Perhaps not your best example. Yes, the Iranians permitted the Iraqi’s to hide thier MIGs. But they kept them.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2002/Aug_2002/qosa_zolqadr_meeting_1802.htm
And if you don’t trust that Iran press report:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/iraq/interactive/iraq.military/content.4.1.html
In addition, we are forgetting that the DoD had this on that statement:.
Feith and the proponents of this operational relationship are saying the “case is closed”, that remains a lie.
I do think it is telling that the British intelligence and now the DoD, who had access to that info already, have a different view of what “operational relationship” was there. The hawks are still pretending otherwise, but now it is mostly for an audience that wants to live in denial that this war was indeed a foolish one.
Ouch! Pride.So.Hurt 
And for the record I already admitted I was wrong about the Hitler Stalin love affair. 
(though I still think the analogy doesn´t work)
[quote]
**CIA Seeks Probe of Iraq-Al Qaeda Memo Leak **
*By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 18, 2003; Page A18 *
The CIA will ask the Justice Department to investigate the leak of a 16-page classified Pentagon memo that listed and briefly described raw agency intelligence on any relationship between Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi government and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist network, according to congressional and administration sources.
W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the DIA, said yesterday that the Standard article “is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?”
- © 2003 The Washington Post Company *
The ultimate fate of Iraqi planes is irrelevant to my reminder that “politics makes strange bedfellows”. The point is that some kind of agreement was reached between two biggest antagonists in the region, otherwise Iran would shoot incoming planes down. Why didn’t Iraqi take their planes to Syria, Lybia, Afghanistan or someplace else? Why send them to their greatest enemy? Is a logical explanation possible here? The fact remains that attempts at logical explanation avail nothing when discussing politics and international affairs. That’s why all possibilities have to be considered. To quote another old adage: “Politics is art of the possible.”
And what about Iraqi demanding “the sale of an unspecified numbers of the Iranian-made “Shahab-III” surface to air missiles”, mentioned in the Elucidator’s link? Leaving aside possible WMD connection, how can you explain Iraqi trying to get Iran’s missiles, that they can shoot right back later? How logical is that?
That might be relevant if they had had the intention of letting the other side keep the spoils, but as it stands, that couldn’t have been further from their minds. Especially Germany had no intention of actually providing Russia with a lasting benefit. More than cooperation, it’s like letting someone else do some of the dirty work for you, in full knowledge of the fact that you’ll shaft him when he’s done.
And G isn’t really something in which the Soviet Union was providing Germany with any lasting advantage OVER ITSELF. Giving WMDs to Osama meant giving Osama the means to take out Saddam if he wants to and plays his cards right. That is nothing that would have occured to Saddam even remotely as far as people who have studied him closely tell us.
Excellent point. Which to me again brings forth the possibility that Saddam was getting old, Iraq was increasingly run in his name by his sons and other people and the whole situation was getting too unpredictable and dangerous, therefore the West decided to take over Iraq.
Not necessarily. Iraq still had the largest army in the region, and Iran still may have thought it faced a greater danger if they started a new war with Iraq - which shooting down Iraqi planes, even defectors, would have done. On the other hand, letting a few of them in (and a few was all they had) would not be a real danger, but their pilots could be a real intel bonus. Make sense to you?
Of course. They weren’t “sent” - they were flown by defectors to the nearest border that would be safe for them. Where did you get the idea that they were following anyone’s orders? Weren’t you aware of the mass defections and surrenders in virtually every area of the Iraqi military except the Republican Guard at the same time?
Also on the contrary. Analyzing and understanding motives and capabilities is quite central to it. It may be difficult to see them sometimes, but to then dismiss them as “illogical” is self-defeating.
As logical as having weapons instead of not having them can be.
Yes. It is possible that Iraq and Al Quaida had an operational relationship. And no, I am not basing this on any fact, or statistic or anything of the sort. I’m only basing it on the loose theory that just about anything is possible when you don’t understand most of the variables in a given equasion.
Yes. It is possible that Iraq and Al Quaida had an operational relationship. And no, I am not basing this on any fact, or statistic or anything of the sort. I’m only basing it on the loose theory that just about anything is possible when you don’t understand most of the variables in a given equasion.
Aha, I see. The fact that it was UNLIKELY that it happened SUPPORTS a point that is dependent on it actually happening. More, it even supports completely unrelated points that have no basis whatsoever in fact.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was run by his sons. There is plenty of evidence against it. And as for becoming unpredictable and dangerous, there is nothing as unpredictable and dangerous as people calling for war on the basis of nothing but their fantasies.
Looks like Slate has jumped on the bandwagon. It is their “headline”:
This story seems to be unfolding in a slow methodical way. Also, to me, Slate has some integrity with their stories, simply by the breadth of their sources. Both lend to me that there is something credible happening here.
Two things I expect to hear if this story turns out to be true:
-
“Of course the timing is suspicious. There are only 372 1/2 days until the presidential election.”
-
“Bush still sucks.”
You mean not every word the Bushiviks spoke in support of thier sordid military adventure was a bald-faced lie? How perfectly spendid! Look! A gleaming nugget of truth in an avalanche of horseshit!
The entire mess boils down to an attempt to prove that Saddam and Osama were in some sort of contact. As if that matters.
We weren’t sold the proposition that Saddam had Osama’s private cell phone number on his speed dial. We were sold the proposition that Saddam was likely to supply Osama with Bad Mojo from Saddam’s private stash. Which, as it turns out, did not exist.
Even if it were reliably proven that Saddam had contact with Al Queda, so what? We have contacts with Kim Jong Il, are we to suppose that means we are in cahoots with the sawed-off Stalin?
I think not.
No “loose theory” base, but a review of history, that is chock full of records about all sorts of “unholy” alliances since always. One cannot study any short period of Europe without becoming utterly confused in which year who was in war and in alliance with whom and why: one year it is Spain and Pope against France, while French and Dutch are against English, and next year it is French and Pope against Spain, and next year Spain is against English and France is against Dutch and so on… Ditto for the rest of the world.
To cut to recent history: considering that Nazis and Soviets were cooperating fot two years before fighting to the death with each other for the next five years; considering that Iraq and Iran were cooperating only three years after fighting each other tooth and nail for eight years; why do you absolutely rule out the possibility of Iraq & Al Qaida cooperation?
CF, be fair. The Slate article did go into some detail as to why not to take this at face value, and earlier posters in this thread have added more. Note, too, that Havel said the Prague meeting didn’t happen, but you won’t find any such rebuttal in the leaked report, will you?
But, even if it were all true, it still does not add up to Saddam being behind 9/11, or even being a major sponsor of world terrorism. Gotta stay focused, people.
No, your argument supports a point that this particular line of inquiry is closed. How defensive one needs to get to reject compliments?
Can I see the evidence, please?
No royal “We”, thank you! “I” never bought anything, because the whole rhetoric was simply laughable. I still support the invasion and occupation 100%. What an honourable and magnificent enterprise! 9/10 of resident lefties here are carping because their guy didn’t get to do it.
What keen insight you have, New Isk. You know what we are thinking even when we don’t know! Do you have Miss Cleo on speed dial, providing you with clairovoyant updates? Why, it never even occured to me that I was opposing this folly because “thier guy didn’t get to do it”! All this time, I thought it was for reasons and facts and stuff!
Boy, is my face red! Say, do you know what I’m thinking right now? That would save time.
I do, indeed. I will disclose your inner thoughts at the propitious confluence of tides.