Double Tap Marine!

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
The Iraqi economy is in shambles, there’s no way Sadam can afford a wmd progam.
[/quote]

April 21, 2004
Investigate the United Nations Oil-for-Food Fraud
by Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., and James Phillips
Backgrounder #1748

There is mounting evidence that the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, originally conceived as a means of providing humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people, was subverted by Saddam Hussein’s regime and manipulated to help prop up the Iraqi dictator. Saddam’s dictatorship was able to siphon off an estimated $10 billion from the Oil-for-Food program through oil smuggling and systematic thievery, by demanding illegal payments from companies buying Iraqi oil, and through kickbacks from those selling goods to Iraq–all under the noses of U.N. bureaucrats. The members of the U.N. staff administering the program have been accused of gross incompetence, mismanagement, and possible complicity with the Iraqi regime in perpetrating the biggest scandal in U.N. history.

Oil-for-Food was the United Nations’ biggest program anywhere in the world. As Claudia Rosett pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, the U.N. oversaw "a flow of funds averaging at least $15 billion a year, more than five times the U.N.'s core annual budget."3 Oil-for-Food was administered by 10 U.N. agencies employing over 1,000 staff internationally and in New York, as well as 3,000 Iraqi nationals. The U.N. collected a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel of oil sold, generating more than $1 billion in revenue.

$10 Billion plus? And you think Saddam couldn’t afford WMD?

Fire up the spaceship! Oh, and be sure to pack the anti-depressants.

[quote]derek wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

So you guys invaded over some left over ammo. You promised “imminent threat” and a “45 hour mush room cloud”.

And you gave us stale ammo? I’m not impressed.

Did you skip over this?

Case Closed
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government’s secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda–perhaps even for Mohamed Atta–according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum

According to the memo–which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points–Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent “emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials.” At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, “Iraq sought Sudan’s assistance to establish links to al Qaeda.” The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, “bin Laden wanted to expand his organization’s capabilities through ties with Iraq.”

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that “al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors.”

One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein’s henchmen. As the memo details:

  1. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting–the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan.

Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

PLease answer… did you skip this or ignore it because it flies in the face of what you want to believe?[/quote]

Why, exactly, is this conclusive proof of anything? So someone in the WH or Pentagon crafts a “top-secret memo” and then “leaks” it to a lap-dog reporter, it somehow becomes inviolate? It’s PROOF! It’s a FACT! We HAVE to believe this!

Please answer… are you HH’s bitch? Or does your ass belong to JeffRo?

[quote]tme wrote:

Why, exactly, is this conclusive proof of anything? So someone in the WH or Pentagon crafts a “top-secret memo” and then “leaks” it to a lap-dog reporter, it somehow becomes inviolate? It’s PROOF! It’s a FACT! We HAVE to believe this!

Please answer… are you HH’s bitch? Or does your ass belong to JeffRo?

[/quote]

Hey, gorgeous, I’m just providing some alternative material. I’m sure it’s ALL made up.

Are you always so irritable?

And what’s with the gay references?

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Naah, I probably would have deserted.

Your soul deserted you long before you would ever desert from any military.

You wouldn’t fight to protect your family, your friends, or your country. How absolutely pathetic…

You’re wrong again. I wouldn’t fight a war that could have been avoided. I wouldn’t be fooled by a warmonger that lied to me to get his war going.

It’s not like I have asthma or something to hide behind. So I have to use my brain you know.

[/quote]

You think the war against Islamic extremism can be avoided?

Iraq is the battleground we chose to fight. It was never about WMD’s.

It is about introducing Westernism into a country that can produce enough wealth through oil so we can show these people there is a better way to live.

Our enemy understands this perfectly. That is why they have fought so incredibly hard to stop us.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Naah, I probably would have deserted.

Your soul deserted you long before you would ever desert from any military.

You wouldn’t fight to protect your family, your friends, or your country. How absolutely pathetic…

You’re wrong again. I wouldn’t fight a war that could have been avoided. I wouldn’t be fooled by a warmonger that lied to me to get his war going.

It’s not like I have asthma or something to hide behind. So I have to use my brain you know.

[/quote]

What brain?

[quote]derek wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

So you guys invaded over some left over ammo. You promised “imminent threat” and a “45 hour mush room cloud”.

And you gave us stale ammo? I’m not impressed.

Did you skip over this?

Case Closed
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government’s secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11

PLease answer… did you skip this or ignore it because it flies in the face of what you want to believe?[/quote]

I didn’t skip it. I googled “Stephen F. Hayes” and found his on wikipedia: Stephen F. Hayes - Wikipedia

The arguments raised by Hayes about the Saddam/al-Qaeda relationship have been debated; they have been rejected by most counterterrorism experts and intelligence analysts, as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. What Hayes called “perhaps the government’s strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11”[6], for example, has been described by some other analysts as a mere confusion over names that sounded alike.[7]

Former head of the Middle East section of the DIA W. Patrick Lang told the Washington Post that the Weekly Standard article which published Feith’s memo “is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?” And, according to the Post, “another former senior intelligence official said the memo is not an intelligence product but rather ‘data points … among the millions of holdings of the intelligence agencies, many of which are simply not thought likely to be true.’”[8]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Naah, I probably would have deserted.

Your soul deserted you long before you would ever desert from any military.

You wouldn’t fight to protect your family, your friends, or your country. How absolutely pathetic…

You’re wrong again. I wouldn’t fight a war that could have been avoided. I wouldn’t be fooled by a warmonger that lied to me to get his war going.

It’s not like I have asthma or something to hide behind. So I have to use my brain you know.

You think the war against Islamic extremism can be avoided? [/quote]

Stop right there. We’re fighting Islamic extremism by invading a secular state?

[quote]
Iraq is the battleground we chose to fight. It was never about WMD’s.[/quote]

NOW YOU TELL US ! ! !
Ok, so you admit the US picked the fight. And they lied about WMD’s.

[quote]
It is about introducing Westernism into a country that can produce enough wealth through oil so we can show these people there is a better way to live.[/quote]

Gee, and how is that working out?

Yeah, who would have thought.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Naah, I probably would have deserted.

Your soul deserted you long before you would ever desert from any military.

You wouldn’t fight to protect your family, your friends, or your country. How absolutely pathetic…

You’re wrong again. I wouldn’t fight a war that could have been avoided. I wouldn’t be fooled by a warmonger that lied to me to get his war going.

It’s not like I have asthma or something to hide behind. So I have to use my brain you know.

What brain?[/quote]

Trust me, you wouldn’t know how to use it.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

It is about introducing Westernism into a country that can produce enough wealth through oil so we can show these people there is a better way to live.
[/quote]

I don’t know that anyone has claimed that it’s about introducing “Westernism” per se. If that were the goal then at very least we wouldn’t give them the slightest semblance of self determination. Our goal hasn’t even been real secularism. The basic idea seemed to be that if they had a democracy they would somehow have similar interests to us.

On a side note, I think this century will see the democratic peace theory disproved as democracy spreads further to more and more dissimilar actors. Realism pwns IR liberal theory!!!

[quote]etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

It is about introducing Westernism into a country that can produce enough wealth through oil so we can show these people there is a better way to live.

I don’t know that anyone has claimed that it’s about introducing “Westernism” per se. If that were the goal then at very least we wouldn’t give them the slightest semblance of self determination. Our goal hasn’t even been real secularism. The basic idea seemed to be that if they had a democracy they would somehow have similar interests to us.

On a side note, I think this century will see the democratic peace theory disproved as democracy spreads further to more and more dissimilar actors. Realism pwns IR liberal theory!!!
[/quote]

I could be wrong but I think a lot of it have to do with the fact the unemployment rate is so high. Let’s face it, it is easier to recruit someone who has no life than one who has a job to go to. It seemed to be that way in Northern Ireland. As soon as their economy picked up, people went to work instead of sitting in a pub with nothing to do but be pissed and want to blow something up. I know that sounds simplistic, but I do think it has something to do with the problem. They don’t have jobs so when someone comes to them and says "here’s a gun and I will give you a little money and now we will go shoot some people. I’m sure there are insurgents that would rather be working than shooting. Although alot of them are quite radical and wouldn’t care what they are paid.

And screw the WMD theory. We went there to intimidate middle eastern countries to police their own terrorist and to show them how easy it is to topple a government. They had to take it a step further than Afghanistan. That wasn’t a nation. We just fucked up by Rumsfeld being a dick and not listening about sending more troops. He should be hung for that statement “you go to war with the army you have”. It wasn’t like they were storming the Jersey coast. And parents buying body armour for their kids is a fuckin crime. If it had worked, Iran and the likes wouldn’t be thumbing thier noses at us. They would be scared shitless.

[quote]derek wrote:
tme wrote:

Why, exactly, is this conclusive proof of anything? So someone in the WH or Pentagon crafts a “top-secret memo” and then “leaks” it to a lap-dog reporter, it somehow becomes inviolate? It’s PROOF! It’s a FACT! We HAVE to believe this!

Please answer… are you HH’s bitch? Or does your ass belong to JeffRo?

