Author Topic: The Iran Super Thread- Merged  (Read 567514 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #50 on: January 24, 2005, 12:53:39 »
Ape

Did you miss the memo on the US being appointed the defenders of democracy and international policeman?  :threat:

If you did sorry.

OK enough of the sarcasm.  ;D
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline Glorified Ape

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -5
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 672
  • Managing expectations is the key to success.
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #51 on: January 24, 2005, 17:19:43 »
Ape

Did you miss the memo on the US being appointed the defenders of democracy and international policeman?   :threat:

If you did sorry.

OK enough of the sarcasm.   ;D

 ;D As much as I'd love to comment, I don't want to be inflammatory.

Regarding my previous post, I don't necessarily oppose non-violent efforts against proliferation but it doesn't seem to me that taking overly aggressive postures towards countries is likely to make them NOT want nuclear weapons - quite the opposite. If a man with a big gun bent on obtaining your subservience keeps threatening you, what are you going to do - capitulate or get your own gun? If you subscribe to the old "better to die free than live on your knees" maxim, you get a gun.

I guess what I'm saying is that, in this case, we might get catch more flies with sugar than we will with s***.
Bureaucracy is hell.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 176,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,944
  • Freespeecher
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #52 on: January 24, 2005, 21:36:57 »
I am always puzzeled by posts which seem to get the positions reversed and postulate Iran as the aggrivated party in this dispute.

Iran is the nation actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Iran is the nation that sponsors terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, as well as many others.

Iran is the nation which seeks to export an Islamic revolution. (Among others. Saudi Arabia has also done so, although it is questionable if this was state policy.)

Iran is the nation that openly seeks the destruction of a democratic state (Israel)

Iran is the nation which has branded the United States "The Great Satan", and openly incites violent actions against Americans everywhere in the world.

Iran's government uses its oil wealth to further these aims, rather than concentrate on the various needs of its own people, who are enslaved by the Mullahs.

George W Bush is continuing the unofficial policy of "containment" begun at the end of the Carter Administration, but is now openly offering moral support to any pro democracy movements in Iran (read here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23747-2005Jan20.html and draw your own conclusions). Further efforts through trade and diplomacy may occur, and as long as Iran keeps their provocations to a minimum, the Americans will keep their "terrible swift sword" sheathed. Otherwise, read the Iran and Syria-war of the future? thread http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,25162.90.html
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #53 on: January 25, 2005, 10:48:03 »
Majoor i agree Iran has done all of those things.

But he without sin cast the first stone.

America is the only nation in the world to use nuclear weapons.

America sponsered the CONTRA rebels

America traded arms for hostages in Iran

America sponsored the IRA

and the list could go on.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't doubt that Iran has some evil intent.  But without prove of this how could an attack be justified.  If the US does it alone why do we have a UN? 

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 176,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,944
  • Freespeecher
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #54 on: January 25, 2005, 11:55:33 »
The list could go on, but these situations you list have little or nothing to do with the current situation that the Iranian government is creating. Grievance lists of American actions (especially with no reference to why these actions took place) are very much like Osama Bin Laden complaining about the destruction of the Moorish Andelusian state by Ferdinand and Isabella in the 1490's.

As for the UN, based on their constant anti semitism, inaction during genocides in formar Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia and now Dafur, revelations about the extent of the corruption in the UN run Oil for Food program and the continuing "sex for peacekeepers" scandle in the Congo, well, "why do we have a UN?"
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #55 on: January 25, 2005, 12:08:02 »
Ok i will update my list to make it more relevant

US attack Iraq with no prove of WMD or positive links to the OSMA

US openly threatens Iran a sovergin nation.

US openly threatens Syria a sovergin nation.

they branded the US the "Great Satan while the US was supplying IRAQ weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.  They also branded the USSR the lesser Satan but still bought weapons from them.

I have no love for Iran but i just don't think the US should go around and say hey change to be like us or we will kick your ***. 

I don't see them talking to China that way or to a lesser extent North Korea. 

If they could prove that Iran is threating the free world by selling nuclear weapons or waste to terrorist groups i mean real proof not that betty crocker instant bake stuff they had for Iraq. then they could make a case for it.

As for the UN what mutinational group does not have scandals.  Does this meant it is invaluable or just requires a revamping of its internal doctrine?  (kinda like the Canadian government)

The UN is still a worth while body that should play a larger role in the world and needs to be revamped to do it.

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline Cliff

  • Member
  • ****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 106
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #56 on: January 25, 2005, 12:29:17 »
Another good call was when Reagan ordered terrorist targets taken out in Libya back in the 1980s.       

dutchie

  • Guest
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #57 on: January 25, 2005, 12:38:26 »
Wizard:

Some excellent points regarding the US, however, one of your examples is outdated and doesn't include important context info.

The US was justified in using nuclear weapons against Japan because: a- the alternative (mainland invasion of Japan) would have caused more casualties than the 2 nukes did; and b- they were in a state of TOTAL WAR with Japan.

And as Majoor pointed out, that was 60 years ago.




Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #58 on: January 25, 2005, 13:22:39 »
Yea i kinda updated that list

Still that is one of the major threats of Iran according to the US is it not the fact that they are developing nuclear weapons?

While the US was the only nation to use them be it 60 yrs ago or not.  Total war or not.  Do you think they would have used them in Europe?  I doubt it highly doubt it.

Staying on topic though let he without sin cast the first stone.  I see no defense of America here?  Not looking for a fight but all nations have their skeletons.  Saber rattling will do little to solve the situation.  I can't remember who said it but you may catch more flies with sugar.  Not saying us an appeasement policy but maybe they should not threaten everybody at once.
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline 48Highlander

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,404
    • Applied Ballistics
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #59 on: January 25, 2005, 13:51:01 »
I see no defense of America here?   Not looking for a fight but all nations have their skeletons.

Your second sentence answered your first, and perversly decimated any argument you might have been trying to make.  You're right, every nation DOES have it's "skeletons", yet people of a certain political persuaision insist on only protesting and criticizing the actions of the US.  That alone gives them all the justification they need.  Why bother listening to "world opinion", when the people who oppose your policies also turn a blind eye to the actions of those just as bad or even worse?  If people are going to be against you no matter what you do, you may as well do what's in your best interest.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 176,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,944
  • Freespeecher
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #60 on: January 25, 2005, 14:11:45 »
The question of Iraqi WMD and terrorist links has been resolved in the positive for several years: The Senate Intelligence comittee and the President used the same sources and came to the same conclusions, Germany, France and the UK using their own sources also saw Iraq as a threat. A BBC journalist wrote a book called "A Higher Form of Killing" published in 2002 which also comes to the same conclusions. Cech intelligence has never recanted from their claim to have observed Mohammed Atta meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague several weeks prior to 9/11; and the 9/11 comission report also outlines links between the Ba'athists and Al Qaeda.

If you consider that "Betty Crocker" stuff, well only the explosion of an Iranian nuke on your doorstep will convince you.

Syria and Iran are sovereign nations, and Dr Rice pointed out that sovereign nations which choose to sponsor, supply, support and train Jihadis to kill Iraqi citizens and coalition members in Iraq (another sovereign nation BTW) will have to be prepared for possible consequences. China and North Korea can watch the news, American actions are all the talking points they need right now.

I don't see any signs the UN is making attempts to reform, if they do it will be a wonderful thing, but until then, please take their calls and say I am not available at this time. Read this thread: http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,25875.0.html, then ask yourself who would you rather have come to the rescue if a natural disaster was to level your community; the US or the UN?
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #61 on: January 25, 2005, 15:06:22 »
Your second sentence answered your first, and perversly decimated any argument you might have been trying to make.   You're right, every nation DOES have it's "skeletons", yet people of a certain political persuaision insist on only protesting and criticizing the actions of the US.   That alone gives them all the justification they need.   Why bother listening to "world opinion", when the people who oppose your policies also turn a blind eye to the actions of those just as bad or even worse?   If people are going to be against you no matter what you do, you may as well do what's in your best interest.

48

So if America saw our porse borders or poor immigration policy, lack of spending on the military, slack court system....... and on and on, as a threat to their national security you would be ok if they came in and took the place over? To you know do what was in their best interests.

Give me a break

Majoor

How can you say that those issues have been solved in the positive for years.  Did they find any of this "stock pile" NO  what firm terrorist links did they find our have.If Germany and Frnace saw Iraq as a threat why did they not support the war to remove Saddam and free Iraq?

"9/11 comission report also outlines links between the Ba'athists and Al Qaeda" they also had against they Saudi government but what happened to that?  Oh yea an AMERICAN court found it insuffecint

I think that sometimes we get blinded by the giant spin machine that is the American media.  And yea i consider it Betty Crocker stuff cause it is all circumstancial and would never hold up in any court.  IF they had the hard proof it would have been an easy sell to the UN and the rest of the world but they did not.

So by your own words "Dr Rice pointed out that sovereign nations which choose to sponsor, supply, support and train Jihadis to kill Iraqi citizens and coalition members in Iraq (another sovereign nation BTW) will have to be prepared for possible consequences"  You believe Iraq to be a sovereign nation right now?  Not a puppet government of the Americans? 

