9/11 and the war in Iraq ARE connected!

[W*GS]

They are, according to poseur Ward Churchill:

"An ethnic studies professor from the University of Colorado, Ward Churchill, received a standing ovation last night from a crowd of more than 200 New School students after blaming the 2001 World Trade Center attacks on America's support of Israel and its sanctions against Iraq in 1996."

http://www.nysun.com/article/44971

Churchill is an embarrassment.

[REB]

That guy is quite the nutjob

[alkemical]

They are, according to poseur Ward Churchill:

"An ethnic studies professor from the University of Colorado, Ward Churchill, received a standing ovation last night from a crowd of more than 200 New School students after blaming the 2001 World Trade Center attacks on America's support of Israel and its sanctions against Iraq in 1996."

http://www.nysun.com/article/44971

Churchill is an embarrassment.



So why did we get attacked on 9/11?

[The Lone Bolt]

So why did we get attacked on 9/11?

While support of Israel and sanctions on Iraq (which had nothing to do with the suffering of the Iraqis BTW) were stoking anger in the Arab and Muslim worlds, I believe UBL's biggest issue was "infidels in the holy land", i.e. U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

None of this of course justifies the murder of 3,000 people on 9/11/01.

[alkemical]

While support of Israel and sanctions on Iraq (which had nothing to do with the suffering of the Iraqis BTW) were stoking anger in the Arab and Muslim worlds, I believe UBL's biggest issue was "infidels in the holy land", i.e. U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

None of this of course justifies the murder of 3,000 people on 9/11/01.

Not saying it justifies at all. Action has a reaction.

I wonder how many people died due to our continued operations in iraq since 1991 and other missions in the region.

[The Lone Bolt]

Not saying it justifies at all. Action has a reaction.

I wonder how many people died due to our continued operations in iraq since 1991 and other missions in the region.

While death and suffering in war is tragic, one should also consider the millions who dies in Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait during Saddam's murderous regime. And yes, we should neve have supported him, but that does not exonerate him from blame or change the likelihood that millions more probably would have died if he remained in power.

[alkemical]

While death and suffering in war is tragic, one should also consider the millions who dies in Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait during Saddam's murderous regime. And yes, we should neve have supported him, but that does not exonerate him from blame or change the likelihood that millions more probably would have died if he remained in power.



Millions? Millions? That's an unsubstantiated # - you know it too. You are putting "millions" into the realm of hitler, maybe pinochet type realm. Not to mention at this point in time - i'm quite unsure of any info i've ever recieved about iraq is all true or all false. There is no possible way for me to know.

The haus of saud, israeli gov't, people jerkin the palestinians around for their own needs - a united ME is good for noone

[epicSocialism4tw]

Ahh...Churchill's vomitous garbage reminds one of our very own favorite extreme liberal: The Gaffney.

[The Lone Bolt]

Millions? Millions? That's an unsubstantiated # - you know it too. You are putting "millions" into the realm of hitler, maybe pinochet type realm. Not to mention at this point in time - i'm quite unsure of any info i've ever recieved about iraq is all true or all false. There is no possible way for me to know.

The haus of saud, israeli gov't, people jerkin the palestinians around for their own needs - a united ME is good for noone


No it isn't.

The Iran-Iraq war lasted nearly eight years, from September of 1980 until August of 1988. It ended when Iran accepted United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a 20 August 1988 cease-fire.

Casualty figures are highly uncertain, though estimates suggest more than one and a half million war and war-related casualties -- perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded, and millions were made refugees.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm

And that's only the Iran-Iraq war. Add to that the countless Iraqi victims of Saddam's 30+ year bloody regime and the Kuwaiti victims of his systematic genocide in their country. I think "millions" is not too far off.

[alkemical]

No it isn't.



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm

And that's only the Iran-Iraq war. Add to that the countless Iraqi victims of Saddam's 30+ year bloody regime and the Kuwaiti victims of his systematic genocide in their country. I think "millions" is not too far off.



Well then you agree that the meddling in the ME is really a way to keep things off balance so there isn't a real point of solidarity for the ME region. Why would constant war and violence be a good thing?


You still don't have any solid proof that it's "millions". I'm sorry i can't take it as fact or truth - since i am only informed 2nd hand.

[The Lone Bolt]

Well then you agree that the meddling in the ME is really a way to keep things off balance so there isn't a real point of solidarity for the ME region. Why would constant war and violence be a good thing?


You still don't have any solid proof that it's "millions". I'm sorry i can't take it as fact or truth - since i am only informed 2nd hand.

Well I think nobody knows for sure, but "millions" is not unrealistic and IMO likely considering the years of consecutive warfare he plunged his nation into as well as over 30 years of brutal dictatorship (25 of which he was the "official" President) during which he murdered and tortured at will.

But constant war is not a good thing. That's why Saddam had to go. Under his dictatorship he waged constant war on his neighbors until temporarily stopped by a containment regime which was on the verge of collapse by 2003. Without containment we could expect him to go back to his belligerent ways.

[alkemical]

Well I think nobody knows for sure, but "millions" is not unrealistic and IMO likely considering the years of consecutive warfare he plunged his nation into as well as over 30 years of brutal dictatorship (25 of which he was the "official" President) during which he murdered and tortured at will.

But constant war is not a good thing. That's why Saddam had to go. Under his dictatorship he waged constant war on his neighbors until temporarily stopped by a containment regime which was on the verge of collapse by 2003. Without containment we could expect him to go back to his belligerent ways.



Saddam was not the only reason for 'constant war' - his issue with kuwait was not one sided. Not to mention the 'king' of kuwait isn't a nice guy either....

[The Lone Bolt]

Saddam was not the only reason for 'constant war' - his issue with kuwait was not one sided. Not to mention the 'king' of kuwait isn't a nice guy either....


Well his issues with Kuwait did not justify an invasion or a forceable annexation of the country.

[alkemical]

Well his issues with Kuwait did not justify an invasion or a forceable annexation of the country.



Really, what issues then allow an invasion?

[The Lone Bolt]

Really, what issues then allow an invasion?

Well that's all a matter of opinion of course. In my opinion a war is justified to prevent an even greater catastrophe, such as a brutal, ambitious dictator who repeatedly and recklessly invades his neighbors getting his hands on nuclear weapons and having no constraints to prevent him going back to invading his neighbors and threatening the whole region (and this time armed with nukes). This is a recipe for disaster.

Would you have invaded Germany to stop Hitler long before he started WWII? It would have cost many lives but saved many more. This is a reasonable justification IMO.

But not setting oil at prices that Saddam wanted and unproven accusations of "slant drilling" certainly do not justify an invasion.

[alkemical]

Well that's all a matter of opinion of course. In my opinion a war is justified to prevent an even greater catastrophe, such as a brutal, ambitious dictator who repeatedly and recklessly invades his neighbors getting his hands on nuclear weapons and having no constraints to prevent him going back to invading his neighbors and threatening the whole region (and this time armed with nukes). This is a recipe for disaster.

Would you have invaded Germany to stop Hitler long before he started WWII? It would have cost many lives but saved many more. This is a reasonable justification IMO.

But not setting oil at prices that Saddam wanted and unproven accusations of "slant drilling" certainly do not justify an invasion.



A) The king of kuwait is a dictator. In some ways - some of the items you mentioned - saddam would have acted in 'faith'.

B) Saddam didn't have nukes

C) his turmoil with iran was more benificial than not for pro-america

d) saddam was not going to start WWIII - if you believe that and he had nukes you have so drank some flavour-aide

E) Saddam not being allowed in OPEC meant that there wasn't a cartel that could exert all control over the price of such a commodity. Thus keeping some of the market liquid (or so some oil execs can cash in/out).



Really alot of the items you listed - i can take an amoral stance and expliot it to show that really "reality is in the eye of those whom see it".

[The Lone Bolt]

A) The king of kuwait is a dictator. In some ways - some of the items you mentioned - saddam would have acted in 'faith'.

So it was OK for Saddam to invade and attempt to forceably annex Kuwait and massacre it's citizens? I don't see how you can justify this position.

B) Saddam didn't have nukes

He had a nuclear weapons program that could and would have been reconstituted. I refer you once again to Saddam's Bombmaker by Khadir Hamza for details. I have also presented compelling evidence numerous times on this forum of Saddam's nuke program.

C) his turmoil with iran was more benificial than not for pro-america

Yes, the US and western nations wanted to keep the Mullahs in check. But we created a Frankenstein monster in the process by supporting Saddam. Dumb idea.

d) saddam was not going to start WWIII - if you believe that and he had nukes you have so drank some flavour-aide

He had a program that by many credible accounts would have produced The Bomb in a few years (and once again I have already supplied this evidence here on this forum).


E) Saddam not being allowed in OPEC meant that there wasn't a cartel that could exert all control over the price of such a commodity. Thus keeping some of the market liquid (or so some oil execs can cash in/out).


So this justifies the invasion and attempt to forceably annex Kuwait as well as masacre it's citizens? Once again I don't see how you can justify that position.



Really alot of the items you listed - i can take an amoral stance and expliot it to show that really "reality is in the eye of those whom see it".


Um . . . OK.

[alkemical]

LOL no matter what evidence you claim to sling - i can find just the opposite. So you can't sway me with some argument from authority.

Sorry.

[bcbronc]

While death and suffering in war is tragic, one should also consider the millions who dies in Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait during Saddam's murderous regime. And yes, we should neve have supported him, but that does not exonerate him from blame or change the likelihood that millions more probably would have died if he remained in power.


Casualty figures are highly uncertain, though estimates suggest more than one and a half million war and war-related casualties -- perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded, and millions were made refugees.

And that's only the Iran-Iraq war. Add to that the countless Iraqi victims of Saddam's 30+ year bloody regime and the Kuwaiti victims of his systematic genocide in their country. I think "millions" is not too far off.

you seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat. At one point, you seem to be saying death caused by war is unfortunate, but then you point to the deaths caused by war as a reason to remove saddam? plus it's important to note that the 1 million stated there would have been on both sides, so you can't give saddam all the credit.

And then you say that it's likely that "millions more probably would have died if he remained in power". considering how feeble his army ended up being, I find that unlikely. But regardless, the death toll of removing him from power is now over 700 000 people, so really what's been gained?

As for the original post, I doubt Iraq sanctions really had much influenced regarding 9/11. But no doubt Israel played at least some role in it. Anyways, more than "they hate our freedoms" did.

[The Lone Bolt]

you seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat. At one point, you seem to be saying death caused by war is unfortunate, but then you point to the deaths caused by war as a reason to remove saddam? plus it's important to note that the 1 million stated there would have been on both sides, so you can't give saddam all the credit.

Saddam started the war with Iran, so yes he gets all the credit. All of those deaths are entirely his fault. Invading Iran was not justified or necessary.

And I see not contradiction in my argument. Many died in WWII also. Does that mean we should not have founght the Nazis?

If there is a serial killer in your neighborhood, aren't the police jusified in using force to stop him? What if the police are forced into a shootout with the killer and a bystander is killed but the killer is stopped? Do you think they should just let the killer go and continue murdering because an innocent might get hurt in the process of apprehending him?

There is no contradiction in my argument. There is a difference between using force for murder and using force to STOP murder. In the case of Saddam we are talking about a serial killer who murdered (at the very least) hundreds of thousands and would likely have murdered hundreds of thousands more (not to mention how many more would have died under the doubtlessly equally brutal regimes of his psychopath sons). Many have died in the process of removing this serial killer, but now the Iraqis have at least the chance at a future not under the control of a bloodthirsty tyrant. That is something they otherwise would not have had.



And then you say that it's likely that "millions more probably would have died if he remained in power". considering how feeble his army ended up being, I find that unlikely. But regardless, the death toll of removing him from power is now over 700 000 people, so really what's been gained?


See above. Arguably over a million dead in Saddam's reckless invasions, how many momre under another 20 years of his rule? Almost certainly far more than have died removing him.

I'm not happy that anyone had to die at all. Let me repeat that to make my position crystal-clear: I'M NOT HAPPY THAT ANYONE HAD TO DIE AT ALL!!! But there was no other realistic option to removing him from power. Multiple coup attempts failed. He was not going to step down on his own. Sanctions had no effect on his grip on power. If anyone can make a compelling argument that Saddam could have been removed peacefully I'd like to hear it.

And leaving him in power was playing with fire: a chance not worth taking.

[alkemical]

Saddam started the war with Iran, so yes he gets all the credit. All of those deaths are entirely his fault. Invading Iran was not justified or necessary.

And I see not contradiction in my argument. Many died in WWII also. Does that mean we should not have founght the Nazis?

If there is a serial killer in your neighborhood, aren't the police jusified in using force to stop him? What if the police are forced into a shootout with the killer and a bystander is killed but the killer is stopped? Do you think they should just let the killer go and continue murdering because an innocent might get hurt in the process of apprehending him?

There is no contradiction in my argument. There is a difference between using force for murder and using force to STOP murder. In the case of Saddam we are talking about a serial killer who murdered (at the very least) hundreds of thousands and would likely have murdered hundreds of thousands more (not to mention how many more would have died under the doubtlessly equally brutal regimes of his psychopath sons). Many have died in the process of removing this serial killer, but now the Iraqis have at least the chance at a future not under the control of a bloodthirsty tyrant. That is something they otherwise wouold not have had.






See above. Arguably over a million dead in Saddam's reckless invasions, how many momre under another 20 years of his rule? Almost certainly far more than have died removing him.

I'm not happy that anyone had to die at all. Let me repeat that to make my position crystal-clear: I'M NOT HAPPY THAT ANYONE HAD TO DIE AT ALL!!! But there was no other realistic option to removing him from power. Multiple coup attempts failed. He was not going to step down on his own. Sanctions had no effect on his grip on power. If anyone can make a compelling argument that Saddam could have been removed peacefully I'd like to hear it.

And leaving him in power was playing with fire: a chance not worth taking.



So let me ask you this then:

If we remove a democratically elected offical and relace him with a dictator (Shah) - and also support and implant a dictator (saddam) - how much of what is currently happening is attributable to us ****ing around over there in the first place?

[The Lone Bolt]

So let me ask you this then:

If we remove a democratically elected offical and relace him with a dictator (Shah) - and also support and implant a dictator (saddam) - how much of what is currently happening is attributable to us ****ing around over there in the first place?

Far too much I agree. And I understand the cynicism from the anti-war movement when they point to our past polcy f**k-ups in that region of the world.

I don't trust the US gov't either and Bush has already hopelessly screwed up the whole effort over there. Bush should not only have been fired in the last election, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TARRED AND FEATHERED AND RUN OUT OF TOWN ON A RAIL!!!!!!!~Popps~

But as much as I distrust the gov't, I was and am far more fearful of a nuclear armed Saddam, and anyone who has done their research should be as well.

[alkemical]

Far too much I agree. And I understand the cynicism from the anti-war movement when they point to our past polcy ****-ups in that region of the world.

I don't trust the US gov't either and Bush has already hopelessly screwed up the whole effort over there. Bush should not only have been fired in the last election, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TARRED AND FEATHERED AND RUN OUT OF TOWN ON A RAIL!!!!!!!~Popps~

But as much as I distrust the gov't, I was and am far more fearful of a nuclear armed Saddam, and anyone who has done their research should be as well.



Saddam IMO was removed for his consideration of switching to the euro than by his 'terror program'.

I mean we are supporting the dictator of uzbekistan now. A guy who has been documented in boiling people alive.

IMO - all this "war on terror" is nothing more than a blanket excuse for exerting will via force because we can't do it economically anymore.

[The Lone Bolt]

Saddam IMO was removed for his consideration of switching to the euro than by his 'terror program'.

I mean we are supporting the dictator of uzbekistan now. A guy who has been documented in boiling people alive.

IMO - all this "war on terror" is nothing more than a blanket excuse for exerting will via force because we can't do it economically anymore.

Well has the guy in Uzbekistan repeatedly invaded his neighbors without justification? Has the guy in Uzbekistans pursued WMD, including nukes? Was the guy in Uzbekistan considered so dangerous by the international community (the U.N.) that he had to be ordered to disarm of his WMD? Did the guy in Uzbekistan then defy that order and fail to prove to the U.N. Security Council that he had disarmed over 12 years and 17 U.N. resolutions?

The main issue is not who is more brutal (although that is an issue, just not the most important consideration). The main issue is who is more dangerous and aggressive.

[alkemical]

Well has the guy in Uzbekistan repeatedly invaded his neighbors without justification? Has the guy in Uzbekistans pursued WMD, including nukes? Was the guy in Uzbekistan considered so dangerous by the international community (the U.N.) that he had to be ordered to disarm of his WMD? Did the guy in Uzbekistan then defy that order and fail to prove to the U.N. Security Council that he had disarmed over 12 years and 17 U.N. resolutions?

The main issue is not who is more brutal (although that is an issue, just not the most important consideration). The main issue is who is more dangerous and aggressive.


With all the criteria you listed, i think the US needs to be invaded.

[The Lone Bolt]

With all the criteria you listed, i think the US needs to be invaded.


Then where would the world get their Big Macs?;)

[alkemical]

Then where would the world get their Big Macs?;)


You kidding, corporations don't have boundries anymore.