Anniversary

[metadigital]

Saddam's priority at all times was power, glory, and his own survival. He could and did shift positions quite fluidly. It is therefore not inconceivable that he could have - if still in power - come to support Al Qaeda as a means of retaining his status as strong man, and 'leader of all Arabs' (his fondest ambition). While Al Qaeda was certainly a threat to him, insofaras it threatened the United States it woudl always be regarded with a hopeful eye.

Agreed. He wasn't even particularly religious, initially (or arguably at all). He was in the process of building the largest mosque in the world, as part of his new image as Arab religious leader. I wouldn't be surprised if he harboured a desire to become the Caliph of the Ummah.

[Commissar]

Hey, an Iraq thread.

[Walsingham]

Saddam's priority at all times was power, glory, and his own survival. He could and did shift positions quite fluidly. It is therefore not inconceivable that he could have - if still in power - come to support Al Qaeda as a means of retaining his status as strong man, and 'leader of all Arabs' (his fondest ambition). While Al Qaeda was certainly a threat to him, insofaras it threatened the United States it woudl always be regarded with a hopeful eye.

Agreed. He wasn't even particularly religious, initially (or arguably at all). He was in the process of building the largest mosque in the world, as part of his new image as Arab religious leader. I wouldn't be surprised if he harboured a desire to become the Caliph of the Ummah.

 

A mosque with scud shaped minarets, no less. You can't argue with the fact that he took the mad dictator thing seriously.

[Sand]

Well, for good or ill, Saddam is dead. Mission accomplished. Time to bring our soldiers home and let the Iraqis deal with their Civil War on their own.

[Azarkon]

Walsingham: stuff

 

It seems that you are very invested in arguing that the US was in the right, and I'm not sure why. The WMD transfer issue is certainly plausible, but can be argued either way, and as of right now there's no evidence that Syria had any hand in it. So why put stock in this sort of theory? But more importantly, the one tenuous link in the entire chain is the relationship between Saddam having WMDs and the War on Terror. The theory seems to be that the way to get rid of terrorism was to invade and dominate an Arab crescent stretching between Israel and Pakistan, yet it seems to me that this is an awfully futile way to go about doing it. The more you invade, the more people will resist, and the more legitimate their resistance becomes. Surely the Pentagon think tanks have not missed the simple fact that martyring terrorist organizations would only bolster their cause. Unless you could control and pacify the population of the entire Middle-East, which the neocons seem to believe that they could, the US's endeavors in the Middle-East were doomed to tragedy - not only for the US, which for all its hue and cry over monetary costs and soldiers' lives has lost little compared to those we invaded, who will live with the aftermath for decades to come.

 

Personally, if I were to put stock in a theory of why we turned the War on Terror into a war to invade and displace troublesome regimes in the Middle-East, I'd rather believe this: http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID13Ak06.html. At least geopolitics make sense from the perspective of those in power. I could believe a government led astray by its quest for hegemony; believing that it went to war solely for the sake of good will and/or money to fill an already overflowing coffer (in terms of the Bush family and its connections), is, I think, much harder. It'd require faith not only in Bush's incompetence, at least, but that of his entire administration, and somehow I doubt everyone there is that stupid.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Azarkon

[Volourn]

"as of right now there's no evidence that Syria had any hand in it."

 

There's also evidence that Iraq destroyed all its WMD that they admitted to having so we should just believe it vanished into thin air? Hmmm..

Edited April 14, 2007 by Volourn

[Sand]

"as of right now there's no evidence that Syria had any hand in it."

 

There's also evidence that Iraq destroyed all its WMD that they admitted to having so we should just believe it vanished into thin air? Hmmm..

 

The bottomline is that Iraq had no WMDs, the whole reason that Bush justified for the invasion, when we invaded. WMDs aren't really the issue any more anyway. The issue now is that should the US remain in a country in a middle of a civil war. I say no, we shouldn't. Its not our place to interfere in the development of another country, and we cannot even protect their government and people from this violence with the army we have occupying the country as it is.

[Volourn]

"The bottomline is that Iraq had no WMDs"

 

The bottom line is that they did. They sued them. They were told to destroy them. They did destroy quite abit. however, not all their WMDs were accounted for.. so where did they go? Hmmm..

[Sand]

Irrelevant. They would told not to have any and they didn't have any when we invaded.

[Azarkon]

"as of right now there's no evidence that Syria had any hand in it."

 

There's also evidence that Iraq destroyed all its WMD that they admitted to having so we should just believe it vanished into thin air? Hmmm..

 

Dictators admit to having WMDs all the time. It's called a bluff. Regardless, even if Saddam did have WMDs, justifying an invasion based on it is rather shoddy, as our reaction to North Korea has shown.

[Sand]

Oh, wait... North Korea doesn't have oil.

[metadigital]

North Korea has a neighbour called China.

[Sand]

Iraq has a neighbor named Turkey and Iran. So?

 

If China gets pissy at us the US government could set up an embargo on all Chinese goods. No trade to or from China.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Sand

[metadigital]

Yes, because a war with China would be the same as a war with Iran or Turkey.

Not to mention the fact that almost the entire US national debt is owned by China.

[Sand]

That is another thing that needs to be fixed.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

ignore the smiley

 

 

... so who would win? US or China?

[Azarkon]

Depends on what sort of war we're talking about. All-out? US. Half-assed attempt at policing? China.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Azarkon

[metadigital]

Neither.

[Sand]

That is the problem withthe US. It never has a full out war using its full military capability then once the war is over the US gov thinks its a good idea to stick around to "rebuild." They forget that these people were the enemy.

[metadigital]

Because leaving a power vacuum would be good for US geopolitics.

[Sand]

Maybe, maybe not, but wasting resources on people who hate us enough to attack us is just stupid.

[metadigital]

[Sand]

Yeppers. By giving resources to a nation that hates us all we do is empower them to attack us again.

[Commissar]

Yeppers. By giving resources to a nation that hates us all we do is empower them to attack us again.

 

Just like Germany. Thorn in our side that it's been for the past sixty years.

[metadigital]

Don't forget Japan! Those sneaky guys flooded the black&white tv market with cheap colour televisions ... that's just NOT fair!