Italian Guy said:
People forget that Bush's motivations for waging war on Iraq have always been THREE, and three reasons for wanting a military intervention had been clearly stated for months before 3/03.
1. Iraq has WMD
2.Iraq has links with terrorism- not just Al Qaeda, but with terrorism (which was true, Hamas, for instance, but Al Qaeda too if you read the 9/11 Commission Report)
3.Democracy hence peace. Bush agrees with the neocons that in order for peace to exist democracy has to be exported. He never concealed this aspect, people forget that. So many times did he present this motivation publicly before the outbreak of hostilities. So now it's not a post war strategy. It'always been that.
IG, I have always agreed with you in the past, but here there are definitely some disagreements. Now, perhaps I got information that was different from you, (other Canadians can tell me if they agree with this or not) but before the US went to war, all of the White House statements on Iraq concentrated on 2 major points, these being Iraqi WMDs and how democracy was needed in the Middle East. Did he mention terrorism? Yes he did, but it was always in the context of the WMDs. "We can't allow terrorist to receive the WMDs that we know Saddam has" was the common theme. The White House also lambasted the UN weapons inspectors as inefficient, and then sent Colin Powell to the UN to make the most embarrassing set of accusations I have ever seen. (After that speech, my admiration for Mr. Powell shot up. It was obvious that he did not believe a word he said, but he was there to conver the butt of his CIC. Admirable, although it also signalled the end of his career.) The democracy card was also played a great deal. While he (Bush) did mention that there were links between Al-Qaida (A-Q) and Iraq, it was my very strong impression that he was pushing the WMD/terrorist aspect more than anything else.
Italian Guy said:
N.1 Don't you believe that the burden of the proof was on Saddam? Yes or no.
Umm, no. If you apply the common rule, he is guilty until proven innocent. If I accuse you of a crime, I have to prove it, not you. I cannot make an unfounded complaint. Luckily enough, Saddam Hussein is a monster. He was guilty of enough that in the end it did not matter that he was innocent of the 2 other charges.
Italian Guy said:
On the international scene other countries, like Ukraine, South Africa, Kazakhstan, and now Lybia, have agreed to accept UN and even other countries' inspectors. They honestly showed everything they had, they opened their bunkers, their facilities. Saddam Hussein led the whole world into thinking that he had those weapons. He repeatedly said that. Even his closest advisors and top military aides thought they had those weapons. They were shocked at the eve of the war when they learned Saddam had been faking it for years.
In the months preceding the war, Iraq admitted that yes, they had no weapons, and nobody believed them except for Hans Blix, the chief of the UN weapons inspection teams. (I must admit, I also had my suspicions for quite a while). Also, the Iraqis also got very cooperative in the final months as Hussein was desperate to avoid a war that he knew he could not win. In spite of this, the White House continued to pressure Iraq, and they also continued to insinuate that the UN inspectors were inefficient. Those charges were made by Colin Powell to the UN General Assembly. Here I have a question. When he made that speech, here in Canada, most people were laughing at the poor guy. The evidence that he had was useless, and the result of that speech was, in my opinion, the end of a broad coalition as had existed in Gulf War I. What was the reaction of the American public to that speech?
But before the war, but Hussein and the UN weapons inspectors, who had been reduced to searching sites that they had previously done both claimed that he had none. The White House reaction? The UN inspectors are missing something and Saddam's lying!
Italian Guy said:
If he did not have them, why didn't it open the doors and proved it? Like others had done. The burden of the proof was on him.He was just playing a game he got burned playing. Next time he won't pretend to have a matchbox in his pocket if he doesn't I tell you.
Gawd, how true! Here is the storybook definition of the boy who cried wolf. Although I still think that the burden should have been on the US. You don't go to war unless you are SURE.
Italian Guy said:
N.2 Saddam had close ties with Hamas, and that is proved. About Al Qaeda-Saddam connections, my friend, we have tons of evidence. You just have to look.Saddam Hussein had close ties with Hamas (he paid 25,000 $ to the family of each suicide bomber), he gave hospitality to Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas. The first had staged a terrorist attack on Rome airport causing dozens of victims, the second was involved in the Achille Lauro's cruise ship hijacking and the murder of handicapped American citizen Leon Clinghoffer in the cruelest way.I didn't say Saddam had to do with 9/11, I say he had ties with Al Qaeda, and going to prove it.
He paid $25,000 to who... the bombers or the families? In fact, you cannot prove that any of the money actually went to making and delivering bombs. Now remember. Iraq and Israel were (are) at war. Even if Hussein was supporting Hamas, he was supporting a group that was attacking a country with which he was at war.
Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas were both Palestinian terrorists who were active while A-Q was in its anti-Soviet infancy. I do not know when they visited Iraq, but I do know that some members of his organization did go for training in Iraq. Now, here I am not sure of the time line, but if it was around 1985, again, it has nothing to do with A-Q.
Here I have to tell a little story. Once there was a group of people. These people did not agree with their government, so they acquired some guns and started fighting. As they lived in an area that is known for drug manufacturing, they started to sell drugs to pay for their war. Time went by, and their little war heated up, and before long, this group was attacking civilians and civilian installations, had started death squads, and committed other terrorist acts. Now, you would figure that the US would not have anything to do with this group, right? So would I. Except that the group was known as the Contras, and they were supported and armed by the CIA on behalf of the US government. They were fighting against the Sandinista government which was elected by the people of Guatemala. Now, if you supported the Contras directly, (in spite of the fact that you were not at war with Nicaragua, how can you say that it was wrong for Hussein to support Hamas indirectly, when they were at war with Israel? Just a thought...
Leon Klinghoffer was killed in 1985. A-Q had nothing whatsoever to do with it. At the time, Afghanistan was engulfed in a war against the Soviet Union, who had invaded Afghanistan in 1979. In 1985, A-Q was being supplied by the CIA on behalf of the US government. They were fully occupied fighting the Soviet Union, and they were active only in Afghanista and Pakistan. To have pulled the Achille Lauro job would have been very counter-productive, and they knew it. The Achille Lauro job was done by Palestinian terrorists. (PLF, if I remember correctly)
Well, it's getting late, and that was one looong post you wrote, so I'll get to the rest of it tomorrow. Good night, all.
Dean.:hide:
BTW, IG, when and where were you in Canada?