I don't know if this has been said already.  And I'm still having trouble believing if it's true (as I've yet to research it).  But my brother who is studying World History and is in Model UN at school (one of the countries his school takes a position in is China), has told me that China has purchased all of the United States' debts to other countries and, consequently, the government owes them 100 billion (trillion?) dollars (approximately).  In other words, China could call us out on that debt and utterly decimate our economy and render the vaule of the dollar worthless.  If that isn't terrifying I don't know what is.  I don't know if they would ever do that or if it would be a benefit to do that, but it makes me think that China may be the new "world power" when it's time for us to fall.

If anyone knows anything more about this factoid, I'd really like to know.  I almost can't believe it to be true, so any clarification would be lovely. =)

Edit:  Questioning whether it's billions or trillions that we owe them.

Britain and Japan are the two biggest foreign investers in America in that order. China is number three but has recently traded it's Dollar reserves for Euros.

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 08 Dec 2006 at 07:17:41 PM GMT is:

$8,658,593,727,214.13

The estimated population of the United States is 300,417,224
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,821.90.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.16 billion per day since September 29, 2006!

Nice Topic!

It's not often I am moved to reply, I mostly keep my thoughts to myself :)

Let me introduce myself,

  I am a normal run of the mill American guy (normal? how do I know if i'm normal? subject for another topic I guess) Married 10 years with two wonderful children. I am not what some would consider an educated man, hence the spelling and gramer mistakes sure to be found and pointed out. I love my life, very happy to be who I am. My family and I live in a small town in the heart of these great states of ours, yes that would be a red state. I grew up as an Air Force brat (meaning my entire child hood was spent moving from one Air Force base to another) and remember the clear threat of nuks. My early adult hood was spent roaming the world serving my country as a solider.

  Why the intro? I thought maybe it would be useful in showing what sector of the American population my thinking derives from.

 Let me say I respect many of the views expressed here, and some of the knowledge I have seen here is amazing. I am impressed.

OK OK, on to my point

  The original post expressed what the world thinks of my country, more to the point the actions of our government.

 I thought maybe I would share with you what at least one American is feeling about America, I am not qualified to say I represent the thinking of the masses, but maybe I do, who knows.

1. I am sick and tired of "red vs blue" or "left vs right" or "lib vs con" I think this may be one of our biggest problems. I am sick of hearing both sides bash each other and throwing around terms such as "traitor" or "un-American" There are good ideas on both sides, come together and figure this crap out because me and my  little high school education are counting on you.

2. Voting, I have lost all confidence in this. It seems I only have two choices (see above) It has became a choice between two lesser evils.

3. Money and politics, I'm afraid America now goes to the highest bidder. It scares me to death to continualy see "made in china" stickers. Or to hear that our government seeks adivice from those such as this bradly guy (owns a law firm that represents Saudi? Give me a break!)

4. I'm afraid that the majority of our leaders (not all) have thier own intrest at heart and not our country. You say vote for somebody else? Who? Their is a serious lack of quality leadership here in the states atm

5. I'm afraid we as Americans have become blind to what is going on in our own country. We are to busy in the here and now to see what may be coming down the road. The world around us, the world we can see and touch is all we are focused on, so focused that we honestly do not care what happends as long as we do not experience it ourselfs. And as my father used to say "its gonna bite ya in the a**"

The scary part is I think I could go on, but I don't have time. I feel guilty because I know this is a government of the people, by the people. I feel like there is something I should be doing to ease my fears or help our country, like I'm looking to somebody else to solve my problems, but what do I do? Theirs alot of folks pointing out whats wrong, but not to many offering up solutions.

Rich and powerful people start wars for one reason ,..more power and more money.

Freedom is a smokescreen used far too much. Just wait till they find a way to tax your oxygen intake.

Well I have to put my two cents in.

What I like about any country but USA..

1.  There is thousands of miles of water between us.

2.  Most of the people from there are still there.

3.  Damn I am having a hard time here, trying to think of somthing to like about another country.

4.  I'll get back to this....

What I Dont like about other countries.

1.  They hate the USA and all it stands for, untill the shit hits the fan, and then its "HELP US UNCLE SAM"

2.  They make real shitty cars...I mean they are junk, if they cant do 187,000 miles without a major problem I dont need them.

3.  They work cheaply, and produce cheap goods, then cry when Americans wont buy them.

4.  They think they have good morales.  But 90% of the worlds child porn comes from europe.

5.  They think ploitics will save the day...remember December 7th, 1941.

6.  They make real stupid tv shows and cartoons.

7.  They dress funny,  Just kidding here folks

8.  ok that enough....

The thing is, Americans enjoy a better way of life, then most others.  I work hard for my money, its mine.  I like to enjoy the rewards I have as beeing american.  If I was born in Germany, I would be living in some converted warehouse with 6 other family units.  If I lived in England I would get taxed out the arse for an old t.v.  If I lived in brazil I would be living in a hovel.

If you want to, come to America, we welcome you with open arms and friendship, leave your politcal beliefs behind, bring your religion, and your new thoughts, we welcome them. 

Oh and another thing, The information given to Bush by the CIA came from the french......

---

Originally posted by savoge

Nice Topic!

It's not often I am moved to reply, I mostly keep my thoughts to myself :)

Let me introduce myself,

  I am a normal run of the mill American guy (normal? how do I know if i'm normal? subject for another topic I guess) Married 10 years with two wonderful children. I am not what some would consider an educated man, hence the spelling and gramer mistakes sure to be found and pointed out. I love my life, very happy to be who I am. My family and I live in a small town in the heart of these great states of ours, yes that would be a red state. I grew up as an Air Force brat (meaning my entire child hood was spent moving from one Air Force base to another) and remember the clear threat of nuks. My early adult hood was spent roaming the world serving my country as a solider.

  Why the intro? I thought maybe it would be useful in showing what sector of the American population my thinking derives from.

 Let me say I respect many of the views expressed here, and some of the knowledge I have seen here is amazing. I am impressed.

OK OK, on to my point

  The original post expressed what the world thinks of my country, more to the point the actions of our government.

 I thought maybe I would share with you what at least one American is feeling about America, I am not qualified to say I represent the thinking of the masses, but maybe I do, who knows.

1. I am sick and tired of "red vs blue" or "left vs right" or "lib vs con" I think this may be one of our biggest problems. I am sick of hearing both sides bash each other and throwing around terms such as "traitor" or "un-American" There are good ideas on both sides, come together and figure this crap out because me and my  little high school education are counting on you.

2. Voting, I have lost all confidence in this. It seems I only have two choices (see above) It has became a choice between two lesser evils.

3. Money and politics, I'm afraid America now goes to the highest bidder. It scares me to death to continualy see "made in china" stickers. Or to hear that our government seeks adivice from those such as this bradly guy (owns a law firm that represents Saudi? Give me a break!)

