Iraq begins to unravel 1 day after US troops leave

ILikeBananas

An Iraqi judicial committee has issued an arrest warrant for the country's Sunni Arab Vice-President, Tariq al-Hashemi, security officials have said.

The warrant was issued under anti-terrorism laws, the officials added.

The decision came after Mr Hashemi's bodyguards accused him of links with terrorism, an interior ministry spokesman told the Reuters news agency.

......


The move comes the day after the final US troops withdrew from the country and two days after the al-Iraqiya parliamentary bloc, which represents most of Iraq's Sunni Arab community, withdrew from parliament.

They have accused the Shia Arab Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, of monopolising power.

The President of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani, earlier called for urgent talks to prevent the "collapse" of the national unity government, warning that "the situation is headed towards deep crisis".

How do people see this one playing out? Is there a civil war imminent?

I presume there's zero chance of the Americans ever returning.

It's a bit like the parents have run away from home and are crossing their fingers that their three young teenagers, who happen to have a history of violence, will be able to look after themselves and not murder each other.

RichieC

Its hardly been a bed of roses prior to their so called departure.

wes

Its incredibly sad to see this happen in Iraq. Hopefully things won't descend into civil war again. Thats the last thing Iraq needs right now.

paulaa

Does anyone really believe that the US have left Iraq ? The US's biggest embassy in the world, still has 15,000 people working in it . Iraq has no airforce so the US is "helping out" by patrolling the oil fields etc. indefinitely. The place is still full of American contractors and companies squeezing as much as they can out of the country.

The PR stunt this week is just that.

AlekSmart

paulaa wrote: »

Does anyone really believe that the US have left Iraq ? The US's biggest embassy in the world, still has 15,000 people working in it . Iraq has no airforce so the US is "helping out" by patrolling the oil fields etc. indefinitely. The place is still full of American contractors and companies squeezing as much as they can out of the country.

The PR stunt this week is just that.

Ah come on now Paulaa,the USAF is just standing-by in case a "No Fly Zone" suddenly becomes a necessity and the U.N. need to rustle up an oul resolution...although,mind you....how does one organize a "Regime Change" in a place like modern day Iraq ?

Jonny7

paulaa wrote: »

Does anyone really believe that the US have left Iraq ? The US's biggest embassy in the world, still has 15,000 people working in it . Iraq has no airforce so the US is "helping out" by patrolling the oil fields etc. indefinitely. The place is still full of American contractors and companies squeezing as much as they can out of the country.

The PR stunt this week is just that.

The US has just lost over 4,000 men and hundreds of billions on Iraq, they're not trying to "milk" it.. there's nothing to milk. They created a quagmire on a false premise and lies, now they are trying to do the most dignified "retreat" possible. Literally pulling every single person out of the country would be highly irresponsible not to mention downright dangerous (if its possible the situation could get any more dangerous)

Here's some more news for the Sherlocks out there. The US does not want to be in Afghanistan either.

The Outside Agency

The US has just lost over 4,000 men and hundreds of billions on Iraq, they're not trying to "milk" it.. there's nothing to milk. They created a quagmire on a false premise and lies, now they are trying to do the most dignified "retreat" possible. Literally pulling every single person out of the country would be highly irresponsible not to mention downright dangerous (if its possible the situation could get any more dangerous)

Utter rubbish -- it's been concluded many times by some of the most powerful and influential people in the world that one of the main reasons for invading Iraq was Oil.

Iraq is also important strategically for power and influence in the region.

Let's not forget the Middle East contains 3/4 of the worlds oil and many directives passed by the US government were intended to protect "interests" in that region.

It's no mystery to most intelligent people and it's why US built a military compound/embassy bigger than Vatican city in Iraq.

Here's some more news for the Sherlocks out there. The US does not want to be in Afghanistan either.

More crap...do you really believe that?

They will be there for many decades to come and whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

paulaa

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US has just lost over 4,000 men and hundreds of billions on Iraq, they're not trying to "milk" it.. there's nothing to milk. They created a quagmire on a false premise and lies, now they are trying to do the most dignified "retreat" possible. Literally pulling every single person out of the country would be highly irresponsible not to mention downright dangerous (if its possible the situation could get any more dangerous)

Here's some more news for the Sherlocks out there. The US does not want to be in Afghanistan either.

Sorry but I believe that as much as I did the original WMD lies !!!

They have secured an oil supply both for Israel and the West. They are on Iran's doorstep, the 2 most important factors to the US.

As to Afghanistan, what was their motivation to throw themselves into that morass again. Remind me

doogydna

paulaa wrote: »

As to Afghanistan, what was their motivation to throw themselves into that morass again. Remind me

Because the Taleban had almost eradicated heroin production?!

RichieC

People seem to think that repeating "it wasnt a war for oil" will make it true.

these are the facts, americans would neven of heard of Iraq if it wasnt for the oil under it. Iran either.

it's also true that an unstable middle east is good for the weapons and security industries while also providing a decent fog of war for israel to stash its crimes behind.

ILikeBananas

Jonny7 wrote: »

Here's some more news for the Sherlocks out there. The US does not want to be in Afghanistan either.

The Outside Agency wrote: »

More crap...do you really believe that?

They will be there for many decades to come and whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

No they won't. The war in Afghanistan has accomplished nothing apart from to give that country some temporary relief from the Taliban. It's deeply unpopular in the States and the troops themselves are utterly disillusioned with it as nobody really sees the point in it anymore. Afghanistan doesn't even have any natural resources that the American's can secure for themselves.

The Outside Agency

ILikeBananas wrote:

No they won't. The war in Afghanistan has accomplished nothing apart from to give that country some temporary relief from the Taliban. It's deeply unpopular in the States and the troops themselves are utterly disillusioned with it as nobody really sees the point in it anymore. Afghanistan doesn't even have any natural resources that the American's can secure for themselves.

Who says they won't be there for the forseeable future?

Afghanistan is an important transit state for oil/gas pipelines and that's why NATO (led by US) are there.

It is not just the US forces occupying Afghanistan.. so are many EU countries like Germany, Poland, France and UK...they are all there to secure sources of energy which don't come from Russia.

NATO states want to diversify sources of energy instead of depending entirely on Russia.

Energy is a potential weapon for Russia against the EU.

RichieC

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Jonny7 wrote: »

Here's some more news for the Sherlocks out there. The US does not want to be in Afghanistan either.

The Outside Agency wrote: »

More crap...do you really believe that?

They will be there for many decades to come and whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

No they won't. The war in Afghanistan has accomplished nothing apart from to give that country some temporary relief from the Taliban. It's deeply unpopular in the States and the troops themselves are utterly disillusioned with it as nobody really sees the point in it anymore. Afghanistan doesn't even have any natural resources that the American's can secure for themselves.

natural gas pipelines to keep secure.

heroine to fund the CIA secret budget.

Manach

My understanding is that the majority of US oil comes from non-Gulf sources, so oil alone would not have been the prime reason for the initial invasion. Saying that, giving the poor PR the US is now having with Pakistan (drone attacks etc), they might need to diversify their assets in the region and hence get "re-invited" into Iraq.

paulaa

doogydna wrote: »

Because the Taleban had almost eradicated heroin production?!

Well done on your 7th post

I'm sure the troops will miss the nice little earner they had when they leave Afghanistan:rolleyes:

Jippohead

I was always a little dubious about the war for oil thing. Purely based how much oil I wonder America will actually gain from Iraq's oil reserves. I just had a quick google there (and forgive me if these sites are biased, but I need to get back to work).

So, according to this site

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2003/0512globalenvironment_luft.aspx

The Iraq oil reserve estimates may range from 14 bbl (billions of barrels) to 112 bbl to 300 bbl (the latter from Saddam's deputy oil minister, so probably untrustworthy).

I checked how much oil the US consumes per year (in bbl), and found a few sites with estimates

http://205.254.135.7/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6

and

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

which states the US consumes approximately 7 bbl's per year.

Taking the middle-ground estimate of Iraq's oil reserves at 112 bbl, assuming
the US's oil consumption remains constant and assuming that all oil produced
goes to the US (and is produced at a rate of 7 bbl's per year). This means the US
will get a regular oil flow for the next ~16 years. Of course, in a worst case scenario
(i.e. 14 bbl, estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)), the US only gains
oil for about 2 years (hardly seems worth the amount of cash they spent to take
over the place, which I think was about $1 trillion?).

Anyway, that's a really rough and dirty look at it. If the oil reserves are on the high
side, then it's certainly worth it by American standards. Risky with the wide ranges
of oil reserve estimates however.

People mentioned having a US-presence in Iraq allowing a nearby presence to Iran
(which I thought could very well be a primary goal). However, surely the US already has a military presence near Iran when considering Turkey, Kuwait and even Afghanistan?

Cheers,
Jippo

Jaafa

^^^ In regards to the Afgan thing, I believe the US thinks you can never have enough military bases. Sure they already have over 190 across the globe and counting.

Chuck Stone

Manach wrote: »

My understanding is that the majority of US oil comes from non-Gulf sources, so oil alone would not have been the prime reason for the initial invasion.

Even if the US was completely energy self sufficient the control of natural resources would still be a preoccupation of US strategists.

Jonny7

The Outside Agency wrote: »

Utter rubbish -- it's been concluded many times by some of the most powerful and influential people in the world that one of the main reasons for invading Iraq was Oil.

I didn't support the Iraq war in any way, I was very much against it.

However oil was not the singular reason to be in Iraq nor was it the main reason (many other not so palettable reasons)

The place quickly turned into a deathtrap and a quagmire, most people know nothing of the real horrors that went on in Iraq, it simply became under-reported.

The US wanted out.

Same with Afghanistan.

However a full quick retreat was/is an absolute no-no. "Phased withdrawal", whatever you want to call it. Iraq and Afghanistan have been abject failures, in every sense, and this is since half a decade now (since the "surges" etc, and the clever shift of focus from Iraq to Afghan in about '08)

Mr.Micro

Jonny7 wrote: »

However oil was not the singular reason to be in Iraq nor was it the main reason (many other not so palettable reasons)

The place quickly turned into a deathtrap and a quagmire, most people know nothing of the real horrors that went on in Iraq, it simply became under-reported.

The US wanted out.

Same with Afghanistan.

However a full quick retreat was/is an absolute no-no. "Phased withdrawal", whatever you want to call it. Iraq and Afghanistan have been abject failures, in every sense, and this is since half a decade now (since the "surges" etc, and the clever shift of focus from Iraq to Afghan in about '08)

Will the US learn from these failures, like Vietnam before? I think not. I will be very surprised if it does not attack Iran in the near future. After Iran then it will be China, who will become the new threat. Nothing better than having an enemy so that it can justify its obscene obsession with WMD manufacture and use.

Keeping the oil flowing is vital for the Yanks as this in turn keeps the price in check, so the oil is one reason for attacking Iraq.

Sierra Oscar

This issue has been flagged for months now - there is nothing surprising about this emerging now. It was known, even before military operations ended, that this arrest warrant would be issued.

BlaasForRafa

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Will the US learn from these failures, like Vietnam before? I think not. I will be very surprised if it does not attack Iran in the near future. After Iran then it will be China, who will become the new threat. Nothing better than having an enemy so that it can justify its obscene obsession with WMD manufacture and use.

Keeping the oil flowing is vital for the Yanks as this in turn keeps the price in check, so the oil is one reason for attacking Iraq.

As per usual you're wrong, China will be the aggressive country in the future and they won't have let any of that human rights stuff bother them. As it is, China is voracious for natural resouces and thats not going to reduce, already it is pushing neighbouring coutries like the Phillipines and Vietnam around for control of the south china sea. China/Vietnam is a good contender for future war action.

