Things Are Getting Interesting With Iran

[Kathianne]

Perhaps they ARE bringing the US to their point of view:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trumps-erratic-iran-policy-careens-toward-becoming-obama-2-0


OPINION
Trump’s erratic Iran policy careens toward becoming Obama 2.0
by Philip Klein
| September 12, 2019 08:25 AM

When John Bolton was ousted as national security adviser, I noted that it was great news for fans of Barack Obama’s Iran policy. Some thought I was exaggerating, but then on Wednesday we got this Bloomberg report that with Bolton gone, Trump was looking to give money to Iran to induce a leader of the terrorist regime, Hassan Rouhani, to meet with him:


"President Donald Trump discussed easing sanctions on Iran to help secure a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani later this month, prompting then-National Security Advisor John Bolton to argue forcefully against such a step, according to three people familiar with the matter.


After an Oval Office meeting on Monday when the idea came up, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin voiced his support for the move as a way to restart negotiations with Iran, some of the people said. Later in the day, Trump decided to oust Bolton, whose departure was announced Tuesday."
This development is not surprising to those who have been following the administration’s erratic Iran policy. For all the headlines that were generated about Trump pulling out of Obama’s Iran deal and ratcheting up sanctions, thanks to intense lobbying by Mnunchin, Trump has stopped well short of following through on his promise of “maximum pressure” by waiving some key sanctions. Most worrisome, Trump has repeatedly granted waivers for “civilian” nuclear cooperation. This has helped keep Obama’s nuclear deal warm for a potential Democratic successor to revive it.


Now, Trump desperately wants to meet with Rouhani, and is willing to ease up on the economic pressure campaign that has been put on Iran. We’ve gone from the possibility of a meeting under certain conditions, to a willingness to meet without preconditions, to a situation in which it seems increasingly likely that Trump is going to capitulate to Iran and meet the regime’s conditions for a meeting.


At least in Obama’s case, it could be argued that the administration was consistent. They believed a policy of appeasing Iran would strengthen moderates, and reorient the Middle East, and they were hostile toward traditional U.S. allies in the region — the Arab states and Israel.


In Trump’s case, however, his Iran policy is all over the place. He decided to pull out of the Iran deal, but then short arm the “maximum pressure” campaign, and now wants to offer concessions in exchange for a meeting that would be a diplomatic coup for Iran without doing anything to advance U.S. interests. It’s unclear why Trump wanted to pull out of the deal in the first place if this is how he followed through.


There are multiple possible explanations for this vacillation. One is that Trump has competing impulses on foreign policy — wanting to seem tough, wanting to avoid conflict. The other is that he has advisers pulling him in different directions — hawks, non-interventionists who portray any toughness with Iran as a prelude to war, and those like Mnuchin who are sympathetic to Obama’s policies.

...





http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?67664-quot-He-s-Fired!-quot-quot-No-I-Resigned!-quot&p=943184#post943184

[STTAB]

The entire article doesn't make sense.

Of course it is clear why Trump left the Iran deal. It was a TERRIBLE deal that did nothing to make the ME any safer. But he doesn't and never did want NO deal with Iran. He's always wanted a deal, he just wants far more than Obama got.

[Kathianne]

The entire article doesn't make sense.

Of course it is clear why Trump left the Iran deal. It was a TERRIBLE deal that did nothing to make the ME any safer. But he doesn't and never did want NO deal with Iran. He's always wanted a deal, he just wants far more than Obama got.
So repeat what Obama did, but 'just' $15M.

Both this and Obama's pallets were freeing up of Iranian $$$.

Not a bit of difference.

[Gunny]

The entire article doesn't make sense.

Of course it is clear why Trump left the Iran deal. It was a TERRIBLE deal that did nothing to make the ME any safer. But he doesn't and never did want NO deal with Iran. He's always wanted a deal, he just wants far more than Obama got.


So repeat what Obama did, but 'just' $15M.

Both this and Obama's pallets were freeing up of Iranian $$$.

Not a bit of difference.Trump has repeatedly stated he wants a deal. Just not the one Obama killed Iran's ass with. Which, as stated, no problem with me.

That being said, I remain greatly underwhelmed at Trump's handling of foreign policy. From everything I've seen, he's a great businessman. He needs to stick to it. Seems to me every time push comes to shove, he waffles. And I'm talking specifically about Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, Turkey ... he has side-stepped the latter two, playing BS wishy-washy with Iran and wants to bail on Afghanistan (the wrong way).

My first question when I saw this crap is "If Trump knew he was going down this road to begin with, WHY hire a lightning rod like Bolton to begin with?

[Drummond]

Trump has repeatedly stated he wants a deal. Just not the one Obama killed Iran's ass with. Which, as stated, no problem with me.

