Comments Posted By Sam Pender
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 11 Comments

IRAQ: QUIT OR COMMIT

In regards to quitting Iraq...what's gained? Fewer American deaths? Hardly since the entire war with Al Queda is because of America's war on Iraq from 1991-today, as well as previous examples of America's cutting and running:

"After a little resistance, The American troops left after achieving nothing. They left after claiming that they were the largest power on earth. They left after some resistance from powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only weapon is the belief in Allah The Almighty, and who do not fear the fabricated American media lies. We learned from those who fought there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who fought and killed them, while the latter were still there. If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return. "
-Osama Bin Laden Interview with Peter Arnett Late March 1997

Fewer Iraqi deaths? Um, pardon me but lowering the number of security forces doesn't translate well to lowering the number of killings. Would reducing the number of cops in NYC reduce the number of gangland/sectarian killings? nu-uh

Al Queda is in Iraq
America is at war with Al Queda in Iraq and elsewhere
America must stay and fight and support the ISF until the ISF is capable of being another American proxy fighter/ally in the GWOT.

Why not pull out of Afghanistan too? There's still Al Queda there, still sectarian/warlord killings. Why not pull out?

Comment Posted By Sam Pender On 25.08.2006 @ 12:19

Wow, that's rich. Ask for a quote supporting the idea that UBL waged war on the US as a means of getting the US into Iraq, and all we get is rhetoric from days before the invasion was supposed to begin. That's hardly indicative of an Al Queda strategy. At best, it just reaffirms that Al Queda was revived in sympathetic defense of the 1991-2003 US war on Iraq, and it reaffirms that Al Queda set the 911 plots in motion at least because of its sympathy for the 1991-2003 US war on Iraq:
"On December 18, 1998, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Vanguards of Conquest had issued a new threat, stating in part that the group will not be "satisfied with the empty statements of condemnation that we are used to hearing from [Arab] regimes. We say it loud and clear that we will retaliate for what is happening to the sons of our nation in Iraq. For the crimes committed by the US against our Islamic nation will not pass without punishment." The statement was signed by the Vanguards of Conquest's secretary general, Abduallah Mansour [an alias for Al Queda's #2 man and strategic planner, Dr Ayaman al Zawahiri]. It was published in the al-Hayat on December 19, 1998."

Or at the direct behest of Iraq's Intelligence Services:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram

So, what IS the anti-war in Iraq position:
1) Al Queda "hated" Saddam's Iraq but wanted the US to go there and fight-as demonstrated by the 2/03 quotes which show UBL's support for Iraqis in that fight

OR

2) Al Queda was revived because of the 1991-2003 US war on Iraq (one which Saddam, Al Queda, UBL, the Iraqi people, and the Arab World all recognize, but anti-war protesters continue to ignore), and the 911 attacks were set in motion in continued sympathy or at the direct behest of Iraq's intel services

Pick one-ya can't have it both ways. One can't say that UBL hated Saddam and Saddam hated UBL and the two would never work together (despite all the contradictory descriptions of desire to do just that by the 911 Comm), and at the same time claim that UBL's whole purpose was to trick the US into invading Iraq.

Step up and pick one.

Comment Posted By Sam Pender On 25.08.2006 @ 12:14

Where is a quote from UBL saying he'd like the US to invade Iraq?

Where is that in the 911 Commission report?
Where is it in any of the Sen Intel Com reports?
Where is it in Steve Coll's, Ghost Wars?
Where is it in Bergen's books on UBL?

Comment Posted By Sam Pender On 24.08.2006 @ 06:26

Yeah, that cute graphic from Harper's is damning evidence that UBL set a trap to get the US to invade Iraq-how'd he trick the US into invading Iraq exactly? Oh...he wanted to get the US to invade Iraq so he put Saudis on the planes, had them trained in Iran, and paid for by the UAE. Yep-good plan.

