Do you support any attack on Iraq?

There was a snippet in U.S. News and World Report this week about military vehicles being repainted brown camouflage, leading some to speculate that it is in preparation for a strike against Iraq.

 

ESource, long story short, he's still in power because our good friends the Saudis didn't want us to remove him.

Personally, I think that our mistake of not insisting on a regime change in Iraq 10 years ago only increases our responsibility to do it now.

 

Although its strange to say, the main reason Bush stopped was that we were killing too many Iraqi soldiers. US forces caught a large Iraqi force in full retreat on a highway to Bagdad and absolutely decimated it. When those pictures came out the coalition was never the same. Bush halted the advance shortly after that.

Although we had other coalition forces involved, the US shouldn't have too much problem invading Iraq and ousting Hussein. I don't think it will come down to house-to-house fighting in Bagdad. Once the main Iraqi units are crushed, and it is obvious we are not stopping until Saddam is out of power, the other elites in Iraq (military and otherwise) will bring the fighting to an end, and Saddam will be in custody or dead.

 

Actually the claim that Iraq supported Al Qaeda has almost zero evidence to support it.
Frist of all Saddam has had a price on the head of Bin Laden for years now.

Secondly Al Qaeda has ties and connections to the Kurds.

Most importantly the 'report' that Hijacker Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer, was later retracted by the intelligence agency that intitially reported it, and the FBI also concluded that the meeting could not be substantiated at all, and likely didn't happen.

The fact is that the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda have long been enemies and not cooperating partners.

That being said, Saddam has used biological weapons on his own people, and continues to persecute the Kurds. Saddam hordes money that his people need and uses them to build more palaces etc.

Saddam also broke agreements that he signed to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq.

There may come a time when war with Iraq would be justified. Right now, his forces aren't even what they were at the time of the Gulf War, and he didn't pose a threat then. So I doubt he poses a threat now.

Actually I think attacking Iraq will only hurt our war on terrorism. The only way to be effective on that war is with help from our Arab allies. None of those allies are in favor of war with Iraq, and if they end their cooperation with us on the war against terrorism, then we basically will suffer more 9/11 type attacks.

I think we should concentrate more on the war against terrorism which is already a proven threat, than to focus on Iraq, and jeopardize our efforts in the war against terrorism.

 

There were multiple meetings in Europe (Prague I believe) and Malaysia. Which are you saying didn't happen?

Not sure how you determine he 'was not a threat then.' He did IN FACT invade Kuwait, and was certainly more than capable of continuing into Saudi Arabia if we had not moved in.

 

Link please. Not that I don't believe you, but having two people saying "Is so!" and "Is not!" doesn't help in making much headway. Someone find some data to support your assertions.

As for Iraq, I wouldn't say I don't support any attack on Iraq but the one that Bush is planning I don't support.

 

<A HREF="http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm">HISTORY OF CRUDE OIL PRICES</A>

<A HREF="http://www.energy.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/monthly_gasoline.html">California Unleaded, Regular Gasoline Prices
1978 to 1998
Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego (partial)</A>



<A HREF="http://orc.pennnet.com/energytables/energytable_menu.cfm?category=prc">Extensive Pricing History in Spreadsheet Format</A>
The best links from that page are:
<A HREF="http://downloads.pennnet.com/orc/energytables/prc_7.xls">OPEC Reference Basket Price</A>

<A HREF="http://downloads.pennnet.com/orc/energytables/prc_5.xls">Spot Price for Light Sweet Crude</A>


Mango

 

I think during the Gulf War oil prices weren't hit so hard because most of the Arab world including other oil producing countries vouching to help us, and assuring us oil would be available.

Now, however, the other Arab nations are not in favor of attacking Iraq. That same support won't be there. Even Kuwait is against it. If anyone is threatened by Iraq it's Kuwait. When the countries in the region most likely threatened by Iraq are against the attack why should we impose our will and invade.

Unlike some people I still agree with the principle that attacking only in self defense is the right way to do things. Iraq hasn't attacked us. The principle of not being the aggressor and trying to stop aggressors has always been important to me.

Al Qaeda has attacked us and I would rather fight that war for the time being. Attacking Iraq will only hurt us in the war the enemy actually attacked us.

Correct, Prague. It's not just me that doesn't believe it took place but the CIA and FBI don't believe that it happened.

This is from a Washington Post article.http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A11966-2002Apr30

The title of the article is no link between hijacker and Iraq found US says.

I think the fact that there isn't a link is why the administration is now hitting the weapons of mass distruction angle instead.

 

I agree he was a threat to Kuwait, though not to the U.S. I don't think he's an immediate threat to either at the moment, and Kuwait is against any U.S. attack on Iraq.

So if Kuwait is currently against attacking Iraq and doesn't feel threatened by Saddam, why should we feel threatened?

I do believe Al Qaeda and other extremist terrorist groups are a threat, and I believe that invading Iraq with no regard to what our 'allies' in the region say on the matter will hurt our war against those terrorist organizations. It's their information that is heavily relied on in trying to infiltrate and discover the plans of these organizations. If they stop cooperating with us, then we are more vulnerable to be blind-sided by another terrorist attack.

We know that the terrorists are a threat to us since they've already attacked us on our home soil.

 

found this page http://www.cryan.com/war/

Had some cool facts on the Gulf War, check out the computer virus that the Army hit Iraq with below.

Mango - good links. It is crazy how the price of oil went from 14.34 in June of 1990 to 35.05 in October 2000.

 

I've been thinking more about his topic, and I have one other question related to it.

If we invade Iraq and take Saddam out, how are we better off?

It will cost the lives of troops, money that could be spent on other programs, tax cuts or improving security against terrorists or whatever. Our troops will then have to stay in Iraq for how many years while a new govt. is set up?

Increased troop presence in the region could lead to even more trouble like what happened with our units in Beirut. And in the end what do we get out of it? I don't think it's in our best interest, especially at this time to carry out an invasion.

It's funny that it seems like the non-military people like Rumsfeld, and Wolfovits are in favor of the invasion, while most of the Military people are against it. I'd be more inclined to listen to the military people in this issue.

 

<A HREF="http://209.50.252.70/p_en/news/archives/00000544.htm">Saddam 'sends troops to help bin Laden men'"</A>

<i>
04/21/2002 : "Saddam 'sends troops to help bin Laden men'"

Saddam 'sends troops to help bin Laden men'



THE strongest evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden has emerged with reports that the Iraqi dictator is supporting former al-Qa'eda fighters who have established a Taliban-style enclave in Kurdistan.

Members of Saddam's Republican Guard have been seen in two villages run by militants from Ansar al-Islam inside Iraqi Kurdistan, an area which is otherwise controlled by anti-Saddam factions

They were sighted by Western military advisers on a reconnaissance mission. Any confirmed collaboration between Baghdad and bin Laden would be seized upon by President Bush to garner support for action to oust Saddam's regime.

Many members of Ansar al-Islam, a radical Islamic cell, are Arabs who fought with the Taliban and al-Qa'eda forces in Afghanistan. Their numbers are believed to have been boosted recently by men fleeing the US military's recent Operation Anaconda in eastern Afghanistan. The group was said last month by Kurdish military intelligence to have received about £200,000, plus weapons and Toyota Land Cruisers, from the al-Qa'eda network.

Surface-to-air missiles and other weaponry from Iraq are also said to have been delivered to the mountainous region near the town of Halabjah, in northern Iraq.

The enclave was seized by the Islamic militants from territory controlled by the anti-Saddam Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The Iraqi leader has reportedly dispatched some of his best troops to bolster Ansar al-Islam, despite a long-term hatred of Islamic fundamentalism, because the group is opposed to his enemies in the PUK.

"Five large trucks coming from Jalawla [in Baghdad-controlled Iraq] unloaded arms and weapons in the Halabjah area," said one witness. "They were taken to hides and caves in the mountains." The haul is said to have included machine-guns, anti-personnel mines and C4 plastic explosive.

Since the beginning of March about 750 Ansar al-Islam fighters have apparently amassed in the two villages, al-Talweera and Biyara, where television, music and portraits have been banned under rules similar to those imposed by the Taliban.

Local people fear that the Republican Guards will be working with Ansar al-Islam, originally known as Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of God), to crush any uprising and foment unrest.

Hoshyar Zebari, a senior official of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), which shares control over Kurdistan with the PUK, said there had been a change in Saddam's thinking in the past five years. "Ansar are local, home-grown Islamic terrorists, inspired by al-Qa'eda and bin Laden. They think the main enemy is the US and that Islam can't be free unless they get rid of blasphemous groups and infidels, which they consider the KDP and PUK to be."

Carole O'Leary, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at the American University in Washington, said Saddam's supporting Ansar al-Islam would be consistent with his desire to destabilise the Kurdistan regional government.

"It is very clear that this 10-year-old de facto autonomous region is a slap in the face for his leadership," she said. "What's more, it's linked with America in his mind because he sees the US footprint all over the region. By creating unrest, he can put a quarter of his population on notice that he is still pulling the strings and can act against them or not, depending on how they behave."

Ansar al-Islam was established last year after a number of splinter groups broke away from the more moderate Iranian-backed Islamic Unity Movement of Kurdistan (IUMK). They merged and declared jihad, or holy war.

The group's manifesto said that its members had spent the past few years preparing "to carry out the sacred duty of jihad by attending military and religious training camps and stockpiling arms and ammunition".

Links between Ansar al-Islam and Saddam were also alleged recently by Qassem Hussein Mohamed, who claims that he worked for Baghdad's Mukhabarat intelligence for 20 years. Saddam had clandestinely supported Ansar al-Islam for several years, he said. "[Ansar] and al-Qa'eda groups were trained by graduates of the Mukhabarat's School 999 - military intelligence."

By Sarah Latham
source:telegraph.co.uk
</i>

The story is available at the http://www.telegraph.co.uk site, but a registration process is required.



Another story about the Kurds and conflict with radical Islam from the Telegraph site.

<i>
Islamic militants declare vicious holy war against Iraqi Kurds
By Amberin Zaman
(Filed: 12/07/2002)


After decades of battle against Saddam Hussein, the Kurds of northern Iraq are facing a new and vicious enemy.

An obscure militant Islamic group has declared jihad, or holy war, against the two main Kurdish factions running northern Iraq because of their alliance with America and Britain.

The extremists also cite the Kurds' embrace of secular values, according to Iraqi Kurdish leaders. The group known as Ansar al Islam, or Supporters of Islam, has since last year staged a series of bloody attacks that have claimed scores of lives including that of a prominent Christian politician, Fransu Hariri.

In April, Ansar nearly succeeded in assassinating Barham Saleh, chief aide to Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish warlord who controls the eastern part of the US-protected Kurdish safe haven as he was heading for talks with the visiting US assistant secretary of state, Ryan Crocker.

Fighting between Ansar and Mr Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan forces erupted anew earlier this week near the town of Halabja. Some 17 Islamist fighters and eight PUK men died in the clashes. PUK officials say they have fresh evidence of links between Ansar and al-Qa'eda. "They established Ansar with the task of disrupting and destabilising Iraqi Kurdistan," said one.

The PUK also claims to have proof that the group is receiving money and military training from Iraq. Mullah Krekar, the self-proclaimed emir of Ansar, who is thought to be living in Norway, is described by Kurdish intelligence sources, as "a mentally unstable, megalomaniac, with a voracious appetite for blood".

Hawks in the Bush administration have seized on evidence - mostly confessions by captured Ansar militants - which allegedly prove that the group has links to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Some Iraqi Kurdish leaders say Ansar's chief sponsor is neither Iraq nor al-Qa'eda, but conservative mullahs in Iran.

Iranian support for terrorist groups is nothing new. But Ansar is a new pawn, according to Kurdish leaders. "There is no way Ansar could operate without Iranian support, said a top-ranking Iraqi Kurdish intelligence official.

Mr Bush's recent "axis of evil" speech in which he listed Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the main sponsors of global terrorism has heightened fears within Iran's ruling clergy that once the Americans are done with Afghanistan and Iraq, they will alight on Iran, as one diplomat who follows the region closely put it.

"It strengthened the hand of the conservatives [who are locked in a power struggle with Iran's reformist president, Mohammed Khatami] and they are the chief trouble-makers," the diplomat said.

Iran's brand of Shia Islam directly conflicts with the Taliban's orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam, making any links, between Ansar and bin Laden difficult to sustain.

Still, according to Mr Saleh, Ansar's top leaders include the shadowy Mullah Krekar.

The men are mostly trained in Taliban camps in Afghanistan, and the group's estimated 800-strong force, Mr Saleh says, includes some 50 guerrillas of Arab origin, including Palestinians and Jordanians.

The group has imposed rigidly orthodox rule in the areas under its control, forcing women to take the veil, denying education to girls and banning alcohol. "They may be small, but we have to take them seriously," said the intelligence official.

The threat posed by Ansar has spurred unprecedented co-operation between Mr Talabani and his chief rival, Massoud Barzani, who controls the western section of the Kurdish enclave.

The two parties recently established a joint operations room to co-ordinate a possible attack against the Islamists. But any attack could spur retaliatory action from Iran, which is why, diplomats speculate, the Iraqi Kurdish groups, despite their vast military superiority, have held off so far.
</i>



Mango

 

There is no question, in my opinion, that the US would benefit from taking out Saddam in the short term. The question I have is...once it has been done, how do we prevent a radical Islamic group from going in and establishing Taliban #2? There is no point in taking out Saddam in 2002 if we are going to have to go in and do it all over again five or ten years down the road.

 

Mango,

Your information is certainly more current than mine as far as which side the Kurds are with now. I'll be man enough to admit that.

Thanks for the articles too. Good work on catching that Mango.

Even with the Kurdish connection going the other way now, there still isn't much to connect Saddam with 9/11. The whole mess of 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' looks like it's getting very interesting, though.

 

I agree with a lot of long term problems and obligations of getting involved in Iraq.

I'm curious though, in what way do you think the U.S. will benefit by removing Saddam in the short term? In what ways will our country be better off?

 

I thought the urge for removing Sadaam was relative to his building Weapons of Mass Destruction. I want him out for that reason alone.

Whether you hate the US or love them, would you really feel safe with that idiot holding the world hostage?

Short term I think we get nothing out of this war, just dead men and moe debt. Long term we preserve potentially more lives (not only US), along with the assets of the world.

 

True that is the current reason listed as removing Saddam. There is no way I want him having weapons of mass destruction.

I do think something should be done to get weapons inspectors back in and make sure they have the power to investigate every angle.

Although, even if Saddam did have some weapons of Mass destruction, it doesn't really threaten the U.S. Most of his other neighbors don't seem to feel threatened by them either.

 

Franchiseblade, your opinion is based on erroneous facts. Saddam has been supporting Al Queda financially, and Iraq has been operating terrorist training camps. Iraq has effectively declared a covert war against us, and the site I posted previously in this thread tells that story. Read that site, and note that three Iraqi defectors independently corroborate that Saddam and Bin Laden have worked together to strike out against America.

When (not if) we attack during the coming year, look for our President to present a convincing case why Saddam needs to be driven from power. He will include the fact that Iraq helped attack us on September 11th.

Btw, when Saddam gassed the Kurds, he was experimenting with technology he obtained from East Germany. The Kurds were guinea pigs for an attack against the West if we don't kill Saddam soon, imo.

 

Here are two interesting articles about Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2161552.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2029457.stm

The more I read the more I'm against an invasion. I would love to see Saddam ousted, but the cost of an invasion both in lives, and dollars isn't warranted by whatever limited threat that Saddam poses.