That being said, I remain greatly underwhelmed at Trump's handling of foreign policy. From everything I've seen, he's a great businessman. He needs to stick to it. Seems to me every time push comes to shove, he waffles. And I'm talking specifically about Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, Turkey ... he has side-stepped the latter two, playing BS wishy-washy with Iran and wants to bail on Afghanistan (the wrong way).

My first question when I saw this crap is "If Trump knew he was going down this road to begin with, WHY hire a lightning rod like Bolton to begin with?

Why NOT have Bolton where he was ?

It'd be one good move to prove to the Iranians that the American Government was no longer composed of people who'd cave to opposition on a whim.

I'm not sure that Trump has got his foreign policy direction right in all instances. Still ... as limited as it is ... he's achieved more notable success with N Korea than his predecessor. Besides, he'll have his advisers. He's doing a far better job, overall, than others have.

[Gunny]

Why NOT have Bolton where he was ?

It'd be one good move to prove to the Iranians that the American Government was no longer composed of people who'd cave to opposition on a whim.

I'm not sure that Trump has got his foreign policy direction right in all instances. Still ... as limited as it is ... he's achieved more notable success with N Korea than his predecessor. Besides, he'll have his advisers. He's doing a far better job, overall, than others have.What good is having someone like Bolton or the Almighty Thor when all eyes are on Trump. Anyone under him, which is everyone in the US government, is a "Who's Next?". He has definitely marginalized "Secretary of _______".

And don't misunderstand: I like John Bolton. When I want to kick someone's ass. Definitely not when I want to negotiate.

I don't see the point to the moves Trump is making. Timing sucks. They are conciliatory (Iran & Afghanistan). And even if they only appear conciliatory, that's all it takes. Perception.

[Kathianne]

It looks like now the administration believes that Iran is behind the drone attack upon the Saudi oil fields, shutting off 5% of the world's oil supply for a few weeks.

The President has called our strategic oil reserves to be opened if needed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-saudi-arabia-attack-locked-loaded-iran

[pete311]

Trump tweeted out they are waiting for orders from Saudia Arabia on what to do. Amazing. America is now 2nd tier.

[Drummond]

Trump tweeted out they are waiting for orders from Saudia Arabia on what to do. Amazing. America is now 2nd tier.

So what's your suggestion ? That Trump shows no consideration for Saudi Arabia's borders, or those who rule that country ?

Would you like the Saudis to turn against America, on that basis ? H'mm ?

How NON interventionist have you been, Pete, when it comes to previous incidents ? Did you cheer America on, when it carpet-bombed terrorist training camps in Afghanistan ? Did you support the Iraq invasion of 2003 ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow, I doubt that you've been enthusiastically pro-intervention in your thinking (you'd be a strange Leftie, if you have). Yet, now, you take this stand over this Saudi incident ?

So tell me, Pete. Is there anything Trump could do that you'd approve of ? Or is your disapproval an automatic 'given' .. ?:rolleyes:

[STTAB]

So repeat what Obama did, but 'just' $15M.

Both this and Obama's pallets were freeing up of Iranian $$$.

Not a bit of difference.
Not exactly true in regards to Obama.

While the bulk of the figure we here bandied about was in actuality Iranian assets that were in EUROPEAN banks, not US banks, that were frozen at the request of the US until Obama made the request to unfreeze them, which the European banks did.

However, Obama absolutely DID give Iran $1.7 in CASH. Now the money was a disputed settlement plus interest over an airplane sale from the 1970s, the world court had found in favor of Iran, BUT we're talking a reversal of almost 40 years of US policy where we refused to honor that judgement and Obama DID just decide on his own to turn over cash to the fucking Iranians.

[pete311]

So what's your suggestion ? That Trump shows no consideration for Saudi Arabia's borders, or those who rule that country ?

Would you like the Saudis to turn against America, on that basis ? H'mm ?

How NON interventionist have you been, Pete, when it comes to previous incidents ? Did you cheer America on, when it carpet-bombed terrorist training camps in Afghanistan ? Did you support the Iraq invasion of 2003 ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow, I doubt that you've been enthusiastically pro-intervention in your thinking (you'd be a strange Leftie, if you have). Yet, now, you take this stand over this Saudi incident ?

So tell me, Pete. Is there anything Trump could do that you'd approve of ? Or is your disapproval an automatic 'given' .. ?:rolleyes:

Saudis are not in NATO. I did not support the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan was a bit different. Not our war. I thought we weren't the world's police.

[STTAB]

Saudis are not in NATO. I did not support the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan was a bit different. Not our war. I thought we weren't the world's police.

Pete, wouldn't it be easier to just start being honest and consistent so that you don't have to justify every post you make?

