Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Oh, I think it will matter in a hundred years. The USA has set a precedent for extending 'right to self-defense' way beyond imminent threat into mere 'potential' threat. Many other dictators who don't happen to be on the public radar at the moment will be quite pleased to use this precedent to attack whomever they please -- after checking with the US to make sure it's ok with them, of course. We've now returned to a world of 'might makes right' that was supposedly ended in the 20th century, and we will be paying the consequences for a long time to come. Who knows, in a hundred years we might see President P. D. Q. Bush deposed by the Chinese-led coalition to free the USA. We will not be the biggest bully on the block forever. But I'm sure they'll promise to minimize civilian casualties and rebuild the smashed infrastructure. And cut themselves in for control of huge tracts of US farmland to feed themselves.

[ March 18, 2003, 21:42: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do they have the ability to kill a million or more people with biological weapons? Do they or have they ever sought to use a nuclear weapon as a terrorist tool? Do they have active plans on using any weapon of mass destruction against any one other than the English? Nope = no risk threat to the rest of the world. Englands problem. (And if memory serves, they are fighting for indepence or something like that too.)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why not start with MI6, or the Russian Secret Service? There is really NO proof that the CIA had done anything like what Alkida, Saddam, or even the Taliban have done. None.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">People doubt the truth will ever be told. So no matter what truth is told, people will always doubt it. So why tell the turth? YourPeoples minds are already made up. Any truth is just another CIA plot.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can not believe that you said this. Do you not believe that Saddam has used biological and chemical weapons before? Do you not believe that he has mass produce these weapons. WHY IN GOD NAME WOULD he want such weapons. Ask yourself that. SIMPLE, to repeat his history, and that is to USE THEM ON HIS ENEMIES!!!!! And the Last fricking time I looked, he consider us, and you, his enemy!!!!!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um, our government does not support them. Nor does our government give them money. There are poeple here in the US, and all over the world mind you that actively support terrorism. Because there are these kind of sick people around does not mean that the US government supports them.

[ March 18, 2003, 21:47: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Cool
Let’s free Ireland next, a wee little bit of home rule http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif then we move on to free the Scotts, paint our faces blue and showem owur arses. After that we might settle that little difference the canuks have, Brits to the left and Frogs to the right. Perhaps a little piece in the north for the original owners. And I think a few people in France and Spain would like to get in line. By the time we carve out a country for everyone that wants one, I think we will need a bigger UN. But of course, every coin has two sides, some of these people might object.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Baron Munchausen I am LOL. China freeing Americans, LOL. They bought and paid for Clinton, and if they can do that, why invade?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I am watching an Iraqi gentleman on CNN. To hear him talk, the world is on the side of Iraq. Well I’m a reasonable man, who will stand with Iraq? Who is willing to step in and offer them aid? Talk is cheap! I must note that while Abduri looked very mad, his aids had a different look on their faces.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I am sorry, but I fail to understand why people would not want Saddam removed. Here is a man who has actively used biological and chemical weapons against his own people, and has an active program to mass produce them.

Here is a man who funds suicide bombers and has hosted terrorist training camps in his own DICRTORIALLY control country.

Here is man that in Last 23 years has attempted to invade two of his neighbors.

Here is man that has openly stated that he has no objection to selling or giving away biological weapons to Terrorist.

Why in gods name would you not want him removed following what had happened on 9-11?

If we had known that Alkida (sp) could do what they did prior to 9-11, we would have taken issue with them. The problem is, Clinton did know, and he chose to sit on his arse and do nothing THUS inviting the attack.

Bush and many others know that Saddam will give away his weapons of mass destruction to terrorist who will in turn use them on innocent people. If he does not act now what will that invite?

If Bush had foreknowledge of Alkida's plan for 9 - 11, and went into Afghanistan and took them out in a preemptive strike, he would have been labeled a warmonger. Oh wait, isn't that exactly what he is doing now? Going into Iraq to PREVENT another f***ing 9-11?

And the worlds say no, what you are doing is wrong. You should wait until after they kill a million or more Americans before you take action. No thanks; I would rather have my family alive then dead.

I ask myself why is the world against this, and the answer is simple. It is the "in" thing to do right now, hate those who are dying to keep you from being murdered. It is the oldest song in the book. You hate the ones who care the most about you. It deeply sickens me to think that American's have, are, and will die for arseholes like the weak and pathetic French.

Germany, well they have an unknown agenda that frankly scares the hell out of me. Russia, well Russia is doing it because the Putnoff (sp) wants to look tough to his people standing up againt the big bad Eagle. Um didn't the Soviet Union crumble? And if so, why in the hell is he trying to put it back together?

As for the rest of the world? They want money to support us. It is that simple. Pay up or we will opose you. Nothing more than greedy dogs begging for dinner table scraps.

[ March 18, 2003, 22:08: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

What you fail to understand, Atrocities, is the concept of INTERNATIONAL LAW. Just because there is currently no offical 'world government' doesn't mean that there is no standard of right and wrong in international affairs. It's not a question of anyone wanting to 'keep Saddam in power' it's a question of the appropriate legal right to attack him. The US is violating all standards of international law in this obsessive quest to depose a tin-horn dictator. Many people who were afraid of Saddam Hussein are now afraid of the US instead. Think about that.

Here is a nation that disregards the rest of the world to do whatever the hell it wants. And why in God's name would they want all those nuclear weapons, and a dozen aircraft carriers Groups, and on and on. Scary isn't it?

And it's spelled Al Qaeda or Al Qaida depending on which transliteration scheme you are using.

This only adds to the black humor of your ranting about anti-war protestors being 'uninformed' while making ignoramous statements like saying that our government didn't support all those dictators or there's 'no evidence' that the CIA has committed crimes like Al Qaeda. It was the CIA that TRAINED OSAMA BIN LADEN. Not only has the CIA done far worse than Osama, it actually taught him how to do it. You really are making a fool of yourself.

[ March 18, 2003, 22:25: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Atrocities:
It's very hard to write something here without someone accusing me of supporting Saddam. I do not, I think he is scum and deserve everything that comes to him (But USA should not take it on by themself to act as prosecutor, judge and excecutor).

But I fail to see any connection between what happened 9/11 and Saddams weapons of mass destruction.
9/11 was done by 50 suicidal idiots armed with very low tech weapons (pLastic knives ?), on a budget of perhaps 100 K $.
Fundamentalist muslems don't support the US attacking Saddam (not because they love Saddam, but because they hate USA more).
Taking out Saddam will only increase the number of idiots willing to do such suicide missions, and the small sum of money needed will always be available.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The goal is to arrest Saddam and take him to trial. But, he will probably pull a Hitler before we get there.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Linkage

___________________________________

The Wall Street Journal
AT WAR
The Baluch Connection
Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tied to Baghdad?
BY LAURIE MYLROIE
Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, is a
Pakistani Baluch. So is Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing. In 1995, together with a third Baluch, Abdul Hakam Murad,
the two collaborated in an unsuccessful plot to bomb 12 U.S. airplanes.
Years later, as head of al Qaeda's military committee, Mohammed reportedly
planned the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, as well as the bombing of the USS
Cole in 2000.

Why should the Baluch seek to kill Americans? Sunni Muslims, they live in
the desert regions of eastern Iran and western Pakistan. The U.S. has little
to do with them; there is no evident motive for this murderous obsession.
The Baluch do, however, have longstanding ties to Iraqi intelligence,
reflecting their militant opposition to the Shiite regime in Tehran. Wafiq
Samarrai, former chief of Iraqi military intelligence, explains that Iraqi
intelligence worked with the Baluch during the Iran-Iraq war. According to
Mr. Samarrai, Iraqi intelligence has well-established contacts with the
Baluch in both Iran and Pakistan.

Mohammed, Yousef and Murad, supposedly born and raised in Kuwait, are part
of a tight circle. Mohammed is said to be Yousef's maternal uncle; Murad is
supposed to be Yousef's childhood friend. And U.S. authorities have
identified as major al Qaeda figures three other Baluch: two brothers of
Yousef and a cousin. The official position is thus that a single family is
at the center of almost all the major terrorist attacks against U.S. targets
since 1993. The existence of intelligence ties between Iraq and the Baluch
is scarcely noted. Indeed, these Baluch terrorists began attacking the U.S.
long before al Qaeda did.

Notably, this Baluch "family" is from Kuwait. Their identities are based on
documents from Kuwaiti files that predate Kuwait's liberation from Iraqi
occupation, and which are therefore unreliable. While in Kuwait, Iraqi
intelligence could have tampered with files to create false identities (or
"legends") for its agents. So, rather than one family, these terrorists are,
quite plausibly, elements of Iraq's Baluch network, given legends by Iraqi
intelligence.

SOMEONE NAMED Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was born in Kuwait to Pakistani parents
on April 19, 1965. After high school in Kuwait, he enrolled at Chowan
College in North Carolina in January 1984, before transferring to North
Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, where he received his
degree in December 1986. Is the Sept. 11 mastermind the same person as the
student? He need not be. Perhaps the real Mohammed died (possibly during
Iraq's occupation of Kuwait), and a terrorist assumed his identity.

Mohammed should now be just under 38, but the terrorist's arrest photo,
showing graying sideburns and heavy jowls, seems to suggest an older man
(admittedly, a subjective judgment). Yet this question can be pursued more
reliably. Three sets of information exist regarding Mohammed: information
from U.S. sources from the 1980s (INS and college documents, as well as
individuals who may remember him); Kuwaiti documents; and information since
the liberation of Kuwait (from his arrest, the interrogation of other al
Qaeda prisoners, and the investigation into the 1995 plane-bombing plot).

The Kuwaiti documents should be scrutinized for irregularities that suggest
tampering. The information about Mohammed from the '80s needs to be compared
with the information that has emerged since Kuwait's liberation. The
terrorist may prove to be taller (or shorter) than the student.
Interrogators might ask him what he remembers of the colleges he is claimed
to have attended. Acquaintances--like Gaith Faile, who taught Mohammed at
Chowan and who told the Journal, "He wasn't a radical"--should be asked to
provide a positive identification.

Along these lines, Kuwait's file on Yousef is telling. Yousef entered the
U.S. on an Iraqi passport in the name of Ramzi Yousef, but fled on a
passport in the name of Mohammed's supposed nephew, Abdul Basit Karim. But
Kuwait's file on Karim was tampered with. The file should contain copies of
the front pages of his passport, including picture and signature. They are
missing. Extraneous information was inserted--a notation that he and his
family left Kuwait on Aug. 26, 1990, traveling from Kuwait to Iraq, entering
Iran at Salamcheh on their way to Pakistani Baluchistan. But people do not
provide authorities an itinerary when crossing a border. Moreover, there was
no Kuwaiti government then. Iraq occupied Kuwait and would have had to put
that information into the file.

KARIM ATTENDED college in Britain. His teachers there strongly doubted that
their student was the terrorist mastermind. Most notably, Karim was short,
at most 5-foot-8; Yousef is 6 feet tall. Nevertheless, Yousef's fingerprints
are in Karim's file. Probably, the fingerprint card in Karim's file was
switched, the original replaced by one with Yousef's prints on it. James
Fox, who headed the FBI investigation into the 1993 WTC bombing, has been
quoted as affirming that Iraqi involvement was the theory "accepted by most
of the veteran investigators." Pakistani investigators were likewise
convinced that Yousef had close links with the MKO, an anti-Iranian
terrorist group run by Iraq, and conducted a bomb attack in Mashhad, Iran,
in 1994.

U.S. authorities may unravel the story very quickly if they pursue the
question of Mohammed's identity, instead of assuming they know who their
captive really is. As for the larger issue of these murderously
anti-American Baluch, that matter may become clear soon, once U.S. forces
take Baghdad--and take possession of Iraq's intelligence files.

Ms. Mylroie is the author of "The War Against America" (HarperCollins,
2001). A related editorial appears here.