the purchase of a uranium reactor. Jacques Chirac, then the Prime Minister and now the President, approved the deal. The supplier was Commissart l'Energie Atomique (CEA) and the plutonium reactor was called Rhapsodie. France also signed a Nuclear Cooperation Treaty with France, providing for the transfer of expertise and personnel. 12. In 1978, the Italian firm Snia Technit, a subsidiary of Fiat, signed an agreement with Iraq to sell nuclear laboratories and equipment.
I think it´s a bit sad, KB that u are not interested in this topic, I think it´s a quite important one, as iirc 9/11 was the worst crime/terror act for a long while and had a lot of consequences (but that´s OT here, continue here: http://www.ww2f.com/topic/53898-putting-to-bed-911-conspiracy-theories-for-ever/page-3). Also good list up there, thanks. Pls. let LWD do this work in the future, tho. He seems to rely on otheres way too much imo or is just lazy to dig himself.
A cell is not a training camp, like the several that Clinton popped with Tomahawks in Afghanistan. Wow! You have piqued my curiosity on the German legal system. How do they get dead people to testify on their own behalf or is it implied that the dead person is refusing to testify on the grounds of self-incrimination? How does Germany have a dead person confront their accuser in their courts of law? How does a dead person in Germany obtain witnesses in his favor? How does a dead person in Germany have the assistance of counsel for his/her defense? Now, my last question on the German legal process for the dead...Does Germany use Ouija Boards or professional mediums in these seances/trials(given that this would be a combination of the two, I don't know what the Germans would call it). I look forward to your reply on how Germany pursues justice against dead people. Odd, as it would seem that German courts did prove the connection of these with 9/11. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/world/europe/09germany.html?_r=0 http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/sept-11-conviction-upheld-by-german-court-motassadeq-loses-appeal-a-482445.html Or are you just making up this stuff as you go along???
