Interesting article on the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Another interesting irony here is when some random idiot guard at Abu Ghraib tortures a prisoner to get his jollys - it's "Bush and Rumsfeld were behind it". Yet, when high level members of the Iraqi military are found cooperating with Al Qaeda it's "well, Saddam doesn't know what goes on with all of his guys". Certainly an interesting way to look at these two situations ....

Does that mean you think Rumsfeld et. al., are responsible for the abuses at Abu Gharaib?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Does that mean you think Rumsfeld et. al., are responsible for the abuses at Abu Gharaib?

I tell you what - I'll agree that Rumsfeld knew about Abu Ghraib if you agree that Saddam knew about all his military members working with Al Qaeda - deal?

[JW]

Originally Posted by Arles

I tell you what - I'll agree that Rumsfeld knew about Abu Ghraib if you agree that Saddam knew about all his military members working with Al Qaeda - deal?

Yes, the two are certainly morally equivalent, at least to some.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

Yes, the two are certainly morally equivalent, at least to some.

Oh nice.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

I tell you what - I'll agree that Rumsfeld knew about Abu Ghraib if you agree that Saddam knew about all his military members working with Al Qaeda - deal?

Actually, probably not that far off.

On Rumsfeld, I am of the opinion that he created an environment in which underlings could assume that a blind eye would be turned to abuses, which led to things getting out of control. Whether he did this deliberately or out of incompetence (i.e., not being used to running an organization the size of the DoD), is an open question.

On Hussein, I think it's perfectly likely that he was aware of key members of his military and intelligence staff having contact with representatives of terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, arms dealers, etc....

I await your response.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Actually, probably not that far off.

On Rumsfeld, I am of the opinion that he created an environment in which underlings could assume that a blind eye would be turned to abuses, which led to things getting out of control. Whether he did this deliberately or out of incompetence (i.e., not being used to running an organization the size of the DoD), is an open question.

On Hussein, I think it's perfectly likely that he was aware of key members of his military and intelligence staff having contact with representatives of terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, arms dealers, etc....

I await your response.

Seems like you didn't answer the question. Either Hussein knew about members of his military working with Al Qaeda - or he didn't. Either Rumsfeld knew about members of the US military being involved when Abu Ghraib happened - or he didn't.

I am perfectly willing to accept the premise that BOTH knew about each while they were going on. Rumsfeld should have been much more responsive to initial reports about the jail in Iraq and when Saddam made no effort to keep his own military from working with Al Qaeda, he was essentially approving of their relationships. You seem hesitant, however, to go that far (which is surprising given your former level of certainty of Rumself being complicitous in the Abu Ghraib scandle). It seems by tying the concept of Rumsfeld knowing about Abu Ghraib to Saddam knowing about his own members working with Al Qaeda, some actual doubt has surfaced on your end regarding Rummy's actions.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

Seems like you didn't answer the question. Either Hussein knew about members of his military working with Al Qaeda - or he didn't. Either Rumsfeld knew about members of the US military being involved when Abu Ghraib happened - or he didn't.

I am perfectly willing to accept the premise that BOTH knew about each while they were going on. Rumsfeld should have been much more responsive to initial reports about the jail in Iraq and when Saddam made no effort to keep his own military from working with Al Qaeda, he was essentially approving of their relationships. You seem hesitant, however, to go that far (which is surprising given your former level of certainty of Rumself being complicitous in the Abu Ghraib scandle). It seems by tying the concept of Rumsfeld knowing about Abu Ghraib to Saddam knowing about his own members working with Al Qaeda, some actual doubt has surfaced on your end regarding Rummy's actions.

Why am I not surprised that Arles embraces the idea of conditional truths?

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oh nice.

You raised the point of comparison.

Also, glad to read that you concur that there were Iraq-Al Qaeda connections.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Seems like you didn't answer the question. Either Hussein knew about members of his military working with Al Qaeda - or he didn't. Either Rumsfeld knew about members of the US military being involved when Abu Ghraib happened - or he didn't.

