# Sadam had strong Al-Queda ties **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 15, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486 "2004-06-15T15:52:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/21 "2004-06-15T18:55:09Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > Are we reading the same thread here? Yes I know you want to focus on Al-Queda. I’m just saying I can’t really get worked up about (false or not) allegations of links between Saddam and Al-Queda since there’re plenty other terrorists to pick from whom Saddam actively supported. And a man willing to support one kind of terrorist combined with a very strong hatred of America is a cocktail America is better off without. > [@NurseCarmen](#): > > But Hamas and Islamic Jihad didn’t fly planes into buildings here. That is a pretty major destinction. Well I don’t live ”here” either, so to me the distinction is pretty much non-existing. But if you want to focus exclusively on American casualties, just off my head, Saddam did habour a terrorist responsible for the murder of one American citizen aboard the Achille Lauro. And there are plenty of American terror casualties in Israel. All in all, remembering 9/11, plenty of reason to invade. > [@NurseCarmen](#): > > This administration seems hell bent on establishing a relationship where there is none (Osama was on record as calling Saddam a secularist infadel and called on his ouster, so your jury won’t be coming up with any photos of SH and UBL hugging and kissing any time soon). The administration is simply grasping at any straw they can to justify the Iraq war. And they conitinue to attempt to sell a point that has been repeatedly shown to be baseless. Birds fly. Dolly Parton sleeps on her back. Politicians exaggerate and lie. So what else is new? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/22 "2004-06-15T19:15:24Z")
Now, now…if Dick Cheney says Saddam Hussein had strong Al-Qaeda ties, I’m sure he probably did. Question is, did he ever wear them? And were they bow ties or the kind you tie with a windsor knot, and did he have a suit that they went with? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/23 "2004-06-15T19:25:57Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Who’s this we? That’s certainly one of the important reasons I supported (and supports) the war. Our reasons for supporting the war have a lot of similarities. I supported the war to finally get a decent haircut that wouldn’t make my head look fat, and to meet a really hot Swedish model who’ll give me back massages all day long. Neither of our reasons have any basis in reality. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/24 "2004-06-15T19:29:55Z")
**Rune,** you’re a lost cause. You make as much sense as Ashcroft does and that is none at all. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/25 "2004-06-15T19:34:40Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Yes I know you want to focus on Al-Queda. Of course, they’re the people who _actually_ attacked us. > [@](#): > > I’m just saying I can’t really get worked up about (false or not) allegations of links between Saddam and Al-Queda since there’re plenty other terrorists to pick from whom Saddam actively supported. There’s a huge fucking difference between people SH supports that attack us, and people he supports that don’t attack us. I’m outraged that we’re squandering resources, money, and post 9/11 international goodwill, on a course of action THAT WON’T EVEN SOLVE THE REAL PROBLEM. > [@](#): > > And a man willing to support one kind of terrorist combined with a very strong hatred of America is a cocktail America is better off without. And in ousting him, we create an environment in which an even worse situation can take place. Believe me, this “war” will be directly responsible for creating the next generation of terrorists. > [@](#): > > Well I don’t live ”here” either, so to me the distinction is pretty much non-existing. Well “over here” (4 blocks from ground zero, where I watched corpses raining from the sky on 9/11 from my office), the distinction is HUGE. I don’t give a much of a fuck about Hamas right now, they’re not a problem, I want Bin laden’s head on a pike. > [@](#): > > But if you want to focus exclusively on American casualties, just off my head, Saddam did habour a terrorist responsible for the murder of one American citizen aboard the Achille Lauro. Are you serious? Harboring a terrorist that killed one person = invade Iraq? > [@](#): > > And there are plenty of American terror casualties in Israel. What does this have to do with the CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES BEING AT RISK FROM SH? Our government implied to us that we need to attack Iraq _RIGHT THIS SECOND, RIGHT NOW, NOW, NOW, WE CAN’T WAIT, WE DON’T HAVE TIME, THEY’RE PLOTTING TO ATTACK US, DIRTY BOMBS IN NYC, BLOWING UP HOOVER DAM, WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!