4. I'm afraid that the majority of our leaders (not all) have thier own intrest at heart and not our country. You say vote for somebody else? Who? Their is a serious lack of quality leadership here in the states atm

5. I'm afraid we as Americans have become blind to what is going on in our own country. We are to busy in the here and now to see what may be coming down the road. The world around us, the world we can see and touch is all we are focused on, so focused that we honestly do not care what happends as long as we do not experience it ourselfs. And as my father used to say "its gonna bite ya in the a**"

The scary part is I think I could go on, but I don't have time. I feel guilty because I know this is a government of the people, by the people. I feel like there is something I should be doing to ease my fears or help our country, like I'm looking to somebody else to solve my problems, but what do I do? Theirs alot of folks pointing out whats wrong, but not to many offering up solutions.

---

---

Originally posted by savoge

1. I am sick and tired of "red vs blue" or "left vs right" or "lib vs con" I think this may be one of our biggest problems. I am sick of hearing both sides bash each other and throwing around terms such as "traitor" or "un-American" There are good ideas on both sides, come together and figure this crap out because me and my  little high school education are counting on you.

2. Voting, I have lost all confidence in this. It seems I only have two choices (see above) It has became a choice between two lesser evils.

3. Money and politics, I'm afraid America now goes to the highest bidder. It scares me to death to continualy see "made in china" stickers. Or to hear that our government seeks adivice from those such as this bradly guy (owns a law firm that represents Saudi? Give me a break!)

4. I'm afraid that the majority of our leaders (not all) have thier own intrest at heart and not our country. You say vote for somebody else? Who? Their is a serious lack of quality leadership here in the states atm

5. I'm afraid we as Americans have become blind to what is going on in our own country. We are to busy in the here and now to see what may be coming down the road. The world around us, the world we can see and touch is all we are focused on, so focused that we honestly do not care what happends as long as we do not experience it ourselfs. And as my father used to say "its gonna bite ya in the a**"

The scary part is I think I could go on, but I don't have time. I feel guilty because I know this is a government of the people, by the people. I feel like there is something I should be doing to ease my fears or help our country, like I'm looking to somebody else to solve my problems, but what do I do? Theirs alot of folks pointing out whats wrong, but not to many offering up solutions.

---

Totally agree with you there.  Especially with the second point.  I keep thinking that we're supposed to vote for the right person, and then when you go to look at your candidate choices, they are virtually the same exact person only with different labels and maybe ONE thing that seems reasonable.  And that ONE thing is what people now vote for becuase it makes that candidate "not as bad as that other guy."  It's incredibly frustrating.  That isn't to say our leaders are terrible, but after a while, everyone you get to vote for feels the same.

In your fifth point, I often wonder why that is.  Sometimes I wonder if it's because we're so isolated in our own country and in our own cities, towns, suburbs.  It's very much a concern for us.  Yet that kind of behaviour is not unlike the typical young man/woman.  The idea that we're invincible.  That nothing could ever happen to us.  And maybe it's because nothing HAS happened to us in a degree that our country isn't "safe."  We've never had our country totally blown to bits by someone else or had someone invade and take control (in the scales that other countries around the world have experienced). 

And I know someone within the first 6 pages of this thread also mentioned this idea that the US hasn't been repeatedly subjected to war.  I think that point was very apt, whoever that was.

---

Originally posted by baff

Britain and Japan are the two biggest foreign investers in America in that order. China is number three but has recently traded it's Dollar reserves for Euros.

 

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 08 Dec 2006 at 07:17:41 PM GMT is:

$8,658,593,727,214.13

The estimated population of the United States is 300,417,224
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,821.90.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.16 billion per day since September 29, 2006!

 

Above is a graphic to illustrate the timeline of U.S. national debt better, given as a proportion of GDP.

I certainly see China replacing U.S. domination in Asia anytime the U.S. withdraws. But not in any military confontational manner.

---

You see up there where that pantywast sonofabitchpeanutfarmer was in office?  Did you know most U.S. Warships could not go to sea, for lack of spare parts.  That most crews were only 60% maned?  Now we go to Regan, You know why the debt went so high?  REBUILDING U S military...and playing one hell of a poker game with the soviets....they had the US dead to rights....untill Regan bluffed the shit out of them.  Bush #1  You know Kuwait wanted to pay for everything?  Americans are not mercenaries...And you know we listened to the UN before...and left Sadam in power.  Clinton comes along and starts cloesing bases, well yeah I can see this was needed.  But he also put lots of peple out of work....and as for W Bush...well no americans hijacked an airbus and crashed it into any europe buildings.

Remember last time sombody sneaked attacked the USA, we nuked them....sombody ought to be counting their blessings.

Overall, most of the list seems to be 'how dare the US act in its own interests instead of ours, how dare people in the US hold religious beliefs we don't approve of, and how dare the US be as arrogant as we are'. I find these sorts of critiques to be rather weak overall,

---

Originally posted by MadAce
-US refusing to sign decleration of Childrens Rights (together with Somalia and North-Korea), tho this is a hypocritical sham since many countries signed and did not follow it, it's still something that is found to be... disturbing.

---

Its funny that you try to say to imply that the US is bad for not signing a declaraction that Somalia and North Korea do, but also complain that the US didn't beg and plead for UN approval for the Iraqi war. Which is it - is the UN a good, sensible organization whose judgement we should trust, or not? Because the UN has places Somalia and North Korea on the Human Rights council before, so it appears that your precious UN feels they have a very good record on the topic.

As far as the so called "Declaration of Children's rights" goes, the US is not a socialist country. That document does not detail rights in the usual sense of the term, but states in several places that the government must provide (or compel someone to provide) certain things for the child. Not harming kids is one thing, but compelling various services through the state is a whole different one; I'd really rather not let the people who handled Katrina oh-so-well set up a new beurocracy for this stuff too.

I would note that Principle 10 is explicitly contrary to the principle of religious freedom that Americans find important. "He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men." While it sounds kind of nice, what it really means is that children can not be brought up to believe in pretty much any traditional religion; christianity, for example, is widely interpreted not to be 'tolerant' of certain behaviors. I know I personally don't agree that people should be brought up to devote their energy and talents to the service of his fellow man, clearly no one here practices it (you wouldn't be playing video games and chatting on forums, you'd be off in the service of other people).

Basically, the US is not a socialist country and isn't going to sign treaties that require us to become more of one. It would be good for Europeans to set aside their arrogance over the topic and understand that, instead of continuing to wail and gnash their teeth over the fact that the US tends not to sign treaties that compel it to act like one.

---

-arrogance, being a great nation is no excuse to dismiss the rest of mankind as being inferior.

---

So how exactly do you Europeans feel about the rest of mankind? I don't see Europeans going on about how they're inferior to the rest of the world either, every time I see a discussion Europeans talk about themselves as being better than everyone else, incluiding those ignorant savages in America, and clearly argue as if whatever Europe happens to be doing now is The Way.

In fact, Europeans are generally arrogant enough to consider themsevles 'the rest of the world' when talking about the US's attitude towards the rest of the world. I've seen many discussions where some European goes on about how the US doesn't consider the opinions of the rest of the world, then talks purely about the European opinions (maybe with Japan tacked in) that are being ignored.

Plus direct examples of this 'arrogance' seem to be rather lacking; the most common ones I've seen are things like 'the US didn't beg for our permission to do something' or 'the US acted in the US's interest instead of [other country's] interest'.

---

[list of things you find shocking] -Electing Bush.
-Electing Bush for a second term.

