Bush: U.S. probes possible Iran links to 9/11

[alis]

i agree CatAstrofix. the US government actually thinks theyve done iraq a favour,

or is it theyve done themselves a favour???

[CatAstrofix]

so please oh please tell me what should have been done?

I never said I'd have the answers to how bring peace and happines to whole world, or even in Iraq. I don't even know enough to state what would be the best course of action in my opinion. Ppl should be able to trust their leaders to do the right thing, in this both Mr Hussein and Mr Bush have failed.

What I do know is that the war in Iraq has been a disaster for everybody involved. To go back to the subject, linking Iran to 9/11, somewhat leads you to think that the war against terrorism has turned to a war of terror.

[councilof3]

there are killings going on all over africa for example, why doesnt the US government do anything about that???

Its just one of lifes mysteries why the world governments turn a blind eye towards Africa, yet invade oil rich Iraq to overthrow a 'brutal regime'

so please oh please tell me what should have been done?

Maybe a bit of diplomacy? France, Russia and most other countries were all on board with America before the suggestion of invading Iraq.

After 9/11, any country that wasnt on board with America was looking isolated.

But instead Bush chose to isolate America (and sadly Britain) with the 'either with us or against us' attitude, which I'm afraid lost America a lot of support at a time when she needed it most.

[alis]

in my opinion, there must have been more than one country involved in the freedom of movement of the al qaeda network. the US governments are becoming like barbarians. first Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now theyre turning their attentions to Iran. how many people have to die before enough is enough. i dont think bush cares.

[bathory]

Its just one of lifes mysteries why the world governments turn a blind eye towards Africa, yet invade oil rich Iraq to overthrow a 'brutal regime'

turns a blind eye? you are kidding right? just because they didn't bomb the **** out of the countries doesn't mean that action hasn't been taken, perhaps through the UN, where certain countries don't have a vested interest in blocking any action!

Maybe a bit of diplomacy? France, Russia and most other countries were all on board with America before the suggestion of invading Iraq.

10 years of failed diplomacy, 10 years of broken resolutions, France, Russia and Germany avoiding action in order to profit from Saddams regime.

Edited July 20, 2004 by bathory

[Blood Angel]

Contemporary military tactics (expecially when combined with the growingly complex world politics) are a multi-dimensional field of operations, that in no way is as simple as "the more troops/tanks/planes you have, the more your chances to win". This was the way wars were made until the WWI, not today.

Numbers ARE everything, with more troops than the enmy, you can strike at multiple targets simultaneusly. You can also beat back the enemys offensives, whilst creating your own offenses at the same time.

But allow me one, only one question. Which theater of operations are we talking about? NATO has at least the theoretical possibility of bringing troops to China, with a massive landing that would make usage of the multiple NATO bases around the world, Japanese, South-Korean, and the ones in Philippines being the closest. What kind of bases could China use to attack USA or Europe? What kind of solutions would China have to solve the immense logistic problems?

For Europe, all the have to do is go through kazakstan, they won't need bases to strike Europe. Logistics won't be a problem, with a continous supply line from its own territories. NATO may have more bases, but like i said they are heavily out numbered. NATO would have to keep a tight defense round europe, and won't have the resources to commit a offensive. Not only would china have ground superiority, but they will also have air superiority as well, being able to commit excellent defense as well as keeping up a very heavy offensive.

However attacking USA and Austrailia is where China is at a disadvantadge having a smaller navy, Combined NATO naval fleets would be able to keep them at bay.

Europe is the key. If Europe, rhetorically speaking falls to a chinese invasion. Then American economy would collapse. Giving China a economic advantage. These types of wars however, are usually based on do or die. (such as the japanese entering WW2, dragging USA with them.)

It's impossible for China to militarily threaten NATO, and as impossible for NATO to threaten China. But in modern times wars are not always fought with weapons and bullets, and that is another issue. And the truth is that economically, both the West and China are totally dependant on each other.

China can threaten NATO. It has the power to go all the way to london.... Knock out Europe, and its just a matter of time before they consoledate their forces, and go for the motherload....They may be dependent on each other, BUT China could gain a whole lot more by invasion....

However, NATO would most probably resort to unconventional weapons, as soon as the first tank rumbles over the horizon.

[councilof3]

turns a blind eye? you are kidding right?

Erm, no, as it happens. I didnt notice anyone invading Rwanda, and I notice Mugabe is still at large. Maybe Fox news don't cover those types of news story.

10 years of failed diplomacy, 10 years of broken resolutions, France, Russia and Germany avoiding action in order to profit from Saddams regime.

Yes, but we are talking post September 11th here. You seem to think that America was the only country that was aware of the gravity of the situation.

[Asterix]

Oh my, lots of posting here...

To Blood Angel: A quick glance in military history (and I mean of the last 100 years, not older) is enough proof that numbers not only are not the only element that matters, but at occasion they can be part of the problem. The German offensive against the Soviets, in WWII, operation Barbarossa, is a classic example. The first weeks of the war went fine, Soviets are thrown back all the way to Moscow. Then winter comes, supply lines are cut off, Germany faces trouble in feeding its huge army to the Eastern Front, and as a result the whole operation ends in fiasco (and as many historians believe, plays a key role to the defeat of Germany).

Another example. Just before WWII, Soviets attack Finland. Finns push back the Russians again and again, although they are outnumbered...I dunno...1 to 1000? PLUS that Finland is exatly next to Russia, so there wasn't even a supplying line problem!

For Europe, all the have to do is go through kazakstan, they won't need bases to strike Europe. Logistics won't be a problem, with a continous supply line from its own territories.

This is a very simplistic and boardgame-like approach, not a realistic scenario. China not only can't pass through these territories for political reasons, but it's also physically impossible to move such a huge army for such a long distance. It's completely unimmaginable! Even if it was a parade, not a war, the supplies/food/fuel/communications needed, would be problems simply without solution. AND when you talk about war, with enemy fire constantly cutting off supplying lines, then it's...I dunno...Suicide?

China can threaten NATO. It has the power to go all the way to london.... Knock out

Germany in WWII failed to invade England and it was 4000 miles closer. And, on my humble opinion, Germany's war machine was WAY more advanced (relatively speaking, for WWII standards) than China's in the present.

To bathory: Having an attitude "You, UN, we're attacking now so you better vote in favor coz we're attacking anyway" is a bullying attitude which just proves how little respect US goverment showed towards United Nations. The laws are made for a reason, and international laws fall into the same category. WWII happened because of the lack of respect countries showed towards the League of Nations in the 20s and 30s..

Edited July 20, 2004 by Asterix

[+joc]

But instead Bush chose to isolate America (and sadly Britain) with the 'either with us or against us' attitude, which I'm afraid lost America a lot of support at a time when she needed it most.

America didn't lose any support! We defined who our friends are and in effect who our enemies are. France, Germany and Russia were supporting the regime which was killing its innocent citizens by the hundreds of thousands.

Duh!

[councilof3]

America didn't lose any support!

[bathory]

turns a blind eye? you are kidding right? just because they didn't bomb the **** out of the countries doesn't mean that action hasn't been taken, perhaps through the UN, where certain countries don't have a vested interest in blocking any action!

^ thats what i said

its a bit different to how you quoted me, hell i stated military action wasn't always necessary, and then you go and ask me why you didn't see military action.

To bathory: Having an attitude "You, UN, we're attacking now so you better vote in favor coz we're attacking anyway" is a bullying attitude which just proves how little respect US goverment showed towards United Nations.

am i the only person worried that Saddam had bought out the French, Germans and Russian?

Joc is right in a sense, the countries mentioned were NEVER going to support any action other than meaningless resolutions towards Saddam.

Although what i want to know is, did the French/Germans/Russians have any actual input militarily during the war Afghanistan? or did they opt for Blue helmets? <-- This is a question

Edited July 20, 2004 by bathory

[wunarmdscissor]

Ok am against the war in Iraq but ALis dont even try to compare afghanistan with Iraq.

America had EVERY right to attack them and so did we.

They hid bin laden and openly supported him and his training camps. They just about declared war on us all an helped kill our citizens, the Taliban HAD to be taken care of.

Iraq is an entirely different story.

At least afghanistan was part of the "war on terror"

We all know what Iraq is dont we?????....................

So wen we gonna roll into iran cowboys eh???

LOL joc how the hell do you define a "terrorist country"?????????????????????

In britain we have loads of terrorists, you might as well take care of us.

Are you gonna impose martial law in america and attack yourselves cause terrorists exist in america too????

mmmm...........

Edited July 20, 2004 by wunarmdscissor

[councilof3]

^ thats what i said

its a bit different to how you quoted me, hell i stated military action wasn't always necessary, and then you go and ask me why you didn't see military action.

My apologies, I have included a link below detailing exactly what was acheived in Rwanda

Link

[+joc]

Iraq is an entirely different story.

It is the same story...just a different chapter. Iran...Syria....same story, different chapters. When the book is finished it will be a better world....that is our hope.

[alis]

i apologise about comparing afghanistan to iraq and iran. but i disagree totally with any war against iran right now. not because im half iranian but because i dont think he has good enough reason or motive to. just my opinion though. plus i dont think iran will be such a push over as iraq.

[reese2]

i apologise about comparing afghanistan to iraq and iran. but i disagree totally with any war against iran right now. not because im half iranian but because i dont think he has good enough reason or motive to. just my opinion though. plus i dont think iran will be such a push over as iraq.

You being half Iranian, shouldn't matter. If Iran has contributed to terrorism, by way of funds or shelter, than they deserve to be taken out.

I really also liked the little pic you posted with the marine and the children.. How is that for misinformation?? Good job keeping it real..

[alis]

that may be your opinion but even your own government doesnt have any real proof.

link

Fixed Link

Edited July 24, 2004 by Tommy

[wunarmdscissor]

It is the same story...just a different chapter. Iran...Syria....same story, different chapters. When the book is finished it will be a better world....that is our hope. 

What book is this then????????

Chapter 7 "the madness of Bush the 2nd"

Did people in black suits visit you Joc an give you any pills??

Youve swallowed so much bull**** its untrue.

[reese2]

Didn't see your link Alis... Please try again... I am very anxious to see...

[alis]

for some reson i cant provide a link, sorry. but ive copied and pasted it just for you!!!!

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

We can't prove Iran-Sept 11 link: CIA

07/19/04 "AFP" -- About eight hijackers passed through Iran before the September 11 attacks on the United States, but Washington has no evidence that Tehran sanctioned the strikes, the acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency said.

"This is not surprising to us. I think the count is about eight of the hijackers were able to pass through Iran at some point," John McLaughlin told Fox News Sunday.

"We have ample evidence of people being able to move back and forth across that terrain," he said.

"However, I would stop there and say we have no evidence that there is some sort of official sanction by the government of Iran for this activity. We have no evidence that there is some sort of official connection between Iran and 9/11," he said.

His remarks were the first official confirmation of leaked accounts from the final report of the official inquiry into the 2001 attacks that killed 3,000 people, which is due to be released Thursday.

The inquiry's interim reports have already shot down White House claims of a link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda, highlighted gaps in US defences, and levied tough criticism at intelligence services.

Time and Newsweek magazines, in similar reports quoting congressional, commission and government sources, reported that Iran relaxed border controls and provided "clean" passports for the so-called "muscle hijackers" to transit Iran to and from Osama bin Laden's camps between October 2000 and February 2001.

The commission's report says Iran at one point proposed collaborating with al-Qaeda on attacks against America, but bin Laden declined, saying he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia, according to Time.

Newsweek said the Iranian finding in the commission's report is based largely on a December 2001 memo discovered buried in the files of the US National Security Agency.

The memo, according to Newsweek, says "Iranian border inspectors were instructed not to place stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda fighters from Saudi Arabia who were travelling from bin Laden's camps through Iran."

The United States has for years listed Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, and has pressured Tehran over its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency is probing allegations the country is using power generation as a cover for a secret weapons drive.

Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania told NBC that "we have to be very strong with Iran".

"Iran has been complicit in terrorism for a long time," he said.

"They're developing nuclear power now, potentially nuclear weapons, and we have to be insistent that there be international inspection."

Earlier, Iran acknowledged that suspected al-Qaeda members involved in the September 11 attacks may have passed through its territory, but insisted they would have done so "illegally".

"We have very long borders and it is impossible to totally control them," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.

"It is natural that five or six people could have crossed our borders illegally without us seeing them," he insisted.

"The same thing happens on the border between the United States and Mexico."

Iran condemned the September 11 attacks, but has frequently been accused of harbouring and not cracking down on the group. And in February, Spain's top anti-terror judge Baltasar Garzon alleged that al-Qaeda had a "board of managers" operating in Iran.

But the regime was seen as being fiercely hostile to Afghanistan's Taliban and al-Qaeda, and has vehemently denied allegations that it is supporting them.

© 2004 AFP

[reese2]

link

read this one......... Wun, this is for you as well....

[alis]

well reece all i can say is we obviously see things very differently.

you see when i highlight that im half english and half iranian, what im saying is im less likely to be biased than some who might post. anyway reece, im signing off for a bit cos i dont have time to sit and argue about this all day, ill leave it to the 'honest' politicans who get paid for it.

[reese2]

You didn't point out that you were half 'English' and half 'Iranian'.. You only pointed to your Iranian roots. You are biased. Look at evidence. Look at everything objectively. Iran has been a terrorist breeding ground for many years. But, you being half Iranian, should know that, since you are unbiased.

So, I will let you go now, I wouldn't want to argue this with me either... lol..

Reese

[Stamford]

to quote myself

OH PUHLEASE

Oooh, as cutting as ever bathory!

[Stamford]

It is the same story...just a different chapter. Iran...Syria....same story, different chapters. When the book is finished it will be a better world....that is our hope.

Hey, joc, flick through these pages to the last chapter....there may be a twist in the tale.