I mean and it's blatant too, because every person on this board knows there is absolutely no way you are actually in 100% perfect alignment with every single liberal talking point even though your posts show differently. Seriously , at least once in awhile you have to be thinking to yourself "Jesus Christ this is a baseless complaint against Trump, I do NOT agree with this"

[pete311]

Pete, wouldn't it be easier to just start being honest and consistent so that you don't have to justify every post you make?

I mean and it's blatant too, because every person on this board knows there is absolutely no way you are actually in 100% perfect alignment with every single liberal talking point even though your posts show differently. Seriously , at least once in awhile you have to be thinking to yourself "Jesus Christ this is a baseless complaint against Trump, I do NOT agree with this"

cool story

[STTAB]

cool story


Surprise surprise , the half man deflects again.

[Drummond]

Saudis are not in NATO. I did not support the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan was a bit different. Not our war. I thought we weren't the world's police.

So .. Saudi Arabia isn't in NATO ... so, what they want, what they say, has no importance ? They, their wishes, can be disregarded ?

Do you take the same attitude to every non-NATO country ?

Why didn't you support the invasion of Iraq .. were you one of those millions of Lefties worldwide who went on marches, trying to save Saddam's regime from military threat ? [Did Saddam find the decency to give your lot a 'thank you' for that one ?]

Afghanistan was, yes, a 'bit' different. I somehow recall that there was a 'bit' of an issue with terrorists located in large numbers, there. Some of their number had shown a 'bit' of belligerence in killing 3,000 people in America on 9/11, so, they needed a 'bit' of sorting out !

But tell me. Why don't you think the War on Terrorism is 'your' war ?? Where do you think the World Trade Center was located, then ???

Perhaps you think terrorism can now be disregarded, if it's not 'your war'. Is that the new Leftie lunacy ?

[STTAB]

So .. Saudi Arabia isn't in NATO ... so, what they want, what they say, has no importance ? They, their wishes, can be disregarded ?

Do you take the same attitude to every non-NATO country ?

Why didn't you support the invasion of Iraq .. were you one of those millions of Lefties worldwide who went on marches, trying to save Saddam's regime from military threat ? [Did Saddam find the decency to give your lot a 'thank you' for that one ?]

Afghanistan was, yes, a 'bit' different. I somehow recall that there was a 'bit' of an issue with terrorists located in large numbers, there. Some of their number had shown a 'bit' of belligerence in killing 3,000 people in America on 9/11, so, they needed a 'bit' of sorting out !

But tell me. Why don't you think the War on Terrorism is 'your' war ?? Where do you think the World Trade Center was located, then ???

Perhaps you think terrorism can now be disregarded, if it's not 'your war'. Is that the new Leftie lunacy ?


I was against the war in Iraq. Mostly because I had been there and done that, had the t shirt, and actually knew that those backwards camel humpers are better off with a strong dictator who crushes rebellions in charge. There was never any evidence that pointed to Iraq being involved in 9/11 and to this day I believe GWB used that as a prelude to get Saadam for his daddy's legacy.

[Drummond]

I was against the war in Iraq. Mostly because I had been there and done that, had the t shirt, and actually knew that those backwards camel humpers are better off with a strong dictator who crushes rebellions in charge. There was never any evidence that pointed to Iraq being involved in 9/11 and to this day I believe GWB used that as a prelude to get Saadam for his daddy's legacy.

You're mis-remembering history ?

The concern which GWB and the UN shared was whether or not Saddam had retained WMD's. For your security, and the security of the entire Western world, this was an issue that had to be resolved. Saddam gave an 'assurance' that he had none, and yet offered no proof of that. The UN's inspectors were limited to going to sites directed to them by his regime, and could neither search the entire country, nor yet establish what WMD's had been destroyed, what quantities, or even the quantities of them Saddam had to begin with (& therefore how many he'd be left with).

A full-scale takeover of Iraq was the ONLY way of finally resolving that matter. Therefore, the invasion was necessary, and vital to us all.

Do you remember now ?

Some reminders / extracts from a CIA report, to further jog your memory:

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm


Res. 1154 (2 March 1998) Demands that Iraq comply with UNSCOM and IAEA inspections and endorses the Secretary General's memorandum of understanding with Iraq, providing for "severest consequences" if Iraq fails to comply.

Res. 1194 (9 September 1998) Condemns Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA.

Res. 1205 (5 November 1998) Condemns Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UNSCOM.

UNSCOM could not exercise its mandate without Iraqi compliance. Baghdad refused to work with UNSCOM and instead negotiated with the Secretary General, whom it believed would be more sympathetic to Iraq's needs.

Res. 1284 (17 December 1999) Established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), replacing UNSCOM; and demanded that Iraq allow UNMOVIC teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all aspects of Iraq's WMD program.

Iraq repeatedly has rejected the return of UN arms inspectors and claims that it has satisfied all UN resolutions relevant to disarmament. Compared with UNSCOM, 1284 gives the UNMOVIC chairman less authority, gives the Security Council a greater role in defining key disarmament tasks, and requires that inspectors be full-time UN employees.