You know that if this type of conflict was occuring in China that the US would not be able to play the game they are now of intimidation or posturing tough to do with army the size of China's....  watch tv and see america's actions?  you will have to explain this one.  A conflict with either of those two nations would eat up a hell of resources and manpower then anything in the middle east would.

I would never want a nuclear bomb to go off on anyones doorstep to prove a point.  I am saying that they sure as hell would need a lot more evidence then they have now.  Not to say the Iran is an inocent party in all of this but i think putting America on a pedistal is a mistake.  They are not the international police man that they think they are. 

As for they UN they do need to change and it starts at the top will it come i don't know.  But that is the body that should be acting as the international police man not the US.

As for the UN comming to help or the US I would not care who came, you are bringing two seperate issues together here.  One of the US comming to the humanitrian aid of nations to forcing their will on nations.
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline 48Highlander

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,404
    • Applied Ballistics
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #62 on: January 25, 2005, 15:32:03 »
Ok that's enough.  Nobody wants to hear your conspiracy theorie reitarated again.  It's been debated to death multiple times, and this thread isn't the place for it.

Offline Carcharodon Carcharias

  • Drawing the crabs from Downunder :) WTF is TWL?
  • Banned
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 29,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,250
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #63 on: January 25, 2005, 15:42:51 »
Ok i will update my list to make it more relevant

US attack Iraq with no prove of WMD or positive links to the OSMA

US openly threatens Iran a sovergin nation.

US openly threatens Syria a sovergin nation.

they branded the US the "Great Satan while the US was supplying IRAQ weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.   They also branded the USSR the lesser Satan but still bought weapons from them.

As for the UN what mutinational group does not have scandals.   Does this meant it is invaluable or just requires a revamping of its internal doctrine?   (kinda like the Canadian government)

The UN is still a worth while body that should play a larger role in the world and needs to be revamped to do it.



What!!!!!!

Have you been smoking hemp in a uni pub sucking on a warm beer? Get some fresh air and eat a reality biscut instead of those funny tasting brownies.

Pal, you got alot to learn, and not from a text book either.

I cannot say one thing good about Iran, and I find it hard to phathom what you are saying.   They are a serious threat to de-stablise the region should they develope these weapons. So what would you say if Iran went ahead and got a nuclear weapon manufactured? They will, its just a matter of time.

Don't think for one second this technology would not be used agsinst us.

Canadians are not immune either. Infact most Iranians probably don't even know what a Canada is ( living uneducated and oppressed under a wicked ruthless regime). You, Mr OZ are already condemmed by the colour of your skin and the culture you have. Just remember they hate you as much as any westerner and they would dance in the streets on your corpse if they had a chance. Don't go painting the USA as the enemy here. I value my freedom and way of life, so if it takes an airstrike to prolong it, I support it 110%.

Shame on Pakistan and other nations for helping Iran out with this technology. Again 21 century technology with a very dangerous 13th century mentality. That really frightens me and I am not afraid to admit it.

As for the USA using nukes so what! Are you condemming the USA for this? That was 60 yeras ago, and it ended a dirty war which not only would have caused 100's of thousands of Allied casualties (including Canadians) if Japan was to be invaded, and an estimated 1,000,000,000+ civilians.

I don't want Iran do develope any such weapons and I support the 'disarmament' in any way possible to ensure this does not happen. Either by pen or sword ( I know the pen won't work here).

In the years to come, I think the west is in for a rough ride.

As for the UN, they are hopeless, and are not what they used to be. Too busy on trying to be PC rather than get the job done (could not organise a gang-bang in a monkey *****-house with a first full of banannas). when you got a cancer you exercise it, not dance around undecided, as if ya do that, your dead!

I just want a more safe world, and if it means keeping these countries full of twisted hate in check by what ever means possible lets just get the job done.

I am no war monger by any means, but I believe in whats right, and sometimes you gotta give someone a bloody nose if the councilling does not get through.

Your profile is empty. I would like to see at least some mininum info for us to see who you are. You like to 'walk the walk' now its time to 'talk the talk' Enough annonynimity. I have read many of your posts which seem to be tainted with a very leftist flavour (being PC here for a sec - 'not that there is anything wrong with that' - Seinfeld quote).

Back up your posts by giving us some credentials. Have a squizz at mine. I am not shy.
Wes
« Last Edit: January 25, 2005, 16:05:44 by Wesley H. Allen, CD »
"You've never lived until you've almost died; as for our freedom, for those of us who have fought for it, life has a flavour the protected will never know." - Anonymous

Offline muskrat89

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 25,257
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,452
    • Desert Rat
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #64 on: January 25, 2005, 16:37:46 »
Quote
How can you say that those issues have been solved in the positive for years.  Did they find any of this "stock pile" NO  what firm terrorist links did they find our have.If Germany and Frnace saw Iraq as a threat why did they not support the war to remove Saddam and free Iraq?


Stephen Hayes has recently released a book that documents the connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Believe whatever you want....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp


Quote
The Connection
From the June 7, 2004 issue: Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right.
by Stephen F. Hayes
06/07/2004, Volume 009, Issue 37
   
From The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America
by Stephen F. Hayes.


"THE PRESIDENT CONVINCED THE COUNTRY with a mixture of documents that turned out to be forged and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda," claimed former Vice President Al Gore last Wednesday.

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," declared Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, in an interview on March 21, 2004.

The editor of the Los Angeles Times labeled as "myth" the claim that links between Iraq and al Qaeda had been proved. A recent dispatch from Reuters simply asserted, "There is no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda." 60 Minutes anchor Lesley Stahl was equally certain: "There was no connection."

And on it goes. This conventional wisdom--that our two most determined enemies were not in league, now or ever--is comforting. It is also wrong.

In late February 2004, Christopher Carney made an astonishing discovery. Carney, a political science professor from Pennsylvania on leave to work at the Pentagon, was poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein's much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam. One name stood out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before, but such discrepancies are common. Having studied the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for 18 months, he immediately recognized the potential significance of his find. According to a report
 
last week in the Wall Street Journal, Shakir appears on three different lists of Fedayeen officers.

An Iraqi of that name, Carney knew, had been present at an al Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on January 5-8, 2000. U.S. intelligence officials believe this was a chief planning meeting for the September 11 attacks. Shakir had been nominally employed as a "greeter" by Malaysian Airlines, a job he told associates he had gotten through a contact at the Iraqi embassy. More curious, Shakir's Iraqi embassy contact controlled his schedule, telling him when to show up for work and when to take a day off.

A greeter typically meets VIPs upon arrival and accompanies them through the sometimes onerous procedures of foreign travel. Shakir was instructed to work on January 5, 2000, and on that day, he escorted one Khalid al Mihdhar from his plane to a waiting car. Rather than bid his guest farewell at that point, as a greeter typically would have, Shakir climbed into the car with al Mihdhar and accompanied him to the Kuala Lumpur condominium of Yazid Sufaat, the American-born al Qaeda terrorist who hosted the planning meeting.

The meeting lasted for three days. Khalid al Mihdhar departed Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok and eventually Los Angeles. Twenty months later, he was aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it plunged into the Pentagon at 9:38 A.M. on September 11. So were Nawaf al Hazmi and his younger brother, Salem, both of whom were also present at the Kuala Lumpur meeting.

Six days after September 11, Shakir was captured in Doha, Qatar. He had in his possession contact information for several senior al Qaeda terrorists: Zahid Sheikh Mohammed, brother of September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Musab Yasin, brother of Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who helped mix the chemicals for the first World Trade Center attack and was given safe haven upon his return to Baghdad; and Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, otherwise known as Abu Hajer al Iraqi, described by one top al Qaeda detainee as Osama bin Laden's "best friend."

Despite all of this, Shakir was released. On October 21, 2001, he boarded a plane for Baghdad, via Amman, Jordan. He never made the connection. Shakir was detained by Jordanian intelligence. Immediately following his capture, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence on Shakir, the Iraqi government began exerting pressure on the Jordanians to release him. Some U.S. intelligence officials--primarily at the CIA--believed that Iraq's demand for Shakir's release was pro forma, no different from the requests governments regularly make on behalf of citizens detained by foreign governments. But others, pointing to the flurry of phone calls and personal appeals from the Iraqi government to the Jordanians, disagreed. This panicked reaction, they said, reflected an interest in Shakir at the highest levels of Saddam Hussein's regime.

CIA officials who interviewed Shakir in Jordan reported that he was generally uncooperative. But even in refusing to talk, he provided some important information: The interrogators concluded that his evasive answers reflected counterinterrogation techniques so sophisticated
 
that he had probably learned them from a government intelligence service. Shakir's Iraqi nationality, his contacts with the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia, the keen interest of Baghdad in his case, and now the appearance of his name on the rolls of Fedayeen officers--all this makes the Iraqi intelligence service the most likely source of his training.

The Jordanians, convinced that Shakir worked for Iraqi intelligence, went to the CIA with a bold proposal: Let's flip him. That is, the Jordanians would allow Shakir to return to Iraq on condition that he agree to report back on the activities of Iraqi intelligence. And, in one of the most egregious mistakes by U.S. intelligence after September 11, the CIA agreed to Shakir's release. He posted a modest bail and returned to Iraq.

He hasn't been heard from since.

The Shakir story is perhaps the government's strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11. It is far from conclusive; conceivably there were two Ahmed Hikmat Shakirs. And in itself, the evidence does not show that Saddam Hussein personally had foreknowledge of the attacks. Still--like the long, on-again-off-again relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda--it cannot be dismissed.


THERE WAS A TIME not long ago when the conventional wisdom skewed heavily toward a Saddam-al Qaeda links. In 1998 and early 1999, the Iraq-al Qaeda connection was widely reported in the American and international media. Former intelligence officers and government officials speculated about the relationship and its dangerous implications for the world. The information in the news reports came from foreign and domestic intelligence services. It was featured in mainstream media outlets including international wire services, prominent newsweeklies, and network radio and television broadcasts.

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:


Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:


Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:


Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.

By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify these claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."

Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials.

In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to collaborate with Iraq on weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton Justice Department had been concerned about negative public reaction to its potentially capturing bin Laden without "a vehicle for extradition," official paperwork charging him with a crime. It was "not an afterthought" to include the al Qaeda-Iraq connection in the indictment, says an official familiar with the deliberations. "It couldn't have gotten into the indictment unless someone was willing to testify to it under oath." The Clinton administration's indictment read unequivocally:


Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda terrorists struck almost simultaneously at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The blasts killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and wounded nearly 5,000. The Clinton administration determined within five days that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks and moved swiftly to retaliate. One of the targets would be in Afghanistan. But the Clinton national security team wanted to strike hard simultaneously, much as the terrorists had. "The decision to go to [Sudan] was an add-on," says a senior intelligence officer involved in the targeting. "They wanted a dual strike."

A small group of Clinton administration officials, led by CIA director George Tenet and national security adviser Sandy Berger, reviewed a number of al Qaeda-linked targets in Sudan. Although bin Laden had left the African nation two years earlier, U.S. officials believed that he was still deeply involved in the Sudanese government-run Military Industrial Corporation (MIC).

The United States retaliated on August 20, 1998, striking al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant outside Khartoum. "Let me be very clear about this," said President Bill Clinton, addressing the nation after the strikes. "There is no question in my mind that the Sudanese factory was producing chemicals that are used--and can be used--in VX gas. This was a plant that was producing chemical warfare-related weapons, and we have physical evidence of that."

The physical evidence was a soil sample containing EMPTA, a precursor for VX nerve gas. Almost immediately, the decision to strike at al Shifa aroused controversy. U.S. officials expressed skepticism that the plant produced pharmaceuticals at all, but reporters on the ground in Sudan found aspirin bottles and a variety of other indications that the plant had, in fact, manufactured drugs. For journalists and many at the CIA, the case was hardly clear-cut. For one thing, the soil sample was collected from outside the plant's front gate, not within the grounds, and an internal CIA memo issued a month before the attacks had recommended gathering additional soil samples from the site before reaching any conclusions. "It caused a lot of heartburn at the agency," recalls a former top intelligence official.

The Clinton administration sought to dispel doubts about the targeting and, on August 24, 1998, made available a "senior intelligence official" to brief reporters on background. The briefer cited "strong ties between the plant and Iraq" as one of the justifications for attacking it. The next day, undersecretary of state for political affairs Thomas Pickering briefed reporters at the National Press Club. Pickering explained that the intelligence community had been monitoring the plant for "at least two years," and that the evidence was "quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq." In all, at least six top Clinton administration officials have defended on the record the strikes in Sudan by citing a link to Iraq.

The Iraqis, of course, denied any involvement. "The Clinton government has fabricated yet another lie to the effect that Iraq had helped Sudan produce this chemical weapon," declared the political editor of Radio Iraq. Still, even as Iraq denied helping Sudan and al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, the regime lauded Osama bin Laden. On August 27, 1998, 20 days after al Qaeda attacked the U.S. embassies in Africa, Babel, the government newspaper run by Saddam's son Uday Hussein, published an editorial proclaiming bin Laden "an Arab and Islamic hero."

Five months later, the same Richard Clarke who would one day claim that there was "absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever," told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraq was behind the production of the chemical weapons precursor at the al Shifa plant. "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it," wrote Post reporter Vernon Loeb, in an article published January 23, 1999. "But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

Later in 1999, the Congressional Research Service published a report on the psychology of terrorism. The report created a stir in May 2002 when critics of President Bush cited it to suggest that his administration should have given more thought to suicide hijackings. On page 7 of the 178-page document was a passage about a possible al Qaeda attack on Washington, D.C., that "could take several forms." In one scenario, "suicide bombers belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, or the White House."

A network anchor wondered if it was possible that the White House had somehow missed the report. A senator cited it in calling for an investigation into the 9/11 attacks. A journalist read excerpts to the secretary of defense and raised a familiar question: "What did you know and when did you know it?"

But another passage of the same report has gone largely unnoticed. Two paragraphs before, also on page 7, is this: "If Iraq's Saddam Hussein decide to use terrorists to attack the continental United States [he] would likely turn to bin Laden's al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is among the Islamic groups recruiting increasingly skilled professionals," including "Iraqi chemical weapons experts and others capable of helping to develop WMD. Al Qaeda poses the most serious terrorist threat to U.S. security interests, for al Qaeda's well-trained terrorists are engaged in a terrorist jihad against U.S. interests worldwide."

CIA director George Tenet echoed these sentiments in a letter to Congress on October 7, 2002:


--Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

--We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

--Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

--Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

--We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

--Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.


Tenet has never backed away from these assessments. Senator Mark Dayton, a Democrat from Minnesota, challenged him on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection in an exchange before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 9, 2004. Tenet reiterated his judgment that there had been numerous "contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that in the days before the war the Iraqi regime had provided "training and safe haven" to al Qaeda associates, including Abu Musab al Zarqawi. What the U.S. intelligence community could not claim was that the Iraqi regime had "command and control" over al Qaeda terrorists. Still, said Tenet, "it was inconceivable to me that Zarqawi and two dozen [Egyptian Islamic Jihad] operatives could be operating in Baghdad without Iraq knowing."


SO WHAT should Washington do now? The first thing the Bush administration should do is create a team of intelligence experts--or preferably competing teams, each composed of terrorism experts and forensic investigators--to explore the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. For more than a year, the 1,400-member Iraq Survey Group has investigated the nature and scope of Iraq's program to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. At various times in its brief history, a small subgroup of ISG investigators (never more than 15 people) has looked into Iraqi connections with al Qaeda. This is not enough.

Despite the lack of resources devoted to Iraq-al Qaeda connections, the Iraq Survey Group has obtained some interesting new information. In the spring of 1992, according to Iraqi Intelligence documents obtained by the ISG after the war, Osama bin Laden met with Iraqi Intelligence officials in Syria. A second document, this one captured by the Iraqi National Congress and authenticated by the Defense Intelligence Agency, then listed bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence "asset" who "is in good relationship with our section in Syria." A third Iraqi Intelligence document, this one an undated internal memo, discusses strategy for an upcoming meeting between Iraqi Intelligence, bin Laden, and a representative of the Taliban. On the agenda: "attacking American targets." This seems significant.

A second critical step would be to declassify as much of the Iraq-al Qaeda intelligence as possible. Those skeptical of any connection claim that any evidence of a relationship must have been "cherry picked" from much larger piles of existing intelligence that makes these Iraq-al Qaeda links less compelling. Let's see it all, or as much of it as can be disclosed without compromising sources and methods.

Among the most important items to be declassified: the Iraq Survey Group documents discussed above; any and all reporting and documentation--including photographs--pertaining to Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi and alleged Saddam Fedayeen officer present at the September 11 planning meeting; interview transcripts with top Iraqi intelligence officers, al Qaeda terrorists, and leaders of al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al Islam; documents recovered in postwar Iraq indicating that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi who has admitted mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was given safe haven and financial support by the Iraqi regime upon returning to Baghdad two weeks after the attack; any and all reporting and documentation--including photographs--related to Mohammed Atta's visits to Prague; portions of the debriefings of Faruq Hijazi, former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence, who met personally with bin Laden at least twice, and an evaluation of his credibility.

It is of course important for the Bush administration and CIA director George Tenet to back up their assertions of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. Similarly, declassifying intelligence from the 1990s might shed light on why top Clinton officials were adamant about an Iraq-al Qaeda connection in Sudan and why the Clinton Justice Department included the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship in its 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden. More specifically, what intelligence did Richard Clarke see that allowed him to tell the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had provided a chemical weapons precursor to the al Qaeda-linked al Shifa facility in Sudan? What would compel former secretary of defense William Cohen to tell the September 11 Commission, under oath, that an executive from the al Qaeda-linked plant "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX [nerve gas] program"? And why did Thomas Pickering, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, tell reporters, "We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program"? Other Clinton administration figures, including a "senior intelligence official" who briefed reporters on background, cited telephone intercepts between a plant manager and Emad al Ani, the father of Iraq's chemical weapons program.

We have seen important elements of the pre-September 11 intelligence available to the Bush administration; it's time for the American public to see more of the intelligence on Iraq and al Qaeda from the 1990s, especially the reporting about the August 1998 attacks in Kenya and Tanzania and the U.S. counterstrikes two weeks later.