Again...where's a single quote from UBL saying he wanted the US to invade Iraq? An important question since Al Queda's primary and secondary reason for being revived was in DEFENSE of Iraq.

The White House hasn't distanced itself at all from the fact that there's a relationship. What-are you gonna suddently START believing GBW's word? I'll take that of a bi-partisan committee and an independent bi-partisan committee over his any day.

You've presented as much evidence that UBL wanted the US to invade Iraq as there is evidence that Howard Dean wanted the US to invade Iraq.

Comment Posted By Sam Pender On 23.08.2006 @ 17:30

I've read the Brookings rpts ;) My numbers come from them.

I like the part about my not reading your links too. That's a good one. I did-never found a quote from UBL expressing a desire to wage war in Iraq. On the contrary, he expressed nothing but desire that the US stop waging war on Iraq-it was the primary and secondary reasons for reviving Al Queda.

What you don't seem to understand is that there were extensive ties between Saddam's Iraq and Al Queda BEFORE 911, before the second invasion in 03. US Marines ran into foreign terrorists by the thousands. The 3rd ID ran into as many as 16,000 Syrians in Baghdad.

Were there other countries with more ties to Al Queda after 911? Saudi and Pakistan had lots of AQ in their countries, but turned around and started rounding them up by the thousands after 911. No need to invade since they chose the lady not the lion. How about UAE? US forces are all over that place now. How about Djibouti? Same thing. How about Philippines? US Forces went in and fought-err, advised there. How about Georgia, Chechnya, etc.? Same deal again. Only Iraq required invasion-particularly since there were so many other reasons that when combined made it not only necessary, but inevitable.

Like I said earlier,

If Saddam had been removed in 1991, then Al Queda never would have been revived, 911 wouldn't have happened, and there'd be not GWOT.

If Pres Clinton had removed Saddam instead of waging a half-hearted effort every 6 months, then Al Queda never would have grown to power through inept and impotent responses used to recruit, and thus Al Queda would have fallen by the wayside.

You've got to look at the bigger picture instead of excuses to avoid a war that was not avoidable. Anyone who's seen the pictures in the ISG report can see that quite clearly-inspections couldn't work in 2003 the way they did eight years earlier. Without inspections, there was no way to prove Saddam had disarmed. Without proof of disarmament, he had to be removed. All other means of regime change had been tried and failed on increasingly bad levels-leaving invasion as the last resort.

Why stay in Iraq after the invasion? To draw in all the terrorists and terrorist wannabes in the region-it's smack dab in the middle. Add to that the devastating blow to the Arab Nation Caliphate movement by supporting a democracy that can serve as another proxy fighter for the US in the gwot.

These are facts that funny little posters and excuses just don't knock down.

Comment Posted By Sam Pender On 23.08.2006 @ 14:31

Wow, talk about a circle jerk...

Searched all over for a quote from UBL showing he'd love the US to remove Saddam, and you couldn't find one, so ya found a cute cover from Harper's that'd let you beat your chest with faux-I-told-you-so's.

Where does Bin Laden express his desire to have the US invade Iraq(I could give a crap about what Harper's or some columnist said in 02 about invading Iraq)? answer: he doesn't.

"What you cite is the circle jerk of stories planted by Cheney’s WH gang through people like Judy in the NYT, picked up elsewhere, never verified, like all the WMD stories.
You cite stories citing reports citing unnamed witnesses (discredited by the CIA). The WH is not just doing bad PR, it is distancing itself from this BS, while happy to have it out there via Limbaugh etc. Why does it work? Because people like you will believe it.
If it were true, the WH would be citing it chapter and verse, all the time."
I didn't cite a single thing from Judy or stories about stories about un-named sources. I cited the 911 Commission pg 61, and I refer to the Sen Intel Com investigation into pre-war intel on Iraq.

The conspiracy theory that VP Cheney somehow manipulated intel and news etc was investigated a half dozen times and found to be a false accusation.

