NationStates Jolt Archive

He should have been dead over a year ago. Before the war. Looooooong Before.

As the head of Ansar Al-Islam, he was a known terrorist. The CIA had intel linking him to production of WMD (Ricin and Cyanide) for use in terrorist attacks. The CIA knew where he was.

The War on Terror was in full swing, and here was a huge target. Just sitting there.

I mean, you might even remember that Colin Powell even pointed out the camp location during his infamous presentation to the UN where he waved the little anthrax bottle at the world.

To quote from his speech:

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.

You see a picture of this camp. The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal.

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today



Let's think about this for a moment. HE was sitting in his little camp in Northern Iraq. Under the US no-fly zone. Protected by the US. The US knew he was there. The US were using him as an excuse to invade Iraq. And the US was still running regular bombing runs into Iraq.


So why didn't they just blow him to hell and get it over with? smart bombs, cruise missiles, Navy Seals - whatever! Nail his ass! The Kurds wouldn't have minded - they hated having that camp there.


Indeed the Pentagon had him targeted three times in the lead-up to the Iraq war (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/).

So what happened?

GW vetoed all three strikes.

He didn't want to do it.

Why?

(T)he administration feared (that) destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

Because the elimination of Zarqawi and Ansar Al-Islam would have removed the only link between Iraq and Al Qaeda that George and the boys could point to as part of their justification to go to war. Without him - they had nothing. Problem is, even WITH him they still had nothing given that they were, in effect, protecting him and his buddies - not Saddam. Saddam had no control over that part of his country.

In other words, GW let Zarqawi live simply in order to help justify this war.


How costly was that? Almost huge. That Ricin lab found in Britain a while back was linked to followers of his group. If they had succeeded in their plans, how many innocent Britons would have paid for GW's self-serving decision with their lives?


So, with every new death attributed to Zarqawi, I hope that everybody points the finger of blame back towards the White House.


Bin Laden? Didn't get him. Used to cover his expenses.

Zarqawi? Had him lined up three times. Felt that Saddam (no threat to US citizens) was a better target than a known terrorist leader (big threat to US citizens). Felt that a costly invasion was preferable to actually prosecuting the War on Terror.


An interesting way to prioritize the War on Terror......

:roll:

-Z-

But remember, he's the Terrorism President! After all, who would you want running our country: Bush with his absolutely stellar record of taking responsibility and saving the world from all terrorists....or anyone else?

But remember, he's the Terrorism President! After all, who would you want running our country: Bush with his absolutely stellar record of taking responsibility and saving the world from all terrorists....or anyone else?

I think I'd trust my decision making to a magic 8-ball over GW. At least you will occasionally get the right answer that way.....

:?

That is, unless you use the Donald Rumsfeld Magic 8 Ball that Lizz Winstead uses on Air America Radio.

What? No Bush apologists want to tackle this one? Figures.. :roll:

The Bush apologists are all at the Four Seasons this day for the Halliburton stockholders meeting.

Question--Zarqawi supposedly had a leg amputated in Baghdad. That was part of the aid and support Hussein was giving al Qaida, right? But in the Daniel Berg video, Zarqawi--the man who claims to have beheaded Berg--has two legs. So which is it? Did Zarqawi actually do the beheading or did he not have the amputation done?

Question--Zarqawi supposedly had a leg amputated in Baghdad. That was part of the aid and support Hussein was giving al Qaida, right? But in the Daniel Berg video, Zarqawi--the man who claims to have beheaded Berg--has two legs. So which is it? Did Zarqawi actually do the beheading or did he not have the amputation done?Thats a fascinating question.

It's part of the "evidence" conspiracy theorists are using to try to argue that the Berg video is faked. Some of the evidence is quite convincing as far as the idea that Berg was already dead when he was beheaded is concerned. The conclusion many of these people are coming to--that it wasn't Zarqawi, that it was the CIA or Mossad--just doesn't stand up to scrutiny yet.

But the Zarqawi amputation is a good question because it was also part of the "evidence" chain that led us into Iraq. So was the evidence bad? Or was Zarqawi not on the tape? I don't know, and no one seems to be asking either.

Well, let's also remember that when the tape was first aired the CIA said that it definitely wasn't Zarqawi because the dialect spoken was wrong.

Then it was Zarqawi on the tape.

Frankly, I think they are trying to turn him into the next great boogeyman - like Osama was.

Of course, that begs the question as to what happened to Osama? Why would they need a new boogyman? Wasn't he enough?