Iraq admitted producing thousands of liters of the BW agents anthrax,[6] botulinum toxin, (which paralyzes respiratory muscles and can be fatal within 24 to 36 hours), and aflatoxin, (a potent carcinogen that can attack the liver, killing years after ingestion),and preparing BW-filled Scud-variant missile warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks before the Gulf war.

Baghdad did not provide persuasive evidence to support its claims that it unilaterally destroyed its BW agents and munitions. Experts from UNSCOM assessed that Baghdad's declarations vastly understated the production of biological agents and estimated that Iraq actually produced two-to-four times the amount of agent that it acknowledged producing, including Bacillus anthracis—the causative agent of anthrax—and botulinum toxin.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-important-facts-about-the-iraq-war


On 20 March 2003, a United States-led international coalition - which included Britain - launched an invasion of Iraq.

The stated aims were to disarm the country of weapons of mass destruction, end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism and free the Iraqi people from his repressive regime.

[Kathianne]

You're mis-remembering history ?

The concern which GWB and the UN shared was whether or not Saddam had retained WMD's. For your security, and the security of the entire Western world, this was an issue that had to be resolved. Saddam gave an 'assurance' that he had none, and yet offered no proof of that. The UN's inspectors were limited to going to sites directed to them by his regime, and could neither search the entire country, nor yet establish what WMD's had been destroyed, what quantities, or even the quantities of them Saddam had to begin with (& therefore how many he'd be left with).

A full-scale takeover of Iraq was the ONLY way of finally resolving that matter. Therefore, the invasion was necessary, and vital to us all.

Do you remember now ?

Some reminders / extracts from a CIA report, to further jog your memory:

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm



https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-important-facts-about-the-iraq-war

yep, lots of people do forget. I still think, contrary to what Bush eventually pushed, that there were WMDs out of Iraq to Syria.

[Drummond]

yep, lots of people do forget. I still think, contrary to what Bush eventually pushed, that there were WMDs out of Iraq to Syria.

Yes .. I believe that myself.

In fact, do we know that the reported chemical attacks launched by Assad against his own people, did not involve some of those weapons ?

By the way there was also that Rick Santorum press conference, going back to June 2006, where he released a 4-page extract from a CIA document. It showed that in excess of 500, albeit degraded, WMD's actually had been found in Iraq.

I've posted on this before.

https://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

[Elessar]

yep, lots of people do forget. I still think, contrary to what Bush eventually pushed, that there were WMDs out of Iraq to Syria.

Those conveys of trucks headed into Syria were not bearing Schwan's deliveries.

How blind can the left be?

[pete311]

Those conveys of trucks headed into Syria were not bearing Schwan's deliveries.

How blind can the left be?

Except he admitted he had none...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070104217.html

[Drummond]

Except he admitted he had none...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070104217.html

The media would've crucified him, had Bush not softened his stance, over time. Just as, over here, there's widespread demonisation of Tony Blair as a supposed 'war criminal' for allying himself so closely to Bush on this issue, and never publicly declaring he was wrong to do so.

The Santorum disclosure, I mentioned before ... in America, it received SOME attention from SOME of the US's media outlets. Some refused to report on it.

Do you know how many UK news agencies, newspapers & the like, reported on this story on my side of the Pond, Pete ?

ZERO. It received ZERO attention, here. The discovery of old WMD's isn't known about in the UK, or, so far as I know, anywhere in Europe.

This was the first clear example of stringent 'news management' (i.e, news-eradication) I've ever been sure I've witnessed, Pete. But then ... the Left is a stronger force here. Their increased power to abuse freedoms and skew the truth is only to be expected.

[Elessar]

Except he admitted he had none...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070104217.html

Which was a flat out lie.

What caused the Iranians to get gassed: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Iranians%20gassed%20by%20Saddam&pc=cosp&ptag=G6C999A6FBDEF32E2&form=CONMHP&conlogo=CT3210127
What caused the Kurds to get gassed: https://www.bing.com/search?q=iraq%20gassed%20kurds&pc=cosp&ptag=G6C999A6FBDEF32E2&form=CONMHP&conlogo=CT3210127
What caused the Iriaqi opposition on the Tigris to get gassed: https://www.bing.com/search?q=tigris%20river%20gassings%20by%20Sadam&pc=cosp&ptag=G6C999A6FBDEF32E2&form=CONMHP&conlogo=CT3210127

You can certainly be stupid, Pete.

[pete311]

Which was a flat out lie.