Mr.Micro

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

As per usual you're wrong, China will be the aggressive country in the future and they won't have let any of that human rights stuff bother them. As it is, China is voracious for natural resouces and thats not going to reduce, already it is pushing neighbouring coutries like the Phillipines and Vietnam around for control of the south china sea. China/Vietnam is a good contender for future war action.

Am I wrong? You are an expert are you. As per usual....what is that supposed to mean Mr know it all? I believe China will be the next enemy after Iran, is that what you disagree with.

RichieC

Mr.Micro wrote: »

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

As per usual you're wrong, China will be the aggressive country in the future and they won't have let any of that human rights stuff bother them. As it is, China is voracious for natural resouces and thats not going to reduce, already it is pushing neighbouring coutries like the Phillipines and Vietnam around for control of the south china sea. China/Vietnam is a good contender for future war action.

Am I wrong? You are an expert are you. As per usual....what is that supposed to mean Mr know it all? I believe China will be the next enemy after Iraq, is that what you disagree with.

Blass deals in the washington consensus truthiness which means hes naturally always right. you'll find the same arrogant attitude from all tbe usphiles.

ILikeBananas

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

This issue has been flagged for months now - there is nothing surprising about this emerging now. It was known, even before military operations ended, that this arrest warrant would be issued.

Even if that was the case it still doesn't change the fact that it looks like the Shias are trying to consolidate power and have simply waited for the Americans to leave before getting the ball rolling.

Mr.Micro

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Even if that was the case it still doesn't change the fact that it looks like the Shias are trying to consolidate power and have simply waited for the Americans to leave before getting the ball rolling.

Its going to be a rocky road anyway IMO, as there is much division in the country.

Jonny7

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Will the US learn from these failures, like Vietnam before? I think not. I will be very surprised if it does not attack Iran in the near future. After Iran then it will be China, who will become the new threat. Nothing better than having an enemy so that it can justify its obscene obsession with WMD manufacture and use.

Keeping the oil flowing is vital for the Yanks as this in turn keeps the price in check, so the oil is one reason for attacking Iraq.

Its not "the US".. its different administrations.

No, they don't currently "want" war with Iran, that's been repeated since 2004 at least, its just sabre rattling. Note - I am not ruling out Israel triggering a regional war via unilateral action.

Well the yanks did a very bad job to "keep the oil flowing" with Iraq as the infrastructure actually degraded resulting in lower output, they didn't win any contracts, aggregate market price increased.

Captain Chaos

paulaa wrote: »

Iraq has no airforce so the US is "helping out" by patrolling the oil fields etc. indefinitely.

The US agreed to sell 18 fighters to Iraq during the summer and Iraq have placed an order for another 18 just last week and they are not second hand either they are being built brand new to the latest F-16 spec. They will train a few Iraqi pilots in the US who will then train their new airforce when they return home.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4482.html

That above deal has since been approved, one point to note is that the US will not sell the AMRAAM missile to Iraq. They have sold the AMRAAM to Saudi and Israel so in air to air combat the Iraqi jets are at a disadvantage.

Bobo78

paulaa wrote: »

Well done on your 7th post

I'm sure the troops will miss the nice little earner they had when they leave Afghanistan:rolleyes:

Apsolutely agree on everything you said.

RichieC

Jonny7 wrote: »

Its not "the US".. its different administrations.

practically tbe same members in both houses. they control the purse strings.

Poccington

Jonny7 wrote: »

However a full quick retreat was/is an absolute no-no. "Phased withdrawal", whatever you want to call it. Iraq and Afghanistan have been abject failures, in every sense, and this is since half a decade now (since the "surges" etc, and the clever shift of focus from Iraq to Afghan in about '08)

The Yanks biggest mistake was taking resources away from A'Stan when they went into Iraq and once they decided to stay in A'Stan, they invited "Big Army" into the fold rather than leaving SOF to carry on with the COIN fight and training the Afghans.

As for the Iran, the Yanks don't want to be dragged into a war with them, IMO. However, I fully believe Israel will start the next big conflict in the Middle East, which could result in the Yanks having to commit if they continue their policy of supporting the Israeli's, no matter what.