Honestly, it reads clear to me. I'm not sure what more I can do for you to make you (& JW) understand this.

I am perfectly willing to accept the premise that BOTH knew about each while they were going on. Rumsfeld should have been much more responsive to initial reports about the jail in Iraq and when Saddam made no effort to keep his own military from working with Al Qaeda, he was essentially approving of their relationships.

I'd like to point out that that's quite a leap to make there.

You seem hesitant, however, to go that far (which is surprising given your former level of certainty of Rumself being complicitous in the Abu Ghraib scandle). It seems by tying the concept of Rumsfeld knowing about Abu Ghraib to Saddam knowing about his own members working with Al Qaeda, some actual doubt has surfaced on your end regarding Rummy's actions.

I'm not sure where I wrote that Rumsfeld was complicit in the Abu Gharaib abuses. Perhaps you could link to that? Again, I feel Rumsfeld did two things wrong:

1. Fostered (probably through inaction resulting from incompetence) an environment at the DoD that gave people on the ground the impression that a blind eye would be turned to forms of interrogation that included torture. This ended up morphing into abuses at Abu Gharaib & elsewhere.

2. Did not respond quickly enough to reports of abuse. Rumsfeld failed to understand the culture of the DoD and the mechanics involved in changing its culture.


As for the analog between Rumsfeld-Abu Gharaib and Hussein-Al Qaeda, I think you have to understand that analogies can only be taken so far. Even so, I think I'm being consistent. Whereas Rumsfeld can't be held accountable for ordering the abuses to take place, Hussein can't be said to have had a strategic alliance with Al Qaeda. There is no firm evidence for either. Whereas Rumsfeld can be held accountable for engendering an environment where abuses could occur, and for not acting in a manner to stop these abuses, Hussein can be held accountable for keeping ties open to Al Qaeda and whatever appropriate international retaliation that would involve.


If this doesn't satisfy you, then I recommend you write down exactly what you want me to say that would satisfy you, because I am increasingly of the opinion that you are not understanding (wilfully or not) what I am saying.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

You raised the point of comparison.

Actually, I didn't. Arles did. I'm starting to have doubts about your reading comprehension, JW.

Also, glad to read that you concur that there were Iraq-Al Qaeda connections.

Again, reading comprehension. I've never claimed that Iraq-Al Qaeda connections may have existed.

Tell you what: how about you stop recasting my arguments and statements into something they're not and maybe we'll get somewhere, ok? Otherwise, take your O'Reilly debating techniques elsewhere.

[JW]

[quote=flere-imsaho] I've never claimed that Iraq-Al Qaeda connections may have existed.

QUOTE]

Really? Then why did you write this?

"On Hussein, I think it's perfectly likely that he was aware of key members of his military and intelligence staff having contact with representatives of terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, arms dealers, etc...."

[Chubby]

[quote=JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I've never claimed that Iraq-Al Qaeda connections may have existed.

QUOTE]

Really? Then why did you write this?

"On Hussein, I think it's perfectly likely that he was aware of key members of his military and intelligence staff having contact with representatives of terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, arms dealers, etc...."

because he doesn't agree with the leap that you are making. members of the army having contact with Al Qaeda does NOT make an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection like you wish it did.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Chubby

because he doesn't agree with the leap that you are making. members of the army having contact with Al Qaeda does NOT make an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection like you wish it did.