What caused the Iranians to get gassed: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Iranians%20gassed%20by%20Saddam&pc=cosp&ptag=G6C999A6FBDEF32E2&form=CONMHP&conlogo=CT3210127
What caused the Kurds to get gassed: https://www.bing.com/search?q=iraq%20gassed%20kurds&pc=cosp&ptag=G6C999A6FBDEF32E2&form=CONMHP&conlogo=CT3210127
What caused the Iriaqi opposition on the Tigris to get gassed: https://www.bing.com/search?q=tigris%20river%20gassings%20by%20Sadam&pc=cosp&ptag=G6C999A6FBDEF32E2&form=CONMHP&conlogo=CT3210127

You can certainly be stupid, Pete.

lol you use Bing :lol:

[STTAB]

You're mis-remembering history ?

The concern which GWB and the UN shared was whether or not Saddam had retained WMD's. For your security, and the security of the entire Western world, this was an issue that had to be resolved. Saddam gave an 'assurance' that he had none, and yet offered no proof of that. The UN's inspectors were limited to going to sites directed to them by his regime, and could neither search the entire country, nor yet establish what WMD's had been destroyed, what quantities, or even the quantities of them Saddam had to begin with (& therefore how many he'd be left with).

A full-scale takeover of Iraq was the ONLY way of finally resolving that matter. Therefore, the invasion was necessary, and vital to us all.

Do you remember now ?

Some reminders / extracts from a CIA report, to further jog your memory:

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm



https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-important-facts-about-the-iraq-war


I'm not mis remembering anything. If we were going to roll into Iraq and take Saadam out over WMD why didn't we do it years before when he actually USED the damn things on the Kurds? The answer is obvious, because that's not why we went into Iraq, Bush absolutely tried to link 9/11 to Iraq and then also used their WMDs as more of an excuse to invade.

We knew for YEARS that Saadam had chemical WMDs and was working on a nuclear one. Yet , we didn't invade.

[Kathianne]

I'm not mis remembering anything. If we were going to roll into Iraq and take Saadam out over WMD why didn't we do it years before when he actually USED the damn things on the Kurds? The answer is obvious, because that's not why we went into Iraq, Bush absolutely tried to link 9/11 to Iraq and then also used their WMDs as more of an excuse to invade.

We knew for YEARS that Saadam had chemical WMDs and was working on a nuclear one. Yet , we didn't invade.

So we forgot that Israel had taken out the nuclear years earlier? https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/09/world/israeli-jets-destroy-iraqi-atomic-reactor-attack-condemned-us-arab-nations.html

It wasn't just Bush, 'going after daddy's pride,' (good repeat of dems at the time, though), nearly all intel from the west said he had the WMD, which Saddam kept saying for years.

[STTAB]

So we forgot that Israel had taken out the nuclear years earlier? https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/09/world/israeli-jets-destroy-iraqi-atomic-reactor-attack-condemned-us-arab-nations.html

It wasn't just Bush, 'going after daddy's pride,' (good repeat of dems at the time, though), nearly all intel from the west said he had the WMD, which Saddam kept saying for years.
Of course he had chemical WMDs in 2003 when we invaded. And of course they still had plans to get nuclear. That isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that prior to 9/11 we KNEW Saadam had chemical WMDs, we know because he used them on the Kurds. I mean I guess you could think he used his entire supply or what not, but even if that were true, he didn't lose his capability to produce more.

We did NOT invade Iraq because of WMDs, Bush tied Iraq to terrorism and then brought WMDs into the mix as "it's only a matter of time before he gives these weapons to terrorists." Those are just historical facts.

[Kathianne]

Of course he had chemical WMDs in 2003 when we invaded. And of course they still had plans to get nuclear. That isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that prior to 9/11 we KNEW Saadam had chemical WMDs, we know because he used them on the Kurds. I mean I guess you could think he used his entire supply or what not, but even if that were true, he didn't lose his capability to produce more.

We did NOT invade Iraq because of WMDs, Bush tied Iraq to terrorism and then brought WMDs into the mix as "it's only a matter of time before he gives these weapons to terrorists." Those are just historical facts.

9/11 did open the opportunity to get those, if they'd been found. Was it a success? Obviously not in total. Saddam did keep some control in a very bad neighborhood. The costs involved in ousting him were great. However, the Iraqis that came through are in a better place in many ways. Then again, it is a very weak country, with the problem of ISIS forcing their way in. Thus, the neighborhood hasn't changed, but then again, that isn't something to hope for.

[STTAB]

9/11 did open the opportunity to get those, if they'd been found. Was it a success? Obviously not in total. Saddam did keep some control in a very bad neighborhood. The costs involved in ousting him were great. However, the Iraqis that came through are in many ways in many ways. Then again, it is a very weak country, with the problem of ISIS forcing their way in. Thus, the neighborhood hasn't changed, but then again, that isn't something to hope for.

I just personally believe many Iraqis had a point in that they weren't tied to 9/11 at all and we invaded meanwhile no one doubts that people in the Saudi royal family were involved and yet........