RichieC

If there is war with Iran i expect it will start via a gulf of tonkin type rouse.

Jonny7

Poccington wrote: »

The Yanks biggest mistake was taking resources away from A'Stan when they went into Iraq and once they decided to stay in A'Stan, they invited "Big Army" into the fold rather than leaving SOF to carry on with the COIN fight and training the Afghans.

I fully agree.. Afghanistan was largely abandoned whilst Bush went on his jaunt into Iraq.. the arrogance and lack of foresight from that administration was and still is breathtaking. Why create one Vietnam when you can create two.

Geekness1234

Jaafa wrote: »

^^^ In regards to the Afgan thing, I believe the US thinks you can never have enough military bases. Sure they already have over 190 across the globe and counting.

You ever heard of BRAC?

Border-Rat

Iraq is a massive strategical failure. At the cost of mere trillions, and 7,000+ US dead, the USA has handed Iraq to Tehran on a platter. It is no surprise to me that they downplay this retreat. Baghdad was once 75% Sunni. Now, its 75% Shi'ite. In the 80's the Iranians would've sacrificed a million men to take Baghdad, in 2003 they even offered to assist in the invasion. But the Americans were having none of it, because the Americans couldn't have their next target (Another failure, their abandoned move for Iran depended on Iraq victory) appearing as an Ally.

An alleged attempt to assert Western dominance in the Middle East has proven to produce the exact opposite. Iraq had once been a buffer state with its westernised nightclubs and pro-West regime. Now, thanks to Anglo-America/zion, the buffer State has been removed and handed to Iran, Christians have fled Iraq and are fleeing Syria. Fundamental Islam is one state away from Europe now, with only Turkey in between. But even that isn't enough, by the month they further alienate Turkey. Good job.

Better yet, the 'right-wingers' (Centre-right unbewitting supporters of kleptocratic criminality) had to go and do the same in Libya. Once, a buffer State the Italians were only too happy to have in place. Now, ran by nutcases with the floodgates opened. Good job.

England and America with their zionist cohorts have been nothing but a cancer to Europe.

Geekness1234

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

As per usual you're wrong, China will be the aggressive country in the future and they won't have let any of that human rights stuff bother them. As it is, China is voracious for natural resouces and thats not going to reduce, already it is pushing neighbouring coutries like the Phillipines and Vietnam around for control of the south china sea. China/Vietnam is a good contender for future war action.

To add to this the Vietnamease air force were showing off their new SU-27's in Combat Aircraft magazine.There was great emphasis put on their proximity to the border with China.I wonder why?

RichieC

Border-Rat wrote: »

Iraq is a massive strategical failure. At the cost of mere trillions, and 7,000+ US dead, the USA has handed Iraq to Tehran on a platter. It is no surprise to me that they downplay this retreat. Baghdad was once 75% Sunni. Now, its 75% Shi'ite. In the 80's the Iranians would've sacrificed a million men to take Baghdad, in 2003 they even offered to assist in the invasion. But the Americans were having none of it, because the Americans couldn't have their next target (Another failure, their abandoned move for Iran depended on Iraq victory) appearing as an Ally.

An alleged attempt to assert Western dominance in the Middle East has proven to produce the exact opposite. Iraq had once been a buffer state with its westernised nightclubs and pro-West regime. Now, thanks to Anglo-America/zion, the buffer State has been removed and handed to Iran, Christians have fled Iraq and are fleeing Syria. Fundamental Islam is one state away from Europe now, with only Turkey in between. But even that isn't enough, by the month they further alienate Turkey. Good job.

Better yet, the 'right-wingers' (Centre-right unbewitting supporters of kleptocratic criminality) had to go and do the same in Libya. Once, a buffer State the Italians were only too happy to have in place. Now, ran by nutcases with the floodgates opened. Good job.

England and America with their zionist cohorts have been nothing but a cancer to Europe.

It indeed appears to be a failure from a "lets make the middle east/world more stable" point of view. Is there even a shread of evidence that this is their objective?

Jonny7

Border-Rat wrote: »

Iraq is a massive strategical failure. At the cost of mere trillions, and 7,000+ US dead, the USA has handed Iraq to Tehran on a platter. It is no surprise to me that they downplay this retreat. Baghdad was once 75% Sunni. Now, its 75% Shi'ite. In the 80's the Iranians would've sacrificed a million men to take Baghdad, in 2003 they even offered to assist in the invasion. But the Americans were having none of it, because the Americans couldn't have their next target (Another failure, their abandoned move for Iran depended on Iraq victory) appearing as an Ally.

An alleged attempt to assert Western dominance in the Middle East has proven to produce the exact opposite. Iraq had once been a buffer state with its westernised nightclubs and pro-West regime. Now, thanks to Anglo-America/zion, the buffer State has been removed and handed to Iran, Christians have fled Iraq and are fleeing Syria. Fundamental Islam is one state away from Europe now, with only Turkey in between. But even that isn't enough, by the month they further alienate Turkey. Good job.

Better yet, the 'right-wingers' (Centre-right unbewitting supporters of kleptocratic criminality) had to go and do the same in Libya. Once, a buffer State the Italians were only too happy to have in place. Now, ran by nutcases with the floodgates opened. Good job.

England and America with their zionist cohorts have been nothing but a cancer to Europe.

7000+ dead of whom exactly?

Where did you go those figures on the demographics of Baghdad? they appear completely wrong.

When was Iraq a pro-West regime exactly? You mean over 25 years ago?

RichieC

4200 odd us kids dead. 33k injured and conservative est of 103k iraqis killed. lancet claims a million...

christ only knows the numbers injured, orphaned and displaced.

AMERICA...FK YEA!

ILikeBananas

Latest news

At least 63 killed in co-ordinated Baghdad attacks

A wave of apparently co-ordinated bomb attacks in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, has killed at least 63 people and injured around 185, say officials.

The interior ministry told the BBC 14 blasts hit various locations, including al-Amil in the south and Halawi and Karrada closer to the centre.

The bombings are the worst in months - and follow the withdrawal of US troops.

They come amid fears of rising sectarian tensions as the unity government faces internal divisions.

It was not immediately clear who was behind the attacks.

link

Jaafa

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Latest news





link

People are worried that a shia government has come to power in Iraq yet it's Sunnis that do all of the bombing against Shia targets.

snafuk35

Poccington wrote: »

The Yanks biggest mistake was taking resources away from A'Stan when they went into Iraq and once they decided to stay in A'Stan, they invited "Big Army" into the fold rather than leaving SOF to carry on with the COIN fight and training the Afghans.

As for the Iran, the Yanks don't want to be dragged into a war with them, IMO. However, I fully believe Israel will start the next big conflict in the Middle East, which could result in the Yanks having to commit if they continue their policy of supporting the Israeli's, no matter what.

Oh I see! Iraq was heaven under Saddam right? And blame Israel first chance you get? Let's just ignore the problems of huge volumes of the planet's oil resources in the hands of sadistic despots or else in the hands of bronze age nomads and carry on because if we just leave them alone they will like us and they will never launch any more terrorist attacks? Grow up!

Border-Rat

snafuk35 wrote: »

Oh I see! Iraq was heaven under Saddam right? And blame Israel first chance you get? Let's just ignore the problems of huge volumes of the planet's oil resources in the hands of sadistic despots or else in the hands of bronze age nomads and carry on because if we just leave them alone they will like us and they will never launch any more terrorist attacks? Grow up!

X-Men on the TV this morning chara? Iraq was willing to do business with oil, and no, they didn't launch terrorist attacks.

snafuk35

Border-Rat wrote: »

X-Men on the TV this morning chara? Iraq was willing to do business with oil, and no, they didn't launch terrorist attacks.

Hahahahaha! You've obviously never heard of the Abu Nidal organisation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal

Saddam Hussein was the only leader other from Mullah Muhammed Omar who praised the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Iraqi agents met with Muhammed Atta in the run up to the 9/11 attacks. He was hip deep in supporting international terrorism for decades.

