In fact, using cash rewards to encourage terrorist attacks against the civilian population of our closest ally is alone just cause for removing a government. Failing to get that is what is “pathetic and laughable.”
Earlier, you said
To my knowledge you are correct that the U.S. has not directly accused the former Iraqi regime of sponsoring the 9/11 attacks. As regards other attacks, in September of last year, The State Department asserted each of the following:
The first five of those are direct accusations of Iraqi sponsorship of terrorist attacks, in many cases against U.S. citizens and in all cases against U.S. interests. That none of the attacks is alleged to have been planned or executed on physical U.S. soil is wholly irrelevant.
I would like to refer you to Seymour Hersh’s article in the New Yorker, regarding his suspicions as to the alleged plot to assassinate George the Elder. His contention, which I find credible, is that we are essentially taking Kuwaits word for all this. As Kuwait clearly has a dog in this fight, such accusations are less than irrefutable. These are, after all, the same people who brought us the story of Iraqi soldier dumping babies out of hospital basinettes.
While Iraq may or may not be a major supporter of terrorism as directed against Israel, they are hardly unique in this regard. Your presentation appears to suggest that if Iraq were not viable, terrorism against Israel would cease to be. This is, as I’m sure you know, nonsense. Many Middle Eastern people have enormous sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people, and regard organizations that we call “terrorist” as no more criminal than we regard our own Sons of Liberty. I make no judgement as to thier opinion, but it is nonetheless a fact.
Any number of attacks have been made on US allies without the slightest hint of a reprisal from the US. Your implication that America was somehow obliged to attack Iraq to protect Israel is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. As you recall, the ostensible reason was an immediate and urgent threat to the US, a reason that looks less and less realistic as time goes on.
And finally, of course, one has to wonder if all of this rock solid intelligence originates from the same sources as our other irrefutable “facts”. Your presentation offers no awareness or concern as to the reliability of such.
(IMHO, we are Isreal’s best ally. As to whether they are ours as well is a question I ponder with considerable discomfort.)
Not quite. they came out in support of suspending the sanctions – meaning a temporary action subject to further UN decision.
A quibble. As I read Blix’s comment, he sounded eager to go back.
Teach a man to fish, you’ll feed him for a day. Teach a poster to use google news and he can answer his own questions. Anyhow,
I don’t understand this at all. Russia and France don’t want the spoils of war, they just want to keep getting what Saddam was giving them, and they’re misusing the UN for their own selfish purposes.
I have no idea whether 2.2% is too high, because I don’t know what functions the UN actually performs. They’re not out there pumping oil or tranporting it to customers. I assume they just do some sort of paper work. By now, over $100 billion of oil has passed through the program, so the UN fees have amounted to something like $2 billion! One can push a lot of paper for two billion dollars and still have money left over.
Whoever said the US has adopted a policy in which it expects to “get its way on all issues, without any compromise at all”? Certainly not the government, nor the article that spawned the OP, nor anyone in this thread, AFAIK.
Methinks people are focusing too much on the actual words “We don’t care”, rather than the nature of the foreign policy as described.
GoHeels:
Bah. After hearing the left misuse the hell out of the word “neocon”, I’m pretty sick of anything with “neo-” in it.
I’m unaware of having opined in this thread about the veracity of any U.S. claims. The question on the table was whether the U.S. has “directly and inequivocally(sic) accused Saddam Hussein and his regime of sponsoring the 9/11 attacks or any other terrorist attack directed against the USA.” The answer is that the United States has, indeed, made such a claim.
** You are instructed not to say what my “presentation” appears to suggest or not. I made no such claim, nor has any other person on the entire planet earth, and you know it.
Yet.
My “presentation” was a simple reply to a simple request for a factual assertion. That said, I think we can safely call at least the PLF charge accurate – U.S. forces picked Abu Abbas up at his place in Baghdad, where he’s been living openly for several years.
The 9/11 terrorists were living openly in the USA before thier attack. Are we given to understand that this implies that the US government is somehow involved with the 9/11 attack, albeit indirectly? I think not, and very much doubt that you do.
So why not invade the Palestinian Territories directly. That is where the terrorism is coming from much more than Iraq. Not to mention a load of other countries like Saudi Arabia which also have supported anti-American activities. Your rule does not make sense unless you are saying that the USA can invade one country for doing things for which it would not invade another country. . . which is the same as saying no reason is needed.
Regarding the examples you mentioned: The 1993 plot has not been clearly established and it is 10 years old. Why the waiting?
Gimme a break, this stuff is 30 years old and the USA has helped Iraq against Iran. This just shows to what base levels the US government will stoop for cheap propaganda.
Again, pretty old stuff. It could have been used as a justification in the first Gulf war, not now. And I do not know the details but as I said in a thread about Abu Abbas i have read that he did renounce terrorism, he admitted the hijacking was a mistake, he expressed regret and he condemned the 9/11 attacks. Also he did noT muder the guy. You are mistaken. If the USA was to invade countries who shelter people guilty of having murdered a US citizen they could start with France. As I say, these examples are a pathetic attemp to link Iraq to terrorism.
I am not well informed about this. maybe someone can clue me in.
Again, this is just laughable and hardly an excuse for an invasion (rather than some other kind of sanction or pressure). It would make much more sense for the USA to invade the Palestinian Territories directly because that is where the terrorists are and where they operate. Do you really think removing Saddam will stop the terrorist attacks against Israel? We already have the answer: No.
So saying the USA invaded Iraq to stop Palestinian Terrorist attacks against Israel is silly.
color me skeptical. We have heard so many lies and made up facts from the US government that I take it all with a lot of salt. Where are the terrorist acts of these people?
The USA is now accusing Iraq of doing what the USA has been doing in Latin America and other parts of the world for decades. Again, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. And sometimes yesterday’s freedom fighter is today’s terrorist. These claims by the US government are half truths which cannot be a justification for the invasion.
Eager, perhaps, as is the rest of the world to find these WoMD that the administration knows were there. So what leads you to ascribe ulterior motives? Don’t worry, I’ve googled it for you. See his comments to the UN here.
After his presentation to the UNSC, I noticed these comments:
Thanks for the Russia link. Perhaps you could have include this from the same link:
France has said much of the same thing. What you seem to “quibble” with is the method they both propose. They both suggest that the UNSC imposed the sanctions, and that the UNSC should lift the sanctions. I know it sounds so illogical to you. But see if you can fit that into your analogy.
While you attribute unscrupulous motives to them both, you don’t acknowledge that they each provide justifications for their positions. Funny you don’t view the US administration with the same critical eye. Oh yeah, that’s right, it’s because your pro-American. Got it.
Uh, not quite, it was not what Saddam was giving them, it is what the UN oil for food program was giving them - a program with the expressed support and approval of the US. Who is being selfish?
As for appropriate overhead, 2.2% sounds downright reasonable compared to the 9-11 disaster relief funds. You make it sound like managing the logistics for processing $100 billion of oil is simply doing some paperwork. I’m not sure why, but I suspect you know better.
Thank you for the links Beagle. As AZCowboy explained there does not seem to be support in these cites for the allegations december has brought up. I was wondering if he had any particular (non personal opinion) cite or if he was relying mainly on the likes of Claudia Rosett for those allegations.
A quick note about money apparently being paid to Palestinian terrorists. No time to look up the details, but weren’t the offers that Saddam made to the families of bombers? Wouldn’t that mean that the terrorists were not in fact getting anything, rather their families (not necessarily terrorist themselves) were being compensated for the loss? With such considerations as lost income etc., to be kept in mind. The distinction could be important – not to condone the practice as acceptable, but to argue it is not the same thing as sponsoring terrorist activities. Others have mentioned the thorny problem of the Palestinian situation in the entire region and the difficult distinction in some cases between “terrorism” and “freedom fighting”.
If Saddam’s support for the Palestinian Intifada is now your new and improved casus belli – although, in all fairness its been trotted out before. What hasn’t? – then I think you missed your target by a scant few miles. Because the Saudis are actually the most generous at it.
I’m not sure how much money it is, or how much the UN actually spends on administration. I do know that those 10 new expenditures included the “Board of Youth and Sports.” Wasn’t that Uday’s organization? Where is the information on the various accounts? Someone, somewhere, is floating a lot of money for this program. That’s a huge windfall to the financial institutions that hold the accounts.
There’s a lot of information on the UN site, but it seemed lacking somehow. I did not find hard numbers on the UN cut or expenses. The descriptions of the various shipments were somewhat vague also.* For example, “TRACTORS.” That’s sort of a WWII joke. Germany invaded Poland with tractors.
(Historical aside, I’m not alleging the UN was selling panzers to Saddam or anything else. Well, just that the description is somewhat lacking.)
*Note: I’m not saying the figures or descriptions are unavailable. It’s a big website, and I’m only so interested in the oil-for-food program.
Beagle, I appreciate your desire to reveal the “facts”, and to help fight ignorance. However, for the purposes here, isn’t it to sufficient to recognize that the US is fully complicit in how the oil-for-food program was setup and operated - at least as much as either France or Russia?
“We don’t care” means not caring about the opinions of those who are not actually involved parties. E.g., the action in Iraq was not carried out under UN auspices. France didn’t participate. Bush doesn’t care how the France or the UN think the new government should be formed.
But, Bush isn’t levying a military attack against France or the UN. He’s just ignoring them.
Note that this doesn’t mean they weren’t there. They could’ve been destroyed by Saddam as a last-minute “screw you”, or shipped to Syria for safe-keeping.
It’s hard to understand Saddam’s motives. Why didn’t he just comply with the UN resolutions? Then there would have been no invasion, and he’d still be in charge. I suspect every member of this Board would have simply complied with the UN.
december:“We don’t care” means not caring about the opinions of those who are not actually involved parties. […] Bush isn’t levying a military attack against France or the UN. He’s just ignoring them.
That sounds kind of like dressing up diplomatic ineptitude to make it look like courageous integrity. A standard test of skill in a politician is the ability to get what s/he wants without pissing off opponents by explicitly saying “we don’t care about your opinion.”
It’s been clear for quite a while that the current Administration either lacks this ability or thinks they can get away with not using it, but I don’t know that I’d dignify that with the name “policy”. At most, I think, it’s a domestic PR strategy to revamp a “Goofus” image into a “Dirty Harry” one.