---

See that hypocracy? If an American so much as comments on Austria electing or France near-electing someone with neo-nazi associations, there's a big chorus of 'ohh, you arrogant Americans, don't you dare even talk about our politics'. But should the US elect a president that doesn't meet with European approval, it's all 'how could you elect Bush?' Honestly, I was tempted to vote for Bush by precisely that attitude. I'm really not sure why anyone is suprised that Bush won a second term, Kerry was a really pathetic candidate who ran a horrible campaign.

---

-political counter manouvring, in the UN for example using a veto as a weapon.

---

I like this quote because it's so unintentionally honest; it's not political maneuvering, it's going against Europe's political maneuvers. Here's a hint: The US will continue to act in the US's interest for the foreseeable future, the US government is not elected to act in Europe's interest. It's like the silly whining that happened in the US over France, only far more widespread and over a far longer period of time. Say the US had put the war in Iraq up to a UN vote, do you think that no European nation like France would use their veto as a weapon?

---

-religious zealotism, denial or questioning of the evolution theory is unheard of here. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that the difference in view between the two sides of the Atlantic creates a minor form of conflict.

---

So people are disturbed that we both have freedom of religion and that some people use that freedom to (gasp) believe in something that you don't. I think denial of Evolution is stupid, but I'm all in favor of people being free to choose their own religious beliefs, even those that I consider stupid. I'd worry a lot more about religious bigotry like the anti-semitism that's so common in Europe.

---

-"Counter-terrorism" laws that limit the people's freedom.

---

That's really rich coming from someone who lives in a country that doesn't even allow jury trials. While I don't like a lot of our laws, the stuff I've read about various European judicial systems shows that they're all far worse, even excluding the fact that you can't get what I'd consider a real trial in Europe outside of England. For example, while the attitude that you have to carry your 'papers' simply to walk around is slowly gaining ground here, in most of Europe it's considered commonplace. US courts' attitude towards searches and what's needed to justify a warrant is still way ahead of everything I've read about European courts.

---

Originally posted by Herkmeck

Well I have to put my two cents in.

 

What I like about any country but USA..

1.  There is thousands of miles of water between us.

Watch out. One day mankind might invent flight.

2.  Most of the people from there are still there.

Except a whole lot of your scientists.

3.  Damn I am having a hard time here, trying to think of somthing to like about another country.

Don't try to think. You might damage something.

4.  I'll get back to this....

 Damn. You just crushed my hopes.

What I Dont like about other countries.

1.  They hate the USA and all it stands for, untill the shit hits the fan, and then its "HELP US UNCLE SAM"

They don't. The majority of mankind doesn't give a fuck about anything but what they will eat today and tomorrow.

2.  They make real shitty cars...I mean they are junk, if they cant do 187,000 miles without a major problem I dont need them.

I'm trying to be as sarcastic as you are here, but this point is pretty hard...

3.  They work cheaply, and produce cheap goods, then cry when Americans wont buy them.

The Chinese don't complain. They just produce more and at a cheaper price. You buy them. Guess where the clothes you're wearing were made?

4.  They think they have good morales.  But 90% of the worlds child porn comes from europe.

Actually the majority comes from Asia. And we have better morales. No death penalty, mostly better aborion laws, some countries have gay mariage and euthanasia...

5.  They think ploitics will save the day...remember December 7th, 1941.

Remember any day between two wars?

6.  They make real stupid tv shows and cartoons.

I better not find you watching any manga.

7.  They dress funny,  Just kidding here folks

Actually they do.

8.  ok that enough....

God bless you.

 

The thing is, Americans enjoy a better way of life, then most others.  I work hard for my money, its mine.  I like to enjoy the rewards I have as beeing american.  If I was born in Germany, I would be living in some converted warehouse with 6 other family units.  If I lived in England I would get taxed out the arse for an old t.v.  If I lived in brazil I would be living in a hovel.

I started this thread to tell about some see the US and I tried to put up a more positive view of the US. You saying that makes that preeeetty hard.

If you want to, come to America, we welcome you with open arms and friendship, leave your politcal beliefs behind, bring your religion, and your new thoughts, we welcome them.

For no money in the world I would want to live in the US. Why would I want to?

 

Oh and another thing, The information given to Bush by the CIA came from the french......

 It's the other way around. Back in 2003 the French prove there was no way in hell saddam had WoMD...

 

 

---

---

Originally posted by Pantastic

Overall, most of the list seems to be 'how dare the US act in its own interests instead of ours, how dare people in the US hold religious beliefs we don't approve of, and how dare the US be as arrogant as we are'. I find these sorts of critiques to be rather weak overall,

In a few thread and on a few occasions I have said if the US didn't act out of self-interest it would be the most foolish country in the world.

---

Originally posted by MadAce
-US refusing to sign decleration of Childrens Rights (together with Somalia and North-Korea), tho this is a hypocritical sham since many countries signed and did not follow it, it's still something that is found to be... disturbing.

---

Its funny that you try to say to imply that the US is bad for not signing a declaraction that Somalia and North Korea do, but also complain that the US didn't beg and plead for UN approval for the Iraqi war. Which is it - is the UN a good, sensible organization whose judgement we should trust, or not? Because the UN has places Somalia and North Korea on the Human Rights council before, so it appears that your precious UN feels they have a very good record on the topic.

As far as the so called "Declaration of Children's rights" goes, the US is not a socialist country. That document does not detail rights in the usual sense of the term, but states in several places that the government must provide (or compel someone to provide) certain things for the child. Not harming kids is one thing, but compelling various services through the state is a whole different one; I'd really rather not let the people who handled Katrina oh-so-well set up a new beurocracy for this stuff too.

I would note that Principle 10 is explicitly contrary to the principle of religious freedom that Americans find important. "He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men." While it sounds kind of nice, what it really means is that children can not be brought up to believe in pretty much any traditional religion; christianity, for example, is widely interpreted not to be 'tolerant' of certain behaviors. I know I personally don't agree that people should be brought up to devote their energy and talents to the service of his fellow man, clearly no one here practices it (you wouldn't be playing video games and chatting on forums, you'd be off in the service of other people).

Basically, the US is not a socialist country and isn't going to sign treaties that require us to become more of one. It would be good for Europeans to set aside their arrogance over the topic and understand that, instead of continuing to wail and gnash their teeth over the fact that the US tends not to sign treaties that compel it to act like one.

I never said the US was bad. I don't belive in figments like "good" and "evil". As you grow up you'll notice the world is a bit more complicated than that. I also said signing the treaty was hypocritical...
It would be good for the US to sign treaties because they're good for their citizens and not because they're socialist or not.

---

-arrogance, being a great nation is no excuse to dismiss the rest of mankind as being inferior.

---

So how exactly do you Europeans feel about the rest of mankind? I don't see Europeans going on about how they're inferior to the rest of the world either, every time I see a discussion Europeans talk about themselves as being better than everyone else, incluiding those ignorant savages in America, and clearly argue as if whatever Europe happens to be doing now is The Way.

In fact, Europeans are generally arrogant enough to consider themsevles 'the rest of the world' when talking about the US's attitude towards the rest of the world. I've seen many discussions where some European goes on about how the US doesn't consider the opinions of the rest of the world, then talks purely about the European opinions (maybe with Japan tacked in) that are being ignored.

Plus direct examples of this 'arrogance' seem to be rather lacking; the most common ones I've seen are things like 'the US didn't beg for our permission to do something' or 'the US acted in the US's interest instead of [other country's] interest'.

You won't make yourself less arrogant by proving others are more or equally arrogant.

Examples of the arrogance:

-Count on how many occasions an American on these forums has said the rest of the world was jealous.

---

[list of things you find shocking] -Electing Bush.
-Electing Bush for a second term.

---

See that hypocracy? If an American so much as comments on Austria electing or France near-electing someone with neo-nazi associations, there's a big chorus of 'ohh, you arrogant Americans, don't you dare even talk about our politics'. But should the US elect a president that doesn't meet with European approval, it's all 'how could you elect Bush?' Honestly, I was tempted to vote for Bush by precisely that attitude. I'm really not sure why anyone is suprised that Bush won a second term, Kerry was a really pathetic candidate who ran a horrible campaign.

Personally I don't believe a vote for a president still makes a difference in the US. But I was voicing the general view of many of the people in this part of the world.

As far as I know the US invades countries if their politics aren't satisfactory, or puts them on the Axis of evil list.

---

-political counter manouvring, in the UN for example using a veto as a weapon.

---

I like this quote because it's so unintentionally honest; it's not political maneuvering, it's going against Europe's political maneuvers. Here's a hint: The US will continue to act in the US's interest for the foreseeable future, the US government is not elected to act in Europe's interest. It's like the silly whining that happened in the US over France, only far more widespread and over a far longer period of time. Say the US had put the war in Iraq up to a UN vote, do you think that no European nation like France would use their veto as a weapon?

There you're right. I too believe a country should do anything for its own best interests. Tho some in the public opinion may think a country should do stuff for the better of mankind from time to time. That's why I included that in the list.

---

-religious zealotism, denial or questioning of the evolution theory is unheard of here. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that the difference in view between the two sides of the Atlantic creates a minor form of conflict.

---

So people are disturbed that we both have freedom of religion and that some people use that freedom to (gasp) believe in something that you don't. I think denial of Evolution is stupid, but I'm all in favor of people being free to choose their own religious beliefs, even those that I consider stupid. I'd worry a lot more about religious bigotry like the anti-semitism that's so common in Europe.

I don't consider having "In God we trust" on your coins and notes having freedom of religion. But the Netherlands make the same mistake. But they don't have a head of state refering to God in a whole lot of speeches.

---

-"Counter-terrorism" laws that limit the people's freedom.

---

That's really rich coming from someone who lives in a country that doesn't even allow jury trials. While I don't like a lot of our laws, the stuff I've read about various European judicial systems shows that they're all far worse, even excluding the fact that you can't get what I'd consider a real trial in Europe outside of England. For example, while the attitude that you have to carry your 'papers' simply to walk around is slowly gaining ground here, in most of Europe it's considered commonplace. US courts' attitude towards searches and what's needed to justify a warrant is still way ahead of everything I've read about European courts.

We have jury trials in my country. And our judiciary systems are almsot equal to yours. And it's in fact a minority of countries in Europe that has ID's.

---

---

Originally posted by Zuba
i know alot of history. and the usa was conquered by the british in 1700 now i know this, and the usa beat us back with french help. brtian was lucky to have canada as a ally. at the same time australia was formed out of prisoners from britain, there was also a war raging between spain and england, while the same time a peace treaty between scotland and england was formed. meanwhile the brits were conquering india as well, and again the same time a religous man created english from latin.

meanwhile china was having problems of it own fighting japan for along time, not only fighting japan but they were also trying to defeat the huns and other natives, while at the same time russia discovered china while that was going on parts of africa were being liberated by the brits. at the same time brazil resolved the conflicts with the other clans. and soo soo many more

i know alot about us europeans i know we are crap at certain things, the usa views us as weird because we dont act in your way. no wonder you guys dropped an A Bomb on japan vice versa japan a attack on pearl harbour.

---

  P.S

    It's  NOT the american people but our Government who is at fault,  instead of saying American People  you should replace it with the word Government.

   As far as the so called President, I didnt vote for him and not 1 person I know had voted for him and I know quite a few people.  My guess is that Bush cheated his way into presidency because there is no way in hell that more Americans liked him better VS someone else.   ( I wouldnt consider him PEOPLE but rather 1 PERSON) 

   I have my opinions about other Countries but because I was raised to respect other peoples feelings ect. I dont ever think its proper to discuss them over public Forums ect.

   If I had my way It would be different but I do not run the Government.

 I might add there are good things and bad things about Your Country, My Country and Every Other Country out there.

---

Originally posted by JasmineRose

  P.S

    It's  NOT the american people but our Government who is at fault,  instead of saying American People  you should replace it with the word Government.

   As far as the so called President, I didnt vote for him and not 1 person I know had voted for him and I know quite a few people.  My guess is that Bush cheated his way into presidency because there is no way in hell that more Americans liked him better VS someone else.   ( I wouldnt consider him PEOPLE but rather 1 PERSON) 

   I have my opinions about other Countries but because I was raised to respect other peoples feelings ect. I dont ever think its proper to discuss them over public Forums ect.

   If I had my way It would be different but I do not run the Government.

---

---

Originally posted by JasmineRose

  P.S

    It's  NOT the american people but our Government who is at fault,  instead of saying American People  you should replace it with the word Government.

   As far as the so called President, I didnt vote for him and not 1 person I know had voted for him and I know quite a few people.  My guess is that Bush cheated his way into presidency because there is no way in hell that more Americans liked him better VS someone else.   ( I wouldnt consider him PEOPLE but rather 1 PERSON) 

   I have my opinions about other Countries but because I was raised to respect other peoples feelings ect. I dont ever think its proper to discuss them over public Forums ect.

   If I had my way It would be different but I do not run the Government.

 I might add there are good things and bad things about Your Country, My Country and Every Other Country out there.

---

Nonsense.  The majority of the electorate votes, because it believes in your system of government.Vote for party A, vote for party B. A vote is a vote for government. I certainly see no signs of any deep felt revolution movement in the U.S.

It's your government. 100% consituted from U.S. citizens.

The majority of that electorate voted for your current President, and if you think that was some kind of an accident, remember that they did it twice.

Leaders lead. In the end if no one wants to follow, they won't. "I vas just following ze orders!" has never been a valid argument in my book. Your government is a product of your country. You may not approve of each and every decision it ever makes but you are broadly complicit in it's actions.

I understand the political divide in America, but from an outsiders perspective it's not a very big one. That said Bush is without doubt the most universally hated man on the planet. Probably since Hitler. 

Then why attack Iraq and not Saudi-Arabia?

I have no great love for Saudi Arabia,  I say if their government has terrorist training camps and cells that are plotting terrorist attacks on US soil, then they deserve to be dealt with too.  But different things will work with different countries and  we cant take on every terrorist-loving country in the world at once. 

Indeed. IRA, swalled by Sin Fein and ventured into politics. ETA same. Algerian terrorism, almost non-existant. CCC, destroyed. Red Brigades, accepted into politics and militant factions destroyed. See where I'm getting at? "They" doesn't exist. You can split a terrorist organisation wide open if you challenge their ideological grounds. If you listen and if you hunt the militant factions relentlessly. You are using a lot of double speak here.  Did Europeans "destroy" CCC's, hunt them down relentlessly, and challenge their ideological grounds or did they give into their demands in peace talks?  As far as what will work with islamo-terrorists, I can only point to Israel's recent relinquishment of the Gaza strip.  What was the result??  Getting their soldiers kidnapped and their country bombed by Hamas.  These groups dont respond to peace talks and they dont honor peace treaties.  Western Democracies are just "paper tigers" to them, weak. Look at Spain, England and (to some extent) even the U.S.  Spain and England both have been attacked by terrorists post 9/11 and they immedietly put up a white flag.  US gets frustrated after 4 years and a small (by comparsion) casualty count and now we have Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house.  Not by providing more raison d'être for them. Also... Do you actually know what the demands of those "destroyer of worlds" are? I doubt you do...  As I said before, it seems pretty straight forward, convert or be killed.  All the reason they need is a warped interpretation of their faith. Im surprised you liberal types dont latch onto this more readily.  Aren't you  all about religion leading people to be irrational and violent.

The intelligence community (CIA (see below for former CIA director Goerge Tenets own words), NSA, DIA, etc) view, confirmed by the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, is that there was not a cooperative effort between the two and that Saddam did not support the 9/11 attacks.  

I consider the 9/11 commission to be a waste of space, effort and time.  Basically a bunch of politicians getting together to try and assert their views as official fact. Just to name some of the convenient truths they left out of the report:

**The original indictment of bin Laden, obtained by the Justice Department in spring 1998 filed in the event an opportunity arose overseas to apprehend bin Laden. Paragraph 4 of that very short indictment reads:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

 The allegation in the 1998 indictment comes from information provided by the key accomplice witness at the embassy bombing trial, Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl. Al-Fadl told agents that when al Qaeda was headquartered in the Sudan in the early-to-mid-1990s, he understood an agreement to have been struck under which the jihadists would put aside their antipathy for Saddam and explore ways of working together with Iraq, particularly regarding weapons production.

**Or consider George Tenet's own words (former CIA director). "Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." (Tenet has NEVER backed away from these words).

Lets also look closely at the purposefully vague wording of the 9/11 commission report;

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."  they are not saying al Qaeda and Iraq did not cooperate — far from it. The staff seems to be saying: "they appear to have cooperated but we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they worked together on a specific attack, such as 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, or the embassy bombings."

But of course, it was instantly and happily misreported as saying there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and Al qaeda.  This shallow reporting, in my assessment, is the real problem in the war on terror.  Our own media wants us to lose and is willfully being used as a propaganda tool by the enemy.

(my above info came largely from compilations made by Andrew McCarthy former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others)

According to this view, the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely (how do you explain the above info?).

Im going to answer the rest of this in another post becasue I am out of time for today and this post is already extremly long :-)

---

---

---

Originally posted by Sassymolassy

  These groups dont respond to peace talks and they dont honor peace treaties.  Western Democracies are just "paper tigers" to them, weak. Look at Spain, England and (to some extent) even the U.S.  Spain and England both have been attacked by terrorists post 9/11 and they immedietly put up a white flag.  US gets frustrated after 4 years and a small (by comparsion) casualty count and now we have Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house. 

 

---

When did we run up a white flag exactly? They didn't tell us about that bit.

The people who attacked us were British. How do you surrender to yourselves anyway? Can an exploded suicide bomber accept your surrender?

According to this view, the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely (how do you explain the above info?).

Easy. It's total garbage of similar ilk to saying they faked the Apollo moon landings. 

Put out by people with a vested intrest in the invasion who had spent the past 3 years singing about how Saddam was responsable for 9/11 with zero intelligence to back up the claim. So they made stuff up, and clutched at the straws of any old hearsay that might be able to be miscontstrued as backing up their wild claims. In short, it's propaganda. Lies even.

A load of idiot talk said by people who when caught obviously lying, prefer to compund lie their way out of it than lose face.

Saddam and Osama were enemies. Osama is a Saudi, and a religious fundamentalist. Saddam is an Iraqi and an anti Saudi secularist. 

Al Quaeda only arrived in Iraq after the Invasion. Saddam's regime was pretty hot on wiping out militant opposition to his regime. In fact Zarqawi's organisation adopted the Al Quaeda name as a recruiting tool after his successes in Iraq vs Americans brought him to Bin ladens Attention. Strictly speaking, Al Quaeda (as in the people involved in 9/11) have never been heard of in Iraq, although they did bid for the Saudi contract to get Saddam out of Kuwait.

Saddam loyal insurgents and religious extremists in Iraq have been trying to kill each other right from the beginning. They are not in any way allied. You might even go as far as to say they are currently engaged in a war with eachother for that country.

---

Originally posted by MadAce

---

Originally posted by JasmineRose

  P.S

    It's  NOT the american people but our Government who is at fault,  instead of saying American People  you should replace it with the word Government.

   As far as the so called President, I didnt vote for him and not 1 person I know had voted for him and I know quite a few people.  My guess is that Bush cheated his way into presidency because there is no way in hell that more Americans liked him better VS someone else.   ( I wouldnt consider him PEOPLE but rather 1 PERSON) 

   I have my opinions about other Countries but because I was raised to respect other peoples feelings ect. I dont ever think its proper to discuss them over public Forums ect.

   If I had my way It would be different but I do not run the Government.

---

Agreed one 100%. Didn't mean to offen any US citizens. :)

---

---

Originally posted by Sassymolassy

Then why attack Iraq and not Saudi-Arabia?

I have no great love for Saudi Arabia,  I say if their government has terrorist training camps and cells that are plotting terrorist attacks on US soil, then they deserve to be dealt with too.  But different things will work with different countries and  we cant take on every terrorist-loving country in the world at once.

The majority of Al-Qaeda actions is funded by Saudi-Arabia. Osama Bin Laden gets money from his family.

Indeed. IRA, swalled by Sin Fein and ventured into politics. ETA same. Algerian terrorism, almost non-existant. CCC, destroyed. Red Brigades, accepted into politics and militant factions destroyed. See where I'm getting at? "They" doesn't exist. You can split a terrorist organisation wide open if you challenge their ideological grounds. If you listen and if you hunt the militant factions relentlessly. You are using a lot of double speak here.  Did Europeans "destroy" CCC's, hunt them down relentlessly, and challenge their ideological grounds or did they give into their demands in peace talks?  As far as what will work with islamo-terrorists, I can only point to Israel's recent relinquishment of the Gaza strip.  What was the result??  Getting their soldiers kidnapped and their country bombed by Hamas.  These groups dont respond to peace talks and they dont honor peace treaties.  Western Democracies are just "paper tigers" to them, weak. Look at Spain, England and (to some extent) even the U.S.  Spain and England both have been attacked by terrorists post 9/11 and they immedietly put up a white flag.  US gets frustrated after 4 years and a small (by comparsion) casualty count and now we have Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house.

