This is an opportunity to strike Iraq - Don Rumsfeld, 911

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary: Making a link between Saddam (who was a secular dictator) and Ben Laden (a religious fanatic) is or not understanding one single bit of politics in the Arab world, or just finding a stick (any stick) to hit a dog.Regardless, invading Iraq because of Al-Qaeda is kind of like deciding that being punched by Ralph gives you a right to punch Dave, whom you've always hated.
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,755
"This is an opportunity to strike Iraq" -- Don Rumsfeld, 911

[Q:]Now, let's really drill down. The 9/11 attacks happened. Almost by the minute, when after that, how soon after that does Iraq start being discussed, and by whom?

[A:] That night, Don Rumsfeld says, "This is an opportunity to strike Iraq, perhaps." And [Paul] Wolfowitz, his deputy, is pushing very aggressively and has even proposed a kind of somewhat crazy enclave strategy of just taking the oil fields in southern Iraq and using that as a base for anti-Saddam military actions or commando operations. All of the discussion of Iraq, it's there, it's serious, but the president and Cheney reject it and adopt very clearly an "Afghanistan first" policy. But it's background music.

[Q:] Why did Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz want to strike Iraq instantly?

[A:] Rumsfeld saw it as perhaps an opportunity, and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, to a much larger degree, was very worried that Afghanistan would not be a success. We had no war plan for Afghanistan. Amazingly enough, at 9/11, at the time of the attacks, they said, "What have we got?" Well, it's too far away; it's a small Taliban government. We did not have the plans.

Obviously we had the war plans for Iraq. Wolfowitz felt very, very strongly that we needed to put a success on the board and felt always that Iraq was going to be easy; that it was [a] brittle, oppressive regime that would fall very quickly if invaded.[continued]
--- Bob Woodward
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/interviews/woodward.html
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Do you recall what we did after Pearl Harbor - did we attack Japan or Germany first?
 
  • #3
Don't forget Africa...wasn't it Tunisia?
 
  • #4
russ_watters said:
Do you recall what we did after Pearl Harbor - did we attack Japan or Germany first?

Japan and Germany were closesly allied countries in that war.

Are you suggesting that Iraq was a close ally to Al Qaeda ?
 
  • #5
russ_watters said:
Do you recall what we did after Pearl Harbor - did we attack Japan or Germany first?


I thought bin laden was from saudi arabia...
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Gokul43201 said:
Japan and Germany were closesly allied countries in that war.

Are you suggesting that Iraq was a close ally to Al Qaeda ?
Define "closely allied." Germany and Japan were not fighting side-by-side, they were essentially fighting separate wars at the same time. All they agreed on was who to fight ('them,' not each other). That's comparable to the level of allegiance between Al Qaeda and Iraq, pre-war. (Our alliance with the USSR wasn't any stronger).

The point is, Pearl Harbor wasn't a reason to enter the war in Europe, it was an excuse to do something we should have been doing anyway, but weren't because of the US's historical policy of irrational isolationism.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
russ_watters said:
That's comparable to the level of allegiance between Al Qaeda and Iraq, pre-war.

I think this alledged alliance is what all the discussion is about. It seems that you think that 9/11 gives the US the "right" to attack who and whatever dislikes the US. Apart from the fact that the US was disliked by Saddam, but not necessarily by its population, and that the US was disliked by Ben Laden, they have nothing in common. Now, the US is hated (not only disliked) by 90% (ok, way of speaking) of ALL Arabs.
Making a link between Saddam (who was a secular dictator) and Ben Laden (a religious fanatic) is or not understanding one single bit of politics in the Arab world, or just finding a stick (any stick) to hit a dog.
 
  • #8
russ_watters said:
Define "closely allied." Germany and Japan were not fighting side-by-side, they were essentially fighting separate wars at the same time. All they agreed on was who to fight ('them,' not each other). That's comparable to the level of allegiance between Al Qaeda and Iraq, pre-war. (Our alliance with the USSR wasn't any stronger).

The point is, Pearl Harbor wasn't a reason to enter the war in Europe, it was an excuse to do something we should have been doing anyway, but weren't because of the US's historical policy of irrational isolationism.

If the emphasis of your point lies in the last paragraph, that the US merely needed an excuse to mount a long overdue invasion of Iraq, I can at least understand your point, even if I don't agree with it.

The fact that both hated the US might have given them reason to at least investigate the idea of 'the enemy of my enemy is not my foe', but their allegiance never even progressed that far. The views of Al-Qaeda (rule by religous theocracy) and Saddam Hussein (secular dictatorship) made the two natural threats to one another.

Regardless, invading Iraq because of Al-Qaeda is kind of like deciding that being punched by Ralph gives you a right to punch Dave, whom you've always hated. It's hardly sound logic.
 
  • #9
russ_watters said:
Define "closely allied." Germany and Japan were not fighting side-by-side, they were essentially fighting separate wars at the same time. All they agreed on was who to fight ('them,' not each other). That's comparable to the level of allegiance between Al Qaeda and Iraq, pre-war. (Our alliance with the USSR wasn't any stronger).

The point is, Pearl Harbor wasn't a reason to enter the war in Europe, it was an excuse to do something we should have been doing anyway, but weren't because of the US's historical policy of irrational isolationism.

I agree in most part with your second point, but not the first.

I can name 5 countries that are stronger suporters of the Al Qaeda cause than Iraq. Can you tell me that the same is true with Japan ?
 
  • #10
EVEYONE KNOWS HOW 9/11 was used to get iraq and its oil!







everyone except 52% americans who voted for bush
 
  • #11
So who's "got" the oil?
 
  • #12
Gokul43201 said:
So who's "got" the oil?

The Bush/Cheney administration has moved quickly to ensure U.S. corporate control over Iraqi resources, at least through the year 2007. The first part of the plan, created by the United Nations under U.S. pressure, is the Development Fund for Iraq, which is being controlled by the United States and advised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The second is a recent Bush executive order that provides absolute legal protection for U.S. interests in Iraqi oil.

In May, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1483, which ended sanctions and endorsed the creation of Development Fund for Iraq, to be controlled by Paul Bremer and overseen by a board of accountants, including U.N., World Bank and IMF representatives. It endorsed the transfer of over $1 billion (of Iraqi oil money) from the Oil-for-Food program into the Development Fund. All proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil and natural gas are also to be placed into the fund.

"The Development Fund, derived from actual and expected Iraqi oil and gas sales, will apparently be used to leverage U.S. government-backed loans, credit and direct financing for U.S. corporate forays into Iraq."

ExIm recently announced that it was open for business in Iraq and would begin considering applications by subcontractors (that is, companies hired by Bechtel and Halliburton) in Iraq.

"The primary source of repayment," explained an ExIm release, "is the Development Fund for Iraq, or another entity established under the auspices of the Coalition Provisional Authority with access to foreign exchange and protection from claims of creditors of the former regime." In other words, the U.S. government is happy to provide credit to any U.S. business wishing to do business in Iraq -- especially because the money comes from Iraq.

Bush signed an executive order that was spun as implementing Resolution 1483, but in reality went much further towards attracting investment and minimizing risk for U.S. corporations in Iraq.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2003/executive_order_13303.html decrees that "any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void," with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."

In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the United States. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The president, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.

In the short term, through the Development Fund and the Export-Import Bank programs, the Iraqi people's oil will finance U.S. corporate entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order 13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places oil companies above the rule of law.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
So Burnsys, your point is that the UN unanimously passed a resolution(wow, so now UN support is bad thing?), and Bush implemented a Executive order that promotes business to go into a dangerous area and help reconstruction?

The president, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action
That's not true at all.


(b) Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under Executive Orders 12722, 12724, or 13290, or under the authority of IEEPA or the UNPA, except as hereafter terminated, modified, or suspended by the issuing Federal agency and except as provided in section 2(a) of this order.

CAn you show me somewhere where this Order has been abused, and not just used to keep companies from running away from fixing Iraq?
 
  • #14
Fookie said:
EVEYONE KNOWS HOW 9/11 was used to get iraq and its oil!







everyone except 52% americans who voted for bush

I read your first line and thought it was a joke...wow.
 
  • #15
Iraq had connections to terrorists. You can deny it all you want, But Saddam did help terrorists. I'm not saying Al Qaeda. But it is common knowledge that he payed for the financial support of families of palestinians involved in suicide bombing Israel.

Second, he signed the armistice in 1992 which said that if he did not comply with its demands, war could be resumed. True, as we know afte the Duelfer report he had no WMDs. But he was still not complying with the armistice. He was, for whatever reason, consistently interfering with UN inspection teams and trying to keep them from perform there jobs. If not for hiding WMDs then the question must be asked why. But he was, and so by the 1992 armistice alone, we had every right to invade.

The invasion was overdue. It should have happened in 1998 under Clinton, when inspectors were first thrown out of the country by Saddam. Everything in 2002 was an excuse to justify an invasion that should have happened four years previously and needed no extra justification.
 
  • #16
franznietzsche said:
Second, he signed the armistice in 1992 which said that if he did not comply with its demands, war could be resumed. True, as we know afte the Duelfer report he had no WMDs. But he was still not complying with the armistice. He was, for whatever reason, consistently interfering with UN inspection teams and trying to keep them from perform there jobs. If not for hiding WMDs then the question must be asked why. But he was, and so by the 1992 armistice alone, we had every right to invade.
Haven't you ever played poker? The why was obvious. Hiding what you don't have is as important as hiding what you do have.

The US wasn't his only enemy. Hussein believed his Scud missiles and chemical weapons helped Iraq survive its war with Iran. He also believed those chemical weapons kept the US from invading Iraq in the first gulf war.

None the less, he somehow thought he could play both sides. If he destroyed them but kept some plausible doubt, the inspectors would never find evidence that could result in an invasion, but no one could ever be sure whether they were gone or hidden.
 
  • #17
BobG said:
The fact that both hated the US might have given them reason to at least investigate the idea of 'the enemy of my enemy is not my foe', but their allegiance never even progressed that far. The views of Al-Qaeda (rule by religous theocracy) and Saddam Hussein (secular dictatorship) made the two natural threats to one another.
You (and vanesch) are exactly right. Don't you remember learning about how shaky our alliance was with the USSR in WWII? Some of our generals thought we shouldn't have stopped at Berlin but should have hung a right and gone toward Moscow. Afghanistan and Iraq never had a formal alliance only because there was never a formal war. But the reality of their relationship was very similar to what the US and USSR had in WWII.
 
  • #18
russ_watters said:
The point is, Pearl Harbor wasn't a reason to enter the war in Europe, it was an excuse to do something we should have been doing anyway, but weren't because of the US's historical policy of irrational isolationism.

As far as I understand, US had a reason to go to Europe : German U-boats were destroying American transports and commerce to Britain. It replied to Japan because of Pearl Harbour. Attacking the Taliban following 911 was a similar reply. But with Iraq, there was no provocation! As far as I know, Saddam never even sponsored any kamikaze-type terrorism, he was at least a notch above this. Seems like Bush etc. assumed he would. Nothing however indicates he would have gone that far.

This pre-emptive business is what alienates everyone from the US. It's one of the reasons we hate Hitler, that he attacked (Poland etc.) first! Might as well rename the DoD the Department of Assault. Should other countries follow the US' lead and do the same? Fudge the UN and attack another country as it pleases?

I keep hoping that the US administration knows stuff I (or the public) don't and in fact knows what's doing, because by the looks of it, it's quite simply setting the stage for a new generation of US haters who will want want revenge for the arial poundings etc, just as the US wanted for Pearl Harbor, 911, and the Atlantic commerce disruption during WW2. The job market in security for today's American kids seems extremely promising.
 
  • #19
franznietzsche said:
Second, he signed the armistice in 1992 which said that if he did not comply with its demands, war could be resumed. True, as we know afte the Duelfer report he had no WMDs. But he was still not complying with the armistice. He was, for whatever reason, consistently interfering with UN inspection teams and trying to keep them from perform there jobs. If not for hiding WMDs then the question must be asked why. But he was, and so by the 1992 armistice alone, we had every right to invade.
Figures Rumsfeld would say something like this.
Resolution 687, April 3 1991 demanded iraq accept unconditionally "the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction" - Iraq accepted.

Later Resolution 715, imposed 11 oct, 1991 stated that iraq would "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission"

This was declared "unlawfull' by iraq, and was never accepted, therefor it was imposed on iraq, and therefor it was void.
Resolution 715
 
  • #20
Gonzolo said:
As far as I understand, US had a reason to go to Europe : German U-boats were destroying American transports and commerce to Britain.
That's true, but the point is that we didn't enter WWII in response to that. We should have, but we didn't. It took a largely unrelated incident to prompt action against Germany.
As far as I know, Saddam never even sponsored any kamikaze-type terrorism, he was at least a notch above this.
Clarification: he didn't support Al Queda - his support for other Arab terrorist organizations was quite well documented.
 
  • #21
russ_watters said:
That's true, but the point is that we didn't enter WWII in response to that. We should have, but we didn't. It took a largely unrelated incident to prompt action against Germany.

But the analogy fails in that WWII was already in progress before the US joined in. The Iraq War wasn't.

The point that an unrelated event may influence foreign/defense policy is well made...but that may not be as relevant as you make it seem. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have been calling for an attack on Iraq since time immemorial.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Gokul43201 said:
But the analogy fails in that WWII was already in progress before the US joined in. The Iraq War wasn't.
That, again, depends on what perspective you want to take. With ships being sunk in the Atlantic periodically and the US supplying weapons to the combatants, it certainly could be said we were already at war with Germany before we declared it. And with Iraq our planes, enforcing a peace treaty from the last war, were fired at on a virtually daily basis.
 
  • #23
True, but while in the first case, most will accept that Germany started that War, you won't find a majority saying that Iraq started this one.

Most people will not accept that the pot-shots on US/British planes enforcing the no-fly zone was sufficient reason for the war (yes, this may be because people are basically selfish). Bush himself knew this, hence the need for ...
 
  • #24
Can you provide a link or a source for Iraq's documented support for other organized terrorist groups?
 
  • #25
Smurf said:
Can you provide a link or a source for Iraq's documented support for other organized terrorist groups?
Certainly: A quick google: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1199662004 [Broken]
• Documents show Saddam funded Palestinian terrorist group
• Syrian business front funded terrorists through UN oil-for-food programme
• 1991 tape reveals Saddam wanted to use biological weapons against Israel...

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which is still working its way through 20,000 boxes of documents from Saddam’s Baath party discovered only recently, found a list of pressure groups bankrolled by Saddam.
A similar cache of documents was taken, IIRC, from Arafats headquarters a couple of years ago - it shows the link from the other side.

I'm really surprised you didn't hear about it - Saddam was quite open in his award money for the families of suicide bombers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
Originall Al qaida is a fictitious terrorist group, invented by CIA,Mossad,M15,etc.
There might exist now some offshots of BIG SCARY :wink: Al qaida,but guys.. please, we are not that stupid.
 
  • #27
russ_watters said:
I'm really surprised you didn't hear about it - Saddam was quite open in his award money for the families of suicide bombers.

The US is also quite open about the award of money for Iraels (non-suicide) bombers...

First of all, whether you call the Palestinian action groups "terrorists" or "patriot resistance fighters" is a matter of point of view. I would like to see you reacting when you've been living since childhood in refugee camps, regularly bombed by the Israeli army. But the main point is that Saddam gave money to wives and children. So that was apparently sufficient reason to go and bomb the country. But the Gulf states gave MUCH MORE money, not only to the Palestinian resistance, but also to Ben Laden and consorts. So why take on Saddam then, and not, say, the royal family of Wahabites first ?

You cannot but agree that these are fake reasons to wage a war.
 
  • #28
russ_watters said:
Certainly: A quick google: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1199662004 [Broken] A similar cache of documents was taken, IIRC, from Arafats headquarters a couple of years ago - it shows the link from the other side.

Yeah! documents provided by the way of Mossad to gullible western news agencies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
russ_watters said:
That's true, but the point is that we didn't enter WWII in response to that. We should have, but we didn't. It took a largely unrelated incident to prompt action against Germany.

With the Pearl Harbour attack, and knowing that Germany and Japan were allied, the US was much more justified in entering the war, and gained much more sympathy. Whether the US should have entered the war before or not is a matter of debate. The Japan attack was somewhat unrelated, but it did squeeze the US in the uncomfortable position of being sqeezed from both sides, by countries who were known to be allied. Germany alone probably didn't pose much threat.


russ_watters said:
Clarification: he didn't support Al Queda - his support for other Arab terrorist organizations was quite well documented.

Thanks for the link.
 
  • #30
vanesch said:
The US is also quite open about the award of money for Iraels (non-suicide) bombers...
So?
First of all, whether you call the Palestinian action groups "terrorists" or "patriot resistance fighters" is a matter of point of view.
Only if you reject the existence of an objective definition of "terrorism." I'll grant you, though, that it appears the supporters of terrorists do exactly that. I'm more precise with my word usage - as is the law.

tumor, clearly, rational debate is not possible with you on this subject. I have no response for those posts.
 
  • #31
russ_watters said:
So? Only if you reject the existence of an objective definition of "terrorism." I'll grant you, though, that it appears the supporters of terrorists do exactly that. I'm more precise with my word usage - as is the law.

Well, terrorists attack civilian targets of a country to establish terror within the population, as a means of realising their political agenda.
Resistance fighters are a non-formal army which fights the nation which occupies/attacks their people/nation/...
Palestinians do both: they attack the civil population of Israel, but their political agenda is the liberation of their people from Israeli occupation. This is something completely different, as, say, the Communist Cells who bombed subway stations and supermarkets in Western Europe in the 80-ies in order to establish a communist agenda (and were actually a small group of deluded individuals).
Now, I know very well that in recent history, the Palestinians didn't do "the right thing", which is: accept to live as respected second-class civilians in another country, namely Israel.
And I know that the violence has escaladed between the two communities, without it being possible to indicate which one is right, and which one is wrong. But you have kids throwing rocks at tanks, airplanes bombing tent camps, ... This is mistreating a whole population. If you're born as a Palestinian kid, the future isn't very bright for you, and you shouldn't be surprised that the only thing such a kid, when it is 17 years old, desires, is to kill off jews and doesn't mind dying in doing so. This is not a "political ideal" he tries to impose upon the terrified Israeli population ; it is revenge for what has been done to his people. So is that a bad bad terrorist, or someone who fights a hopeless fight for his people ? It is not so clear.
That doesn't mean that I agree with blowing up busses and so on. But what else can they do ? What's the perspective of the life of a "good Palestinian" ?
 
  • #32
Tumor it's MI5 not M15 (which might be a rifle)
 
  • #33
MI5 : Military Intelligence 5, which is actually a civilian organisation (like CIA).

I think MI6 is the actual military version.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
4
Replies
115
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
58
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top