Here's a good one for you...
", al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq. "
-Nov 1998 Clinton Admin indictment of Osama Bin Laden sec 4

Care to explain how VP Cheney put that in there?

Or maybe you still think that the reports of ties between Al Queda and Iraq were all a Bush Admin neocon cabal, but if so...then could you explain this 1999 ABC News report:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram

I doubt it.

Quote:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53
-911 Comm pg61

Quote:
To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
-911 Comm final report pg 61

As I said earlier, no evidence was described as the result of a near complete lack of intel gathering on Al Queda from 98-01, and a complete lack of intel gathering on Iraq from 98-01. Both the 911 Comm and the Sen Intel Com said that because of this lack of intel gathering, the question of Saddam's ties to Al Queda should be left OPEN-not closed. Since then, more information has been collected in the GWOT and now the 911 Comm, the Sen Intel Com, and the House Intel Com all want to re-evaluate Saddam's Ties as the evidence points to a deeper relationship.

Interesting how you didn't discuss my numbers on Iraq.
Outnumbered 40:1 militarily+Outnumbered 2800:1 in population=victory for insurgents?

If it's bad there now, imagine how bad it'd be if the US left, and tell us all how that's better.

Comment Posted By Sam Pender On 23.08.2006 @ 13:56

Waterloo wasn't a retreat. It was a strategic redeployment.

It's this simple,
right now, Al Queda is in Iraq
America is at war with Al Queda
America must stay in Iraq and fight Al Queda

This BS about civil war pops up every 4-6 months. What kind of a civil war pits 15-20,000 insurgents against 270,000 ISF and 140,000 Coalition forces? Total civil war apparently equals 1/2800 Iraqis rising up to saw off heads. AND WOW are they effective-those 20k insurgents are about to crush a force 40x their size. uh-huh.

I don't deny there's violence there, but it's hardly a civil war when the enemy is outnumbered 40:1 or more, and it's hardly a rebellion of any sort if it's less than 1/2000 of the population.

Comment Posted By Sam Pender On 23.08.2006 @ 09:25

It's ironic that when people say "no ties" and they refer to GWB's comments about Iraq not being part of 911, or when they refer to Colin Powell saying he saw no evidence of collaboration, or the 911 Commision saying no ties, or the Sen Intel Com saying no evidence of ties...all of those comments rely on HALF the quote.

For example,
When Pres Bush said Iraq was not involved in 911, the first half of that sentence has him saying that "we know there was a relationship, but..." Ok, so back in 04 there was no evidence of involvement in the attacks, but there was a relationship. Why's this important...because it's "lack of evidence"(more on that later)

When Colin Powell said he saw no evidence of collaboration, he continued on to say that he believed there was a relationship and that the intel supports that idea.

When the 911 Comm and Sen Intel Com both said there was a lack of evidence, they BOTH continued on to say that the reason for the lack of evidence was a lack of intel(evidence) gathering from 98-01. In fact, we know from both that monitoring of AQ prior to 911 never numbered more than 40 people and averaged only 4! As bad is the comment from the Sen Intel Com that after 98 there were ZERO human intel assets reporting on Iraq. No one collecting evidence=no evidence.

HOWEVER, both the Sen Intel Com and the 911 Commission specifically say that the lack of evidence means that the issue should remain OPEN-not closed, and that it was not the final word, and since then several 911 Comm members and Senate as well as House members have said that new evidence should be re-examined as the depth of the relationship is now showing itself to have been more than just tacit ties.

Whether one believes that Iraq asked AQ to conduct the attacks or that the attacks were set off in response/sympathy for the US war on Iraq...the fact is that Iraq was the problem, and if Saddam had been removed in 91 or between 91 and 01...Al Queda never would have been revived, and 911 never would've happened-let alone the entire GWOT. Without Saddam's Iraq and the war on him...the attacks and the war never would have happened.