Well, CCC was completely destroyed. All members were either killed or arrested. Other groups had their ideologies attacked by listening to their valid points. Thus destroying the masses that suport them. Militant factions were hunted down. Non militant factions were integrated in the political process.
Spain and the UK (and many, many other European countries) have been hunting terrorists relentlessly on a daily basis. They always have.
But they also realize that you won't stop terrorism by bombing a country. You will only create more terrorists.
Imagine in stead of hunting people down and leveling home and putting up road blockades you start be developing palestine, aiding them in their venture to become a country... You would actually have the Palestinians help out the IDF in finding rogue factions. Just like the IRA helped to bring in RIRA members.
BTW, I remember 2 French journalists being kidnapped in Iraq. They were released after negotiations.

 Not by providing more raison d'être for them. Also... Do you actually know what the demands of those "destroyer of worlds" are? I doubt you do...  As I said before, it seems pretty straight forward, convert or be killed.  All the reason they need is a warped interpretation of their faith. Im surprised you liberal types dont latch onto this more readily.  Aren't you  all about religion leading people to be irrational and violent.

I'm very pro religion. I believe almost any religion can be a great enrichment for a culture. Tho I'm not religious myself.
And as I knew you have no idea of the motives and demands of Al-Qaeda.

The intelligence community (CIA (see below for former CIA director Goerge Tenets own words), NSA, DIA, etc) view, confirmed by the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, is that there was not a cooperative effort between the two and that Saddam did not support the 9/11 attacks.  

I consider the 9/11 commission to be a waste of space, effort and time.  Basically a bunch of politicians getting together to try and assert their views as official fact. Just to name some of the convenient truths they left out of the report:

**The original indictment of bin Laden, obtained by the Justice Department in spring 1998 filed in the event an opportunity arose overseas to apprehend bin Laden. Paragraph 4 of that very short indictment reads:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

 The allegation in the 1998 indictment comes from information provided by the key accomplice witness at the embassy bombing trial, Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl. Al-Fadl told agents that when al Qaeda was headquartered in the Sudan in the early-to-mid-1990s, he understood an agreement to have been struck under which the jihadists would put aside their antipathy for Saddam and explore ways of working together with Iraq, particularly regarding weapons production.

**Or consider George Tenet's own words (former CIA director). "Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." (Tenet has NEVER backed away from these words).

Lets also look closely at the purposefully vague wording of the 9/11 commission report;

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."  they are not saying al Qaeda and Iraq did not cooperate — far from it. The staff seems to be saying: "they appear to have cooperated but we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that they worked together on a specific attack, such as 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, or the embassy bombings."

But of course, it was instantly and happily misreported as saying there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and Al qaeda.  This shallow reporting, in my assessment, is the real problem in the war on terror.  Our own media wants us to lose and is willfully being used as a propaganda tool by the enemy.

(my above info came largely from compilations made by Andrew McCarthy former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others)

According to this view, the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely (how do you explain the above info?).

Im going to answer the rest of this in another post becasue I am out of time for today and this post is already extremly long :-)

Official investigations and reports

Several official investigations by U.S. intelligence agencies, foreign intelligence agencies, and independent investigative bodies have looked into various aspects of the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Every single investigation has resulted in the conclusion that the data examined did not provide compelling evidence of a cooperative relationship between the two entities (though these investigations did not explore all aspects of such a relationship).

1993 WTC investigations

After the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, there were several investigations of possible collaboration between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists who attacked the building.[66] Neil Herman, who headed the FBI investigation into the attack, noted that despite Yasin's presence in Baghdad, there was no evidence of Iraqi support for the attack. "We looked at that rather extensively," he told CNN terrorism expert Peter Bergen. "There were no ties to the Iraqi government." Bergen writes, "In sum, by the mid-'90s, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the F.B.I., the U.S. Attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the C.I.A., the N.S.C., and the State Department had all found no evidence implicating the Iraqi government in the first Trade Center attack."

1998 National Security Council exercise

In 1998, Daniel Benjamin, who headed the National Security Council's counterterrorism division, led an exercise aimed at a critical analysis of the CIA's contention that Iraq and al Qaeda would not team up. "This was a red-team effort," he said. "We looked at this as an opportunity to disprove the conventional wisdom, and basically we came to the conclusion that the CIA had this one right." Benjamin later told Boston Globe reporters, "No one disputes that there have been contacts over the years. In that part of the America-hating universe, contacts happen. But that's still a long way from suggesting that they were really working together."

2001 Presidential Daily Briefing

Ten days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush receives a classified Presidential Daily Briefing (that had been prepared at his request) indicating that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda." The PDB writes off the few contacts that existed between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda as attempts to monitor the group rather than attempts to work with them. According to the National Journal, "Much of the contents of the PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism." This PDB was one of the documents the Bush Administration refused to turn over to the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, even on a classified basis, and refuses to discuss other than to acknowledge its existence.

2001-2 Atta in Prague investigations

After the allegation surfaced that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta was seen in Prague in 2001 meeting with an Iraqi diplomat, a number of investigations looked into the possibility that this had occurred. All of them concluded that all known evidence suggested that such a meeting was unlikely at best. The January 2003 CIA report Iraqi Support for Terrorism noted that "the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt on this possibility" that such a meeting occurred. (See below). Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet released "the most complete public assessment by the agency on the issue" in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee in July 2004, stating that the CIA was "increasingly skeptical" any such meeting took place.John McLaughlin, who at the time was the Deputy Director of the CIA, described the extent of the Agency's investigation into the claim: "Well, on something like the Atta meeting in Prague, we went over that every which way from Sunday. We looked at it from every conceivable angle. We peeled open the source, examined the chain of acquisition. We looked at photographs. We looked at timetables. We looked at who was where and when. It is wrong to say that we didn't look at it. In fact, we looked at it with extraordinary care and intensity and fidelity." A New York Times investigation involving "extensive interviews with leading Czech figures" reported that Czech officials had backed off the claim.Both the FBI and the Czech police chief investigated the issue and came to similar conclusions; FBI director Robert S. Mueller III noted that the FBI's investigation "ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts."The 9/11 Commission investigation, which looked over both the FBI and Czech intelligence investigations, concluded that "[n]o evidence has been found that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001." The Commission still could not "absolutely rule out the possibility" that Atta was in Prague on 9 April traveling under an alias, but the Commission concluded that "There was no reason for such a meeting, especially considering the risk it would pose to the operation. By April 2001, all four pilots had completed most of their training, and the muscle hijackers were about to begin entering the United States. The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting." (p. 229)

2002 DIA reports

In February 2002, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency issued Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, the existence of which was revealed on 9 December 2005, by Doug Jehl in the New York Times, which impugned the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The DIA report suggested that al-Libi had been "intentionally misleading" his interrogators. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: "Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."

In April 2002, the DIA assessed that "there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq.

2002 British intelligence report

In October 2002, a British Intelligence investigation of possible links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and the possibility of Iraqi WMD attacks issued a report concluding: "al Qaeda has shown interest in gaining chemical and biological expertise from Iraq, but we do not know whether any such training was provided. We have no intelligence of current cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda and do not believe that al Qaeda plans to conduct terrorist attacks under Iraqi direction.

