Background, A basis for discussion? Options

[lengould]

A good source of information:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/index.html


Also a canadian view.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_ayed/

[flydangler]

A good source of information:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/index.html
Also a canadian view.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_ayed/

Thanks for finally relenting and starting this new topic. Methinks it should provide for some interesting discussion.

I don't know that I'd classify your first link as anything more than fair. IMHO it omits many facts that methinks one has to take into consideration when judging whether or not the latest invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam was justified. They would include things like European and other members of the U.N. Security Council supplying arms and other prohibited materials & technical support to Iraq in violation of U.N. mandates, Iraq's complicity in supporting, funding and providing technical assistance to al Queda and other terrorist organizations, deaths of Americans brought about by al Queda affiliates in actions specifically funded and supported by the Iraqi government, the scandals now being discovered in the "Oil For Food program" administered by the U.N. and other things.

Being Canadian by birth it pains me to say that IMHO the CBC seems to lack credibility in the same way the BBC does. Even The Guardian, that great bastion of British liberalism, decries the BBC and its tactics (especially after the Lord Hutton investigation). I believe I've seen similar criticism of the CBC in the Ottawa Citizen and Toronto papers I sometimes read.

Your second link was interesting, but I'm not sure of its relevance. Maybe you could please explain it.

[lengould]

Thanks for finally relenting and starting this new topic. Methinks it should provide for some interesting discussion.

I don't know that I'd classify your first link as anything more than fair. IMHO it omits many facts that methinks one has to take into consideration when judging whether or not the latest invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam was justified. They would include things like European and other members of the U.N. Security Council supplying arms and other prohibited materials & technical support to Iraq in violation of U.N. mandates, Iraq's complicity in supporting, funding and providing technical assistance to al Queda and other terrorist organizations, deaths of Americans brought about by al Queda affiliates in actions specifically funded and supported by the Iraqi government, the scandals now being discovered in the "Oil For Food program" administered by the U.N. and other things.

Being Canadian by birth it pains me to say that IMHO the CBC seems to lack credibility in the same way the BBC does. Even The Guardian, that great bastion of British liberalism, decries the BBC and its tactics (especially after the Lord Hutton investigation). I believe I've seen similar criticism of the CBC in the Ottawa Citizen and Toronto papers I sometimes read.

Your second link was interesting, but I'm not sure of its relevance. Maybe you could please explain it.

If "it omits many facts ...", perhaps you might provide a reliable backgrounder to present those facts? I'll grant you the possibility of scandal re.- "oil for food" though IMHO nothing I've smelled there smells as bad as Cheney/Haliburton. <_<

That Ottawa Citizen hates CBC is given, it has a civil service / politician constituency and CBC has made a sport in past of making their lives miserable with expos(e')s. Toronto has 4 major newspapers, 1 liberal (Star) and 3 variously conservative (Globe, Post, Sun) and none of them like CBC whose editorial position is agreed, certainly somewhat more liberal, and they also all hate that CBC gets govt. funding to operate a better news service than any of them can afford. I don't think it's valid to dismiss a backgrounder as above simply based on editorial position. Specific links are more reliable.

[flydangler]

If "it omits many facts ...", perhaps you might provide a reliable backgrounder to present those facts?  I'll grant you the possibility of scandal re.- "oil for food" though IMHO nothing I've smelled there smells as bad as Cheney/Haliburton.  <_<

That Ottawa Citizen hates CBC is given, it has a civil service / politician  constituency and CBC has made a sport in past of making their lives miserable with expos(e')s.  Toronto has 4 major newspapers, 1 liberal (Star) and 3 variously conservative (Globe, Post, Sun) and none of them like CBC whose editorial position is agreed, certainly somewhat more liberal, and they also all hate that CBC gets govt. funding to operate a better news service than any of them can afford.  I don't think it's valid to dismiss a backgrounder as above simply based on editorial position.  Specific links are more reliable.

