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.
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.
Birds fly. Dolly Parton sleeps on her back. Politicians exaggerate and lie. So what else is new?
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.
Of course, they’re the people who actually attacked us.
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 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 “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.
Are you serious?
Harboring a terrorist that killed one person = invade Iraq?
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.
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.
I don’t like it when people lie and exaggerate to me, call it a quirk. :rolleyes:
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.
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.
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:
WMDs and terror. Terror and WMDs. That’s it.
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.
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: 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Ridiculous. Is this really the best you can do Spavined Gelding?
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.
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.
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.
Thanks RTF, totally fucking amazing. I hope they shut up with the Clinton could have killed Osama thingy.
Well lucky for us you’re not in change.
More then one.
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.
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.
No, they’ll actually tell you why they attacked us. Troops in Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.
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?
Like Saudi Arabia?
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.
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.
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.