Until this material is declassified, there will be gaps in our knowledge. Indeed, even after the full record is made public, some uncertainties will no doubt remain.

The connection between Saddam and al Qaeda isn't one of them.


The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 176,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,944
  • Freespeecher
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #65 on: January 25, 2005, 16:58:04 »
Thank you, Mr Muskrat!
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #66 on: January 25, 2005, 17:34:16 »
Muskrat

"The Shakir story is perhaps the government's strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11. It is far from conclusive; conceivably there were two Ahmed Hikmat Shakirs. And in itself, the evidence does not show that Saddam Hussein personally had foreknowledge of the attacks. Still--like the long, on-again-off-again relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda--it cannot be dismissed." 

Speculation is not proof in any court.  Again even if there was the relationship, which there may well have been, where are WMD that they went after.

Majoor

You still never answered my questions as to France and Germany seeing Iraq as a threat and failing to back the US in the war?

Wesley

Really my arguments lack fact?

Was it the press that lied about the Arms for hostages scandal?
Did they find a huge cache of WMD and forget to report it?

Yes America dropped the bomb and it was the right thing to do at the time.
That list was in response to the one from the Majoor and if you read it, I said let he without sin cast the first stone.

Do i think the US is a bad nation or painted them in a negative way no.  I think that thye have been exercising alot of muscle international without alot of world opinion.  You want people to stop hating you then stop pissing the world off.  I agree sometimes they have to act and act fast world opinion be dammed and the two bombs are a perfect example of that.  But having the might does not make everything you do right. 

You say I am a leftest, I doubt it and i would love for you to show me how i appear that way.  All I was saying with my post was that if you want to have the world on your side you have to show the world that you are right.  Proof is required in order to make that happen (speculation is not proof). 

Do you think i want Iran to develope nuclear weapons?  Canada would be just as guilty as any other nation if that was to happen.  We sold the reactors to Pakistian who in turn helped Iran. 
 
No i don't think Canada would come away unscathed and i find it fairly embarising that there is not much we can do about it militarily.  We lack the backbone in our duly elected government to change any of these problems and we continue to put that problem back in power.

As for the warm beer and funny brownie, not called for.  I drink cold beer and suffer at night due to a lack of hockey.

because profile is empty that makes my opinion count for less?

48

This one you have to explain to me.

"Ok that's enough.  Nobody wants to hear your conspiracy theorie reitarated again.  It's been debated to death multiple times, and this thread isn't the place for it."

How does what i asked you go near a consipiracy theory?










You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline 48Highlander

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,404
    • Applied Ballistics
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #67 on: January 25, 2005, 17:56:53 »
You believe Iraq to be a sovereign nation right now?   Not a puppet government of the Americans?  

Conspiracy theory.

But having the might does not make everything you do right.

"having the might" also doesn't automaticaly make every action wrong.

All I was saying with my post was that if you want to have the world on your side you have to show the world that you are right. Proof is required in order to make that happen (speculation is not proof).

I see.  So who's side are YOU on exactly?  If you're against the US action in Iraq, I take it you're on Sadams side?  If so, would you please provide me with a link to the exhaustive and detailed "proof" which Sadam showed you in order to bring you to his side?

Offline Wizard of OZ

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 375
  • Another day another 32 cents after tax
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #68 on: January 25, 2005, 18:07:25 »
I am on the side of the colation. :cdn:  I beilve Sadam  >:D had to go.  There is no doubt in my mind that the things he did were illegal and border on insane.  But i don't think that the government in place would last if the US pulled out. Making it a puppet to US demands. Things may change after the election.

And you are right having the might doesn't make it automatically wrong it just makes you carry a bigger burnden of proof when you do things.  And you are held to a higher standard.  Especially when you go things alone, or with the "Colation of the willing"

The world holds the US to a higher standard then alot of the third world countries and backwards dictatorships that they tend to deal with.  The reason for this is the US has assumed this role.  If they want the lime light they should have to carry the responsiblitiy with it.

I have no doubt that Iran is up to no good.  None.  But you have to know by fact before you can just assume it.  That is all i am saying.  Saying you have proof and then finding nothing does not help your credibilty on the world stage.

That is all, other then that i like to play a little devils advocate to make blood boil.
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives.Winston Churchill

Offline muskrat89

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 25,257
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,452
    • Desert Rat
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #69 on: January 25, 2005, 18:17:16 »
Quote
Speculation is not proof in any court.  Again even if there was the relationship, which there may well have been, where are WMD that they went after.

