Soldiers face real 'die-in' daily in Iraq

The Post Online ^ | Apr 13th, 2005 | Marc Fencil

[spinestein]

[Is Iraq only the beginning?]


Iraq was the second one after Afghanistan.

I suspect more will follow in one fashion or another, and I support this.

[cwb]

"Wait a minute. I don't recall that guy (Al Zarqawi) being a problem until after we conquered Iraq. Is it possible our conquest caused us additional problems?"...blah, blah, blah

---

You are so full of Sh*t, I don't know were to begin. Zarqawi was one of OBL's top operators within al Qaeda for years before this war even began. Having made his home in Afghanistan, he was forced to flee after being injured as that war began. From there he went to Iran were his stay didn't last long as US pressure forced him out, only to end up in Baghdad, were he was treated and rested for up to two months...in a hospital operated by one of Hussein's sons. All of this BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.

With about 2 dozen of his closest associates, including some from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, he soon met up with the another branch of radicals loosely assocaited with AQ, located in Northern Iraq. Ansar al-Islam has operated out of N. Iraq since around September of 2001. This group of Kurds and Arabs had met previously with AQ officials in Afghanistan in an effot to set up an affililate AQ branch in N. Iraq...dedicated to establishing an independent Islamic State in
N. Iraq (this happening months BEFORE 9/11).

Through al-Qaeda funding, the organization was able to gain strength and influence in the northern-border/Kurdish regions. This alliance grew stronger after the war in Afghaistan as many Taliban and AQ members fled Afghanistan, ending up with Ansar. While many people have tried to distance Saddam from this terrorist group, Zarqawi's appearance in Baghdad...than later in N. Iraq makes this connection more obvious. Zarqawi's two-month stay in Baghdad, and his relation to Ansar through AQ, does indicate some coperation. Nobody just drops into Baghdad for two months without Saddam being aware...especially a terrorist leader of AZs notability. Oh...and for those who say OBL/AQ and Saddam are enemies, just remeber that it was Saddam who offered OBL santuary after he left Sudan and Qatar in 1999 (The Herald, Scotland-12/28/99).

Iraq didn't just suddenly become the next Afghanistan since the war; it already was...and worse. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq under Saddam was much more dangerous simply because of the material and financial resources he possessed. While so many focused their attention on Saddam's WMDs, what they missed was that Iraq was practically an armory for Mid-East terrorists. His stockpile of conventional weapons was huge...and the last time I checked, Saddam didn't allow an armed citizenry. Yet, the weapons at his disposal were enough to supply his own armies 10 times over. Those weapons were going somewhere to kill someone.

On a final note, which is just as important: When we took down the Taliban and AQ's camps in Afghanistan, it was obvious that the terrorists were going to need somewhere else to coalesce. For decades, the santuaries for organized terrorists were growing thin. Historic places like Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia had already begun clamping down on the more radical elements in these groups. This was further evident when the Sudan even made several offers to turn over Osama to the US in the 1990s...only to be rebuffed and rebuked by Clinton.

With Musharif's, Pakistan joining the US in the WOT and even Ghaddafi in Libya denouncing the actions of these terrorists, all these countries were just a little too hot for these leftovers, who had little choices for safe-haven. Remember, while many of these terrorists found there way into Iran, which was right next store...American pressure and the threat of Iran becoming the next target, forced the Iranians to expel many of them. In fact, this was at the point when al-Zarqawi left Iran and ended up in Baghdad for a couple months.

With the war in Afghanistan and the collapse of the Taliban, these remnants were bound, irregardless of the war in Iraq, to end up in Iraq at some point with Saddam as their benefactor . Hell, some already were, as Zarqawi had relocated to Iraq "before" the war there began. And just the establishment of Ansar al-Islam in N. Iraq...even before 9/11, indicated that possibly al-Qaeda was going to need an alternate base of operations if things got to hairy in Afghanistan. The fact that Suddam was aready housing wanted terrorists such as Nidal and Abbas only made Iraq that more appealing to these radicals...and a reason why it had to end now before they became entrenched.

[TADSLOS]

So, are we supposed to invade all those dozens? Is Iraq only the beginning?

Yep.

[SausageDog]

"Ansar al-Islam has operated out of N. Iraq since around September of 2001. This group of Kurds and Arabs had met previously with AQ officials in Afghanistan in an effot to set up an affililate AQ branch in N. Iraq...dedicated to establishing an independent Islamic State in
N. Iraq...Through al-Qaeda funding, the organization was able to gain strength and influence in the northern-border/Kurdish regions."

You got that right, but it doesn't prove what you want it to prove. N.(Kurdish) Iraq was the only part of Iraq outside of Saddam Hussein's control, and so the only part of the country where Al Qaeda had a foothold. Now, of course, Al Qaeda is all over the country, swollen with a limitless supply of recruits, Iraqis who wish to avenge relatives killed by Americans.

"and the last time I checked, Saddam didn't allow an armed citizenry."

There were 40 gun stores in Baghdad prior to the US conquest. I betcha that's about 40 more gun stores than there are in Washington, DC. Iraqis were armed and still are, despite US efforts to confiscate guns.

" Yet, the weapons at his disposal were enough to supply his own armies 10 times over. Those weapons were going somewhere to kill someone."

Yes, those weapons are killing our guys.

[cwb]

What do gun stores have to do with anything if the citenzry doesn't have access to them. There were armories and weapons depots all over the place too; that didn't mean Joe-Shi'ite could walk down and get some weapons. My point...which you avoided, was that Saddam was a danger regardless of WMDs.

My other point, which you ignored, is that Saddam had been supporting terrorists...and had them operating out of his country for years. Salman Pak was just outside of Baghdad...and Abass and Nidal (PLA/PLO, etc) were active and wanted terrorists that Saddam harbored. Abass was a conduit from the Saddam to the terrorism in Israel...not to mention Saddam's financial support to suicide bombers and their families. And AZ was in Baghdad before the war even began.

If you think Ansar would've went about their merry way after Afghanistan, than you are naive; it was filling up with remnants from Afghanistan. And if you think Saddam wouldn't have jumped at the oppurtunity to help finance them and their fight against the Western Devil, than you're just stupid. You missed a whole lot of other observations.

[SausageDog]

"What do gun stores have to do with anything if the citenzry doesn't have access to them. There were armories and weapons depots all over the place too; that didn't mean Joe-Shi'ite could walk down and get some weapons."

From everything I've been reading in the papers, Iraqis are very well armed indeed, with an AK-47 (fully automatic) as the standard firearm, and crew-served machine guns, anti-tank weapons, and mortars not uncommon.

" My point...which you avoided, was that Saddam was a danger regardless of WMDs. My other point, which you ignored, is that Saddam had been supporting terrorists...and had them operating out of his country for years. Salman Pak was just outside of Baghdad...and Abass and Nidal (PLA/PLO, etc) were active and wanted terrorists that Saddam harbored. Abass was a conduit from the Saddam to the terrorism in Israel...not to mention Saddam's financial support to suicide bombers and their families. And AZ was in Baghdad before the war even began."

That sounds like terrorist campaign against Israel, not us. Well than, Israel should have dealt with it, if it wanted to. Are we called upon to start a war in behalf of Israel?

[ComNerd3C0X2]

Wow, sounds like you have some really good information sources there: "From everything I've been reading in the papers...". How about actually talking to people willing to get off their liberal ass (pun intended) and go fight. Well over 90% of media sources are controlled by one side of political spectrum so the information is guaranteed to be highly skewed if you are relying on just that.

About WMD, I personally don't care if he didn't have any left. The bastard had rape camps and his sons had police kidnap girls so they could rape them then kill the doctors if they verified the rape. These stories have come out a few times now, but you won't hear most of them because the liberal media just wants you to concentrate on the WMD issue rather than the fact that this was a crooked and evil family that used the countries citizens for their own pleasure. I am glad that he is out of power, WMD or not.