[Kathianne]

I just personally believe many Iraqis had a point in that they weren't tied to 9/11 at all and we invaded meanwhile no one doubts that people in the Saudi royal family were involved and yet........

I agree about the Saudis, they use religion as bread and circuses. That's how bin Laden came to be. Being correct on that doesn't make the Iraq War wrong in inception.

[Drummond]

We did NOT invade Iraq because of WMDs


Bush tied Iraq to terrorism and then brought WMDs into the mix as "it's only a matter of time before he gives these weapons to terrorists." Those are just historical facts.

It's one or the other. Either WMD's were why the invasion happened, or, they weren't.

If they 'weren't' ... then, Bush lied to the world, and not least to the UN. If you recall (apparently you don't ?) Bush invoked the 'serious consequences' clause of UN Resolution 1441 as his justification for action.

Reposting:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-important-facts-about-the-iraq-war


On 20 March 2003, a United States-led international coalition - which included Britain - launched an invasion of Iraq.

The stated aims were to disarm the country of weapons of mass destruction, end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism and free the Iraqi people from his repressive regime.

This says that WMD's were central to Bush's concern over Iraq. It's not 'either / or'.

[STTAB]

It's one or the other. Either WMD's were why the invasion happened, or, they weren't.

If they 'weren't' ... then, Bush lied to the world, and not least to the UN. If you recall (apparently you don't ?) Bush invoked the 'serious consequences' clause of UN Resolution 1441 as his justification for action.

Reposting:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-important-facts-about-the-iraq-war



This says that WMD's were central to Bush's concern over Iraq. It's not 'either / or'.


Are you simply unaware of the conjunction AND's meaning? No Bush didn't lie, US intelligence , along with our allies, said Saadam has WMD's, they had been saying the same things since oh I don't know the moment Saadam used them on the Kurds. Know when this happened Drummond? March 16, 1988. So for 15 years we were okay with him having WMDs but all the sudden in 2003 "hey wait a minute we can't let this guy have chemical WMDs?" You believe that shit?

In addition we have seen exactly as much proof that Saadam was involved with terrorists as we have seen that Trump was involved with the Russians to steal the 2016 election. Meaning zero. Don't get me wrong, Saadam was a sadistic asshole and the world is better off with him taking a dirt nap, but does that justify invading a fucking country and killing over 100K people? Fuck no it doesn't.

[Drummond]

Are you simply unaware of the conjunction AND's meaning? No Bush didn't lie, US intelligence , along with our allies, said Saadam has WMD's, they had been saying the same things since oh I don't know the moment Saadam used them on the Kurds. Know when this happened Drummond? March 16, 1988. So for 15 years we were okay with him having WMDs but all the sudden in 2003 "hey wait a minute we can't let this guy have chemical WMDs?" You believe that shit?

In addition we have seen exactly as much proof that Saadam was involved with terrorists as we have seen that Trump was involved with the Russians to steal the 2016 election. Meaning zero. Don't get me wrong, Saadam was a sadistic asshole and the world is better off with him taking a dirt nap, but does that justify invading a fucking country and killing over 100K people? Fuck no it doesn't.

Awareness of, and concern about, terrorism became far more acute, in America, following 9/11, than it was before.

Anyway, check this out:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/terrorism-havens-iraq

[STTAB]

Awareness of, and concern about, terrorism became far more acute, in America, following 9/11, than it was before.

Anyway, check this out:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/terrorism-havens-iraq


That article offers zero proof that Saadam was supporting terrorists, especially Islamic terrorists.

In fact the article you cited goes on to suggest that the US has acknowledged that we toppled Saadam to install a more Democratic government aka nation building.

[Drummond]

That article offers zero proof that Saadam was supporting terrorists, especially Islamic terrorists.

Frankly, it's barely believable that you believe what you SAY you believe, about Saddam. Are you in fact joking ?

A small example: do you deny that Saddam's regime sheltered Zarqawi, an individual known as 'Al Qaeda's man in Iraq' (note mention of him, below) .. ? It was reported at the time !!

Here's a couple of further reports, which presumably you'll reject, out of hand:

https://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/


A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report, titled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," finds that:

• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

• In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.

• Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.

• Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih.

• In 2001, Saddam's intelligence service drafted a manual titled "Lessons in Secret Organization and Jihad Work—How to Organize and Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family." In the same year, his intelligence service submitted names of 10 volunteer "martyrs" for operations inside the Kingdom.

• In 2000, Iraq sent a suicide bomber through Northern Iraq who intended to travel to London to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, at the time an Iraqi opposition leader who would later go on to be an Iraqi deputy prime minister. The mission was aborted after the bomber could not obtain a visa to enter the United Kingdom.