Of course, Pakistani radio stations DID report that Bin Laden was captured a couple of months ago... a report that was denied. But they sure seem to be setting this guy up as his successor.....

Anyone here care to lay a wager on if you think that Osama will be captured in ... ohhhh....say.... October?

-Z-

Well Zepp, October is a good bet. But why not make that bet fun? :lol:


http://www.ericblumrich.com/lotto.html You can make your own bets after going here!

Anyone here care to lay a wager on if you think that Osama will be captured in ... ohhhh....say.... October?

-Z-

I think he is dead! The guy loved the camera too much! What better recruitment then film of him shacking his fist say "see the mighty americans can't even kill me!"

I am starting to think the shrub can't do anything to save himself. His numbers are falling to a postion that traditionally says there is no return.

What is funny is that many Fundi Christians want him gone as well. He isn't Christian enough! :shock:

Ahhh well.

Sad thing to consider. Kerry is basically Shrub lite. I would not expect too many changes on current events.

Bumped for Berkylvania.... ;)

Thought you might enjoy this...

Thanks, Steph, and thanks Zepp for posting this. Excellent work and fascinating in a sickly disturbing way.

It is amazing, isn't it, how the Bush apologists dry up when confronted with facts and sound reasoning.

Cruise missles? That was tried to eliminate Bin Laden, remember. Thanks, Bill. It failed, tragically, it utterly failed. Weapons of mass destruction labs in Iraq? I thought no such existed. Right? So, what's your point? You would have accepted military action by the US as long as it was ineffective and at a distance? The amount of double-speak from those of you that want to blame everything on the US and Bush is at once ridiculous, amusing and sad.

He should have been dead over a year ago. Before the war. Looooooong Before.

As the head of Ansar Al-Islam, he was a known terrorist. The CIA had intel linking him to production of WMD (Ricin and Cyanide) for use in terrorist attacks. The CIA knew where he was.

The War on Terror was in full swing, and here was a huge target. Just sitting there.

I mean, you might even remember that Colin Powell even pointed out the camp location during his infamous presentation to the UN where he waved the little anthrax bottle at the world.

To quote from his speech:

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.

You see a picture of this camp. The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is fatal.

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered Al Qaida safe haven in the region. After we swept Al Qaida from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today



Let's think about this for a moment. HE was sitting in his little camp in Northern Iraq. Under the US no-fly zone. Protected by the US. The US knew he was there. The US were using him as an excuse to invade Iraq. And the US was still running regular bombing runs into Iraq.


So why didn't they just blow him to hell and get it over with? smart bombs, cruise missiles, Navy Seals - whatever! Nail his ass! The Kurds wouldn't have minded - they hated having that camp there.


Indeed the Pentagon had him targeted three times in the lead-up to the Iraq war (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/).

So what happened?

GW vetoed all three strikes.

He didn't want to do it.

Why?

(T)he administration feared (that) destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

Because the elimination of Zarqawi and Ansar Al-Islam would have removed the only link between Iraq and Al Qaeda that George and the boys could point to as part of their justification to go to war. Without him - they had nothing. Problem is, even WITH him they still had nothing given that they were, in effect, protecting him and his buddies - not Saddam. Saddam had no control over that part of his country.

In other words, GW let Zarqawi live simply in order to help justify this war.


How costly was that? Almost huge. That Ricin lab found in Britain a while back was linked to followers of his group. If they had succeeded in their plans, how many innocent Britons would have paid for GW's self-serving decision with their lives?


So, with every new death attributed to Zarqawi, I hope that everybody points the finger of blame back towards the White House.


Bin Laden? Didn't get him. Used to cover his expenses.

Zarqawi? Had him lined up three times. Felt that Saddam (no threat to US citizens) was a better target than a known terrorist leader (big threat to US citizens). Felt that a costly invasion was preferable to actually prosecuting the War on Terror.


An interesting way to prioritize the War on Terror......

:roll:

-Z-

Since you're salivating for a response :) ...
Isn't there a bit more shades of grey in how information was processed, strategy formed, and plans executed regarding U.S. policy in this area than what you are portraying? By painting once again the evil GW character, a stark, yet at the same time, distorted black & white picture develops causing us to lose sight of the complexities of what happens between and among nations.

How can there be a better understanding of how to improve our national responses unless we have the complete picture?
Of course the whole issue of human nature and struggle points to the futile of the effort to have a more objective opinion of the situation - as I've said before - we're essentially doomed :wink:
If you're going to expend any energy though, it should be toward looking for the pieces that may be missing, not what's floated up immediately through media.

try to kill a terrorist and maybe miss, or let him live another day, gathering the info off him needed to kill twenty more terrorists? in the end we all know what the smart move is

try to kill a terrorist and maybe miss, or let him live another day, gathering the info off him needed to kill twenty more terrorists? in the end we all know what the smart move is

Umm, let him go unaccounted for when you had him so he can keep killing? Cause that's what happened.

try to kill a terrorist and maybe miss, or let him live another day, gathering the info off him needed to kill twenty more terrorists? in the end we all know what the smart move is

Umm, let him go unaccounted for when you had him so he can keep killing? Cause that's what happened.

I know this might seem like a weak argument, but maybe that's what the CIA is trying to send out as a message

Cruise missles? That was tried to eliminate Bin Laden, remember. Thanks, Bill. It failed, tragically, it utterly failed. Weapons of mass destruction labs in Iraq? I thought no such existed. Right? So, what's your point? You would have accepted military action by the US as long as it was ineffective and at a distance? The amount of double-speak from those of you that want to blame everything on the US and Bush is at once ridiculous, amusing and sad.

Wow.... how much longer are some people going to let GW coast on Bill Clinton's mistakes? When does he get to take responsibility for his own failures? Bill didn't get the job done to get Osama. Fair enough.

But that excuses Bush not even trying to get this guy?

Interesting logic.

But as to the possible WMD issue, you have this very odd way of connecting dots. The Ansar Al-Islam camp was in the Kurdish held Norther territories. Do recall that the Kurds are doing so well because they had virtual autonomy for over a decade while under the umbrella of protection of the US no-fly zone. As did Ansar Al-Islam.

Equating anything coming out of this camp as being directly attributable to Saddam would be analogous to claiming that the US government was responsible for Oklahoma City because Tim McVaie built his bomb within the US borders.

Nice try though.

As to your "utter failure", you have an interesting definition thereof. The cruise missiles completely demolished the camp and killed dozens of terrorists training there. It was a failure because Bin Laden had left a couple of hours before - but it was not a technical failure as far as a military response. Simply too long a lag in the response to the intelligence placing him there.

Doesn't mean that a better circumstance involving a Hellfire off of a remote vehicle such as was used in the Sudan couldn't have been attempted.

In case you haven't noticed, I have NEVER been against the war on terror.

I have just been against the war on Iraq.

And if, as is claimed in that report, the decision NOT to attack a known terrorist camp was held off simply in order to not undermine the rational for the war on Iraq - then I think that is a serious issue.

They claimed this camp was part of the problem. They were given operational plans to deal with that problem. They vetoed those plans in order to pursue a larger war that has cost hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.

And people will continue to pay for that decision as long as this terrorist walks the face of the earth.

To me - that is a poor reason to decide not to aggressively pursue those that this war was supposed to be about: terrorists who want to do harm to the western world.

But hey - maybe you think Saddam WAS the larger direct threat to the US than Al Qaeda and his buddies. If so - I think you are very, very wrong! And perhaps you should take a moment and remember who actually did attack you, and who continues to target your citizens. It wasn't Saddam was it?

But that is where the bulk of all the efforts are directed at. The country that didn't attack you.

And that makes little sense to me at all.

-Z-

The Bush apologists are all at the Four Seasons this day for the Halliburton stockholders meeting.

Try being twenty years old, working three jobs and being a full time student...Oh yes but my rich grandparents give me everything I need...Yeah that was sarcastic. Too many people like to lump everyone in one category. So while I'm busy working my butt off and making a very meager living off barely 300 a week, John Kerry's wife has $500 million. She must be a Republican with all of that money right? Make sure you have some facts before you accuse hardworking people of being stuck up, snotty and rich, because the majority of us...are not.

Gee, my apologies. I didn't realize that you were a Bush apologist who would forgive him for blowing up the world while thumbing his nose at everyone else and then listening to Bush say that he accepts responsibility while never actually doing so. Didn't realize that you would blankly accept hypocrisy of an administration that lies to you and then claims it is a moral administration. If you wish to be labelled as a Bush apologist far be it for me to deny you that right.

Now, were you simply a Bush supporter, I'd be more apt to just debate. But as it was the neocons who popularized the political phrase "apologist" to mean someone who refuses to see the truth no matter what, I suppose you can call yourself such.

Cruise missles? That was tried to eliminate Bin Laden, remember. Thanks, Bill. It failed, tragically, it utterly failed. Weapons of mass destruction labs in Iraq? I thought no such existed. Right? So, what's your point? You would have accepted military action by the US as long as it was ineffective and at a distance? The amount of double-speak from those of you that want to blame everything on the US and Bush is at once ridiculous, amusing and sad.

Wow.... how much longer are some people going to let GW coast on Bill Clinton's mistakes? When does he get to take responsibility for his own failures? Bill didn't get the job done to get Osama. Fair enough.


Oh it will never end. You can still hear comments about Carter these days! :roll:

Wow, we told the UN all that and France still refused to support an invasion of Iraq, interesting. Another interesting fact, the US led coalition only allowed contractors from the coalitionist countries, France raised a stink about this and we ended up giving them the option to send in contractors, why? Because we are better than them and we overlooked their blunder and let them come begging to us for the permission to go into Iraq and make some money, $100 Million isn't much to the US but it is alot of money for France.

Another thing, people are saying we are responsible for Saddam's rise to power because we have the Iraqi's money to kill Iranians, guess what, we also gave weapons to Iran to kill Iraqi's, we did not like either country so we played both sides against each other, you know, let them kill each other off so we don't have to.

Another thing, people are saying we are responsible for Saddam's rise to power because we have the Iraqi's money to kill Iranians, guess what, we also gave weapons to Iran to kill Iraqi's, we did not like either country so we played both sides against each other, you know, let them kill each other off so we don't have to.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the American government provided weaponry to both countries? If so, what does that have to do with what people are saying about America supporting Saddam's rise to power? Your statement's logic isn't linear but I'll try to respond.

When the American backed Iranian government was toppled, American aid was effectively discontinued to their country. Our involvement with Iraq has been much more complicated. The CIA supported several Ba'athist coups to overthrow the government in Iraq. Saddam initially fled the country after the first coup failed. When the final coup was successful, the CIA provided the new government with a list of names of Iraqis suspected to be Communists. All of these people were summarily executed. When Saddam seized power, American aid flowed in. Chemicals, weapons, and money poured in with the message that Iran was a dangerous force. Iraq and Iran went to war for nearly a decade, costing over a million lives. At the end of this war, the Iraqi economy was destroyed. It was at this time that Kuwait undercut Iraq's ability to rebuild their infrastructure and Saddam requested guidance from the United States. Do you remember the first Bush administration informing Saddam that the US considered Iraq's problems with Kuwait an internal affair that the US would not intervene? Shortly after that reassurance Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. The first Bush administration then condemned this action and the Gulf War was the result of this.

I'm not sure I responded to your statement but I wasn't sure what your point was.

I'm not seeking to blame Clinton for anything that he was not directly responsible for. The tactic that the article, and I could be wrong but you seem to as well,advocate was tried on multiple occasions to rid the world of terrorist leaders under the Clinton administration. It failed, time after time. I don't think that firing a missle from a distance of hundreds or thousands of miles is an effective way to eliminate a single person. It was not an effective military respose in the case of Bin Laden. It only accomplished the most dangerous result possible. It lead people to believe that a threat that still existed had been neutralised. Isn't the most certain way to verify that a taget is eliminated to stand over it's lifeless body or to take it into custody? I find the suggestion that a similar response to the attempted missle strikes of Al Quaeda, pre September 11 2001, is now or was at the time leading up to the war in Iraq the best plan naive at best, at worst propaganda.

The weapons of mass destruction labs that were alleged to exist in the article were in Iraq, were they not? If one belives that they existed, or worse exist, how can one oppose the effort to find and destroy or nuetralise them? Would Saddam have simply allowed coalition forces to go into Iraq to carry out those tasks? I think not. This brings me to another point that is, in my opinion,is a wide-spread and dangerous misconception, that the war on terror is simply about killing or arresting terrorists. It is not! The war on terror is meant to kill or neutralise terrorists and governments, organisations and even individuals who would stand in the way of that. That is the only way to truly make terrorist into the lunatic fringe groups that many would have us think that they are now. Terrorists, particularly Islamic terrorists, enjoy popular support, government support and government protection. If terrorists are to be defeated all of these must be dealt with.

The operational plans that were given were flawed and had without exeption failed previously. Following those plans would have lead to another situation like followed the missle strike directed at Bin Laden.

Terrorism, it's scope, it's effectiveness, it's level of support and it's tactics have greatly changed. These aren't our fathers terrorists who hijacked planes, had them land, then made demads. The strategy, tactics and doctorine for dealing with the new strategy and tactics of terrorists needed to be changed as well. They have been. Will it work, time will tell. Would business as usual have worked, almost certainly not.

I posted that because when we first went into Iraq these media bastards all started saying that we were responsible for Saddam's rise to power since we gave them money, and while our support for Iran dropped after the overthrow of the Shah it was still their. The Iran-Contra scandal comes to mind, we sold weapons to Iraq to get the release of 7 american hostages in Lebanon held by a pro Iranian terrorist group. We then took the profits from those sales and gave the money to the Contras in Nicaraugua after congress had ordered a stop to aid to the Contras. I guess I was just venting, that is what NS is for me, it lets me vent my frustrations. (France, Media, School, Work, Sports is it soccer or football? that sort of stuff) As for the "torture" (I wouldn't call it that but I am not an all knowing media tycoon set to make a buck at the expense of the US government by exagerating the facts.) I look at it this way, 11 marines were tortured, killed, their bodies burned and hung from a bridge in Iraq, the media spent about 15 minuts talking about that. Then when we do something wrong it is like the world stopped turning, for weeks all I have heard about is the Iraqi abuse scandal, it is ridiculous, we should be spending more time honoring those who fought and died for our country than villifying those who were trying to extract information from the enemy and stepped over the line.

I'm not seeking to blame Clinton for anything that he was not directly responsible for. The tactic that the article, and I could be wrong but you seem to as well,advocate was tried on multiple occasions to rid the world of terrorist leaders under the Clinton administration. It failed, time after time. I don't think that firing a missle from a distance of hundreds or thousands of miles is an effective way to eliminate a single person. It was not an effective military respose in the case of Bin Laden. It only accomplished the most dangerous result possible. It lead people to believe that a threat that still existed had been neutralised. Isn't the most certain way to verify that a taget is eliminated to stand over it's lifeless body or to take it into custody? I find the suggestion that a similar response to the attempted missle strikes of Al Quaeda, pre September 11 2001, is now or was at the time leading up to the war in Iraq the best plan naive at best, at worst propaganda.

If you think that the US didn't know shortly afterward that attempt that Osama had not been neutralized, then you haven't been paying attention. It was an unsuccessful attempt, but if you think that the only way to get rid of terrorists is to invade each and every country that has some - you best get started on the draft. You'll need to try and occupy most of the world.

And I should point out that the article only states that the first plan was restricted to air strikes. We have no knowledge of what the other two plans were, and whether they also included a ground-force component..

The weapons of mass destruction labs that were alleged to exist in the article were in Iraq, were they not? If one belives that they existed, or worse exist, how can one oppose the effort to find and destroy or nuetralise them? Would Saddam have simply allowed coalition forces to go into Iraq to carry out those tasks? I think not. This brings me to another point that is, in my opinion,is a wide-spread and dangerous misconception, that the war on terror is simply about killing or arresting terrorists. It is not! The war on terror is meant to kill or neutralise terrorists and governments, organisations and even individuals who would stand in the way of that. That is the only way to truly make terrorist into the lunatic fringe groups that many would have us think that they are now. Terrorists, particularly Islamic terrorists, enjoy popular support, government support and government protection. If terrorists are to be defeated all of these must be dealt with.


Again - you seem bent on holding Saddam responsible for a camp that sprung up in a territory under US protection AFTER the Iraqi armed forces had been pushed back out of the area. How is that reasonable? You would have a better case should GW have blamed the Kurds for that camp since they were largely administering that region.

And while I agree that governments that support terrorism need to be brought into line - there ARE ways to do that without resorting to invasion. Nor has Saddam ever been linked to providing real material support to any groups save Palestinian groups, who some might feel have a right to their fight even as we deplore their tactics. Plus at least that is a specific regional problem rather than the sort of terrorist organization that is a threat to the west.

But dealing with governments alone is not a balanced way to deal with the problem either. You still have to target the terrorists themselves. And in this case the US did NOT need Saddam's permission to go in and get this group. They already had de-facto control of that part of the country.

Which is to say that you still haven't given a reason why refusing to target this terrorist group simply to enhance what they felt was their argument to go into Iraq made any sense. If this was the ONLY specific cause of worry in Iraq, and it was under your care and control and you had the ability to remove the threat - what possible reason is there not to do so? Is making war with the whole country the preferable option in that case? Because if there were other compelling reasons for the invasion of the country then those other reasons would still stand on their own but you would have dealt with this one issue.

The point is that it seems that it was a political decision to let this man live - not a tactical decision. And people are paying for that political decision with their lives.


The operational plans that were given were flawed and had without exeption failed previously. Following those plans would have lead to another situation like followed the missle strike directed at Bin Laden.

Excuse me? This is based on your detailed examination of these plans?

Gimme a break! That is one hell of a conclusion to jump to.

Terrorism, it's scope, it's effectiveness, it's level of support and it's tactics have greatly changed. These aren't our fathers terrorists who hijacked planes, had them land, then made demads. The strategy, tactics and doctorine for dealing with the new strategy and tactics of terrorists needed to be changed as well. They have been. Will it work, time will tell. Would business as usual have worked, almost certainly not.

Or maybe you just don't remember your father's terrorists. I lived in Europe in the 70s when the Red Brigade, IRA, Baider Meinhof etc. were blowing things up. The reasons why may have been different, but there is a whole lot less of a difference between the fanatics then and the fanatics of today than you might realize.

-Z-

Do I think that the US government knew that the cruise missle strikes hadn't hit Bin Laden shortly afterwards, sure I do. But, that action gave the impression that something was being done to deal with Bin Laden, when in reality there was almost nothing being done. Along with the ineffectiveness of long-range strikes in these situations, this is the major flaw with dealing with terrorists in that way. Occupy most of the world, once again we differ. I would present this message to the countries where terrorist organisations are based and have some degree of government support and protection, you get them or we will. Even if the second and third plan called for ground forces without an invasion, the extent of the ground forces would seem to be a relatively small air-bourne force. If that force confronted the terrorists and was overmatched or the terrorists fled into areas under Saddam's control, the US has a small force isolated in a hostile area, like in Somalia. That is not very responsible or desireable.

Was Saddam responsible for the alleged WMD lasbs in norther Iraq? Perhaps not, but he was in the way of them being found and destroyed. Wrong place, wrong time is a bitch but it happens even to tyrants.

Which ways ,short of invasion, to bring Saddam "into line" were not already being employed against Saddam's government in Iraq? As far as Saddam not supporting terrorism we differ again. Paying the families of suicide bombers is supporting terrorism. Others do this as well, I know. Those who support suicide bombings should be dealt with in the same manner as Saddam.

Governments aren't being dealt with alone. Coalition forces are fighting terrorists on the ground everyday. The fall of Saddam was necessary to bring this about. And there were numerous reasons to remove Saddam from power, this was one amoung them.

I don't think that this terrorist wasn't targeted. He wasn't targeted ina way that was prooven ineffective. There is currently a hunt for these terrorists. Will it work? Once again, time will tell.

A political decision? Obviously that is a matter of perspective.

I pointed out why I think any plan short of invasion was flawed above.

Yes, terrorists were blowing things up before, but now they are getting better at it and blowing up much bigger things. And these attacks come without demands or hostages they are outright acts of war and should be met as such.

All the talk about terrorism and the war on terrorism still leaves a very pertinent question unanswered....

Why Iraq?

If Bush were truly looking to invade a country that either:

A: was victimized and out of control due to terrorism or
B: actively supports and condones terrorism

Why Iraq?

If it was truly necessary to use our military to fight terrorism where it is most rampant and most problematic, then why didn't we go into a country that is part of the problem? Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Rwanda, North Korea, Malaysia, Japan, Ireland, Colombia, Mexico, Greece, Algeria, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Uzbekistan......

Each of those countries have had more problems or have been more supportive of terrorism than Iraq. Why Iraq? It is not justifiable.

I personally believe that the occupation in Iraq, if done correctly, will reduce terrorism in the Middle East, and I've posted countless other times why I feel that way. I'd love posting my views again should someone ask.
Anyhow, the US did strike at Ansar-al-Islam at the beginning of the war. Thankfully, most of the organization was disabled, but many members, Zarqawi included, fled to Iran.
Air raids alone could barely work. They barely worked against bin Laden when they were tried in 1998. What is needed for a raid to succeed is actionable intelligence on the ground. The Kurds could've provided it, but the camp was rather remote, and since the group was favored by Iraqi security forces in the area, they had a long time to be warned. I'm sorry that we couldn't stop Zarqawi, but if we tried destroying Ansar-al-Islam before the war, it'd be very inefective. However, most of the organization was destroyed.

I personally believe that the occupation in Iraq, if done correctly, will reduce terrorism in the Middle East, and I've posted countless other times why I feel that way. I'd love posting my views again should someone ask.
Anyhow, the US did strike at Ansar-al-Islam at the beginning of the war. Thankfully, most of the organization was disabled, but many members, Zarqawi included, fled to Iran.
Air raids alone could barely work. They barely worked against bin Laden when they were tried in 1998. What is needed for a raid to succeed is actionable intelligence on the ground. The Kurds could've provided it, but the camp was rather remote, and since the group was favored by Iraqi security forces in the area, they had a long time to be warned. I'm sorry that we couldn't stop Zarqawi, but if we tried destroying Ansar-al-Islam before the war, it'd be very inefective. However, most of the organization was destroyed.

Well, by the time the war started Colin Powel had already advertized to the world that the Ansar al Islam camp was a prime target, and GW had set a firm date for the invasion. Expecting them to all hang around to get wiped out was not a terribly bright expectation.

And let's recall that when Clinton started his campaign against Al Qaeda the Republicans accused him of simply attempting to distract the public from the Lewinsky affair - and put enormous pressure on him to stop. Which he had to do given he didn;t have control of the houses of government.

So pointing to a limited attempt as proof that a concerted effort couldn't have acheived the desired goals is not a fair statement to make.

And have I stated anywhere that GW couldn't have asked the Pentagon to up the battle plan to include ground components? Hell - he had the assets in the area ready to go to war! He decided not to go - full stop. Not to ask for a more decisive plan.

And for the political reasons that he was using this camp as part of his sales pitch against Saddam despite knowing full well that Sadam had nothing to do with the camp. I keep saying that this is my primary disagreement with the decision, and yet no-one has really addressed that.

Insted, I hear lots of excuses why not to even have tried.

Tora Bora showed what a concerted arial campaign could do to terrorists. Clinton never even tried to include much arial elements besides cruise missiles. It was all he could get away with at that time. GW could certainly have mounted a more effective campaign than was allowed Clinton in the post 9-11 world.

-Z-

I personally believe that the occupation in Iraq, if done correctly, will reduce terrorism in the Middle East, and I've posted countless other times why I feel that way. I'd love posting my views again should someone ask.
Anyhow, the US did strike at Ansar-al-Islam at the beginning of the war. Thankfully, most of the organization was disabled, but many members, Zarqawi included, fled to Iran.
Air raids alone could barely work. They barely worked against bin Laden when they were tried in 1998. What is needed for a raid to succeed is actionable intelligence on the ground. The Kurds could've provided it, but the camp was rather remote, and since the group was favored by Iraqi security forces in the area, they had a long time to be warned. I'm sorry that we couldn't stop Zarqawi, but if we tried destroying Ansar-al-Islam before the war, it'd be very inefective. However, most of the organization was destroyed.

Well, by the time the war started Colin Powel had already advertized to the world that the Ansar al Islam camp was a prime target, and GW had set a firm date for the invasion. Expecting them to all hang around to get wiped out was not a terribly bright expectation.

And let's recall that when Clinton started his campaign against Al Qaeda the Republicans accused him of simply attempting to distract the public from the Lewinsky affair - and put enormous pressure on him to stop. Which he had to do given he didn;t have control of the houses of government.

So pointing to a limited attempt as proof that a concerted effort couldn't have acheived the desired goals is not a fair statement to make.

And have I stated anywhere that GW couldn't have asked the Pentagon to up the battle plan to include ground components? Hell - he had the assets in the area ready to go to war! He decided not to go - full stop. Not to ask for a more decisive plan.

And for the political reasons that he was using this camp as part of his sales pitch against Saddam despite knowing full well that Sadam had nothing to do with the camp. I keep saying that this is my primary disagreement with the decision, and yet no-one has really addressed that.

Insted, I hear lots of excuses why not to even have tried.

Tora Bora showed what a concerted arial campaign could do to terrorists. Clinton never even tried to include much arial elements besides cruise missiles. It was all he could get away with at that time. GW could certainly have mounted a more effective campaign than was allowed Clinton in the post 9-11 world.

-Z-
I do agree with the part that we could've done better at Tora Bora, but really, the Northern Alliance did great retaking the rest of the country from the Taliban. It was only natural to assume that with a little US air support, they could have Tora Bora on a shoestring, with bin Laden's head in it.
There was also quite good ground action for taking out the Ansar-al-Islam camp, and there were nearly 1,000 US troops involved.
I don't believe, however, that a pre-war airstrike would've worked. Clinton wasn't necessarily responding to the Lewinsky scandal when he struck Afghanistan, but rather the embassy bombings in Africa. The air strikes simply didn't work. Even with bombers, they wouldn't work. One immediate realization about 9/11 was that we were relying too much on technical intelligence. It was great for a few things, but it couldn't tell exactly who was where, when. The best sattelite imagery could never spot bin Ladin. Bugs couldn't, either. In fact, he escaped Tora Bora because the US recieved a cell-phone signal from him, which was really just his voice on a tape recorder speaking into a cell-phone. We could've done harm to Ansar-al-Islam, but we'd never get Zarqawi, unless we were extremely lucky.

I do agree with the part that we could've done better at Tora Bora, but really, the Northern Alliance did great retaking the rest of the country from the Taliban. It was only natural to assume that with a little US air support, they could have Tora Bora on a shoestring, with bin Laden's head in it.
There was also quite good ground action for taking out the Ansar-al-Islam camp, and there were nearly 1,000 US troops involved.
I don't believe, however, that a pre-war airstrike would've worked. Clinton wasn't necessarily responding to the Lewinsky scandal when he struck Afghanistan, but rather the embassy bombings in Africa. The air strikes simply didn't work. Even with bombers, they wouldn't work. One immediate realization about 9/11 was that we were relying too much on technical intelligence. It was great for a few things, but it couldn't tell exactly who was where, when. The best sattelite imagery could never spot bin Ladin. Bugs couldn't, either. In fact, he escaped Tora Bora because the US recieved a cell-phone signal from him, which was really just his voice on a tape recorder speaking into a cell-phone. We could've done harm to Ansar-al-Islam, but we'd never get Zarqawi, unless we were extremely lucky.

Indeed it might not have got him. I won't disagree. However why not even try? Even if they had missed him but struck when the camp was busy they would have decimated his goup, and so seriously harmed his ability to carry out operations.

But again - my problem is that it was stated that the potential for mission success was not the primary factor in the decision. My problem is that it wasn't even tried just to bolster the case for the war on Iraq. And that is a piss-poor reason to give a terrorist a walk in the middle of the War on Terror.

-Z-

I do agree with the part that we could've done better at Tora Bora, but really, the Northern Alliance did great retaking the rest of the country from the Taliban. It was only natural to assume that with a little US air support, they could have Tora Bora on a shoestring, with bin Laden's head in it.
There was also quite good ground action for taking out the Ansar-al-Islam camp, and there were nearly 1,000 US troops involved.
I don't believe, however, that a pre-war airstrike would've worked. Clinton wasn't necessarily responding to the Lewinsky scandal when he struck Afghanistan, but rather the embassy bombings in Africa. The air strikes simply didn't work. Even with bombers, they wouldn't work. One immediate realization about 9/11 was that we were relying too much on technical intelligence. It was great for a few things, but it couldn't tell exactly who was where, when. The best sattelite imagery could never spot bin Ladin. Bugs couldn't, either. In fact, he escaped Tora Bora because the US recieved a cell-phone signal from him, which was really just his voice on a tape recorder speaking into a cell-phone. We could've done harm to Ansar-al-Islam, but we'd never get Zarqawi, unless we were extremely lucky.

Indeed it might not have got him. I won't disagree. However why not even try? Even if they had missed him but struck when the camp was busy they would have decimated his goup, and so seriously harmed his ability to carry out operations.

But again - my problem is that it was stated that the potential for mission success was not the primary factor in the decision. My problem is that it wasn't even tried just to bolster the case for the war on Iraq. And that is a piss-poor reason to give a terrorist a walk in the middle of the War on Terror.

-Z-
I believe that there wasn't a significant chance for sucess, so therefore, it should've waited until ground action began.
Needless to say, I think that the administration was really forced into looking for a justification, but hardly needed one. Iraq is detrimental to the war on terror. Let's face it, no one is sad to see Hussein gone. While it removed the worst of the dictator pricks in the Middle East, it is doing two things. One, it is drawing the terrorists into Iraq, and while I'm sorry that Iraqis have to suffer in the process, it's better than having the fighting on our city streets, where it began. I'll use the oxygen-masks on planes as an analogy. Every airline anyone flies will tell parents that it's best to put the mask on them before children, so that there'll be a better chance of saving both. If our streets are routinely attacked, as they were so close to doing, our economy would collapse, and there'd be little hope for any nation, least of all Iraq. So basically, without US support, Iraq would be a hundred times worse than today.
Secondly, if we are able to pull off a democracy (or at least something more representative), then we can influence the Middle East in becoming democracies, giving fundementalism a big loss in appeal. After all, in places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the West Bank, and some Muslim slums in Europe, these groups are the only organization providing aid, influencing people. We need to get rid of that appeal by replacing it, but it'd be far too dicey to invade every nation in the region. Therefore, work with one, and hope it grows. That is why that I think that really, Iraq needed little justification. But the Bush Administration was forced to deliver.