2003 CIA report

In January 2003, the CIA released a special Report to Congress entitled Iraqi Support for Terrorism. The report concludes that "In contrast to the patron-client pattern between Iraq and its Palestinian surrogates, the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other — their mutual suspicion suborned by al-Qaida's interest in Iraqi assistance, and Baghdad's interest in al-Qaida's anti-U.S. attacks…. The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike." (See below). According to the SSCI report, "Iraqi Support for Terrorism contained the following summary judgments regarding Iraq's provision of training to al-Qaida: Regarding the Iraq-al-Qa'ida relationship, reporting from sources of varying reliability points to...incidents of training...The most disturbing aspect of the relationship is the dozen or so reports of varying reliability mentioning the involvement of Iraq or Iraqi nationals in al-Qa'ida's efforts to obtain CBW training."The report questioned the information coming from captured al-Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, stating "the detainee was not in a position to know if any training had taken place." Despite this, Colin Powell cited al-Libi's claims in his speech to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003. (See above). The next day, President Bush gave a brief talk at the Roosevelt Room in the White House with Powell by his side and stated the following: "One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons...Iraq has bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with Al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training." Michele Davis, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, told Newsweek that it was impossible to determine whether the dissent from the DIA and questions raised by the CIA were seen by officials at the White House prior to the president's remarks. A counter-terrorism official told Newsweek that while CIA reports on al-Libi were distributed widely around U.S. intelligence agencies and policy-making offices, many such routine reports are not regularly read by senior policy-making officials. Davis also stated that President Bush's remarks were "based on what was put forward to him as the views of the intelligence community" and that those views came from "an aggregation" of sources. Newsweek reported that "The new documents also raise the possibility that caveats raised by intelligence analysts about al-Libi’s claims were withheld from Powell when he was preparing his Security Council speech. Larry Wilkerson, who served as Powell’s chief of staff and oversaw the vetting of Powell’s speech, responded to an e-mail from NEWSWEEK Wednesday stating that he was unaware of the DIA doubts about al-Libi at the time the speech was being prepared. 'We never got any dissent with respect to those lines you cite … indeed the entire section that now we know came from [al-Libi],' Wilkerson wrote."

2003 British intelligence report

In January 2003, British intelligence completed a classified report on Iraq that concluded that "there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network." The report was leaked to the BBC, who published information about it on February 5, the same day Colin Powell addressed the United Nations. According to BBC, the report "says al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden views Iraq's ruling Ba'ath party as running contrary to his religion, calling it an 'apostate regime'. 'His aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq,' it says." The BBC reported that former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that intelligence had shown that the Iraqi regime appeared to be allowing a permissive environment "in which al-Qaeda is able to operate...Certainly we have some evidence of links between al-Qaeda and various people in Iraq...What we don't know, and the prime minister and I have made it very clear, is the extent of those links...What we also know, however, is that the Iraqi regime have been up to their necks in the pursuit of terrorism generally."

2003 Israeli intelligence

In February 2003, Israeli intelligence sources told the Associated Press that no link has been conclusively established between Saddam and Al Qaeda. According to the AP story, "Boaz Ganor, an Israeli counter-terrorism expert, told the AP he knows of no Iraqi ties to terror groups, beyond Baghdad's relationship with Palestinian militias and possibly Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.... A senior Israeli security source told the AP that Israel has not yet found evidence of an Iraqi-Palestinian-Al Qaeda triangle, and that several investigations into possible Al Qaeda ties to Palestinian militias have so far not yielded substantial results. Ganor said Al Qaeda has put out feelers to Palestinian groups, but ties are at a very preliminary stage."

2004 Carnegie study

In January 2004, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholars Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, and George Perkovich publish their study WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications, which looked into Saddam's relationship with al-Qaeda and concluded that "although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda." The study also found "some evidence that there were no operational links" between the two entities.

2004 9/11 Commission Report

The official report issued by the 9/11 Commission in July 2004 addressed the issue of a possible conspiracy between the government of Iraq and al-Qaeda in the September 11 attacks. The report addressed specific allegations of contacts between al-Qaeda and members of Saddam Hussein's government and concluded that there was no evidence that such contacts developed into a collaborative operational relationship, and that they did not cooperate to commit terrorist attacks against the United States. The report includes the following information:
  
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda
    Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
   
  
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq

Looking at pre-war intelligence on Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence examined "the quality and quantity of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein’s threat to stability and security in the region, and his repression of his own people;" and "the objectivity, reasonableness, independence, and accuracy of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community".In Section 12 of the report, titled Iraq's Links to Terrorism, the Senate committee examined the CIA's "five primary finished intelligence products on Iraq’s links to terrorism." The report focused specifically on the CIA's 2003 study. After examining all the intelligence, the Senate committee concluded that the CIA had accurately assessed that contacts between Saddam Hussein's regime and members of al-Qaeda "did not add up to an established formal relationship."

In a subsection titled Iraq's Relationship with al-Qaida, the report states the following:

    The CIA assessed that: Regarding the Iraq-al-Qaida relationship, reporting from sources of varying reliability points to a number of contacts, incidents of training, and discussions of Iraqi safehaven for Usama bin Laden and his organization dating from the early 1990's. Iraq's interaction with al-Qaida is impelled by mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family and by bin Ladin's interest in unconventional weapons and relocation sites. The relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other - their mutual suspicion suborned by al-Qaida's interest in Iraqi assistance, and Baghdad's interest in al-Qaida's anti-U.S. attacks. The Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike, but continues to pursue all leads.

The report continued by stating:

    Due to the limited amount and questionable quality of reporting on the leadership intentions of Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Ladin, the CIA was unable to make conclusive assessments in "Iraqi Support for Terrorism" regarding Iraq's relationship with al-Qaida. The CIA stated in the Scope Note: Our knowledge of Iraq's ties to terrorism is evolving...This paper's conclusions-especially regarding the difficult and elusive question of the exact nature of Iraq's relations with al-Qaida-are based on currently available information that is at times contradictory and derived from sources with varying degrees of reliability...While our understanding of Iraq’s overall connections to al-Qaida has grown considerably, our appreciation of these links is still emerging.

In Section 13 of the report, titled Intelligence Community Collection Activities Against Iraq's links to Terrorism, the report stated the following:

    Notwithstanding four decades of intelligence reporting, IC officials and analysts expressed frustration over the lack of useful intelligence collected on Iraq’s involvement in terrorism, particularly on links to al-Qaida. A January 2003 IC assessment of Iraqi support for terrorism explained, "Our knowledge of Iraq’s ties to terrorism is evolving and (REDACTED)".
    Based on information provided to Committee staff, these gaps had three main causes:
    1. a late start collecting against the target,
    2. the lack of a U.S. presence in Iraq, and
    3. reliance on foreign government services, opposition groups and defectors for current intelligence.