_ Now, some American goes to Israel and gets blown the fuck up, well, that’s certainly a shame, but c’mon now, lets not go invade someone. > [@](#): > > All in all, remembering 9/11, plenty of reason to invade. What? SH had _nothing to do_ with 9/11, as we’ve repeatedly said. Do you at least agree with that? You can have other reasons for invasion, but you must concede this point. I’ll go ahead and extrapolate that you meant we must invade Iraq to prevent _another_ 9/11, because they didn’t do the first, but they might do the next. > [@](#): > > Birds fly. Dolly Parton sleeps on her back. Politicians exaggerate and lie. So what else is new? I don’t like it when people lie and exaggerate to me, call it a quirk. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/26 "2004-06-15T19:36:17Z")
Please don’t mistake me for a bleeding heart liberal here. I know Saddam was supporting Hamas and IJ whenever he could. And I’m not shedding any tears over a nasty regime getting ousted. But I am pissed that we have an administration that took any good will and support for the real war on terrorism and wasted it on a boondoggle. If you stand to the side and look at the big picture at just the right angle in just the right light, then cross your eyes so hard your ears pucker, you can see a correlation between the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. But that is only if you are predisposed to see it that way in the first place. The rest of the world just happens to recognize it as the boondoggle that it is. And as far as boondoggles go, this one was handled in a glaringly inept way. I’m pissed that this administration chose to take troops and resources away from tracking down the actual culprit behind the attacks on 9/11. I’m pissed that this administration pissed away a grand opportunity to get the world to stand shoulder to shoulder with us to fight terrorism. I’m pissed that this administration has decided that a personal vendetta was more important than America’s standing in the world. I’m pissed that this administration’s vendetta has turned into one of the biggest recruiting tools for the people that attacked us. I’m pissed that this administration put together such a poorly thought out war plan that seems to bungle every step. I’m pissed that this administration was too willing to risk the lives of our soldiers rather than try diplomacy (Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think diplomacy would have done anything to convince Saddam, but it _would_ have gone a long way in keeping our standing on the world stage, and maybe even gained a broader coalition and maybe even a U.N. resolution. As well as buying time so a premature pull out of resources from Afghanistan wouldn’t have been required) But I am **Really** pissed that my president thinks that I am stupid enough to buy this line of utter bullshit that Al-Q and Iraq were in cahoots. Do I think Saddam/Hamas/Islamic Jihad cried in their collective cornflakes the morning of 9/11? Of course not. But this isn’t a pit thread about terrorists being bad. I think we can agree that blowing up children = bad. (you may want to look at the donations pouring out of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the mideast before you try to lay all the blame on Saddam for supporting Hamas/IJ. Did he support them? Yes. Was he their sole supporter? Hell no. Not even close.) This is a pit thread about the administration trying to sell bullshit to the american public. The sad part is that so many are buying it. ---
**Author:** ![booka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e0b2c6/32.png) [@booka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/booka)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/27 "2004-06-15T19:51:12Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > …Well “over here” (4 blocks from ground zero, where I watched corpses raining from the sky on 9/11 from my office), the distinction is HUGE. Not to go off on a tangent, but THAT is a very sobering image that you described for someone like me that was 2000 miles away from Ground Zero. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/28 "2004-06-15T20:04:44Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Who’s this we? That’s certainly one of the important reasons I supported (and supports) the war. We, my friend, is the United States of America. Your private reasons to think the invasion was a capitol idea are largely irrelevant. What counts is the reasons given by public officials charged with deciding the question and formulating policy. The publicly enunciated basis for invading Iraq was almost entirely devoted to unconventional military weapons and the possibility-probability that they would be used against the US, its friends and allies, and the possibility–probability that Iraq would turn them over to outfits like Osama’s band of merry men. While there was some hand waving about Iraq subsidizing the families of successful suicide bombers in Israel and the Occupied Territories that did not come up until somebody decided pretty much after the fact that Iraq was invaded to stop its support of generalized terrorism. The same is true of bringing the blessings of democracy to the people of Iraq. Both were rationalizations on which the Administration and its running dog pundits fell back when it became apparent that Iraq had no significant stock of unconventional weapons. As far as you going to war, **Rune** , I look forward to seeing the photos of you free lancing in the Arabian desert, with a full canteen, a pair of dry socks, 300 rounds in the pouches and a full magazine in the receiver. Who-ha, your self, Colonel Blimp. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/29 "2004-06-15T20:10:33Z")
The only connection al Qaeda has to Sadaam is Sadaam’s face on Osama’s dartboard. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/30 "2004-06-15T20:17:13Z")
> [@Avenger](#): > > The question is “How likely is it that Saddam Hussein Was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks”, which seems fairly unambiguous to me, and 69% of respondants have answered “very/somewhat likely”. He was in the fifth plane, on the grassy knoll. Or gnoll if we’re shooting RPGs everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/31 "2004-06-15T20:29:39Z")
> [@booka](#): > > Not to go off on a tangent, but THAT is a very sobering image that you described for someone like me that was 2000 miles away from Ground Zero. Something I hope to never see again. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/32 "2004-06-15T20:56:46Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Who’s this we? That’s certainly one of the important reasons I supported (and supports) the war. It’s easy enough to locate the reasons [Congress voted to authorize Bush to make war on Iraq](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html), those given in [UNSC Resolution 1441](http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf), which was the sole timely legal basis for our actions; or the reasons Bush gave in his March 17, 2003 speech to the nation, on the eve of our invasion. Congress’s resolution had about 23 ‘whereas’ clauses (giving the reasons) before finally reaching its ‘therefore’ clause (giving its grant of authority). WMDs are mentioned in 10 of those clauses. Terror is mentioned in 10. UN resolutions are mentioned in at least 6 clauses. The repression of Iraqis is mentioned in three clauses, and the sense of the Congress that we should bring democracy to Iraq was mentioned once, as was the attempted assassination of Bush I in 1993. So human rights concerns were well down on the list of reasons, and democracy was even further down. But with a grab-bag of 23 reasons, there’s gonna be something for everybody, but it doesn’t mean it was an important reason. According to Congress, this was mostly about WMDs and terror. UN resolution 1441 is all about the WMDs. Freeing Iraq isn’t mentioned at all. Bush’s speech of March 17, 2003, is pretty unequivocal: > [@](#): > > THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. > > Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. > > The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again – because we are not dealing with peaceful men. > > Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people. > > The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. > > The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. > > The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed. > > The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep. WMDs and terror. Terror and WMDs. That’s it. > [@](#): > > Still one shouldn’t expect miracles so quick. Give it a few years, then we can see if it was a success or failure. Oh, come on. How were things in Iraq last June? How are they now? Is Iraq safer now than it was in June 2003? Are we more in control of things? (If not us, does anyone else have control?) Is there any evidence at all that Iraq is closer to deciding its future peacefully now than it was a year ago? I sure can’t see any, but feel free to point any out. > [@](#): > > the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein was a good thing that would not have come about without the war. What the world needs is more such interventions not less, and that’s the liberal in me that speaks. Being a liberal myself, I agree that more humanitarian interventions are good - within our capacity to effect a better outcome for those we’re rescuing. Because if we leave the ‘rescued’ people worse off than they were before, we’ve made ourselves feel good at their expense. But it isn’t easy. I was in favor of our interventions in the Balkans, but those interventions have required a great deal of highly trained military manpower (and the resources to enable them to be effective) between the mid-1990s and now, with no end in sight. And in late 2001, we added Afghanistan, a much bigger and more complicated responsibility and challenge, to our plate; we didn’t have much choice about that. At some point, even the world’s sole superpower runs into the limits of what it can do with the military it’s willing to pay for. I’m an idealist to the core, but idealism that isn’t tempered by some sense of what’s achievable, and at what cost, is a recipe for some serious trouble. Which is what we’re in. Obviously some interventions get more bang for the buck than others. It’s not hard to stop a massacre in progress; but the next question is how big a force will we have to leave to prevent it from resuming. There are a fair number of countries deserving of “regime change”, but it’s a lot easier for us (and the country we’re intervening in) afterwards