Posted on 08/08/2003 8:11:48 PM PDT by Brian S
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:43:13 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Pentagon officials met over a three-day period in late 2001 with a long-discredited Iranian who was a middleman in the Iran-Contra scandal, Defense Department officials said Friday.
Manucher Ghorbanifar sat in on a series of meetings in Europe between two defense officials and two other Iranians who the Bush administration had been told had information useful to the United States in its then-fledgling global war on terrorism, a senior defense official said on condition of anonymity. The meetings occurred not long after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
There are reasons, that the Bush team is keeping things close to the vest. No matter what the damned Dems, and some of FR's blinkered think,neither President Bush, the younger, nor his team, are stupid. The buried migs ( mgs ? ), the travelling/on wheels bioweapons trucks, the raft of papers, computers, et al have been talked about. Hardly anyone in the mass media focused much time on this stuff, or the scientist's rose graden burial. On the contrary, it's mostly been ignored.
The more " feet " being swallowed, the closer to the actual presidential election, the better and THAT is precisely what is going to happen ... in spades.
We have had many threats. Do we react to each threat the same? No. We reacted to Hitler with force. He was a threat. Did we react to the nuclear buildup by the Soviets by attacking them? No. We spent them into the ground. Kim Jung Ill is a threat to the ROK, but should we attack them? Probably not. We have China to force their hand on them.
The opportunity came in Iraq to remove Hussein with U.N. resolutions, close to 40 nations supporting us, and the fact that he attacked the nation of Kuwait.
I was always of that opinion. I was of that opinion back in 1986, when we were sending troops to aid the illegal campaign by the Iraqi and Kuwaiti govts to sink civilian shipping (the so-called "tanker war.") Kuwait was Iraq's ally, then, of course. So was the US, and the British govt was giving them special aid to build a chemical facility ...
If you are of that belief you should therefore be in favor of restoring Saddam Hussein to power in Iraq and letting mass graves continue.
But why do you think that any new government that we install is going to be any better? Do you think that the violence of war is likely to democratise Iraqi society. Or that the people who supported Sadaam for so many years are "good pickers" of govt leaders? There are no proposals for a peaceful govt in Iraq, and Daniel Pipes is already suggesting that the country be handed over to a "strong-man" figure for a "transition" period.
Burkaman1 will go to his grave defending our enemies, So don't waste your time. nothing will convince him that there is real threats our there until they arrive on his doorstep. Myself, I'm for the pre-emptive philosophy
Ok, either the people get a new leader, or they get Saddam Hussein. The same was with Hitler and also in Japan. The people in Japan were bass akwards. 10 years after the war they were a growing nation. The same with Germany. After a ruthless leader was overthrown, along with the cities destroyed from years of war, a new government was installed. It worked. And yes, I do believe that the people of Iraq are better off now than when they were under Hussein. Even without the government set up, they are better off.
As for helping Iraq/Iran in the 1980's, there's a lot of cold war issues involved that most people don't realize. You pick the lesser of the two evils in that bout. Keep in mind the Soviets were just next door in Afghanistan. That played a HUGE role in what we were doing over there.
I'm in total agreement with you on that one. I guess for me that was a given, but I felt I needed to add on to the rest of the sh!t Hussein and his thugs did. ;)
I doubt you can argue the point that the Nazi's were less radical than the Islamocrazies, or the Japanese were less suicidal?
How do you figure this. Let's just look at one bullseye issue that sticks out like a sore thumb. When Hussein attacked Kuwait, he had in control a ton of oil. 6 months later he attacked Saudi Arabia. Without us there, he would have easily taken Saudi. At this point he would have controlled the oil out of Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi. Do you think our economy would have reacted positively to that? You might have liked to pay $5.00 per gallon for gasoline, but I don't think I would have enjoyed that. People wouldn't pay it, therefore gas stations would start shutting down. If gas stations start shutting down, trucks stop moving. Trucks stop moving and the entire system would halt.
Hussein is NOT " more of a threat " now; he's less of one.
There were WMDs in Iraq. Some, may still be there, whilst others were probably moved into Syria and other places.
Iraq had the knowledge and making of " dirty bombs ". That's a recent find. al Qaeda talked about stting one or more such off in the USA. Saddam WAS in contact/sheltering some al Qaeda members.
For over 12 years, Saddam not only thumbed his nose at the UN sanctions, but made inspectors leave. For that alone, we should have gone into Iraq.
Point being he launched a missile attack against Kuwait. Whether it was scud or a chinese made missile, it was still a military attack against another country. He did this before we dropped the first bomb on Baghdad in this last military campaign.
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.