Based on the information the CIA made available to the Senate Committee, the committee published a series of conclusions in the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq. These included the following:

        Conclusion 91. The Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) assessment that Iraq had maintained ties to several secular Palestinian terrorist groups and with the Mujahidin e-Khalq was supported by the intelligence. The CIA was also reasonable in judging that Iraq appeared to have been reaching out to more effective terrorist groups, such as Hizballah and Hamas, and might have intended to employ such surrogates in the event of war. (Page 345)

        Conclusion 92. The CIA's examination of contacts, training, safehaven and operational cooperation as indicators of a possible Iraq-al-Qaida relationship was a reasonable and objective approach to the question. (Page 345)

        Conclusion 93. The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship. (Page 346)

        Conclusion 94. The CIA reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons. (Page 346)

        Conclusion 95. The CIA’s assessment on safehaven — that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control — was reasonable. (Page 347)

        Conclusion 96. The CIA's assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise. (Page 347)

        Conclusion 97. The CIA's judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach — al-Qaida — to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks. (Page 348)

        Conclusion 99. Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's possible links to al-Qaida. (Page 355)

        Conclusion 100. The CIA did not have a focused human intelligence collection strategy targeting Iraq's links to terrorism until 2002. The CIA had no (REDACTED) sources on the ground in Iraq reporting specifically on terrorism. The lack of an official (REDACTED) U.S. presence in the country (REDACTED) curtailed the Intelligence Communities human intelligence collection capabilities. (Page 355)

2004 CIA report

In August, the CIA finished another assessment of the question of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda. This assessment had been requested by the office of the Vice President, who asked specifically that the CIA take another look at the possibility that Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constituted a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, as Colin Powell had claimed in his speech to the United Nations Security Council. The assessment concluded that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime harbored Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A U.S. official familiar with the new CIA assessment said intelligence analysts were unable to determine conclusively the nature of the relationship between al-Zarqawi and Saddam. "It's still being worked," he said. "It (the assessment) ... doesn't make clear-cut, bottom-line judgments" about whether Saddam's regime was aiding al-Zarqawi. The official told Knight Ridder "What is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities," but that the report didn't conclude that Saddam's regime had provided "aid, comfort and succor" to al-Zarqawi. According to Knight Ridder, "Some officials believe that Saddam's secular regime kept an eye on al-Zarqawi, but didn't actively assist him." Knight Ridder reporters called the CIA study "the latest assessment that calls into question one of President Bush's key justifications for last year's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."

2005 update of CIA report

In October 2005, the CIA updated the 2004 report to conclude that Saddam's regime "did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates," according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (see 2006 report below).Two counterterrorism analysts told Newsweek Saddam's government may never have known Zarqawi was in Iraq because Zarqawi used "false cover." An intelligence official also told Newsweek the current draft of the report says that "most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war. It also recognizes that there are still unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge about the relationship." According to Newsweek, "The most recent CIA analysis is an update—based on fresh reporting from Iraq and interviews with former Saddam officials—of a classified report that analysts in the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence first produced more than a year ago."

2006 Pentagon study

In February 2006, the Pentagon published a study of the so-called Harmony database documents captured in Afghanistan.[91] While the study did not look specifically at allegations of Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda, it did analyze papers that offer insight into the history of the movement and tensions among the leadership. In particular, it found evidence that al-Qaeda jihadists had viewed Saddam as an "infidel" and cautioned against working with him.

2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence

In September 2006, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released two reports constituting Phase II of its study of pre-war intelligence claims regarding Iraq's pursuit of WMD and alleged links to al-Qaeda. These bipartisan reports included "Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments"[95] and "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress".[96] The reports concluded that, according to David Stout of the New York Times, "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."[97] The "Postwar Findings" volume of the study concluded that there was no evidence of any Iraqi support of al-Qaeda, al-Zarqawi, or Ansar al-Islam. The "Iraqi National Congress" volume concluded that "false information" from INC-affiliated sources was used to justify key claims in the prewar intelligence debate and that this information was "widely distributed in intelligence products" prior to the war. It also concluded that the INC "attempted to influence US policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists." The Senate report noted that in October 2002, "the DIA cautioned that the INC was penetrated by hostile intelligence services and would use the relationship to promote its own agenda."

Senator John Rockefeller, the Committee's ranking Democrat, noted that "Today's reports show that the administration's repeated allegations of a past, present and future relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq were wrong and intended to exploit the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks."[98] But the head Republican on the Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, charged, "The additional views of the Committee's Democrats are little more than a rehashing of the same unfounded allegations they've used for over three years."

The "Postwar Findings" report had the following conclusions about Saddam's alleged links to al-Qaeda:

Conclusion 1: The CIA's assessment that Iraq and al-Qaeda were "two independent actors trying to exploit each other" was accurate only about al-Qaeda. "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."

Conclusion 2: Postwar findings have indicated that there was only one meeting between representatives of Saddam Hussein and representatives of al-Qaeda. These findings also identified two occasions "not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qa'ida and Iraq."

Conclusion 3: "Prewar Intelligence Community assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qa'ida. Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provided two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000.... No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war."

Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."

Conclusion 5: Postwar findings support the assessment that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and associates were present in Baghdad from May-November 2002. "Prewar assessments expressed uncertainty about Iraq's complicity in their presence, but overestimated the Iraqi regime's capabilities to locate them. Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."

Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."

Conclusion 7: "Postwar information supports prewar Intelligence Community assessments that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qa'ida strike..... Postwar findings support CIA's January 2003 assessment, which judged that 'the most reliable reporting casts doubt' on one of the leads, an alleged meeting between Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, and confirm that no such meeting occurred. Prewar intelligence reporting cast doubt on the other lead as well."

Conclusion 8: "No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al-Qa'ida or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Conclusion 9: "additional reviews of documents recovered in Iraq are unlikely to provide information that would contradict the Committee's findings or conclusions. The Committee believes that the results of detainee debriefs largely comport with documentary evidence, but the Committee cannot definitively judge the accuracy of statements made by individuals in custody and cannot, in every case, confirm that the detainee statements are truthful and accurate."

CIA conclusions

According to the SSCI report:

    The CIA has not published a "fully researched, coordinated and approved position" on the postwar reporting on the former regime's links to al-Qa'ida, but has published such a paper on the postwar reporting of Abu Mus'ad al-Zarqawi and the former regime(see above). The CIA told the Committee that regarding Iraq's links to terrorism, "the research the Counterterrorist Center has done on this issue has called into question some of the reports of contacts and training...revealed other contacts of which we were unaware, and shed new light on some contacts that appeared in prewar reporting. On balance, this research suggests that the prewar judgment remains valid."

DIA conclusions

According to the SSCI report:

    The initial DocEx review focused on searching for WMD related documents, but the DIA also examined the documents for material related to Iraq's link to terrorism. DIA officials explicitly stated that they did not believe that the initial review process missed any documents of major significance regarding Iraq's links to terrorism. During an interview with Committee staff, the lead DIA analyst who follows the issue of possible connections between the Iraqi government and al-Qa'ida noted that the DIA "continues to maintain that there was no partnership between the two organizations." (Page 63)

FBI

According to the report:

    The FBI does not have formal efforts underway to review the prewar relationship between the former Iraqi regime and al-Qa'ida. The FBI continues to analyze information and intelligence on Iraq, particularly in its conduct of interviews of high value targets and participation in document exploitation. The FBI provided the Committee with particularly useful information from the debrief of Saddam Hussein and several high ranking Iraqi intelligence officers. (page 134)

Good luck on disproving that.

---

---

---