I didn't post it as proof. I do however feel that the information that I posted was far more compelling, researched, and believable than the "Wizard of Oz" posting simply that "there were NO links" on an internet forum....
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

Offline 48Highlander

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,404
    • Applied Ballistics
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #70 on: January 25, 2005, 18:26:35 »
You hold the US to a higher standard?   In the Iraq conflict, on one side you have a democraticaly elected president in charge of a nation which gives almost unlimited rights and freedoms to it's citizens.   On the other side you have a dicatorial regime which executes the citizens of it's nation at the whim of those in power.   Yet which country is compared by the left wing to the Nazi regime, and which president is compared to Hitler?   The world doesn't just hold the US to a "higher standard", those edumacated individuals of "higher moral integrity" hold the US to an impossible standard.   Nothing the US does will ever be good enough, not because of lack of evidence or positive results, but simply because they're an easy target to pick on, and the ones most often in the limelight.   You see examples of that attitude everywhere in our world, like for example the entertainment industry.   Nobody wants to see movies stars or other famous people having stable marriages and normal lives.   People want to see sex, drugs, violence, divorces, suicides....the more scandal the better.   Same goes for politics.   Eliminating possible threats and removing dictators lacks sex-appeal.   It's much more fun to speculate bout corporate ambitions being the driving force behind invasions to seize wealth and oppress the little people, or secret "clandestine" government operatives flying planes by remote control into the WTC in order to justify a christian crusade or American imperial ambitions.   See how much sexier all those phrases sound?   It's all about image.

MagieNoire

  • Guest
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #71 on: January 25, 2005, 18:41:06 »
Wizard:

Some excellent points regarding the US, however, one of your examples is outdated and doesn't include important context info.

The US was justified in using nuclear weapons against Japan because: a- the alternative (mainland invasion of Japan) would have caused more casualties than the 2 nukes did; and b- they were in a state of TOTAL WAR with Japan.

And as Majoor pointed out, that was 60 years ago.





What was done to the Japanese cannot be 'justified'.   :skull:

Voltigeur

  • Guest
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #72 on: January 25, 2005, 18:59:38 »
Well gentlemen, first is first, I support the US foreign policy for the simple reason that in Roman times, you had to support Rome.... but don't forget, Iran, Irak, Syria and so on... they are like the Persia of Roman times. Rome never successfully controlled the Middle East... It's not the place of the westerners.... We messed up everytime we have been there.... The US are swimming in their own mess.... They supported Saddam, they supported the Shah of Iran... They caused a lot of suffering amongst the people there by putting and supporting dictators because they knew it was the only way to maintain an economic influence over the area. Now, since Saddam turned his back on them in 1991 and the Shah of Iran was dismissed in 1979, the whole area was not under their influence anymore.... Yes, they went into Irak and they will go in Iran because we are not talking about freedom for those people, we are talking about maintaing USA superpower for the next century... it's simply a long term vision which people at the pentagon have been working on for years... Oil is necessary for the tanks, the ships, the jets and every car owner in America.... They are in the Middle East because it was just a matter of time before China put his nose there! Anyway, those who are listening Imagine of John lennon and dreaming about a world of peace and freedom, I strongly suggest you start your homemade weed plant cause you're gonna need it... especially when there will be no food in your cooler. For the rest who are wake up, be a roman of your time and protect your way of life by defending the US foreign policy cause like it or not... the world is a big competition with winners and losers... chose your side carefully.
Good bless all our brothers and sisters of the United States Armed Forces.


Better to live one day as a lion than one hundred years as a lamb - Benito Mussolini

Offline Glorified Ape

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -5
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 672
  • Managing expectations is the key to success.
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #73 on: January 25, 2005, 19:13:17 »
be a roman of your time and protect your way of life by defending the US foreign policy cause like it or not... the world is a big competition with winners and losers... chose your side carefully.

Yes, because we all know the only way to protect your way of life is to invade and slaughter all those who don't abide by it!  ::)
Bureaucracy is hell.

Offline Steve

  • Mentally hilarious
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 583
  • No claim for you!
Re: Iran: We can repel U.S. attack
« Reply #74 on: January 25, 2005, 19:29:13 »
Listen to some of you people .. "who's side are you on?"

Do you really think anything is so perfectly black and white?

If I do not agree with Bush's policies, does that now make me a terrorist?

I will not get involved with what was right and wrong regarding this whole issue, because there are some rights and some wrongs and it goes so deep until it's murky and convuluted beyond recognition.

But I will say that it is a primitive state of mind to think that something either "is" or "is not" .. I forget who said that, but it is true.

Disagreeing with Iraq does not make you on Saddams side.

Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Hermann Goering said that. Despite his affiliations, he was correct. But I guess someone will now denounce me as being on the Nazi's side for using a quote of theirs, right?
I fell off the jungle gym.. and when I woke up, I was in Petawawa..