Terrorists Ready To Take Iraq

[Dr. Shane]

al-Qaida No. 2: U.S. 'Ran' From Vietnam

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaida's No. 2 leader said the United States "ran and left their agents" in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The letter laid out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

The final stage, al-Zawahri wrote, would be a clash with Israel, which he said was established to challenge "any new Islamic entity."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

If "half" of the battle is taking place in the media, then I guess anti-war protestors really are giving aid and comfort to the enemy <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[bevin]

Quote:

---

If "half" of the battle is taking place in the media, then I guess anti-war protestors really are giving aid and comfort to the enemy

---

Oh no, the American public is actually going to FORM AN OPINION and DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES whether or not GWB lied to them and has led an organization with an unbelievably naive and stupid no-plan for creating democracy...

Look. Almost all the world, including the UN Weapons Inspectors, knew the WMD charge was lacking in evidence. ALL the world knew that Iraq would NOT instantly form a placid and idyllic democracy. Nothing that has happened in Iraq was a surprise to anyone. And EVERYONE knew that GWB did not have a valid exit strategy.

Don't try to blame Iraq on the sensible and intelligent people who know GWB is a screw-up. The buck starts, and stops, firmly in the lap of a horrible administration whose only real interest is in the looting of the American economy and tax payers by their multi-millionaire cronies.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Almost all the world, including the UN Weapons Inspectors, knew the WMD charge was lacking in evidence. ALL the world knew that Iraq would NOT instantly form a placid and idyllic democracy. Nothing that has happened in Iraq was a surprise to anyone.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Lies? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> Did someone say something about lies? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/seenoevil.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

My contacts in OZ tell me that the leadership peddled thier version of Bush's lies, but the populace didn't buy it...

Maybe Graham or one of the other Ozzie who occationally come here can confirm or deny that....

[Planey]

It would be fairly true to say that a majority of Australian citizens didn't buy the WMD malarkey from the start.

There was quite widespread opposition to the war before it got started, large rallies etc, and there is still general unhappiness regarding our countries involvement.

John Howard's Liberal/National Party coalition won a general election in the meantime but the defining factor there appeared to be local issues, in particular the economy. The L/NP's were elected despite their Iraq policy rather than because of it.

John Howard is often lampooned as 'Deputy Ditto' because of his knee-jerk agreement with Dubya.

Tis sad.

Graeme

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Bush's lies

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I guess I need to be more direct with some folks. Do we need to use emotional, inflamatory language? Let's try to play nice together.

[Bravus]

Bevin never made the claim that Bush lied - he said the American people will decide that for themselves. That doesn't seem to me to be inflammatory language, but a description of the situation.

Bevin's over-all point is correct: there were many, many people all over the world prior to the war who did not believe the claims about WMD, and recognised that the war had a huge potential for the exact kind of disaster it has become. It doesn't even matter whether Bush lied or was himself misled: he made the call, and it was the wrong call. Where to from here?

[Bravus]

And Shane, I'm not sure the thread starting post counts as 'trying to play nice together': isn't it inflammatory to accuse others of giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

[Stan]

Ironic... those "terrorist" are claiming there are about 200,000 "terrorist", uninvited warriors who follow someone who claims to be told by his God to invade them and have occupied their country.

Next thing they will be claiming these occupiers have WMD and are not afraid to use them.

[Dr. Shane]

Honestly I have blewn off critism by conservatives that anti-war protestors are giving aid and comfort to the enemy as grasping at straws. However in light of this new information, it may not be as far-fetched as I thought.

The standard liberal talking point is that Bush lied. The word lie or liar is inflamatory. The conservatives use to call Bill Clinton a liar all the time - even before it became undeniable that he was.

President Bush recieved a lot of intelligence and choose to embrace that which reported WMDs in Iraq. He felt it would be better safe than sorry. After 9/11 he wasn't willing to look the other way and hope for the best.

Hindsight tends to tell us we would have been better off not invading Iraq. However, even that is speculative. We now know they didn't have WMDs. However we also know about the oil-for-food scandel. Iraq may well have gotten sactions lifted and resumed WMD production. We just don't know and never will.

Was invading Iraq the right thing to do? It certainly seemed to be, at the time, based on the intelligence available. And perhaps it was but we will never know. What we do know, is the terrorists we are now fighting there are tied to the 9/11 attacks. It also seems they are being supported by a state such as Iran or Syria.

[Bravus]

But this is bevin's whole point, and I agree. It doesn't require hindsight - there were hundreds of thousands of people who had the *foresight* to know it was a bad idea, and said so, as loudly and clearly as they could. The fact that Bush chose to listen to people like Chalabi instead of those people is a choice, and it was a bad choice. Then and now. It's nonsense to claim that it was impossible to know ahead of time, because clearly hundreds of thousands of people did. Bush chose, he chose wrong, and the whole country (two countries) is living with the consequences and will for generations to come.

[Dr. Shane]

There is no concensus that it was a bad choice to invade Iraq. That remains the opinion of decentors. Given the new information we discovered about the oil-for-food scandel, it may well have been the right thing to do.

I am not aware of anyone that didn't believe Iraq had WMDs before the invasion. Numerous nations believed he had them, including his own intelligence service. There were some that questioned the intelligence. That means they were not sure or convinced. But they were not saying Saddam didn't have them either.

[Bravus]

Hans Blix didn't.

[Dr. Shane]

Actually Hans Blix said that Saddam was not being forth coming and seemed to be hiding something. He wanted more time, that is true. But he never made the claim that Saddam had no WMDs until after the invation.

Remember too, that Hans Blix believes that global warming poses a greater threat to mankind than WMDs - including nuclear weapons.

[Dr. Shane]

Blix casts doubt on WMDs

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said he was starting to suspect Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in advance of the war on Iraq, a German newspaper reported today.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

"starting to suspect"

[Dr. Shane]

Hans Blix doubts Iraq has weapons of mass destruction

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

In the interview, Blix pointed out that almost two weeks into the war, no WMDs have been found. But he added that the US-led coalition has an advantage in looking for banned weapons.

"There is one factor that makes it less difficult for the US to find them… and that is that as the country becomes liberated from the secret police, people may not fear speaking," he said.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

While he doubted there were WMDs, he didn't sound so convinced there wasn't either.

[Neil D]

CHANGING FACE OF IRAQ

Hans Blix: Profile

Sunday 14 March 2004, 17:52 Makka Time, 14:52 GMT

The seasoned diplomat headed the IAEA from 1981 to 1997

Related:

Iraqi scientists' detention questioned

Iraq and WMD: Timeline

Iraq's real WMD crime

The UN's decline: Timeline

Tools:

Email Article

Print Article

Send Your Feedback

Hans Blix is the man the United States loves to hate.

Even before he was appointed in 2000 to the task of verifying Iraq's compliance with disarmament promises made after the 1991 Gulf war, Washington was already plunging the knife into his candidacy.

US hawks opposed his appointment saying his failure to turn up WMDs in his previous stint as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency between 1981-1997 proved he had been outwitted by the Iraqis.

From then on the relationship has been frosty at best.

Blix stayed as head of United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) until the end of June 2003.

However, he was never given the opportunity to complete his brief.

He faced unrelenting criticism from Washington and was not allowed to complete weapons inspections in Iraq due to pressure from US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair who were both pushing to proceed with an invasion.

As UNMOVIC chief, the 75-year-old father of two, changed the culture of interaction with Iraqi authorities. His calm diplomatic qualities allowed for positive results with Baghdad officials.

Walking a fine line

Blix walked a fine line between Baghdad, on the one hand, and Washington and London on the other. His diplomacy, honed from his days as a Swedish foreign minister, was put to severe test.

Blix was 'deeply frustrated' with

the US and UK administrations

After the war, Blix did not refrain from vocalising his deep-seated frustration that the case for war was "over-interpreted".

In June 2003, Blix accused the US of treating the UN as an "alien power" which it hoped would sink without trace. "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around of course, who planted nasty things in the media. Not that I cared very much."

He added that as war with Iraq became imminent, Washington "leaned on" inspectors to use more damning language in their reports.

In September 2003, he said he believed that Iraq got rid of its weapons in 1991. "I am certain more and more of the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991."

By going to war, Blix said, the US and Britain "ignored the views of the majority" on the Security Council, leading to a "loss of legitimacy"for the invasion.

'Medieval witch-hunters'

His criticisms of the Bush and Blair administrations continued well after the war, when no evidence of banned weapons programmes or weapons were found.

At one point, Blix compared Washington and London officials to medieval witch-hunters. "In the Middle Ages when people were convinced there were witches, they certainly found them. This is a bit risky."

He even said he suspected the US of having spied on him.

His book provides a blow by blow

account of the build up to war

In some of his harshest words, he spoke of the spin and hype surrounding US President George Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair.

He compared their governments' attempts to make the case for war to an advertiser trying to sell a fridge.

"What stands accused is the culture of spin, the culture of hyping … advertisers will advertise a refrigerator in terms that we don’t quite believe in, but we expect governments to be more serious and have more credibility."

Blix also singled out Blair for criticism. Referring to the British PM's intelligence dossier of September 2002, Blix said his "intention was to dramatise it, just as vendors of some merchandise are trying to increase or exaggerate the importance of what they have."

The US-led occupation forces' failure to turn up an Iraqi WMDs programme has vindicated Blix.

Now back in Stockholm where he lives with his wife, Eva, he has taken the opportunity to document his experiences in an explosive book about the events leading up to the 2003 Iraq war.

Disarming Iraq: The Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction, reveals the extraordinary pressure British and American governments put on Blix to produce evidence of banned weapons.

With their own efforts so far having come to naught, one could say it is Blix who is enjoying the last laugh.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

By going to war, Blix said, the US and Britain "ignored the views of the majority" on the Security Council, leading to a "loss of legitimacy"for the invasion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

The majority of the Security Council approved of the invasion. Th US didn't ask for another vote because France (which was accepting bribes from Saddam) had decided to veto any such measure. Hans Blix has said a lot of things now that he has hindsight. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Hindsight is always 20/20.

---

In this case FORESIGHT was also 20/20, but Bush ignored it.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Hans Blix, said he was starting to suspect Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

"starting to suspect" doesn't sound like 20/20