Members of the Red Brigades, the Red Army Faction and the IRA were given refuge in the country during the height of the terrorist campaigns in the Western Europe. Saddam also gave generously to the Palestinians and supported their intifada against Israel which involved bombs on buses killing innocent Israelis.

A terrorist group named Ansar-al-Islam ran a training camp in north of Baghdad with the full knowledge of the Saddam regime and when it was captured by American special forces they found mock ups of civilian airliners in which terrorist trainees prepared for airliner hijackings.

It is certainly no accident that there were close ties between Sunnis, Baathists and Al-Qaeda terrorists during the beginning of the Iraqi insurgency in the 2003 when Saddam is believed to have played a key role. There is no doubt that the Saddam regime planned attacks with terrorists before the regime was overthrown.

The international left is in complete denial about the threat that Saddam faced and indeed the ongoing threat from Arab nationalism and extremist Islam.

Anyone who points out the threat of course is 'islamophobic'!!!

If you want to bury your head in the sand, be my guest.

BluePlanet

snafuk35 wrote: »

Saddam Hussein was the only leader other from Mullah Muhammed Omar who praised the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Iraqi agents met with Muhammed Atta in the run up to the 9/11 attacks. He was hip deep in supporting international terrorism for decades.

Members of the Red Brigades, the Red Army Faction and the IRA were given refuge in the country during the height of the terrorist campaigns in the Western Europe. Saddam also gave generously to the Palestinians and supported their intifada against Israel which involved bombs on buses killing innocent Israelis.

A terrorist group named Ansar-al-Islam ran a training camp in north of Baghdad with the full knowledge of the Saddam regime and when it was captured by American special forces they found mock ups of civilian airliners in which terrorist trainees prepared for airliner hijackings.

It is certainly no accident that there were close ties between Sunnis, Baathists and Al-Qaeda terrorists during the beginning of the Iraqi insurgency in the 2003 when Saddam is believed to have played a key role. There is no doubt that the Saddam regime planned attacks with terrorists before the regime was overthrown.

The international left is in complete denial about the threat that Saddam faced and indeed the ongoing threat from Arab nationalism and extremist Islam.

Anyone who points out the threat of course is 'islamophobic'!!!

If you want to bury your head in the sand, be my guest.

Reads like a paranoid list you got from some right wing conspiracy rag.

You claim that Saddam praised the 911 attack, can you provide a source for said claim?

The only information I have found is that some commentators made hay that SH didn't offer his condolences after the attack.
Which is not even close to praising the attack.

Also I would point out that both the 911 Commision and the CIA have said there were no links between SH and AQ.

Would also love to see your sources for the claim that the IRA was given refuge in Saddam's iraq.

snafuk35

BluePlanet wrote: »

Reads like a paranoid list you got from some right wing conspiracy rag.

You claim that Saddam praised the 911 attack, can you provide a source for said claim?

The only information I have found is that some commentators made hay that SH didn't offer his condolences after the attack.
Which is not even close to praising the attack.

You are joking right?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/12/mideast.reaction/index.html

Saddam Hussein's Iraq said the United States deserved Tuesday's attacks in New York and Washington as the fruits "of its crimes against humanity."

Under the headline "America burns," the official newspaper Al-Iraq said that "what happened in the United States yesterday is a lesson for all tyrants, oppressors and criminals."

Overnight an official Iraqi statement said: "The American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity."

Also I would point out that both the 911 Commision and the CIA have said there were no links between SH and AQ.

No proven links. That's a significant difference.

BluePlanet

snafuk35 wrote: »

You are joking right?
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/12/mideast.reaction/index.html

So he didn't praise them, just made a nasty comment about America getting what it deserves.
A nasty comment to be sure, it's not praise and in fairness it was probably a fairly popular opinion among the ME.

snafuk35 wrote: »

No proven links. That's a significant difference.

You know best huh?

Mr.Micro

BluePlanet wrote: »

So he didn't praise them, just made a nasty comment about America getting what it deserves.
A nasty comment to be sure, it's not praise and in fairness it was probably a fairly popular opinion among the ME.

You know best huh?

I agree, a big difference. It just goes to show that some people are easily fooled. Probably most of the Americans still believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

snafuk35

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I agree, a big difference. It just goes to show that some people are easily fooled. Probably most of the Americans still believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

As I have already told you Iraqi agents met with Muhammed Atta in Hamburg prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Also an Al-Qaeda affiliated group called Ansar-Al-Islam operated a terrorist training camp north of Baghdad and al-Zarqawi, a leading Al-Qaeda leader who later killed by an American drone attack was present in Iraq prior to the invasion.
The Iraqi Baath Party, Sunni insurgents and Al-Qaeda were working together during the Iraqi insurgency.

BluePlanet

snafuk35 wrote: »

As I have already told you Iraqi agents met with Muhammed Atta in Hamburg prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Also an Al-Qaeda affiliated group called Ansar-Al-Islam operated a terrorist training camp north of Baghdad and al-Zarqawi, a leading Al-Qaeda leader who later killed by an American drone attack was present in Iraq prior to the invasion.
The Iraqi Baath Party, Sunni insurgents and Al-Qaeda were working together during the Iraqi insurgency.

Your attempts to link SH to AQ are a non-runner.
It's in the realm of conspiracy theorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations#Implausibility_of_the_link

So, where are those WMD's again?
Oh wait, didn't they sneak them across the border into Syria :rolleyes:

snafuk35

BluePlanet wrote: »

Your attempts to link SH to AQ are a non-runner.
It's in the realm of conspiracy theorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations#Implausibility_of_the_link

So, where are those WMD's again?
Oh wait, didn't they sneak them across the border into Syria :rolleyes:

The Iraq Survey Group produced a report that shows that Saddam Hussein had the infrastructure in place once he had bribed the UN to remove sanctions (Kofi Annan's son after all was greatly enriched by the corrupt oil for food program) to allow him to recommence the production of WMD.
Might I remind you that Ken Bigley was held hostage by kidnappers who demanded the release of captured Iraqi WMD scientists before he was beheaded?
Saddam refused to admit UN inspectors for 12 years and after 18 UN resolutions.
The only way we now know for sure that Saddam did not possess WMD stockpiles is because his regime was removed.
Resolution 1441 clearly gave authorisation for military action if Saddam continued to defy the UN.
France (who had built Saddam a nuclear reactor that was thankfully destroyed in the 1980s by an Israeli air strike) and Russia (who supplied him with tanks, jets, rifles and trained his army in the past) vetoed the authorisation of military force, despite the evidence of Hans Blix that Saddam was clearly blocking inspections.
The presence of WMD or not is still minor.
The most important fact that Saddam gassed 100,000s of his own people, that he was brutal sadistic fascist dictator and that the Iraqi people lived under brutal tyranny is reason enough to remove him.
The Americans played a major role also into creating this monster and they were under a moral obligation to remove him.
If removing Saddam was wrong then, the overthrowing Gaddaffi or supporting the present struggle by the Syrians against Assad is also wrong.
If anyone other than Bush were making the arguments he was making, as the late great Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, the internationalist left would have give the Iraq War their enthusiastic support.
Today tens of millions of Iraqis have democratic vote, they have voted for a democratic parliament, democratically elected government and have a democratically ratified constitution.
If you want Saddam back then I suggest you go to Iraq and perform some form of voodoo ceremony.
History has moved on and left you behind.
Any decent person would support Iraqi democrats against the continued bronze age savagry of these dead end fundamentalist fanatics whether sunni or shia who want to turn Iraq into a caliphate.

But I am sure what I say is going to be lost on the Chomskyfied automatons that pour out of universities these days who are pacificist when it comes to eliminating dictators and terrorists but are strangely quiet when Arab peoples demand the West help them or when decapitated heads and stoned bodies of women are grotesquely exhibited on lurid youtube videos by depraved Islamic fanatics.