Hey, gorgeous, I’m just providing some alternative material. I’m sure it’s ALL made up.

Are you always so irritable?

And what’s with the gay references? [/quote]

Derek,
Good job stating facts. Wreckless and tme will ignore them but good posts!

[quote]derek wrote:
Did you skip over this?

Case Closed
From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government’s secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
by Stephen F. Hayes
11/24/2003, Volume 009, Issue 11 [/quote]

From the Wikipedia page on Stephen F. Hayes:

…The arguments raised by Hayes about the Saddam/al-Qaeda relationship have been debated; they have been rejected by most counterterrorism experts and intelligence analysts, as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. What Hayes called “perhaps the government’s strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11”, for example, has been described by some other analysts as a mere confusion over names that sounded alike.

I guess most of us skipped over the argument because it doesn’t fit known facts.

And we’re in rather good company, since counterterrorism experts, intelligence analysts, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did the same.

The question is: Why do you insist on believing false conclusions?

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I didn’t skip it. I googled “Stephen F. Hayes” and found his on wikipedia: Stephen F. Hayes - Wikipedia

The arguments raised by Hayes about the Saddam/al-Qaeda relationship have been debated; they have been rejected by most counterterrorism experts and intelligence analysts, as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. What Hayes called “perhaps the government’s strongest indication that Saddam and al Qaeda may have worked together on September 11”[6], for example, has been described by some other analysts as a mere confusion over names that sounded alike.[7]

Former head of the Middle East section of the DIA W. Patrick Lang told the Washington Post that the Weekly Standard article which published Feith’s memo “is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?” And, according to the Post, “another former senior intelligence official said the memo is not an intelligence product but rather ‘data points … among the millions of holdings of the intelligence agencies, many of which are simply not thought likely to be true.’”[8]

[/quote]

Oops.

Note to self: Next time, finish reading the thread before replying.

[quote]pookie wrote:
The question is: Why do you insist on believing false conclusions?[/quote]

pookie: please note that HH and HH Jr have decreed this version of history to be accurate. To discount this “story” is to ignore the facts.

[quote]tme wrote:
pookie: please note that HH and HH Jr have decreed this version of history to be accurate. To discount this “story” is to ignore the facts.
[/quote]

Why is it that I have to be HH Jr. just because we both happen do disagree with you? I’d say we just have some beliefs in common.

First you say I’m his “bitch” (which shows some original thought!). Now I’m HH JHr.?

Do you have any idea of the total scumbags that YOU share philosophies with?

Not that I’m saying YOU are a scumbag or anything of the sort.

All this proves is that we can both cut and paste opposing articles and that we still haven’t come to any concrete conclusions except for the fact that you are homophobic; “Please answer… are you HH’s bitch? Or does your ass belong to JeffRo?” Remember that comment? And orion is a bigot or at least he’s ok using terms like “sand-ni**er” and “raghead”.

You guys are reeeeeaaaaaal classy.

With reference to the original topic: I am saddened by our Congress’ betrayal of the fine men and women left hung out to dry in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bad enough that a fine young Marine is protecting himself and his men, faces arrest for so doing, then has to watch cowardly civilians betray him. And what a sad state our country is in — eradicates a very evil Satanic dictator and is villified around the world and at home, with even scumbag Kerry calling us a pariah.

America has lost its soul. It traded it away for the tenets of liberalism.

Now the harvest will be sown. With the good guys packing their bags and retreating ‘toward the center’, the world will enter a new Dark Ages. The periphery will descend into chaos and disorder, then finally the First World will collapse.

Perhaps this was the goal of Liberalism afterall. The Anti-Christ may be an ideology (Liberalism), not a person.

The Death of the World…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
With reference to the original topic: I am saddened by our Congress’ betrayal of the fine men and women left hung out to dry in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bad enough that a fine young Marine is protecting himself and his men, faces arrest for so doing, then has to watch cowardly civilians betray him. And what a sad state our country is in — eradicates a very evil Satanic dictator and is villified around the world and at home, with even scumbag Kerry calling us a pariah.

America has lost its soul. It traded it away for the tenets of liberalism.

Now the harvest will be sown. With the good guys packing their bags and retreating ‘toward the center’, the world will enter a new Dark Ages. The periphery will descend into chaos and disorder, then finally the First World will collapse.

Perhaps this was the goal of Liberalism afterall. The Anti-Christ may be an ideology (Liberalism), not a person.

The Death of the World…[/quote]

Are you refering to the guy who was arrested last year for rape, and they killed 4 guys sitting in a car, or is this something new?