# Pro-war evidence keeps piling up



## Jungle (11 Apr 2006)

Interesting article on some recent information, found here:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/496263.html



> *Pro-war evidence keeps piling up*
> 
> By PAUL SCHNEIDEREIT
> 
> ...


Now we don't need the usual anti-war Bush-haters piling on with the usual arguments...
I always found it strange that al-qaeda was apparently absent from Iraq, but immediately after the fall of the regime, they appeared as an organised entity, conducting a large-scale guerilla war.


----------



## GAP (11 Apr 2006)

> I always found it strange that AL-qaeda was apparently absent from Iraq, but immediately after the fall of the regime, they appeared as an organised entity, conducting a large-scale guerrilla war.



The article makes perfect sense, as does your commentary. I think part of the problem is the "hoof-and-mouth" disease the Bush administration suffered from. They didn't help themselves, which left a large part of the supporters scratching their heads.
I hope we don't fall into the same trap in a parallel situation. 

There can be no doubt that Iraq had or was processing WMD. The US has the receipts to prove it.


----------



## Screw (11 Apr 2006)

the 9/11 commision report also touches on the relationship between UBL AQ and the Iraqi dictatorship. They made very little head way having such a difference in fundamantal beliefs- but they did make an attempt to bond over a common enemy. But to little avail- admitted by the Commision as well. That being said- the invasion has been completed time to stop arguing over it and everyone to roll up their sleeves and build a new iraq!

as for weapons of mass destruction there is an interesting take on that contained in a canadian book called "Ignorant Armies", a book written on the iraq war before it began. Pretty leftist but it was worth the afternoon it took to read it.

Cheers!

Screw


----------



## GAP (11 Apr 2006)

I think there is tremendous strides being made in Iraq. But nobody is reporting on it. All the media are concentrating on the killing and violence, because that's what sells. Being able to safely walk around in a neighbourhood doesn't sell advertising, but blowing things and people up does, so that's what gets reported and focused on. Kinda like the dog biting it's own tail, just a vicious circle.


----------



## couchcommander (11 Apr 2006)

Far be it from me to bring up the usual arguments in response to an inflamatory article...

/rant on
As for the up to 2000.... alright... you know, let us, for a moment, assume that this is correct........

.......2000 is not march 2003....

We all remember exactly what Bush said in 2003 right? It wasn't that Saddam hussein was talking in his sleep about WMD, or was pondering them over his morning coffee, etc. etc.... he *HAD* them. 

On that note, I wonder what the context of these "documents" and "tapes" are... is Saddam Hussein sitting there at the cabinet table going "ok, well we're going to reinitiate our chemical weapons programs.".... or was it more at home, watch'in the game.... "Hey, hey guys, guess what? You know what would be awesome.... some WMD... yea, you heard me....WMD... man... awesome... I dunno"

And wait a minute... now Syria  has WMD too? I thought that was Iran?!?!? And isn't there some crazy guy near China with them too?!?!?!?! Why aren't we doing anything about that?!?!?!?! OMGWTFBBQ WHO ARE WE GOING TO BOMB THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!!

(edit - due to the lack of a sarcasm smily, I feel it is necessary to point out that this section of said post was more intended to provide off-colour humour and express an underlying frustration rather than actually put forth coherent arguments to be debated... look down for that)

/rant off

*ahem* Sorry about that. Sometimes my leftist, hypocritical self just gets the better of me. 

On a more serious note...

I don't suppose you'd be able to post the original documents, translated, that he referrs to there Jungle? Since this article only seems to quote two words from them.... hard to tell what's really going on... for example:

"paul sheidereit...killed hundreds of thousands...[and] held meetings with al-Qaida as early as 1995"

If these documents do state what is being reported, then they of course deserve to be analysed in their whole context. As of yet, however, I have not seen them presented in anything but a triple digested form.

This makes me very wary and suspicious that if they were in fact properly quoted in full context, things wouldn't seem quite as they are made to be here. I could of course be wrong, I would just like to see what this... writer... is referring to before passing judgement.

Screw is correct though, regardless of who screwed what up, we should be helping the Iraqi people.


----------



## Screw (11 Apr 2006)

Couch Commander is correct- without actual transcripts of these tapes and documents it does nothing for either side. Id like to read them in their entirety and conclude for myself the evidence. As should any person who wants to be objective about this.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2006)

This stuff does get published eventualy, but even having it published in a book or on line dosn't change much for some people. As an article about the upcoming movie "United 93" http://tks.nationalreview.com/archives/094131.asp points out:



> I came across the reaction on Ain't It Cool News - a site where the commenters are raucous and foul-mouthed all the time, funny and insightful sometimes.
> 
> In the comments reacting to the trailer, plenty of folks get into predictable Iraq arguments, etc. But then I came across the comment from “tripp5” stating, “9/11 Commission says this scenario is bunk... The 9/11 Commission Report stated that there was absolutely no evidence of a passenger uprising or anyone breaking into the cockpit. The plane got shot down, pure and simple. But i doubt that'll be in the movie.”
> 
> Um... no. I have the Commission report on my bookshelf and just looked up what they said.



Evidently there are very different standards of proof depending on the messenger. I trust most people on this board actually do open the book and read it for themselves when it is finally available.


----------



## Guest (13 Apr 2006)

Why is there this obsession with finding evidence to support the war?  Can't we just invade a country without justifying it?  What's wrong with going to war over oil anyways?  I mean either you want to go to war or you don't.  There's good reasons supporting both the pro and anti war argument.


----------



## Screw (13 Apr 2006)

Guess said:
			
		

> Why is there this obsession with finding evidence to support the war?  Can't we just invade a country without justifying it?  What's wrong with going to war over oil anyways?  I mean either you want to go to war or you don't.  There's good reasons supporting both the pro and anti war argument.



didnt Caeser say "you dont ask a soldier if you need a war".....or something like that.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2006)

More evidence (which will fall on deaf ears)

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/mccarthy/mccarthy200604170640.asp



> *Iraq Is the War on Terror*
> As the administration stays curiously mum, the evidence that it was right mounts.
> 
> The Bush administration evidently believes revisiting the case for toppling Saddam Hussein is a political loser. That this conclusion — which, of course, has played in the media like a tacit admission of guilt — is a terrible miscalculation becomes clearer with each passing day. As journalists, scholars, and analysts pore over more of the intelligence haul seized when U.S. forces toppled the Iraqi regime, the case for removing an America-hating terror-monger responsible for the brutal torture and murder of — literally — tens of thousands of people looks better and better. Still, the administration maddeningly refuses to go on offense in its defense.
> ...


----------



## Centurian1985 (18 Apr 2006)

I am in serious doubt as to the authenticity of that 'memo'... AQ methodology does not include putting out 'want ads'.


----------



## Jungle (18 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> I am in serious doubt as to the authenticity of that 'memo'... AQ methodology does not include putting out 'want ads'.


I agree AQ does not issue memos, but according to this:


> ... a striking memorandum, apparently *authored by an Iraqi air-force general*...


the memo was issued by a Military organisation. And from my experience, and yours certainly, memos are part of Military methodology.


----------



## Centurian1985 (18 Apr 2006)

Yes, but if you look back to the news at that time, the memo is easily explained:

(Note the word 'Palestinian' in this memo)

Sharon had just recently (28 Sep 2000) caused an uproar by 'violating' the sanctity of a mosque in Gaza or the West Bank (can check it on search if you want).  Later seen as a move to gain power by destabilizing the ongoing peace process with the Palestinians.    The various militia groups responded with a renewed campaign of suicide bombings (which contionues to this day).  Later in 2001, Saddam came out with his announcment that he supported Palestinian bombings, and would pledge x amount of dollars to the family of every suicide bomber.  

This memo appears related the this incident, not the 9/11 event.


----------

