Meh. I agree with about 50% of the OP, with 25% earning a “not really” and 25% a flat “wrong.”
It is kind of amusing to see Der Trihs spitting blood, though.
I don’t have concrete proof that Iraq is a major supporter of terrorism. That’s why it was just an opinion. Anecdotally there appears to be some funding connections through the “Oil for Food” program and Al Qaeda. Either way the removal of a fanatical Muslim dictator and the installment of democracy has to be a good thing. But yeah, it unfortunately looks like more of a struggle than anticipated.
There’s little doubt in my mind that 9/11 provided the catalyst needed for the invasion of Iraq, but there’s no way the US government was involved in, or knew of the impending attack. I’m appalled by the fact that (depending upon which poll you read) 1/3 to 2/3 of the people in the US (and Canada too for that matter) believe that the Bush Administration was responsible for the plane crashes, or at least knew exactly when and where this was to happen, but chose to ignore it.
As for nukes, I doubt the vast majority of people actually would have endorsed this, but if you re-read the original 9/11 post on SDMB there were a lot of comments stating just that. My intent was to show that on 9/11/2001 people were very angry. Now 5 years later these same people are either complacent or believe that their own government was responsible for the attacks.
So, what was the real reason for the invasion? Terrorists? WMD? Genocide? Oil? Retaliation for the attempt on George H.W. Bush’s life in Kuwait? Stability in the region? Spreading democracy? All of the above? I don’t know. But there are a lot of good reasons in the list as a starting point (retaliation not being one of them).
Um… what? Where are you getting these numbers?
I’m guessing I’m not the only one not seeing the “humble” part of the OP.
And most people prefer not to hear anyone else’s.
He was a fanatical secular dictator. One of the reasons why he and Bin Laden hated each other.
Tariq Azez was a Chaldean Catholic.
Who is this “fanatical Muslim dictator”? Last I heard, Hussein was by far the most secular leader in the region. If things continue on the path that they seem to be going, Iraq’s replacement government will be far more fanatically Muslim than the one that was deposed.
Damn you, Yojimbo.
Garbage. Saddam was an enemy of Al Qaeda. Secular Muslims and religious purists don’t mix well.
We replaced a secular dictator with an American semi-puppet state, which is rapidly evolving toward an Islamic theocracy and an Iranian ally. Tell the women who are hiding in their homes that they are free. Tell it to the gays, who are dead or fleeing the country. Tell it to the people who have divorced their opposite-sect spouse out of fear. Saddam was brutal, not fanatical; his replacement(s) likely will be. We turned a largely secular country into Iran II.
IOW, you were talking out your ass.
Nope, none whatsoever, as Saddam and AQ had totally different agendas – in fact, dipshit, so concludes (page 105) The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.
Tatto the following paragraph to your forehead – write backwards so you can read in mirror:
What democracy, asshole? Iraq death toll ‘soared post-war’
Agreed. But what the fuck did Iraq have to do with 9/11 and why should they have been attacked when they did NOTHING to your country?
One name: Richard A. Clarke
More later…
Well, from Wikipedia:
There are known unknowns, and then there are unknown unknowns, and then… Iraq was either a major supporter of terrorism (not just a supporter, but major!) or it fucking wasn’t. If you can’t back it up - and I know you can’t, because it isn’t true - have the humble intelligence to keep it to yourself.
This is so uninformed it’s sad. Saddam was bad, but it sounds like you don’t know much about him, and it also sounds like you haven’t read a newspaper in at least a few years.
More of a struggle than the people who did the invading anticipated, yes.
Appalling if true, but I’d like a cite.
I don’t know if I could boil it down to a sentence. But I do think the Bush administration had convinced themselves that Iraq was a serious threat, and they also felt that the war presented them with a great geopolitical opportunity. I wish they’d confined their ambitions to Risk.
Leaffan, in context the Wikipedia cite is laughable. Saddam made a few token gestures toward Islam - like putting a phrase from the Koran on the Iraqi flag - in an effort to get some sympathy from religious Muslims and governments in the region. That hardly makes him a “fanatical Muslim dictator.” The Ba’ath party is a socialist party and always has been.
I agree with What Exit? that this should not have been moved to the pit.
Well, that’s why it was an opinion.
Well, other articles suggest otherwise.
So, one guy suggests that the administration needs a clear policy on Al Qaeda, and that should have prevented 9/11? Huh?
So, he can’t be a member of a socialist part and be a Muslim at the same time?
Thank you for answering.
Before and after 9/11 I would have put Iraq fairly low on the major supporter of terrorism. Iran, Syria, Libya and our ally Saudi Arabia all appeared to the big supporters.
I actually do believe that going into Iraq and removing Saddam was a good idea, but I also believe in the notion of world police. I did not like the claims of ties to terrorism, I did not seriously credit the WMDs. I did think building a large coalition to complete the job left undone a decade earlier would be a good idea. We allowed a pair of DRAFT-DODGERS to dictate policy however over the skilled and experienced Secretary of State Colin Powell. This was a very poor start. I do give credit to the theory that Cheney was in a hurry to start the invasion before the WMD lies were exposed.
5 years ago I would have gladly have push that button if you showed me that there was a suitable target, but then I am a hawk. I am still very in favor of Hiroshima.
The real reason? I wish I knew? I would like to think it was to remove a despot, but I know better.
I wonder what the thought process was. Perhaps GD as the subject was not less-than-cosmic. But GD frowns on opinion over cites. But this hardly seems like a pit Op.
Jim
One guy???
Did one gal provide a reasonable response to the one guy?
Nope.
That article is from 2004 and doesn’t provide any evidence to back up the claim that Saddam Hussein was funding Al Qaeda. In fact, the author explicitly states that no such evidence has been discovered:
The article is just a bunch of baseless speculating: “Saddam Hussein sold some oil to this company that’s currently under investigation for having terrorist ties. Could he have been funnelling money to Al Qaeda?!”
Well, here we are two years later and there’s still no evidence that he was.
Here’s another quote that drives home the “Gosh, could it be true?” nature of this article:
Well, yes, it would be a good idea. Particularly before you go around pretending that supposition is the same thing as fact. Where’s the evidence that these speculations had any basis in reality?
Intelligence wins wars. Ignorance loses them.
Socialists aren’t usually the religious type, and the Ba’ath party was openly secular. But we’re quibbling over details. You called Saddam a “fanatical Muslim dictator,” and when asked for a cite, you said that the instituted some Sharia-based laws in 2001. That’s really weak. It’s a few token actions at the tail end of a 25-year reign. Not only that, but the same Wikipedia page you linked to spends far more space on Saddam’s secularism than those token concessions he made to Islam. See the section called “Saddam Hussein as a secular leader,” which begins with this paragraph: