Posted on 04/01/2003 6:11:17 AM PST by TonyInOhio
CNN TV has reported this morning that Allied forces "may have found chemical weapons at Ansar al Islam camp in Northern Iraq".
The Agonist weblog comments on hearing the same:
Allied forces may have found chemical weapons at a camp of the radical Islamist group, Ansar al Islam, in northern Iraq, reported CNN on April 1.
National Review Online has a similar tease:
ANSLAR AL ISLAM & WMD [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
CNN On Air is reporting suspected chemcial/bioweapon evidence found at the camp seized over the weekend.
If he wants the benefits of the sovereignity argument to hide behind when commiting attrocities then he must accept the obligations that occur because of his soveriegnity. You can't let him have it both ways. The obligations come with the benefits.
An excerpt:
Intelligence officials told me that the agency also takes seriously reports that an Iraqi known as Abu Wa’el, whose real name is Saadoun Mahmoud Abdulatif al-Ani, is the liaison of Saddam’s intelligence service to a radical Muslim group called Ansar al-Islam, which controls a small enclave in northern Iraq; the group is believed by American and Kurdish intelligence officials to be affiliated with Al Qaeda. I learned of another possible connection early last year, while I was interviewing Al Qaeda operatives in a Kurdish prison in Sulaimaniya. There, a man whom Kurdish intelligence officials identified as a captured Iraqi agent told me that in 1992 he served as a bodyguard to Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s deputy, when Zawahiri secretly visited Baghdad.
No disagreement on my side.
It's just that we did not become the common enemy until we pre-emptively invaded Iraq. Now we are.
Whatever weapons programs have been going on there preceded that.
Short of that, I would've chosen to defer the war until the assembling of greater international consensus or otherwise provide whatever was required to get Turkey on board with the northern front so integral to the Pentagon's original battleplans.
However, I don't trust anything out of CNN.
Are you kidding ? Upi until this last comment you made at least some sense. Now your in lala land.
The UNSC Resolution 687 made no reference to "control". The resolution states:
Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independance of Kuwait and Iraq ...
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless under international supervision of:
(a) all chemical and biolgical weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, and support and manufacturing facilities related thereto; ...
10. Decides further that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or aquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9... As I read, it, the UNSC recognizes Iraq as the sovereign over the internationally accepted bouders of Iraq, demands the destroy thier WMD's, and prohibits the reaquistion thereof. IMHO, if we find them in Iraq - Saddam has to answer for it.
I remember in the last 6 months reading articles about this.
Did Lincoln's government bear responsibility for what the Confederacy did at the Andersonville prison camp? Did the South Vietnamese Thieu government bear responsibility for Viet Cong atrocities?
You have not seen their current talking points: even when we prove the Iraqi's have WMD, they will accuse of the US of purposely not sharing the intel with the UN so that we could attack as opposed to allowing inspections to work...
How does a no fly Zone prevent Saddam from exerting political control of the Kurdish (and Shi'ite) areas? The Kurds were granted a limited autonomy - they are still Iraqi's and Iraq is the sovereign of these areas. (Funny how his military was still there until a couple of days ago!!)
The Confederacy declared independance and lost. During the "rebellion" they were soley responsible for thier actions (imports / exports / production etc... )
North and South Vietnam were "independant" and recognized countries, so no, the South bore no responsibility for the actions of the north.
Why?
Serious question.
Major Rationalization Alert.
OK Harry! I have had enough of this friendship BS!
Don't you understand that these relationships are based on common goals and hatreds, Not personal relationships.
Is the American Communist party a personal friend of PETA? Are the Germans friends with Putin? Is Mexico's government in bed with the French?
These relationships are one of necessity in order to cause damage to a superior force. The U.S.A.
These Islamic fascist have no love for each other or Saddam, but they work together often to achieve the common goal. The destruction of the West.
Use your head and imagination and and the connections are obvious and glaring!
Stop viewing this like a legal case that require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. This legalistic behavior is what got us into this mess to begin with!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.