Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a terrorist threat to the US
POSTED BY: lynchaj
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 22:55
VIEWED: 12725
PAGE 3 of 7
HAHAHAHAHA!!! That's like saying the Bush/Cheney/CIA are a threat to USA! Who do you think gave Saddam all his WMDs and ordered him to invade Kuwait? 50,000 dead US troops and 400,000 US troops disabled by "friendly fire frag" via sabotaged vaccines, DU nuke radiation and Made-In-USA Iraqi chem weapons. Not to mention 1.6-million Iraqis genocided by the US colony for the British Empire. Iraq has 5-cents/gallon gasoline, and all Saddam wanted to do was sell cheap oil to USA, but Bush Gang's New World Order Satanic Commie/Nazi dictatorship can't allow that to happen if it wants to destroy USA.
"I don't trust government. And neither should our citizens."
-US Senator Larry Craig, United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, "DOJ Oversight: Terrorism and Other Topics", testimony by US Attorney General John Ashcroft re President George Bush Jr.'s Executive Orders to "legalize torture" of US citizens for ALL "crimes" including "victimless 'crimes'", and refusal to release that memo (felony Contempt of Congress), C-SPAN2, June 8, 2004
"Operation NORTHWOODS may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. Operation Northwoods had called for nothing less than the launch of a secret campaign of terrorism within the United States in order to blame Castro and provoke a war with Cuba."
—James Bamford, ABC News, "Friendly Fire - U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba," May 1, 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
"In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation NORTHWOODS, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years. The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military. Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job. Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy. "The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford."
—David Ruppe, ABC News, "Friendly Fire - U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba," May 1, 2001
"We could blow up a drone (unmannded) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. The presense of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The US could follow with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existant crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indigna
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Obviously I don’t think they are trivial, but are you going to believe that? You’ve already said that you assumed that I don’t care; so the question would seem to be rhetorical or rather loaded.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Which is why I brought it up. I can know if I ask. I feel when deaths become trivial to us, something is very wrong with our nation. All I asked you is if you thought that the Iraqi civilian deaths were trivial to you - are you scared to answer? How do you feel about it?
You can assume that a person is a proponent of this war because they don’t care about the Iraqi causalities, but that’s not an assumption that you’re likely to find a lot of support for, since many, if not most of the proponents of this war generally hold Saddam’s brutal record as a major reason for their position. On the other hand, where you’re more likely to find a dismissal of innocent casualties is on the anti-war Left, where many have tried to downplay Hussein’s record or insisted that this wasn’t a reason for going to war. In fact some on the anti-war Left have argued rather blatantly that it is preferable for Saddam Hussein to kill 1.5 million innocent Iraqis (mostly women, children and elderly) in order to make a political statement about UN sanctions, then it is for the US/UK to kill 10-30 thousands (and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt) trying to remove Saddam Hussein. So the implication of that argument is that millions of innocent Iraqi deaths are tolerable as long as the anti-war camp can have a clear conscience. I'm not making accusations or value judgments, I'm just briefly retelling arguments I've seen.
Intelligent minds can disagree on whether going to war was the right thing to do, but I don’t think your argument in this case is a good one, and that is why I suggested that you rethink it.
This is an interesting picture. It’s of a picket sign that I've seen several times in several different venues. It’s one of the more blatant examples of this position displayed at an anti-war rally. (This picture is from a personal website, so I don't want to link directly to it in this thread, but it is from Boston University, so I think it is safe content.)
_http://deneb.bu.edu/geocities/essays/antiprotest/counterprotest1.jpg_
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is too late and too early to be discussing whether or not it was right to start the war. It’s too late because the war has already started. It’s too early because the war been going on for quite a while now. Our main concern should be how we can come out of this war with minimal losses. Once we’ve done that then we can talk about whether or not the war was right until the next crisis. While people are wasting their time discussing whether or not the war was right, they’re not coming up with ways to resolve the problem. One thing I haven’t heard nearly enough about is getting other countries to help, not just with their troops but with their businesses. Our enemies pick their target based on race. Caucasian workers who are kidnapped by terrorists get decapitated. Asian workers who are kidnapped by terrorists get released a week later, without even get a beating. American and European workers are far more likely to be attacked and killed by terrorists than Chinese, Japanese, and Korean workers. This should be obvious to the most dimwitted of people and yet we haven’t done nearly enough to hiring Asian companies because we’re wasting our time talking about whether or not we should have started the war in the first place.
"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
Our enemies pick their target based on race. Caucasian workers who are kidnapped by terrorists get decapitated. Asian workers who are kidnapped by terrorists get released a week later, without even get a beating.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62068-2004Jun22.html
Yeah, they love asian workers in Iraq.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh please. Terrorists are far less likely to target Asian workers than Caucasian workers. The number of Asian workers killed relative to the total number of Asian workers in Iraq is far less than the number of American and European workers killed relative to their total numbers. It’s something we have yet to take full advantage of. Having Asian businesses, especially Indian and Chinese ones working in Iraq would benefit us greatly. Not only would it be a hell of a lot cheaper than using US companies, there would be less terrorist attacks, and since life is not valued as much in India and China as it is in the US, they could sustain substantial casualties without complaint. Hell, if we paid India or China one tenth of what we’ve spent on the war to fight for us in Iraq, they would have won by now.
If we can get over this “whether or not the war was justified” debate we can move onto much more important issues like how poorly the war has been fought. Not nearly enough has been done to teach our troops Arabic or to recruit people who speak Arabic. A lot of the rations we have sent to Iraq and Afghanistan were wasted. The rations were created for Americans and Europeans. For example, they don’t eat peanut butter in Afghanistan, the poorest people, the ones that need the rations, don’t even know what peanut butter is, yet we dumped crates full of peanut butter on them. The war has been very cost inefficient, especially in Afghanistan. Generally, the targets we destroy are worth more than the bombs we used to destroy them but with the war in Afghanistan the cost of the bombs far exceeded the targets they destroyed.
"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AJ, I read your post, and went to the article on the link. I had a knife and fork ready, in case I needed to eat crow.
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said.
Bush, making complete sense again, literate fellow that he is.
The 9/11 commission's report said bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."
It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese, "to protect their own ties with Iraq," but after bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, "Iraq apparently never responded."
The report also said, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
I respectfully suggest you read the whole article before waving your hands and shouting "I'm right!! Look, I'm RIGHT!!!"
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
Hell, if we paid India or China one tenth of what we’ve spent on the war to fight for us in Iraq, they would have won by now.
Won what, exactly? The "war on terrorism" ? I said this before, but the first precept of warfare is that you cannot defeat all your enemies. This is especially true when the very enemy is a revenge culture whereby casualties are replaced by 2-3 relatives bent on jihadist revenge. I agree with you, completely, that our troops and leaders need better cultural training. But it's assinine to think you can win a war against a tactic like terrorism. The first thing we need to do is define a clear enemy. If that enemy is al-Qaeda, then why the hell did we go to Iraq? Simply: because the majority wouldn't have supported a war against Iraq without believing Hussein was connected to 9/11 in some way. Sure, now we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq, all the while forgetting that they weren't operating there until we destabilized the country for them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
If we can get over this “whether or not the war was justified” debate we can move onto much more important issues like how poorly the war has been fought.
Indeed. From my vantage point (albeit, far from the killing fields), what we first need is a clear enemy. Quelling an insurgency is a policing problem with a political (not military) solution. The enemy isn't forming up tank battalions. There are no regimented brigades of enemy troops. The whole insurgency amounts to little more than car bombers and RPG gangs disrupting the political process (i.e., terror, not surprisingly VERY effective against US military operations). Either define a military enemy, or remove our military from Iraq and get on with political solutions.
It's time we start accepting that there is no way for the US military to leave Iraq with dignity. Some argue that if we "stay the course" for 5-10 years, we'll eventually stabilize the region long enough to maintain Iraqi troop readiness and political control. Either we do that, and do it right, or we acknowledge that our troops have the wrong tools for the job and bring them home.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry about the bold.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by zirzird:
Won what, exactly? The "war on terrorism" ? I said this before, but the first precept of warfare is that you cannot defeat all your enemies. This is especially true when the very enemy is a revenge culture whereby casualties are replaced by 2-3 relatives bent on jihadist revenge. I agree with you, completely, that our troops and leaders need better cultural training. But it's assinine to think you can win a war against a tactic like terrorism. The first thing we need to do is define a clear enemy. If that enemy is al-Qaeda, then why the hell did we go to Iraq? Simply: because the majority wouldn't have supported a war against Iraq without believing Hussein was connected to 9/11 in some way. Sure, now we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq, all the while forgetting that they weren't operating there until we destabilized the country for them.
It's a matter of resolve, of will, and more importantly, of sacrifice. We have proven ourselves weak in the eyes of our enemies because our compassion for human life. Our enemies are willing to sacrifice five, even ten of their lives just to end the life of one of us and they would still view that as a victory. If China was fighting the war in Iraq, the insurgency would have given up because China values human life even less than the terrorists. The Chinese would be more than willing to sacrifice twenty lives to end the life one of terrorist. Their media is state controlled; it would only report victories, no losses, no setbacks, no casualties. The entire country would be united against the terrorists.
"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
It's a matter of resolve, of will, and more importantly, of sacrifice. We have proven ourselves weak in the eyes of our enemies because our compassion for human life.
I challenge the notion that through perseverance our badly flawed war policy will somehow prevail in Iraq. That isn't will, that isn't resolve, and it isn't sacrifice. That is poor strategy. Many of the congressional supporters of the war like to portray the conflict as a test of US character. What it should be is a test of wartime tactics.
And we're not talking about people defending the homeland. While ~3000 civilians dead in NY may seem like a hefty toll, we've countered with >30,000 civilian dead in Iraq, a place which had no involvement in the 9/11 killings. That doesn't seem right to me. Every analysis conducted (and casual interest in unbiased news accounts will say the same) this activity is creating terror, not eradicating it, while making the world less safe for Americans. Go Team Bush. Thanks a lot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME