Iraq and Al Queda Link ?

[Backtothemac]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103163,00.html



Well, IF, and I mean IF this is true, then would your view of the war change?

[pseudobrit]

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy_Douglas J. Feith (search)_to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration.

Nothing new here.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Well, IF, and I mean IF this is true, then would your view of the war change?

first, i'd have to better know the depth of any relationship and any help to al qaeda for me to agree that a massive military response was appropriate.

but, the problem remains that the administration went in w/o having any solid evidence of these things. i cannot support offensive wars based on conjecture.

[idea_hamster]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, IF, and I mean IF this is true, then would your view of the war change?
This isn't really a fair question. Most people who opposed the war in Iraq didn't oppose the action in Afghanistan against the Taliban (who openly harbored Bin Laden) and don't oppose (in general terms) the "war on terror". They opposed the war in Iraq because they saw it as unrelated to the war on terror. If we accept as given the Bush adminsitration's claim that Saddam=terrorism, then it probably would, by definition, change a lot of people's outlooks.

The real issue has always been credibility: few people (who weren't already on board) were convinced by Bush's ranting, Powell's UN presentation, or, frankly, the reporting of Fox News that has drawn open criticism from other media sources.

If this was the real proof, we would have heard about it back in April. I don't think that the administration can line up the same old ducks in a new way to convince more people.

[wwworry]

We know there is a strong link between the USA and Al Qeada having funded them and given them arms. Maybe there is a link between Hussein and Al Qeada.

The odd thing is that the Taliban are becoming stronger again in Afghanistan. Our efforts there are stagnent. The country drifts again into lawlessness and is forgotten by the outside world again. The administration talks about Al Qeada but spends all its capital in Iraq.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by wwworry
The administration talks about Al Qeada but spends all its capital in Iraq.

exactly. which is why i believe the action there has nothing to do w/ terrorism.

[jonapete2001]

What does it matter, sadam had to be taken out anyway. I am glad that it was done now rather than when he actually did pose a threat to Israel or the US.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
What does it matter, sadam had to be taken out anyway.

it's a precarious position for the US to put itself in, to decide what is right for the world, what is wrong.

in this particular instance, i don't believe the humanitarian factor had a single thing to do w/ the administration's decision. what you've bought into is the marketing of the war.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by zimv20
it's a precarious position for the US to put itself in, to decide what is right for the world, what is wrong.

in this particular instance, i don't believe the humanitarian factor had a single thing to do w/ the administration's decision. what you've bought into is the marketing of the war.

I have not bought into anything. Just because you dont believe it does not been it is not true. If you want to see evil in it the you will. What if humanitarianism was their man goal, would you have been for it then?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Just because you dont believe it does not been it is not true. If you want to see evil in it the you will.


you're making the same mistake you did above -- you're assuming that a bad situation _needs_ to be corrected by the US. nothing i've ever written should give you the impression i didn't think hussein was a bad person.


What if humanitarianism was their man goal, would you have been for it then?

depends on how it was done. i'd need an actual coalition, along w/ UN approval, for me to start buying in.

have you read the PNAC document?


I have not bought into anything.


how can i believe you on that? you're good at toeing the administration line, and i've yet to see you call for anything that addresses humanitarian issues outside of iraq. are you actively lobbying for action elsewhere? what aspect of the administration's position do you question?

[MIMIC]

DoD Statement on News Reports of al-Qaida and Iraq Connections

News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.

A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.

The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community.

The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.

Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.
DoD News (http://www.dod.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html)

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by zimv20
you're making the same mistake you did above -- you're assuming that a bad situation _needs_ to be corrected by the US. nothing i've ever written should give you the impression i didn't think hussein was a bad person.



depends on how it was done. i'd need an actual coalition, along w/ UN approval, for me to start buying in.

have you read the PNAC document?



how can i believe you on that? you're good at toeing the administration line, and i've yet to see you call for anything that addresses humanitarian issues outside of iraq. are you actively lobbying for action elsewhere? what aspect of the administration's position do you question?



If our military was big enough, I would call for action in Iran, North Korea, and many African nations. Before the US went into Iraq, in my social circles, i was saying that the US can wait for Saddam for a while. I said that the biggest threat was and still is North Korea. China also has a horible human rights record. When the US fave China "favored nation" status I was outraged that their human rights violations were overlooked. I was also outraged when Lybia was in charge of the human rights comitte for the UN for a while.

Also the UN is only a viable coalition if the US wants them to be. The US does not need the UN, the UN needs the US. I have called for it before and I will say it again, the US should back out of the UN. The UN is nothing more than a debating society. WHen it is backed by the us it can be effective, ohterwise it is useless. The USA is a independent state. It does not need the aproval of the UN to do anything.

[zimv20]

the US needs the UN to legitimize its actions.

offensive US actions done w/o the UN decreases the world's opinion of the US, heightens the extent to which the world regards the US as an outlaw nation, and increases terrorism.

[jonapete2001]

Get out of the UN then and form a new coalition, maybe a coaling of the....


"WILLING".

I think you make the mistake of thinking that politcs has to do with terroism. To some extent it does. But the main reason we are under attack in america is because for the most part it is a christian/jewish nation. It is no coinsidence that islamic terrorists are attacking us. I dont see jews flying planes into buildings, do you.

the peacefull forms of islam are welcome in my country and in my world but the islamic extremists need to be wiped off the face of the earth in the most inhuman way.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Get out of the UN then and form a new coalition, maybe a coaling of the....


"WILLING".

I think you make the mistake of thinking that politcs has to do with terroism. To some extent it does. But the main reason we are under attack in america is because for the most part it is a christian/jewish nation. It is no coinsidence that islamic terrorists are attacking us. I dont see jews flying planes into buildings, do you.

Holy ****, I can't believe you actually see it that way.

Jews committed terrorist activities against the British to gain their independence.

Was that religious or political?

the peacefull forms of islam are welcome in my country and in my world but the islamic extremists need to be wiped off the face of the earth in the most inhuman way.

Oooh does this mean we get to wipe the Christian extremists off the face of the earth in a most inhuman way too?

WOO HOO!! GOODBYE FALWELL!!!

(sorry if I ****ed up your nifty little double standard there, pal)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
If our military was big enough, I would call for action in Iran, North Korea, and many African nations.

To do what, exactly? Clean things up like we did in Somalia? Afghanistan? Iraq?

[pdham]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
What if humanitarianism was their man goal,\

What about this: Charles Taylor has committed equally atrocious things to the people of Liberia. Our only response to him, was a rided buried in the last appropriation of funds for rebuilding Iraq that offered a $2 million reward for his capture. If humanitarianism is our goal, why did one dictator warrent a multi-billion dollar military action, and another a $2 million bounty?

Paul

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Get out of the UN then and form a new coalition, maybe a coaling of the....


"WILLING".


it was lame. and it had a lame name. compare it to the coalition bush sr. built. hey, he even got them to fund it.


I think you make the mistake of thinking that politcs has to do with terroism.


terrorism, by definition, is political in nature. remove the politics and you're left with a holy war.

But the main reason we are under attack in america is because for the most part it is a christian/jewish nation. It is no coinsidence that islamic terrorists are attacking us. I dont see jews flying planes into buildings, do you.


wow, you're kinda scary.

in another thread, you were musing about removing the US' separation of church and state. now you state that politics is absent from terrorism.

do you see this as a war of christianity vs. islam? do you want it to be?