The report finds that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is wanted by the FBI for mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Center Attack, was a prisoner, and not a guest, in Iraq. An audio file of Saddam cited by the report indicates that the Iraqi dictator did not trust him and at one point said that he thought his testimony was too "organized." Saddam said on an audio file cited by the report that he suspected that the first attack could be the work of either Israel or American intelligence, or perhaps a Saudi or Egyptian faction.

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2846365.stm


Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.
Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques.

"Iraq and Palestine are in one trench. Saddam is a hero," read a banner over a picture of the Iraqi leader and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the ceremony.

With war looming in the Middle East, Palestinian speakers condemned the United States and Israel, which dismissed the ceremony as support for terrorism.

One by one, at least 21 families came up to receive their cheques from the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF), a local pro-Iraq group.

A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.

Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.

Saddam's avowed support for the Palestinians, and his missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, have won him wide backing in the territories.

Saddam's 'kindness'

Israel condemned the Iraqi handouts as funding for terrorism.

"It shows that Saddam is involved in every activity that is terrorism and murderous and leads to instability in the Middle East," said Amira Oron, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry.

Are you not aware that Saddam's regime was a major funding source for Hamas ??

More:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/world/saddam-bankrolled-palestinian-terrorists-1-558334


SADDAM Hussein’s links to terrorism have been proven by documents showing he helped to fund the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

The PFLP, whose history of terrorism dates back to the "black September" hijackings of 1970, was personally vetted by Saddam to receive oil vouchers worth 40 million.

The deal has been uncovered by US investigators, trawling millions of pages of documents showing a network of diplomats bribed by Saddam’s regimes, and political parties who qualified for backhanded payments from Baghdad.

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which is still working its way through 20,000 boxes of documents from Saddam’s Baath party discovered only recently, found a list of pressure groups bankrolled by Saddam.

Using the United Nations’ own oil-for-food scheme - ironically intended as a sanction to control the behaviour of his dictatorship - Saddam gave Awad Ammora & Partners, a Syrian company, two million barrels of oil.

Documents handed over to US authorities by a former Iraqi oil minister only four months ago show that this was a front for the PFLP - which was then embarked on a spate of car bombings aimed at Israeli officials.

The Iraqi records show only one six-month period - suggesting the payments could go on for much longer. While some allocations to the likes of Russian political parties were not cashed in, the PFLP oil deal was carried out in full.

Since its inception after the Six-Day War of 1967, the PFLP has been dedicated to violence - and for this reason split from the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) when it accepted the peace process.

Its first atrocity came in September 1970 when its members hijacked four aircraft bound for the United States. All planes were blown up on the ground after the passengers were evacuated. A hijacking at Lod airport in Israel two years later left 24 dead.

It is now devoted to thwarting the "roadmap" plan for peace in the Middle East - recently mainly through a campaign of car bombs.

While the PLO has been rehabilitated into the political process, the PFLP has remained opposed to it. On Wednesday, it issued a statement saying it had joined forces with Hamas, the main Palestinian terrorist group, in a machine gun attack on a busload of Israeli soldiers.

Earlier last week, it launched a rocket attack at an Israeli kibbutz.

Interviews from Iraqi officials captured by US troops confirm that Saddam saw himself as the potential "liberator" of Palestine. Taped conversations have been uncovered from 1991 saying he wanted to deploy biological warfare on "the Israeli cities - all of them".


In fact the article you cited goes on to suggest that the US has acknowledged that we toppled Saadam to install a more Democratic government aka nation building.

In the aftermath, yes. But then, considering the pro-terrorist threat Saddam was known to be, it's hardly surprising that Bush wanted a change of regime, and political climate, in Iraq !!

All these factors interweave. Non-accountability for WMD stocks. Saddam's historically known widespread support for terrorists and groups associated with them, including extensive funding arrangements.

Why ON EARTH wouldn't the US believe that the world, to say nothing of the US's own interests, wouldn't benefit by Saddam's removal ?? What possible sense did it make to let Saddam continue on, defying the UN over WMD's, defying the world, and as a known terrorist enabler ??

[STTAB]

Why ON EARTH wouldn't the US believe that the world, to say nothing of the US's own interests, wouldn't benefit by Saddam's removal ?? What possible sense did it make to let Saddam continue on, defying the UN over WMD's, defying the world, and as a known terrorist enabler ??

Because as it turns out, getting rid of Saadam caused far more problems than it solved. Also, everything that was known about Saadam in 2003 was known about Saadam in 1991. It wasn't like there was some big revelation, "oh shit Saadam did WHAT? Time to take him out"

Let me ask you this, are you as charitable about Obama toppling Qadaffi in Libya?

[Kathianne]

In fits and starts it seems that pretty much the more neutral publications find Iraqis and the Middle East are better off without Saddam:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/03/28/fifteen-years-after-americas-invasion-iraq-is-doing-well

No, not great, but better off.