Comment Posted By Sam Pender On 23.08.2006 @ 08:09

The Bush Admin's not sitting on any evidence. Their PR has always been abyssmal. C'mon, Scott McClellan? Nope. I just pointed out quotes from the 911 Commission. How is that sitting on evidence? I pointed out links to ABC news reports that are confirmed by the Sen Intel Com investigation into Iraq intel...how is that sitting on anything? It's not.

Now, this idea that UBL wanted to lure the US into Iraq is baseless. Everyone agrees that he didn't expect the US to react to 911 the way it did-he expected another reaction similar to the USS Cole (nothing) or the African Embassy Bombings (a few missiles).

Now, claiming that invading Iraq to fight Al Queda on a battlefield of America's choosing is what's stupid. That's like saying Japan bombed America, so let's go invade Morocco, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, France, and Belgium. It ignores the bigger picture.

Continuing in a failed direction? Ignoring the foolhardiness of the claim, what's option B? Runaway and let things in Iraq get worse? Good plan.

Al Queda did work with lots of people and groups around the globe-it's their specialty; coordination and cooperation between various affiliates and state sponsors.

The raving about the US should've invaded country X, Y, Z instead is faulted because AQ's gripes were predominately with the US war on Iraq.

Oh, and I love that part about containment. Containment is a strategy for use against conventional forces. It's as useful a counter-terrorism strategy as a naval blockade of Afghanistan. How well did containment work against Afghanistan on 91101?

Why was it a good thing to invade Iraq? Because removing dictators is always a good thing. Because it prevented Saddam from restarting his wmd programs and making fresh wmd in months, weeks, days, or hours. Because it created a battlefield of America's choosing rather than UBL's. Because it's draining the region of it's terrorists and terrorist wannabes. and many reasons more

The only blinders on are the ones from people who ignore that the US was waging war on Iraq from 91-03, and that this is why Al Queda was revived, this is why the 911 attacks were set in motion, and this is why Iraq has been and is the central issue for the war on terror.

Comment Posted By Sam Pender On 23.08.2006 @ 07:40

Tubino,
We know how and why the 911 attacks succeeded, but do you know why they were set in motion? It's not like GWB invaded Iraq and caused attacks on the US homeland. The attacks were set in motion for a reason-what? (back to that in a moment)...Perhaps you could explain why Al Queda was revived after the Soviet's pulled out of Afghanistan?

ok, look, the answer is Iraq-wait! Before anyone wigs out on leftist rants, please hear me out.

Al Queda's post-Soviet pissing points were:
Presence of US forces in Saudi (waging air war on Iraq)
US-lead blockade/sanctions on Iraq
and of course the obligatory rant about the US supporting jews

Now, ask yourself again, why was the 911 attack set in motion?

First see when it was set in motion-that'll help.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4425_0_4_0_C/

and what did Al Queda claim was the cause?
"On December 18, 1998, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Vanguards of Conquest had issued a new threat, stating in part that the group will not be "satisfied with the empty statements of condemnation that we are used to hearing from [Arab] regimes. We say it loud and clear that we will retaliate for what is happening to the sons of our nation in Iraq. For the crimes committed by the US against our Islamic nation will not pass without punishment." The statement was signed by the Vanguards of Conquest's secretary general, Abduallah Mansour [an alias for Al Queda's #2 man and strategic planner, Dr Ayaman al Zawahiri]. It was published in the al-Hayat on December 19, 1998."

Still doubt they'd work together? Ok. Read pg 61 of the 911 Commission report that clearly says UBL wanted to work with Saddam, and Saddam wanted to work with UBL. Problem was there was no intel at all on Iraq between 1998 and 911, so the Sen Intel Com report said there needs to be more evidence researched. Since then, several 911 Commission members have said the new intel found in the invasion indicates a closer relationship than thought, and it should be re-examined.

Comment Posted By Sam Pender On 23.08.2006 @ 06:30


 


 


Pages (2) : [1] 2


«« Back To Stats Page