Interesting Government study...........

[Neurotoxin]

March 10, 2008 
Chicago Tribune


WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.


The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report

NT

[Decker]

This is what I find fascinating.

There are still people on this board that do not believe the Bush Administration lied about the reasons it gave for attacking Iraq.

We usually hear, "Bush got bad information from the CIA..."

That itself is an untruth.

Bush got reasonably good intel from the CIA and his people twisted it to the point where there were mushroom clouds, Hussein and OBL were Buddies, and Iraq was planning to take down the US with 'nucular' bombs.

[OzmO]

Almost always, in their short term simpleton intellect, your basic "tool" will always bring up AQ in their reasoning for invading Iraq.

[Straw Man]

If presented with this Bush would just say he "rejects" those conclusions and we still  live in a dangerous world and only he knows how to protect us best

wow - I could be a Bush speech writer

[Brixtonbulldog]

This reason alone is enough..

5. The humanitarian reasons are compelling. Tens-of-thousands of people are being tortured and murdered in Iraq each year. This is an internal war--to end it is to be on the side of peace. The UN sanctions regime has left children dying without food and medicine, while Saddam builds palaces and funds terror groups and corrupts Western governments with kickbacks. And we are INVOLVED in the sanctions perversion--we have a responsibility to end it. Saddam is waging an internal war against his people. Pacifists are enablers of Saddam's war and want it to go on forever—America should end it.

from this: http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/002558.html

[240 is Back]

This reason alone is enough..

No, it's not.

We flew planes over far worse humanitarian crisii to land in iraq.

we're there for the oil and bases, dont be naive.

[Decker]

This reason alone is enough..

5. The humanitarian reasons are compelling. Tens-of-thousands of people are being tortured and murdered in Iraq each year. This is an internal war--to end it is to be on the side of peace. The UN sanctions regime has left children dying without food and medicine, while Saddam builds palaces and funds terror groups and corrupts Western governments with kickbacks. And we are INVOLVED in the sanctions perversion--we have a responsibility to end it. Saddam is waging an internal war against his people. Pacifists are enablers of Saddam's war and want it to go on forever—America should end it.

from this: http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/002558.html

Pacifists are not enablers of the US driven sanctions resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands Iraqis.  Pacifists are not enablers of Saddam Hussein.

Who did create this mess in Iraq?

Gee willikers, it was the good ol' USA that helped install and maintain Hussein's rule.

Almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed that Saddam was strongly linked with the CIA, and that the US intelligence, under President John F. Kennedy, helped Saddam seize power for the first time in 1963. [16] [17]

"American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name (with Iraq)."[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Links_with_CIA

Let's not forget this chestnut from the Reagan administration:



Can you see why your thinking is inverted on the matter?  The pacifists create the problems and neocons solve the problems.

[Brixtonbulldog]

No, it's not.

We flew planes over far worse humanitarian crisii to land in iraq.

we're there for the oil and bases, dont be naive.

I said it was reason enough to go there.. not THE only reason we went there.

And are you telling me that Saddam wasn't a genocidal, torturous dictator who murdered and imprisoned hundreds of thousands??

.. don't be ignorant.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Pacifists are not enablers of the US driven sanctions resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands Iraqis.  Pacifists are not enablers of Saddam Hussein.

Who did create this mess in Iraq?

Gee willikers, it was the good ol' USA that helped install and maintain Hussein's rule.

Almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed that Saddam was strongly linked with the CIA, and that the US intelligence, under President John F. Kennedy, helped Saddam seize power for the first time in 1963. [16] [17]

"American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name (with Iraq)."[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Links_with_CIA

Let's not forget this chestnut from the Reagan administration:



Can you see why your thinking is inverted on the matter?  The pacifists create the problems and neocons solve the problems.

Anyone who graduated 6th grade should be able to see thru this, why can't you??

The point was that the only justification necessary for disposing of him was undisputable and obvious.

And by your point does that mean that we shouldn't have destroyed the Taliban even tho we helped them many years ago as well?

[kh300]

lets not forget saddams testimony. he said he was affraid of iran attacking them. so he made them believe he had wmd's when he didnt.
this is why every intelligence agency believed he in fact did. thats not bad intel, its not wrong intel. it was a misleading source.

he said he didnt think the US would invade since we were involved in afganistan.

were did we find the #2 al-qaida leader al-Zarqawi?  -iraq. thats not a link?

[240 is Back]

were did we find the #2 al-qaida leader al-Zarqawi?  -iraq. thats not a link?

what year?

was iraq under saddam or US rule at the time?

[Hugo Chavez]

lets not forget saddams testimony. he said he was affraid of iran attacking them. so he made them believe he had wmd's when he didnt.
this is why every intelligence agency believed he in fact did. thats not bad intel, its not wrong intel. it was a misleading source.

he said he didnt think the US would invade since we were involved in afganistan.

were did we find the #2 al-qaida leader al-Zarqawi?  -iraq. thats not a link?

oh yea KH... go read, slowly my job thread again and tell me where you think you might have ASSumed way to much with your stupid fucking comments.

[Decker]

Anyone who graduated 6th grade should be able to see thru this, why can't you??

The point was that the only justification necessary for disposing of him was undisputable and obvious.

And by your point does that mean that we shouldn't have destroyed the Taliban even tho we helped them many years ago as well?

I don't know what you are talking about.  Some crackpot quote about an alleged sin of inaction is enabling Hussein?  That's foolish.  An obvious subterfuge of faulty reasoning.

The mass killings where Hussein crushed an uprising of Kurds was done during the Bush Administration.

President Bush almost stopped his golf game in response.  Almost.

Bush promised the Kurds American assistance if they would rise up against Hussein; when they did, he reneged and made sure Hussein was allowed to keep his helicopter gunships which were used to slaughter the Kurds by the thousands. Interviewed on the golf course with club in hand, Bush said 'That's not our problem, those people have been killing each other for years.'

See, Pres. Bush promised to help the Kurds in their uprising.  He didn't.  He let them die.  And Hussein was just defending himself in a monstrous way.

There were no mass killings going on; war was not the only option - legal, economic and political measures could have been taken; there was no evidence that humanitarian purpose was the main one for launching the invasion; the attack did not have the backing of the United Nations or any other multinational body, and the situation in the country has not got better.

It is absurd to argue that military action to overthrow the regime was justified on humanitarian grounds in March 2003 because of what happened more than a decade earlier, but was no longer happening.  Predictably, military action in March 2003, and its aftermath, has merely added greatly to the toll of Iraqi (and other) deaths.

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/humanitarian-intervention.htm

[Brixtonbulldog]

I don't know what you are talking about.  Some crackpot quote about an alleged sin of inaction is enabling Hussein?  That's foolish.  An obvious subterfuge of faulty reasoning.

I wasn't referring to any sin of inaction.  That just happened to be included with what I consider a valid reason.

The mass killings where Hussein crushed an uprising of Kurds was done during the Bush Administration.

President Bush almost stopped his golf game in response.  Almost.

Bush promised the Kurds American assistance if they would rise up against Hussein; when they did, he reneged and made sure Hussein was allowed to keep his helicopter gunships which were used to slaughter the Kurds by the thousands. Interviewed on the golf course with club in hand, Bush said 'That's not our problem, those people have been killing each other for years.'

See, Pres. Bush promised to help the Kurds in their uprising.  He didn't.  He let them die.  And Hussein was just defending himself in a monstrous way.

There were no mass killings going on; war was not the only option - legal, economic and political measures could have been taken; there was no evidence that humanitarian purpose was the main one for launching the invasion; the attack did not have the backing of the United Nations or any other multinational body, and the situation in the country has not got better.

It is absurd to argue that military action to overthrow the regime was justified on humanitarian grounds in March 2003 because of what happened more than a decade earlier, but was no longer happening.  Predictably, military action in March 2003, and its aftermath, has merely added greatly to the toll of Iraqi (and other) deaths.

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/humanitarian-intervention.htm

Saddams human rights abuses extended far beyond the kurds and were still present right into the invasion.

A report from an anti-bush/anti-war organization I would expect to downplay saddams atrocities.

[240 is Back]

Saddams human rights abuses extended far beyond the kurds and were still present right into the invasion.

Cool.  Can you share some statistics?  You choose the source.  I'd like to hear about the human rights abuses from 98 thru 2003.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Cool.  Can you share some statistics?  You choose the source.  I'd like to hear about the human rights abuses from 98 thru 2003.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec17.pdf


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html


Amazing.. "Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) o Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. o Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

[Decker]

I wasn't referring to any sin of inaction.  That just happened to be included with what I consider a valid reason.

Saddams human rights abuses extended far beyond the kurds and were still present right into the invasion.

A report from an anti-bush/anti-war organization I would expect to downplay saddams atrocities.

Most of the  civilized world is anti-bush b/c of the administrations various crimes including war crimes in Iraq.

Human rights abuses?  You mean like torturing detainees who have not been tried in a court of law.  That type of human rights abuse?

I suppose you are for invading China, Korea, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iran (don't answer this one), Afghanistan, Sudan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon....

The UN resolution that Bush sought to enforce against Iran was not concerned with humanitarian violations of two decades earlier.  That resolution was a disarmament resolution.

How exactly did Bush's invasion curtail the pain and deaths occurring in Iraqi life?  Have you seen the casualty numbers?  Are you aware that the standard of living for Iraqis under Hussein was higher than at any point after the invasion?

[Brixtonbulldog]

Wow.. "No single human rights report – by the Department of State, the United Nations, or independent monitoring organizations – can encompass the scope of human rights abuses under Saddam’s regime."

http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/iraqfocus1.pdf

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_human_rights_abuses_did_Saddam_Hussein_commit

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

http://www.defendamerica.mil/specials/june2003/atrocities.html -this one has a cute little list of various tortures involved, oooohhh

[Decker]

...Amazing.. "Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) o Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. o Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

If the sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 400,000 children, wouldn't the responsible thing to do include ending the homicidal sanctions?

The US's policy was to place a de facto trade embargo on Iraq and strangle it until Hussein stepped down--we restricted trade and we created no-fly zones out of thin air.  Those are a stupid policies....and deadly for the Iraqi people.

We knew the deaths were happening, yet Madeliene Albright thought those were acceptable deaths for regime change.

That's mighty warped if you ask me.

[OzmO]

Frankly i don't think it's our responsibility to police the world of Human rights violations.  First off,  there are too much going of it on out there than what Saddam was doing and the real fact of the matter is that there were many other benefits strategically for us to "choose" Iraq as our platform for human rights heroics.   Besides we have enough of our own problems.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Most of the  civilized world is anti-bush b/c of the administrations various crimes including war crimes in Iraq.

Human rights abuses?  You mean like torturing detainees who have not been tried in a court of law.  That type of human rights abuse?

I suppose you are for invading China, Korea, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iran (don't answer this one), Afghanistan, Sudan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon....

The UN resolution that Bush sought to enforce against Iran was not concerned with humanitarian violations of two decades earlier.  That resolution was a disarmament resolution.

How exactly did Bush's invasion curtail the pain and deaths occurring in Iraqi life?  Have you seen the casualty numbers?  Are you aware that the standard of living for Iraqis under Hussein was higher than at any point after the invasion?

Wow.. does it hurt to be that misled?

Bush committed no war crimes.. get over it.  Obviously when dealing with Iraq things were going to get worse before they get better.  The point is that they have a chance now that they never would have had under Saddam.. the human rights conditions would have continued indefinitely.

[Brixtonbulldog]

If the sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 400,000 children, wouldn't the responsible thing to do include ending the homicidal sanctions?

The US's policy was to place a de facto trade embargo on Iraq and strangle it until Hussein stepped down--we restricted trade and we created no-fly zones out of thin air.  Those are a stupid policies....and deadly for the Iraqi people.

We knew the deaths were happening, yet Madeliene Albright thought those were acceptable deaths for regime change.

That's mighty warped if you ask me.

You blame MA yet you hold back any blame for Clinton?  I'm not surprised.

And your position that Saddams treatment of his people was our fault is absurd and further evidence of your extreme leftist views and hatred for this president and the efforts of the US.  I'm even less surprised.

[Decker]

Wow.. does it hurt to be that misled?

You are doing your damndest.  But as noted, there was no ongoing genocide in Iraq at the time of invasion.  Iraq tortured dissident citizens?  So do the Russians, the Chinese, Koreans...are you for invading those countries as well.

Bush committed no war crimes.. get over it.  Obviously when dealing with Iraq things were going to get worse before they get better.  The point is that they have a chance now that they never would have had under Saddam.. the human rights conditions would have continued indefinitely.

What was the legal justification for Bush's invasion of Iraq and subsequent overthrow of the Iraq government, the murder of Iraq's people, and the co-opting of its resources?  I can't find it.  The ABA (American Bar Association) can't find it.  

But Brixtonbulldog has the answer.

Please, indulge me.

[JBGRAY]

The arguments stating that we went into Iraq on grounds of humanitarian reasons are ridiculous.  Often, that is people's last ditch argument on validating our reasons to go into Iraq after all the other reasons have been proven time and time again to be proven wrong(AQ presence, WMDS, etc..).

If the US were to actually live up to it's moral standards on preventing massive crimes against humanity, then why did we not act on the following?:

-The 1994 Rwandan Genocide where the most recent reports put the number of deaths at just over 1 million.  

-In the Congo alone, over 5.5 million people have died as a direct or indirect result of the civil wars of the early to late 90s that to this day still plague the region.  Deaths from starvation, malnutrition, pneumonia, and violence are commonplace.

-The conditions in Darfur have killed over 400,000 people and displaced 2 million more under the brutal Janjawid regime.  The UN's presence is small.

-In WW2, the US did not immediately jump in during or after the Holocaust.


It's plain and simple:  the US will involve itself on behalf of humanitarian reasons if there is advantage for them to do so.  However, we should either intercede in all genocides and other heinous crimes against humanity or stay completely out of the way.  It seems as if we are abiding by a double standard.

[Decker]

You blame MA yet you hold back any blame for Clinton?  I'm not surprised.

And your position that Saddams treatment of his people was our fault is absurd and further evidence of your extreme leftist views and hatred for this president and the efforts of the US.  I'm even less surprised.

Why would you say this? 

I just pointed out that Clinton's lady on the seen, Albright, is a monster.  Clinton was as bad for his misguided policy.

You are seeing what you want to see.

If the civilized US knew that such sanctions would result in the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis and still continued that policy, then the US is as culpable for those deaths as Saddam ever was.

The tactic that hoping things become so bad in Iraq, due to sanctions, that political upheaval resulting in regime change occurs is flat out evil.