if there’s a recognized legitimate government to hand power over to, once we’ve deposed the bad guys. (Burma would be one such country, as was Kuwait in 1991, but these situations are the exceptions.) If there’s not, then we’ve got to act as that government for awhile, but then the question becomes how favorably disposed the citizens of that country are towards us. Because if the answer is ‘not very’, we’re in a race for time, to develop legitimate local authorities before the citizens tire of us. In Iraq, we lost that race, mostly [because we didn’t really compete in it](http://www.juancole.com/2004_06_01_juancole_archive.html#108698703778823853): Jay Garner’s plan had been for early municipal elections (by last June), but he was quickly replaced by Bremer, and AFAICT, such elections have been held at few places outside Kurdistan even now. The result being that there are no Iraqis in government who have much in the way of demonstrated popular support; the consequence is that they are viewed as our puppets, and will receive little cooperation from the people. It’s hard to know for sure, because the inner workings of this Administration have only recently started to come into view at all, but it looks as if they never intended to bring democracy to Iraq at all. No local elections, quick removal of the proconsul who was going to hold them, a U.S.-designed Rube Goldberg process for forming a national government that seemed oriented towards frustrating the will of the majority, and giving the exiles a game they stood a chance of winning, writing a bunch of laws for them and denying them the legal authority to change them, building up a [whole set of U.S.-run commissions](http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=9556&TagID=2) to review all the Iraqi government’s decisions after June 30 (will those still be operative? Who knows?), building all those ‘enduring bases’ before having a legitimate Iraqi government with the authority to give us permission to do so, making all sorts of claims about how Iraq would recognize Israel and build an oil pipeline there…democracy? We report, you decide. **World Eater** , [here’s the Zarqawi cite](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/). ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Carol\_the\_Impaler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_the_Impaler)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/33 "2004-06-15T21:15:06Z")
> [@LouisB](#): > > Dick Cheney says so, again and again, in spite of there being no evidence to support the claim. The story is here: [here.](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5215019/) > > Does he think that if he repeats this often enough it will become true? Or does he expect that lots of dimwits will hear him say it over and over and therefore will believe it and vote for Bush? It sometimes seems to me that he is the only one left who continues to stand by this particular lie. Well, to get back to the point of the pitting, obviously it worked on **Rune**. And he’s from Europe, where they’re better edjuh-muh-cated than yer average 'Merican. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/34 "2004-06-15T21:34:19Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Are you serious? > Harboring a terrorist that killed one person = invade Iraq? Yes I’m serious. I believe the USA should have declared war on Iran after the Iran hostage crises. And I fully believe protecting a known terrorist that killed even just one of your citizen is grounds for war. How many killed citizens do you think it should take? It’s the principle that terrorism must never be seen to have paid off. That terrorists are hunted everywhere. > [@World Eater](#): > > What? SH had _nothing to do_ with 9/11, as we’ve repeatedly said. Do you at least agree with that? You can have other reasons for invasion, but you must concede this point. I’ll go ahead and extrapolate that you meant we must invade Iraq to prevent _another_ 9/11, because they didn’t do the first, but they might do the next. Yes I agree. I don’t think Saddam had anything much to do directly with 9/11. But targeting him send the signal quite clearly that American meant business when it said that countries that habour or support terrorists would be considered enemies. > [@World Eater](#): > > And in ousting him, we create an environment in which an even worse situation can take place. Believe me, this “war” will be directly responsible for creating the next generation of terrorists. I beg to disagree. I think what in large part was responsible for the terrorists increasingly bold attacks were the west’s apparent impotence and inability to retaliate. They hated you, but what’s worse they despised and thought you were weak and decadent. They still hate you, perhaps more - so what, now they’ll think twice before trying another such terrorist attack. And any country will think trice before supporting them. > [@World Eater](#): > > Well “over here” (4 blocks from ground zero, where I watched corpses raining from the sky on 9/11 from my office), the distinction is HUGE. I don’t give a much of a fuck about Hamas right now, they’re not a problem, I want Bin laden’s head on a pike. Bin Laden’s head on a pike is good. But he’s just one man (and a particular goofy one at that) and if we don’t target terrorism as an idea or movement there’s just going to come another one to take his place. Al-Queda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Chechen terrorists, Kasmira terrorists etc. etc. I don’t think it’s possible to rid the world of this menace if we don’t look on them as a whole. Terrorism as a way to wage war must be shown to be a failure, counterproductive and suicidal. > [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > We, my friend, is the United States of America Gee. Just how arrogant can you get? It might come as a surprise to you but there are actually a fair number of European countries (including Denmark) which invested a sizeable amount of political capital in supporting the US, which were part of the invasion and which to this date has troops stationed there. > [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > Your private reasons to think the invasion was a capitol idea are largely irrelevant. My private reasons huh? Do you Mr. Gelding have any other kind of reasons? Perhaps you have your cat’s reason? Of course I only have my private reasons and they’re just as relevant as anybody else private reasons. > [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > What counts is the reasons given by public officials charged with deciding the question and formulating policy. The publicly enunciated basis for invading Iraq was almost entirely devoted to unconventional military weapons and the possibility-probability that they would be used against the US, its friends and allies, and the possibility–probability that Iraq would turn them over to outfits like Osama’s band of merry men. While there was some hand waving about Iraq subsidizing the families of successful suicide bombers in Israel and the Occupied Territories that did not come up until somebody decided pretty much after the fact that Iraq was invaded to stop its support of generalized terrorism. The same is true of bringing the blessings of democracy to the people of Iraq. Both were rationalizations on which the Administration and its running dog pundits fell back when it became apparent that Iraq had no significant stock of unconventional weapons. Well I can’t speak for what you discussed in the US, but here Saddam’s support for Palestinian terrorists was repeatedly brought up before the war. As were the liberation of the Iraqis. This was a very important aspect of the Danish governments rationalization, I also remember Blair stressing this. So I don’t know where you get this “after” stuff from? > [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > As far as you going to war, Rune, I look forward to seeing the photos of you free lancing in the Arabian desert, with a full canteen, a pair of dry socks, 300 rounds in the pouches and a full magazine in the receiver. Who-ha, your self, Colonel Blimp. Ridiculous. Is this really the best you can do Spavined Gelding? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/35 "2004-06-15T21:54:06Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Oh, come on. How were things in Iraq last June? How are they now? Is Iraq safer now than it was in June 2003? Good question. Let’s ask the Iraqi’s that. The CPA did last month, and then suppressed the results when they didn’t like them. example: > [@](#): > > 55 percent of Iraqis reported to the pollsters they would feel safer if U.S. troops immediately left, nearly double the 28 percent who felt that way in January. Could this explain why they feel that way?: > [@](#): > > The poll, taken in mid-May shortly after the controversy began, found 71 percent of Iraqis said they were surprised by the humiliating photos and tales of abuse at the hands of Americans, but 54 percent said they believed all Americans behave like the guards. [here](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_poll) ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/36 "2004-06-15T21:54:15Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Congress voted to authorize Bush to make war on Iraq Well there were other governments involved besides the American, as a Dane perhaps I can be excused for thinking “we” are we-the-Danes or at least we-the-coalition. And it’s possible to agree with your government’s direction if not reasoning. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Oh, come on. How were things in Iraq last June? How are they now? Is Iraq safer now than it was in June 2003? Are we more in control of things? (If not us, does anyone else have control?) Is there any evidence at all that Iraq is closer to deciding its future peacefully now than it was a year ago? It has a long way to go. But just two small recent improvements. The new Iraqi interim prime minister of Iraq seems like a capable man. UN voted unanimously for the new Iraq resolution. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/37 "2004-06-15T22:01:52Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > And I fully believe protecting a known terrorist that killed even just one of your citizen is grounds for war. You sir, are a complete and utter idiot. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/38 "2004-06-15T22:10:44Z")
I must really be cynical because I’ve always believed that Hussein was behind 9/11. Why? Because in '91 we unceremoniously kicked Hussein’s ass out of Kuwait and humiliated him in front of the world. Does anyone believe he just put his tail between his legs and went on home? Pundits have said that the 9/11 attacks were so well orchestrated and so costly that they stank of state sponsored terrorism. Why is it such a stretch that Hussein was behind it? After all, he had the money, the motive, and lots of volunteers. And he was one nasty son of a bitch. Remember, he gassed his own people. Why is this such a reach for people to believe that he sponsored an anti-American terrorist organization? If Cheney says that Hussein was a silent patron to al quaeda, I believe him. After all, Cheney’s got access to intelligence that I don’t. His word is good enough for me because I think Dick Cheney is an honorable man. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/39 "2004-06-15T22:11:46Z")
Thanks **RTF** , totally fucking amazing. I hope they shut up with the Clinton could have killed Osama thingy. > [@Rune](#): > > Yes I’m serious. I believe the USA should have declared war on Iran after the Iran hostage crises. And I fully believe protecting a known terrorist that killed even just one of your citizen is grounds for war. Well lucky for us you’re not in change. > [@](#): > > How many killed citizens do you think it should take? More then one. > [@](#): > > It’s the principle that terrorism must never be seen to have paid off. That terrorists are hunted everywhere. I’d prefer a non black and white principle, one that takes the dynamics of a situation into consideration. There are times when retaliation causes more harm then good. > [@](#): > > Yes I agree. I don’t think Saddam had anything much to do directly with 9/11. But targeting him send the signal quite clearly that American meant business when it said that countries that habour or support terrorists would be considered enemies. So when are we going after Saudi Arabia? If you’ll recall 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. SA supports more terrorism then Iraq any day of the week. > [@](#): > > I beg to disagree. I think what in large part was responsible for the terrorists increasingly bold attacks were the west’s apparent impotence and inability to retaliate. No, they’ll actually tell you why they attacked us. Troops in Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc. > [@](#): > > They hated you, but what’s worse they despised and thought you were weak and decadent. They still hate you, perhaps more - so what, now they’ll think twice before trying another such terrorist attack. So what you’re saying is they hated us, so they attacked us. Now they hate us _more_, which will make them think twice about attacking us? 😕 > [@](#): > > And any country will think trice before supporting them. Like Saudi Arabia? > [@](#): > > Bin Laden’s head on a pike is good. But he’s just one man (and a particular goofy one at that) Actually what makes Bin Laden particularly dangerous is his 300 million dollars, which puts him apart from the group. Hamas and the others could have all the wacky ideas in the world towards striking the continental US, but thank og they lack the resources to carry them out. > [@](#): > > and if we don’t target terrorism as an idea or movement there’s just going to come another one to take his place. Al-Queda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Chechen terrorists, Kasmira terrorists etc. etc. I don’t think it’s possible to rid the world of this menace if we don’t look on them as a whole. Terrorism as a way to wage war must be shown to be a failure, counterproductive and suicidal. Terrorism and guerilla warfare have been around since the dawn of time, it’s not going anywhere. FIRST we need to swallow this critical fact, because waging war on a concept is totally futile. NEXT we need to go after the fuckers DIRECTLY responsible. FINALLY, we need to do some introspection as a nation, and be a better global citizen. This our way or the highway shit will not cut it. > [@](#): > > Well I can’t speak for what you discussed in the US, but here Saddam’s support for Palestinian terrorists was repeatedly brought up before the war. As were the liberation of the Iraqis. This was a very important aspect of the Danish governments rationalization, I also remember Blair stressing this. So I don’t know where you get this “after” stuff from? The humanitarian aspect was on the back burner. This war was sold to the American people on a “we need to get SH out of power immediately, or we’re going to get hit again 9/11 style” basis. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2004, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486/40 "2004-06-15T22:13:41Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > I believe the USA should have declared war on Iran after the Iran hostage crises. I find it odd you aren’t cheering for Saddam, then, since he was supporting anti-Iranian terrorist groups in his heyday. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sadam-had-strong-al-queda-ties/250486.md?page=3)