It may be treasonous of you not to share you special insight w/ the CIA. They were quite clear that they though such a thing was very unlikiely in the “forseeable future.” If you have special, credible sources that you used to formulat your HO then you should share them w/ our national intelligence agencies. Not doing do may make you eligible for prison time for aiding and abetting terrorists and/or enemies of the US.
Considering many “Bush bashers” predicted before the freaking war that the invasion would result in an Al Qaeda recruiting heyday, why would you insinuate it’s some convenient after-the-fact rationalization. We told you this would happen, and now it has, and only a drooling idiot would attempt to turn it into a justification for attacking in the first place.
On preview, “If we hadn’t overthrown Saddam, some other situation might have triggered an alliance between al Qaeda and the Ba’ath Party.” Well, yes. And if the US hadn’t invaded Grenada, it might have become the centre of an mighty island empire reminiscent of the might and benevolence of 1940 Japan. :rolleyes: Perhaps if you could suggest some remotely plausible course of events which would have led Saddam and Usama to become bosom buddies instead of hated enemies, your argument wouldn’t look like the piece of highly contrived bovine fecal matter that it is.
The anti-war sentiment from the lefties here isn’t clear to you? Wow…
I’m impying that there’s a strong DESIRE by the leftists to have sit on our asses and let Iraq fester. If that’s not true, deny it. I could use a laugh.
It’s hard to not want to reach through the computer and slap you about that Bush comment. I’m talking about a realistic potential, not some made up crap. If you can’t keep some grasp on reality here, I’m not going to respond anymore.
Buchanan is an anti-Jewish fool, and nothing he says on this subject can be taken seriously. He’s ultimately tainted by his Israel hate.
Umm, no.
It doesn’t seem clear at all that a desire to protect America’s national security through judicious use of military force is at all the same as mourning the death of Iraqi Baathist party.
I guess that you couldn’t find any actual examples of the mourning.
What about the anti-war sentiments of the righties? Do those count as the same thing in your mind?
E. “Here, Simon take this”
Simon: “What is it?”
E. “Five hits of Purple Haze, some ketamines, and some experimental CIA shit from the 60’s”
Simon: “But I’ll totally lose my grip on reality!”
E. “Do it for us, OK, buddy? Take a bullet for the team, so to speak. They’ll make you a Moderator, and when you die, you’ll sit at the right hand of Cecil and you get all the virgins on the Board. C’mon, be a mensch, we can’t take it much longer…”
How does opposing an illegal invasion equate to support of Hussein or al Qaeda?
Thanks for proving my point.
How is it illegal? Whose law was broken? Congress gave Bush the authority to do it, so not USA laws. Are we talking about some UN laws? Don’t make me vomit in disgust.
First, it would help if you could define a leftist. There’re actually quite a number of conservative folks who didn’t support going into Iraq the way that we did. I don’t think you can find an actual example of anyone advocating festering, now can you? This is just subtanceless hand-waving on your part.
Even GHW Bush wanted to wait until we could creat a more broad based international coalition. I don’t know if he’s a leftist in you mind or not though.
Impulse control therapy might help with that. You know what they say: “He who strikes th efirst blow has lost the argument already.”
I see that do agree that likelihood is a better guide than mere potential. Since the CIA and other US intelligence agencies said that the likelihood of such an alliance as you’ve suggested was very small, (barring the invasion of Iraq, in which case they said the probability wiould increase greatly), it would seem that the aQ Hussein alliance is “some made up crap.”
Certainly not worth sending our soldiers to foreignshores to die over, unless you don’t value the lives of our military very highly.
He’s a conservative, but not a true Scotsman? I see.
I’ll go gonzo on the advice of the Good Doctor.
You failed to address any of the applicable points, way to go.
Explain again how saying Bush/al qaeda is in the same ballpark as Saddam/Al Qaeda? One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn’t belong…
How is the alliance ‘very small’? It’s going on right now. So you’re wrong there for sure.
I’m not a big fan of our military people having to die for the scum in iraq. I’d have used other methods in our arsenal to keep our losses low. I have no love for our enemies.
december, surely you’re old enough to have seen a copy of The Magnificent Dunderheads? It was a compilation, from around 1942, of all the statements (frequently out of context) of people who had opposed the military requests of FDR prior to Pearl Harbor. Among the people excoriated were all the people who had made nasty condemnations of our ally the Soviet Union prior to our entry into WWII.
According to the citations, they were bad, they were the enemy, we had to hate them and oppose them at every turn. (Of course, we were able to resume our hatred and opposition on May 8, 1945.) But in early 1942, everyone who had described the Soviets in negative terms before Pearl Harbor were accused of near-treason after Pearl Harbor for attacking our “allies.”
A number of warring tribal groups in Afghanistan put aside their mutual antipathy to fight the Soviets, then went back to happily murdering each other when the Soviets left.
Yugoslavia and Italy provide numerous examples of groups that hated each other joining forces to fight the Nazis or the Fascisti, then resuming their mutual destruction once the common enemy was defeated.
Making common cause against an active enemy is a fairly common human trait.
As one of those who did, indeed, predict that a unilateral attack on Iraq would be a choice recruiting campaign for al Qaida, even among Iraqis, I find your comment to be rather worse than disingenuous–it displays an appalling lack of historical knowledge. (Note the link I recently provided that indicated that background people in the administration admitted that a Ba’ath/al Qaida link was barely tenuous before the war.)
The alliance between aQ and Bush is a of low order of probability.
Pre-invasion the aQ Hussein alliance was of a low order of probaility.
CIA and other US intelligence agencies said that the likelihood of such an alliance as you’ve suggested was very small, (barring the invasion of Iraq, in which case they said the probability would increase greatly).
The Iraqi people are our enemies now? I thought we were “liberating” them.
monty2_2001, I don’t believe that you are really contributing much here. Most of your rehtoric should be in the Pit. In fact, I’d be surprised if there isn’t a thread there with your name on it right now.
Bob
tomndebb, Are you suggesting that beating a country in a war will always lead to our downfall? That didn’t happen in Germany or Japan. The main difference I see if that the USA went too easy on Iraq, but we are rounding up all the leadership.
How can anyone be against this? There’s 2 options here, we fight and win, or we sit around and lose. There is no way to sit around and win. That’s what clinton did for 8 years and we got: The Cole, the first WTC bombing, 9/11. I say 9/11 cause Uday is quoted as saying ‘Bush isn’t like Clinton, he’s fighting back’ towards the end.
Under Clinton they knew we were weak, and therefore attacked us endlessly. It’s intuitively obvious.
monty2_2001 , why don’t you read this thread again. Slowly. Or get someone to read it to you.
Stunning.
I don’t think you’re offering anything either… Just a personal attack. Go away.
Bush-bashers like Robert L. Hutchings Chairman, National Intelligence Council.
It violated the UN Charter which means it was a violation of international law.
Bush has been perfectly willing to cite “UN law” and international treaties when it suits his own purposes. He is currently whining about Iran’s flouting of the nuclear proliferation treaty, for instance. So is the US bound by international law or isn’t it? If not, why not? Also, if this administration is going to put its own interests above international law (and by “its own interests” I mean the administration’s interests, not the US) then whta right do they have to demand that any other country follow those laws?
What? The thread is blatantly about if we were justified to go to war with Iraq. I’m pointing out how we were. Perhaps you are the one that needs to learn how to read?