And what leap am I making? That contacts are connections? Perhaps we can agree on another term, like 'interactions.' One must remember that the starting position of the left has been to say there were no contacts/connections/interactions between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It seems there actually were. The only arguments are the extent of the contacts/connections/interactions and whether that would justify an invasion. And I think a valid argument can be made that the contacts/connections/interactions were not justification for war and that the White House overstated them. But that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by JW

And what leap am I making? That contacts are connections? Perhaps we can agree on another term, like 'interactions.' One must remember that the starting position of the left has been to say there were no contacts/connections/interactions between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It seems there actually were. The only arguments are the extent of the contacts/connections/interactions and whether that would justify an invasion. And I think a valid argument can be made that the contacts/connections/interactions were not justification for war and that the White House overstated them. But that doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Contacts between people are not the same as contacts between a government and people. Simply being in the army does not mean they are speaking or acting for the government. That is the HUGE leap you are continuing to make. It simply hasn't been shown that any connection between the governemnt/Saddam and Al Qaeda existed.

There were NOT connections. Simply repeating it does not make it so. By your reasoning there's connections between the US and Al Qaeda. I mean, surely John Walker Lindh or whatever his name was speaking for the US government right?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Chubby

because he doesn't agree with the leap that you are making. members of the army having contact with Al Qaeda does NOT make an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection like you wish it did.

If members of the Iraqi army have contact with Al Qaeda, there IS a connection there. Now, whether it's enough of a connection to go to war over is certainly debatable. Still, there are numerous connections between members of the Iraqi military and members of Al Qaeda. The difference seems to be that I am willing to make assertion that Saddam had some knowledge of these interactions, whereas you guys seem to be unwilling to make that step.

Contacts between people are not the same as contacts between a government and people.

I would state that contacts between high level military men are on the level of contacts between governments. You seem to be grouping high-level Iraqi military people with random Iraqi citizens.

Simply being in the army does not mean they are speaking or acting for the government.

But it also takes a large leap to assume that ranking members of the Iraqi military could repeatedly associate with Al Qaeda and not have Saddam know. Do you think that a Lt. or Colonel in the US army could hang out with Al Qaeda numerous times and not have Abazaid, Myers or Rumsfeld find out?

There were NOT connections. Simply repeating it does not make it so.

They are connections, just not direct connections with Saddam. Again, it comes down to whether you think high ranking military men in an army as small as Iraq's can carry on these type of relationships with Al Qaeda without any knowledge by Saddam. That seems like a bit of a reach to me.

By your reasoning there's connections between the US and Al Qaeda. I mean, surely John Walker Lindh or whatever his name was speaking for the US government right?

Lindh was a member of the US military? That's news to me. A better comparison would be if a high-ranking Lt. active in the US military was found to be working hand-in-hand with a group in Lebanon that is an enemy to Al Qaeda. Then, a few months later, it's determined that group is a terrorist group and has made attacks on the US in the past and there is a great deal of outrage in the US.

Tell me right now that you guys would not be all over Bush and Rummy for allowing this and each of you would believe that Bush, Rummy, Myers, Abazaid and company knew nothing of an active, high-ranking Lt. associating with that group. That's exactly what you are currently saying about Saddam and some of his military members (in a much smaller military).

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Arles

If members of the Iraqi army have contact with Al Qaeda, there IS a connection there. Now, whether it's enough of a connection to go to war over is certainly debatable. Still, there are numerous connections between members of the Iraqi military and members of Al Qaeda. The difference seems to be that I am willing to make assertion that Saddam had some knowledge of these interactions, whereas you guys seem to be unwilling to make that step.

I'm stopping you right there. No, there is no connection between the GOVERNMENT (which is what people are saying when they say Iraq, not just some random person in the military) and Al Qaeda if a military person contacts Al Qaeda on their own. Show it was done in an official capacity and you have a connection, it has yet to be shown however.

That's as flimsy as saying "well one of our spies had contact with Al Qaeda so there's a connection between the US and Al Qaeda!!!"

[Arles]

We're talking in circles now. You don't feel that high level military contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq are akin to government connections. And, given the fairly small number of military men in power positions for Al Qaeda and Iraq (and given both leaders were also military men), I fail to see much of a difference between a high ranking Iraqi military member working with Al Qaeda and Saddam. But, I think it's pretty clear that you disagree on that premise.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Chubby

That's as flimsy as saying "well one of our spies had contact with Al Qaeda so there's a connection between the US and Al Qaeda!!!"

That's a pretty lame analogy considering that the US doesn't support and harbor terrorists. The Baath Party and Al Qaeda both "enjoyed" the use of terror to get their point across.

Personally, I could care less if we ever find CNN footage of a grand ceremony featuring Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden inking a mutual aggression pact. Face it, they both had the same goals and they both deserve to rot in hell. We did the right thing and we'd do it again knowing what we know today.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Contacts between people are not the same as contacts between a government and people. Simply being in the army does not mean they are speaking or acting for the government. That is the HUGE leap you are continuing to make. It simply hasn't been shown that any connection between the governemnt/Saddam and Al Qaeda existed.

There were NOT connections. Simply repeating it does not make it so. By your reasoning there's connections between the US and Al Qaeda. I mean, surely John Walker Lindh or whatever his name was speaking for the US government right?

Okay.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That's a pretty lame analogy considering that the US doesn't support and harbor terrorists. The Baath Party and Al Qaeda both "enjoyed" the use of terror to get their point across.

That's not completely true. The US has trained and supported groups like the Contras, UNITA, mujahadeen, etc. We're still pretty soft on Anti-Castro extremists on our soil. And just this year, we took our sweet time taking Luis Posada Carriles into custody, and we're still refusing to extradite him, which would have made him answer to charges re his role in a terror bombing of a civilian Cuban airliner.

So, we've done what we've thought we needed to do in the past.


EDIT: Of course, the US government doesn't have too much control over (or will to control) our civilian support for terrorist groups. Cash transfers from the US is the IRA's primary means of support, for example.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

Really? Then why did you write this?

"On Hussein, I think it's perfectly likely that he was aware of key members of his military and intelligence staff having contact with representatives of terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, arms dealers, etc...."

Typo: That should have read "I've never claimed that Iraq-Al Qaeda connections may not have existed."

By the way, that should have been really obvious from the context, O'Reilly.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Typo: That should have read "I've never claimed that Iraq-Al Qaeda connections may not have existed."

By the way, that should have been really obvious from the context, O'Reilly.

Well, you have to remember that your posts are so much above the intellectual level of the rest of us that we just can't be sure what you mean if it isn't clearly spelled out, and simply.

BTW, does this mean then that you come down on the side of contacts and connections being roughly equivalent?

I really think we have no argument then. I just get tired of people saying there were no connections when there were. But I think a quite reasonable argument can be made that the connections were not worth a war. After all, the ties between Iran and Al Qaeda, for example, are far greater than the connections that existed between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda.

[Blackadar]

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by JW

After all, the ties between Iran and Al Qaeda, for example, are far greater than the connections that existed between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda.

You left off some other nations that have FAR greater ties than Iraq ever could or did: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malalyasia, Indonesia, Madagascar, Egypt and Morocco. So with all of this knoweldge, wouldnt most logical people completely drop the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection as a reason to invade?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Either you believe Saddam Hussein should be our ally or you are upset we finally did the right thing. You seem to be in the wrong suggesting either.

And the point was...

Personally, I could care less if we ever find CNN footage of a grand ceremony featuring Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden inking a mutual aggression pact. Face it, they both had the same goals and they both deserve to rot in hell. We did the right thing and we'd do it again knowing what we know today.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Either you believe Saddam Hussein should be our ally or you are upset we finally did the right thing. You seem to be in the wrong suggesting either.

And the point was...

I love this logic. The main reasons for going to war have been entirely discredited (WMDs, Saddam/Al Qaeda).

Now the Kool-Aid Republicans (those without critical thinking skills) tout the war as doing the "right thing". Something that only history will prove or disprove. Of course, I think things will have to turn out awfully well to justify over 1,500 US deaths, over 10,000 US casualties and over 20,000 Iraqis dead (with some studies estimating over 100,000 Iraqi dead). Even The Economist estimated 40,000 Iraqi civilians dead. But I guess it's ok to butcher people as long as you're on the "right" side? Right?

Saddam was our ally, by the way.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I love this logic. The main reasons for going to war have been entirely discredited (WMDs, Saddam/Al Qaeda).

Now the Kool-Aid Republicans (those without critical thinking skills) tout the war as doing the "right thing". Something that only history will prove or disprove. Of course, I think things will have to turn out awfully well to justify over 1,500 US deaths, over 10,000 US casualties and over 20,000 Iraqis dead (with some studies estimating over 100,000 Iraqi dead). Even The Economist estimated 40,000 Iraqi civilians dead. But I guess it's ok to butcher people as long as you're on the "right" side? Right?

Saddam was our ally, by the way.

You obviously need to research a bit more about what Al Qaeda and Saddam's terrorists and armies have done if you think America is that terrible. You haven't a friggin' clue.

And for a critical non-Kool-Aid drinker thinker such as yourself...shame on you for not being fully informed.

[JW]

Originally Posted by chinaski

You left off some other nations that have FAR greater ties than Iraq ever could or did: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malalyasia, Indonesia, Madagascar, Egypt and Morocco. So with all of this knoweldge, wouldnt most logical people completely drop the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection as a reason to invade?

I didn't leave off anyone. I just used Iran as an example.

Completely drop? A reason to invade? Not necessarily, as one reason on a list of several reasons. But I think I've pointed out a couple of times that it is entirely reasonable to argue that the Iraq-Al Qaeda connections, or contacts, or interactions were not enough to justify war or even to serve as one of several justifications. I think the White House overstated them.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You obviously need to research a bit more about what Al Qaeda and Saddam's terrorists and armies have done if you think America is that terrible. You haven't a friggin' clue.

And for a critical non-Kool-Aid drinker thinker such as yourself...shame on you for not being fully informed.

No, I don't feel like doing your research for you. Get off your lazy ass and do it yourself.

By the way, let's separate Al Qaeda and Iraq right now. They're entirely two different animals.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You obviously need to research a bit more about what Al Qaeda and Saddam's terrorists and armies have done if you think America is that terrible. You haven't a friggin' clue.

I think he was referring to "Republicans", not "Americans".

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I think he was referring to "Republicans", not "Americans".

Well, the terms are mutually exclusive. ;P

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No, I don't feel like doing your research for you. Get off your lazy ass and do it yourself.

I'm doing my best.

By the way, let's separate Al Qaeda and Iraq right now. They're entirely two different animals.

Personally, I could care less if we ever find CNN footage of a grand ceremony featuring Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden inking a mutual aggression pact. Face it, they both had the same goals and they both deserve to rot in hell. We did the right thing and we'd do it again knowing what we know today.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I think he was referring to "Republicans", not "Americans".

I do not dislike Democrats. I dislike those who don't understand that Al Qaeda and Iraq were both actively looking to for ways to kill Americans. I could care less what there reasoning is and the semantics of their relationship towards one another. I could care less if they worked completely independent of one another. Murdering civilians through the use of terror to oppress is dispicable and should not be condoned nor supported. If you believe when I say that most of the people who chose to support these lunatics by hampering the US effort are Democrats, well, that is your interpretation, not mine. And you should take that issue up with Klinglerware next time.

[Klinglerware]

Dutch, I was responding to your response to Blackadar. Blackadar was making a reference to the "Republican Party", you took that to refer to "America" as a whole...

[flere-imsaho]

What's your view on North Korea, Dutch?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm doing my best.

Personally, I could care less if we ever find CNN footage of a grand ceremony featuring Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden inking a mutual aggression pact. Face it, they both had the same goals and they both deserve to rot in hell. We did the right thing and we'd do it again knowing what we know today.

Your best isn't very good.

You have yet to address the "right thing" issue I brought up above.

And no, they didn't have the same goals. Not even close - and it shows how little you know about the Middle East. Let's me give you the Cliff's Notes versions.

Saddam wished to stay in power in Iraq. His goal was to stay fat and happy. He craves what every power-monger craves...more power. In this he is not any different than any other two-bit dictator or even political parties. His former goal was to to have much more control over Middle East power, but that ended in the Gulf War. He knew he'd never again be that strong. He had a grudge against the USA, but knew he did not possess the military power nor the political clout to do anything about it. He also ran a secular state and was afraid of religious radicalism. He wanted the embargo ended and the oil riches flowing back into Iraq. His sabre-rattling was simply that - covering up for his known deficiencies to ward off potential enemies (inside Iraq and out). Like most Middle Eastern leaders, he didn't like Israel.

Osama is after something else entirely. His wants to kick the USA out of the Middle East entirely becuase he is trying to encourage Islamic radicalism/fundamentalism. His goal is for many of Muslim states to become increasingly radical to create a pan-fundamentalist Muslim core of countries in the Middle East, which would then be a power base to remove Israel. If Osama got what he wanted, Saddam wouldn't be in power in Iraq.

So while neither of these guys make my Christmas Card list, it's extremely short-sighted to say they had the same goals. They couldn't have - Osama's goals required the elimination of Saddam to create his fundamentalist Pan-Islamic state.

[Klinglerware]

What is your definition of "actively looking for ways to kill Americans"? A Chinese general a few days ago was on record saying that the Chinese ought to reassess their "no first use" nuclear weapons policy in a conflict involving US. Another general said a few years ago, "The Americans should be worried about Los Angeles, not Taipei".

I'm sure that current 2nd-tier powers like China and Russia have force planning in place for potential conflicts involving the use of nuclear weapons against American civilians (much like we do with them). That sounds just like they're looking for ways to kill Americans, too.

The same thing can also be said about the Latin-American drug producers and their militant allies (on both sides of the spectrum) or even big tobacco. Hell, I'm more likely to die tomorrow at the hands of an intoxicated driver than a terrorist... One could say that Americans suffered because of drug use more than they did from Saddam Hussein. Why doesn't the government go harder against oxycontin and meta-amphetamine abuse? (Is it because it primarily affects the Republican voter base? Would the administration be more aggressive if they were considered "urban" drugs?)

I'm still mystified by the prioritizations made in the past 5 years. An expensive, aggressive campaign against al-Qaeda, I can understand. Shifting resources (plus building mountains of debt, a lot of which the Chinese now hold) because of the Iraqi conflict, from a cost-benefit standpoint, is less tenable...

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Your best isn't very good.

You have yet to address the "right thing" issue I brought up above.

And no, they didn't have the same goals. Not even close - and it shows how little you know about the Middle East. Let's me give you the Cliff's Notes versions.

Saddam wished to stay in power in Iraq. His goal was to stay fat and happy. He craves what every power-monger craves...more power. In this he is not any different than any other two-bit dictator or even political parties. His former goal was to to have much more control over Middle East power, but that ended in the Gulf War. He knew he'd never again be that strong. He had a grudge against the USA, but knew he did not possess the military power nor the political clout to do anything about it. He also ran a secular state and was afraid of religious radicalism. He wanted the embargo ended and the oil riches flowing back into Iraq. His sabre-rattling was simply that - covering up for his known deficiencies to ward off potential enemies (inside Iraq and out). Like most Middle Eastern leaders, he didn't like Israel.

Osama is after something else entirely. His wants to kick the USA out of the Middle East entirely becuase he is trying to encourage Islamic radicalism/fundamentalism. His goal is for many of Muslim states to become increasingly radical to create a pan-fundamentalist Muslim core of countries in the Middle East, which would then be a power base to remove Israel. If Osama got what he wanted, Saddam wouldn't be in power in Iraq.

So while neither of these guys make my Christmas Card list, it's extremely short-sighted to say they had the same goals. They couldn't have - Osama's goals required the elimination of Saddam to create his fundamentalist Pan-Islamic state.

That is right on the mark. Saddam would never risk any rise in Islamic fundamentalism in his country. He is the traditional "Secular-Nationalist dictator"--he knew that he could never compete with God though, so he strove to limit religion's influence as much as he could...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What's your view on North Korea, Dutch?

Louisiana is lowland country. I can't even see Texas from here.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Your best isn't very good.

You have yet to address the "right thing" issue I brought up above.

I sorry, I was distracted by the volley of insults you were lobbing.

Saddam ran a rogue state that harbored terrorists. The Taliban ran a rogue state that harbored terrorists. When we say we will not stand for that and they do it anyway, we chose to act in accordance with what is best to protect ourselves.

In the nuclear age, it's much more difficult to oust a bad guy when they have their finger on the trigger. North Korea is a great example. Adding Iraq and Iran to the list makes it even more difficult.

The one thing we have made perfectly clear by removing Saddam Hussein and his heirs from the throne in Iraq is their lust for the development of Nuclear Weapons. And another thing we found out is the Baath Party and Al Qaeda's willingness to work together in warfare.

We did the "right thing". We are doing the right thing. We are succeeding. The ultimate goal for us is to empower the citizens of these nations to control their own countries. Terrorist's do not live peacefully in Democratic states. This is the "right thing" to do.

BTW, I've gotten off my lazy ass to do something about it, if only by happen-stance.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I sorry, I was distracted by the volley of insults you were lobbing.

Saddam ran a rogue state that harbored terrorists. The Taliban ran a rogue state that harbored terrorists. When we say we will not stand for that and they do it anyway, we chose to act in accordance with what is best to protect ourselves.

Please define "rogue state that harbors terrorists". I'm sure I can name no less than 50-100 countries that fall under that definition. Are we to go to war with all of them? Was Iraq a rogue state? Wasn't he complying with UN inspectors to the point they could issue a report that they didn't have WMDs? Or do you define rogue as a state that doesn't comply with our demands?

Originally Posted by Dutch

In the nuclear age, it's much more difficult to oust a bad guy when they have their finger on the trigger. North Korea is a great example. Adding Iraq and Iran to the list makes it even more difficult.

So we'll go after the ones that can't defend themselves, right? Also, have you found any proof that Saddam had any substantial nuclear capability? We know he had WMDs - we gave them to him. Are we to invade everyone who is developing nukes? Is Iran next?

Originally Posted by Dutch

The one thing we have made perfectly clear by removing Saddam Hussein and his heirs from the throne in Iraq is their lust for the development of Nuclear Weapons. And another thing we found out is the Baath Party and Al Qaeda's willingness to work together in warfare.

We did? Really? Please show some substantial evidence of this beyond sketchy contacts or unsubstantiated reports.

Originally Posted by Dutch

We did the "right thing". We are doing the right thing. We are succeeding. The ultimate goal for us is to empower the citizens of these nations to control their own countries. Terrorist's do not live peacefully in Democratic states. This is the "right thing" to do.

BTW, I've gotten off my lazy ass to do something about it, if only by happen-stance.

Yes, it's the right thing to kill brown people, isn't it Dutch? And it's the right thing to force our way of life and our governmental principals on everyone too? While I love Democracy, I don't think it can be force-fed. Nor is it our place to do that force feeding. It works best when it's the citizens of a country that demand it. It works best when it's a paragon of virtue. Not done by the barrel of a gun.

Terrorists don't live peacefully in Democratic states? Tell that to Oklahoma City. Or England. Or Ireland. Or Spain. How about Greece? Turkey? Want me to keep naming them? Or is the point that terrorists can't live peacefully at all, in which case your definition of a terrorist would apply to almost any armed dissident group. Like the Americans under George Washington.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Yes, it's the right thing to kill brown people, isn't it Dutch?

LMAO, you're such a nerd.