Links regarding Iraqi spying for attacks against Americans and connections to terrorist groups:
IHT story on spying activities in Australia
Story from Philippines Inquirer on Iraqi Aid to Abu Sayyaf
Paxety stories on Iraqi Support For Abu Sayyef
CBS News story on Iraqi Terrorist Plots
CNN story regarding Expulsion of Iraqi Diplomats For Espionage
UPI story on Expulsion of Iraqi Diplomats For Espionage
Monterey Herald story on Iraqi Diplomat's Complicity In Terrorist Plot
Wall Street Journal editorial on al Queda Related Terrorism in The Philippines
Belleville News-Democrat story on Expuslsion Of Iraqi Diplomat For al Queda Links
CNN story on Iraqi Link To Two Abu Sayyef Bomb Plots
Federation Of American Scientists on World Trade Center Bombing
San Jose Mercury News story about Iraqi Diplomats Warned About Aiding Terrorists
Front Page Magazine article on Ansar Al-Islam: Iraq's al Queda Connection
USA In Review article on Expulsion Of Iraqi Diplomats For Links To Terrorists
DEBKA article on Saddam Using Palestinian Terror Proxies In Jordan
Time (Asia) Magazine article on Iraqii Diplomatic Links To Terrorists
Manila Times article on Iraq Envoy’s link With Abu Sayyaf

Sorry I couldn't provide the rest right now, will post more in the future. These should provide some interesting reading and may prove to you that I read widely ranging news sources.

I LIKE the Ottawa Citizen and Globe & Mail. IMHO they're fine papers and far superior to the South China Morning Post & others of its ilk, but methinks that might be because I'm pretty much a raging moderate, not a rabid right winger or looney tunes lefty.

[flydangler]

Hopefully you noticed from my previous post that the October 2001 Abu Sayyef bombing in Zamboanga and February 2002 Moro Islamic Liberation Front bombing in Davao injured and killed Americans.

As promised, more sources of info regarding why Iraq invasion was warranted.

Links re Illegal arms sales to Iraq:
http://www.cdi.org/Russia/251-9.cfm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/74863.html
http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/mar03/hed5600.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/...military.sales/
http://www.csce.gov/witness.cfm?briefing_i...estimony_id=374
http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/repo...&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0
http://hrw.org/reports/1999/bu
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text2-12-...5416.asplgaria/
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...hibm1G195531825
http://www.taraskuzio.net/media/iraq_arms_exports.pdf



Sources regarding illegal arms sales to Iraq that I can no longer find the links for:

1. ‘Revealed: 17 British Firms Armed Saddam with his Weapons,’ The Sunday Herald, 23 February 2003; ‘Portugal sold arms to Iraq in violation of UN embargo: report,’ Agence France Presse, 27 February 2003. The UN was reported as claiming that to name the companies would be counter-productive.

2. ABC Nightline broadcast in February 2002 documenting French sale of munitions, anti-aircraft missiles and aircraft parts for French built planes and German sales of components for rocket fuel and dual use chemicals. These were all coordinated through Jugoimport, a Serbian firm in Belgrade.

3. ‘Iraq Seeks Ukraine Arms Links,’ Financial Times 9 July 2002. Two days later AP reported that Ukraine(s parliament had set up a commission to investigate reports that government officials participated in arms sales to Iraq in violation of UN sanctions

4. Tula Armoury offers the Konkurs-M anti tank missile system’s licensed production at an Indian plant. "Russian armoury exhibits new missile for anti-tank system at Indian arms show". China transfers illegally obtained Russian missile technology to Iraq for Samoud 2 and the Konkurs-M anti tank missile system Interfax-Military News Agency. 22 Feburary 2002

If you insist I can keep searching my files for more, but I'd hope by now you'll at least concede there's some indication the invasion may well have been warranted.

In his reply to me lengould said "nothing I've smelled there smells as bad as Cheney/Haliburton". Could you please provide valid sources that Vice-President Cheney was in any way connected with any Haliburton involvement in the current situation in Iraq?

p.s. Solely for entertainment purposes: http://www.celiberal.com/showCeliberal.php?id=12

[flydangler]

BTW, WMD hasn't entered into this discussion but you might want to look at the Master Guns's (Marine) target='_blank'>note here in another thread for some interesting reading on that aspect.

[flydangler]

What happened? We got all kinds of folks wanting to make statements about why we invaded Iraq in off topic posts spread around in other threads, but when lengould kindly starts a thread where that is the topic there's very little participation. Methinks maybe they really didn't want all that much to really discuss it, just toss zingers at those they disagree with, eh?

[lengould]

For example:

http://www.iht.com/articles/89384.html
Also dated from the midst of the US-created anti-Iraq hysteria. Telling final para. "But there is another motive" when these agents are siezed, officials said, some may defect rather than return to Iraq before a war and a possible overthrow of the government. "It's a superb moment to try to turn some of them" an official said, "and see what they know".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/28/...ain546599.shtml
This story is dated 1 week AFTER the formation of the "Coalition of the Willing" in 2003, by which time the lies were already flying fast from US sources. I see no evidence I could trust here.

In general, this is all pentagon neo-con fluff and spin with no useful evidence. To believe that this stuff constitutes evidence of Iraqi involvement in international terrorism to the point of "warrants immediate invasion of a sovereign nation" is to buy into all the complete spinning the pentagon was doing at the time.

I'll grant the bit about the ambassador to the Phillipine cell-phone number link is interesting and new, but if truely proves a link, why wasn't the guy simple tossed into court as would be proper? I've worked many years with cellphone core system and know that more data is required (and if true, readily available) to prove an event than one newspaper report of a phone number.

If there is anythink more interesting in your links, please point it out, else I'm simply writing it off as not worth the time.

[flydangler]

A very wise man once said "A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste".

In general, this is all pentagon neo-con fluff and spin with no useful evidence.  To believe that this stuff constitutes evidence of Iraqi involvement in international terrorism to the point of "warrants immediate invasion of a sovereign nation" is to buy into all the complete spinning the pentagon was doing at the time.

I'll grant the bit about the ambassador to the Phillipine cell-phone number link is interesting and new, but if truely proves a link, why wasn't the guy simple tossed into court as would be proper?  I've worked many years with cellphone core system and know that more data is required (and if true, readily available) to prove an event than one newspaper report of a phone number.

If there is anythink more interesting in your links, please point it out, else I'm simply writing it off as not worth the time.

Methinks your bottom line is that unless something comes from Vanity Fair, The Village Voice, CBC, New York Times, The East Village Other, BBC, Slate or some other strictly NEO-LIB source you discount it. Is this from the same person that said

I don't think it's valid to dismiss a backgrounder as above simply based on editorial position.  Specific links are more reliable.

and

The point is, can you consider yourself well informed if you are not made aware of these viewpoints?  Are your processes of analysis so childish that you cannot survive being exposed to the "other"'s views?  Or do you consider yourself immune, but are concerned for the effect of such reports on your "masses" on whom you depend to be lead blindly?

???????????????????

The story about the Iraqi diplomat, Husham Husain who was the Second Secretary in the embassey in Manila, was also covered in stories in the Washington Post, Washington Times and Asahi Shimbun at about that same time, but I can no longer locate those links. IAC the answer to "why wasn't the guy simple tossed into court as would be proper?" is really pretty simple - DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY! I'm really surprised you even asked this question. If I remember correctly I learned about diplomatic immunity during my high school civics classes at St Michaels in Toronto in the early 60's.

Do you recall the word for someone who advocates doing as he says, not what he does? If memory serves me right it's the same in Canada as here and I believe it begins with "H".

This post has been edited by flydangler: Nov 13 2004, 12:54 PM

[lengould]

Flydangler: Here's my core question. "Is there sufficient evidince in your posts, or otherwise available, to warrant military invasion of a sovereign nation . ?" One (possibly rogue) diplomat having possibly recieved a cell-phone call from another cell-phone number possibly used for terrorist activities, and in truth sparse proof of that. I happen to know how easy it is to spoof cell-phone numbers for any range of reasons with a wide range of methods. I would require [first] additional evidence of involvement than that and [second] an explanation of how that single event justifies the recent action.

Keep in mind the history of eg. US diplomacy in el Slavadore, or Chile for example.

This post has been edited by lengould: Nov 13 2004, 02:08 PM

[flydangler]

Flydangler:  Here's my core question.  "Is there sufficient evidince in your posts, or otherwise available, to warrant military invasion of a sovereign nation . ?" One (possibly rogue) diplomat having possibly recieved a cell-phone call from another cell-phone number possibly used for terrorist activities, and in truth sparse proof of that.  I happen to know how easy it is to spoof cell-phone numbers for any range of reasons with a wide range of methods.  I would require [first] additional evidence of involvement than that and [second] an explanation of how that single event justifies the recent action.

Keep in mind the history of eg. US diplomacy in el Slavadore, or Chile for example.

I'll have to get back to you on that.



This post has been edited by flydangler: Nov 13 2004, 02:26 PM

[lengould]

In detail:

Your Items
1-

2- Even you should know how far to trust simple opinions from a discussion group on the "Free Republic" on this issue. Note in this section, the part where Iraq is mentioned is mysteriously not inside the quotes. The contacts in the middle east would more likely be Saudi or Iranian, who actually have the money.

<snip>Sali said the Abu Sayyaf received about one million pesos each year from its allies and supporters in Iraq. "So we would have something to spend on chemicals for bomb-making and for the movement of our people in Mindanao," he said.

Sali said the group's firearms were being provided by some contacts in the Middle East.<snip>

3- Who's Juan Paxety? Further repetition of a hearsay.

4- CBS report: Simple reporting without evidence, of alegations from the US State Dept., whose official line on this issues is long ago fully discredited. "He said he did not know if the agents alleged to have been involved in plots were operating out of embassies" -- Key phrases "did not know" , "alleged" - also repeats allegation re- Phillipines with no new data. (See my signature)

5- The CNN report: Carries some tantalizing new inuendos, eg. "Last week, Immigration Commissioner Andrea Domingo announced 11 Iraqis have been arrested in an anti-terrorist sweep and deportation proceedings were underway.

Domingo said the Iraqis have been monitored for terrorist activities for some time and claimed Last week, Immigration Commissioner Andrea Domingo announced 11 Iraqis have been arrested in an anti-terrorist sweep and deportation proceedings were underway.

Domingo said the Iraqis have been monitored for terrorist activities for some time and claimed they were part of an "established network" linked to Hussain, the expelled Iraqi consul.

So, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE? At this point, now, today, can there still be any reason to withhold evidence of <claimed they were part of an "established network" linked to Hussain> ?

6- I got through three pages of the CCSE report, and learned one fact "The 12 tons of equipment discovered included 600 helmets, army uniforms, 240 wireless communication sets for tank crews and other military items" Also allegations of a dozen Hind herlicopters on the black market. Justifies invasion?
(Whoops, wrong set of links)

6- upi story is word-for-word same as a previous one. (wish you'd stop doing that)

7- Monterey Herald: "Last week, Foreign Secretary Blas Ople confronted Iraqi Charge d'Affaires Samir A-Masih Bolus with the intelligence report linking Husain to the Abu Sayyaf. But the government has not offered evidence beyond the phone call, and said more detailed information could not be released because the sources could be compromised." I'm still looking for evidence. Will they ever release it or do we all just take their word? Considering how happy the white house is to compromise CIA spies married to people who disagree with them, it seems ingenuous to be "protecting sources".

8- WSJ: Only reference to Iraq in a two-page piece is "Two weeks ago the Philippines expelled Iraqi diplomat Husham Husain after discovering he had received a phone call from an Abu Sayyaf member the day after the group staged an October 3 bombing that killed a U.S. Green Beret on the southern island of Mindanao. After the diplomat's deportation, Abu Sayyaf leader Hamsiraji Sali stated on Philippine TV that Iraq was paying bounties to his gunmen to murder U.S. troops." If so prevalent, why no real evidence?

Do I need to keep on (and on and on) in following your endlessly repetetive links? Is there a single one which provides any REAL EVIDENCE of official Iraqi involvement in terrorism sufficient to justify invasion of a sovereign nation?

If the US wished to invade Canada, would all they need be a couple of cell-phone numbers and an Islamic Stooge?

This post has been edited by lengould: Nov 13 2004, 03:33 PM

[lengould]

Also, as long as you raised to subject, where's the open, fair, legal trial of Saddam in a court? Or will we simply hear that he's suddenly "too ill to stand trial"? He'd better get a fair hearing and defence, or US will be left without even the shreds of its credibility which still remain.

[flydangler]

If the US wished to invade Canada, would all they need be a couple of cell-phone numbers and an Islamic Stooge?

My goodness, somebody leaked the plan?

Even as we speak a Girl Scout troop from Albany, carrying weapons previously banned by the recently expired Assault Weapons Ban like plastic knives and such, has crossed the border and is holding a meeting in Hull, but only speaking in English which is probably illegal. Following the meeting they'll declare victory, cross the river to Ottawa and meet with your PM & the Governor General to dictate the terms of Canada's surrender.

We would have sent the Marines, but they're otherwise occupied and probably not needed anyway. Methinks your best troops are overseas right now, and we thank you for your assistance in Afghanistan (which you probably vehemently opposed too). NOTE TO MODERATOR: This should be enough to make this note on topic.

Heard the Royal Canadian Navy's newest submarine was being sent to defend the country, but it seems they had a few problems trying to get home from Faslane, Scotland. The remainder of the east coast Navy is unavailable as it's on fisheries patrol doing battle with the heavily armed EU trawler fleet.

Need we go further? As you can see, even a fellow Canuck can be cruel.

[lengould]

My goodness, somebody leaked the plan?

Even as we speak a Girl Scout troop from Albany, carrying weapons previously banned by the recently expired Assault Weapons Ban like plastic knives and such, has crossed the border and is holding a meeting in Hull, but only speaking in English which is probably illegal. Following the meeting they'll declare victory, cross the river to Ottawa and meet with your PM & the Governor General to dictate the terms of Canada's surrender.

We would have sent the Marines, but they're otherwise occupied and probably not needed anyway. Methinks your best troops are overseas right now, and we thank you for your assistance in Afghanistan (which you probably vehemently opposed too). NOTE TO MODERATOR: This should be enough to make this note on topic.

Heard the Royal Canadian Navy's newest submarine was being sent to defend the country, but it seems they had a few problems trying to get home from Faslane, Scotland. The remainder of the east coast Navy is unavailable as it's on fisheries patrol doing battle with the heavily armed EU trawler fleet.

Need we go further? As you can see, even a fellow Canuck can be cruel.

re: "assistance in Afghanistan (which you probably vehemently opposed too)." No, actually I vehemently support the cdn participation in Afganistan, because it had some liklihood of a successfull outcome, and is a UN operation. I also fully supported Iraq '91 action for same reasons, and in fact was, and still am, very po'd at the US for stopping that job half-done, leaving Saddam in control. (Why was that anyway?)

For the rest, would you feel better if Canada kept a million standing military armed to teeth like you guys? :D

[flydangler]

Also, as long as you raised to subject, where's the open, fair, legal trial of Saddam in a court?  Or will we simply hear that he's suddenly "too ill to stand trial"?  He'd better get a fair hearing and defence, or US will be left without even the shreds of its credibility which still remain.

Seems to me that's an Iraqi problem.

[lengould]

With US officials re-writing Iraqi patent laws, randomly levelling cities and all the rest, there's no way I'm going to let you off that one so easy.

This post has been edited by lengould: Nov 13 2004, 07:04 PM

[flydangler]

With US officials re-writing Iraqi patent laws, randomly levelling cities and all the rest, there's no way I'm going to let you off that one so easy.

Thank you! That's the nicest think anyone has said to me all day...............

IMHO you're wrong about "randomly levelling cities". Methinks it's really a selective process, and Montreal is next!

[lengould]

:D Aw, wasamatter you upset at Montreal, you gone and went to their comedy festival, didn't you? Should note that all those anti-bush comedy routines wuz by american comics. Let 'em be :D

This post has been edited by lengould: Nov 13 2004, 07:21 PM

[SemperFidelis]

:D  Aw, wasamatter you upset at Montreal, you gone and went to their comedy festival, didn't you?  Should note that all those anti-bush comedy routines wuz by american comics.  Let 'em be  :D

Sorry! Doc flydangler's an old buddy of mine, but looking at what he's writing tonight I'd have to say he's losing it. Ever since we went to the Marine Corps Birthday Ball the other night he's been on a tear, and he doesn't drink!

Normally he's a pretty gruff blunt guy, about what you'd expect from a Navy CPO. Tonight he's demonic. It might be because he's having withdrawals, no Hockey Night In Canada for a while now. He's a big hockey nut!

Didn't we just claim Montreal's baseball team on waivers? Maybe we bought them at a fire sale or something. What would I know, I'm just a dumb grunt!

Just so you know, when he talks about matters pertaining to national security he doesn't have a clue. He's got friends in low places, but that and $1.00 will get him what, maybe CDN$1.60?

He's also not as liberal as he makes out he is, it's all an act!

So, did you guys settle anything on whether or not Iraq was a "good to go" situation?

If you say we should have gone the whole way in 1991, then why all the hearburn now? Didn't we do what you said we should have, just delayed a little?