[Drummond]

Because as it turns out, getting rid of Saadam caused far more problems than it solved. Also, everything that was known about Saadam in 2003 was known about Saadam in 1991. It wasn't like there was some big revelation, "oh shit Saadam did WHAT? Time to take him out"

Let me ask you this, are you as charitable about Obama toppling Qadaffi in Libya?

So, it was required of GW Bush that he have all the hindsight necessary to know with certainty what Iraq's future, after Saddam, was to be ?

Really ?

You say that everything known about Saddam in 2003 was also known in 1991 ? Interesting. So, the US knew with as much accuracy as it did in 1991, what weapon capabilities Saddam had maintained ? Part of the POINT of the invasion in 2003 was to resolve the threat which Saddam was thought to pose.

As for 1991, and through to GWB's Presidency ... who was GWB's predecessor ? Was he a Republican ? OR, was he a DEMOCRAT President, who even failed to tackle bin Laden, despite repeated chances to do so ?

Clinton was derelict in his duty to the American people. By contrast, GWB was not. He faced problems, and DEALT WITH THEM.

'Charitable about Obama toppling Gaddafi'. Well ... Obama himself was on record as admitting he'd - get this - NOT exercised due responsibility for the aftermath in Libya following Gaddafi !!

Did you know that Obama's first instinct was to leave Libya alone ? Phone calls between the UK's David Cameron and Obama eventually resulted in Obama actually doing something !!!

https://www.sott.net/article/420433-Cameron-claims-it-was-he-who-talked-peacenik-EU-and-dithering-Obama-into-bombing-Libya


.. In early March government forces pushed the rebels back and were advancing toward Benghazi; Cameron - then-Britain's prime minister - says he tried to rally allies to take action to avert a potential crackdown on the rebel-held city.

"The decision to ratchet up our response on Libya was, in many ways, the easy part, because I knew it was the right thing to do. What was tough was getting it done — and doing so against the clock. To do nothing in these circumstances was not a neutral act. It was to facilitate murder."

He (Cameron) "found it hard" to get on the phone with Barack Obama, who pursued a policy of disengagement, and felt that the United States was "dithering" on Libya at the time.

He says he finally got to speak to Barack Obama on the evening of 18 March, one day before the military intervention. The US president pledged to support Britain and France in the first week. Cameron says of the conversation: "He was unenthusiastic and matter-of-fact, but this was at least a clear and decisive response."


On 20 March 2011, American, British and French jets and cruise missiles started to strike Gaddafi's troops, forcing them to retreat. "I've never known relief like it," Cameron recalls feeling.

Cameron, our Conservative UK Prime Minister, had to shake Obama out of his complacency and dithering.

[STTAB]

So, it was required of GW Bush that he have all the hindsight necessary to know with certainty what Iraq's future, after Saddam, was to be ?

Really ?

You say that everything known about Saddam in 2003 was also known in 1991 ? Interesting. So, the US knew with as much accuracy as it did in 1991, what weapon capabilities Saddam had maintained ? Part of the POINT of the invasion in 2003 was to resolve the threat which Saddam was thought to pose.

As for 1991, and through to GWB's Presidency ... who was GWB's predecessor ? Was he a Republican ? OR, was he a DEMOCRAT President, who even failed to tackle bin Laden, despite repeated chances to do so ?

Clinton was derelict in his duty to the American people. By contrast, GWB was not. He faced problems, and DEALT WITH THEM.

'Charitable about Obama toppling Gaddafi'. Well ... Obama himself was on record as admitting he'd - get this - NOT exercised due responsibility for the aftermath in Libya following Gaddafi !!

Did you know that Obama's first instinct was to leave Libya alone ? Phone calls between the UK's David Cameron and Obama eventually resulted in Obama actually doing something !!!

https://www.sott.net/article/420433-Cameron-claims-it-was-he-who-talked-peacenik-EU-and-dithering-Obama-into-bombing-Libya



Cameron, our Conservative UK Prime Minister, had to shake Obama out of his complacency and dithering.


I'm not interested in a "Republicans good, Democrats bad" conversation, so I'm out.

[Drummond]

I'm not interested in a "Republicans good, Democrats bad" conversation, so I'm out.

A pity. There's much to be learned from such debates ... as I think I'm proving ... am I not, STTAB ?

Not that this was particularly the point, in any case. I go where the truth leads me. I'm not responsible for the (? inevitable) consequence of where that happens to be: the truth is, simply, the truth, regardless of whether or not it's to your personal liking.

By the way, I recall Cameron's exasperation with Obama at the time of his phone contact with Obama .. it made the news over here. Cameron suffered the insult of Obama branding him a political 'lightweight', whereas Cameron - initially ! - had much respect for Obama. Yet, as it turned out, it was CAMERON who found himself prodding OBAMA into some decisive military action, in Libya.

Oh, well. :rolleyes: