LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI've got hard copies, but I'll have a look on the net laterOriginally Posted by Confed999
Yes of course. Physically but even more psychologically. But that was only the means and not the ultimate motive; provoking a military response was a means rather than the ultimate motive. The ultimate objection was to align Muslims with their doctrine worldwide, as I outlined.
I reckon the reason why there hasn’t been feverish constant terrorist activity to organise more attacks in the West than there have been, or have been thwarted, (and let’s not kid ourselves) is because it hasn’t been necessary. Yes, there’s activity, but for as long as the US is in Iraq, Al Qaeda is making plenty of hay by proselytising and radicalising. So in a roundabout way Bush is right about the fight in Iraq reducing the need to fight them at home.
Yes, there’s fighting, oppression, opium, Taliban, training camps etc etc. My “beautiful” obviously referred to the invasion itself with the aim of toppling the Taliban and expelling Al Qaeda from Afghanistan without provoking too much of a blowback in the Muslim world. The rest of it is not beautiful at all. Much more resources should have been poured in following the invasion.
I've got hard copies, but I'll have a look on the net later
Isn’t it much more likely that the WDM issue is a red herring, a ruse to convince the congress and the public of the need to invade Iraq. It would have been nice for Cheney and Rumsfeld to find some decent fresh stockpiles to be able to hold up and say “see?(teehee)”, but they were better off making it immaterial as they managed to do eventually. Certainly planting the evidence would be much more risky than it was worth.Heck, I'll go one step farther: If they KNEW there were no WMD stockpiles, as was charged by many Western and Middle Eastern nations, as well as admitted to by Saddam himself, then they would have brought the WMD with them to cover the "lie".
I think that would be a good thing. No sitting on the fence, pick a side.
I agree with that bit.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
It depends whether you want to get at the truth -did he have WDM or did he not. Taking "pretty well" into account would at least make him an unreliable witness, and would allow his cageyness to be interpreted correctly.
No, not likely at all. The "ruse" would have had to have started well over a decade ago, and have been accepted and assisted with by well over a dozen countries including Russia, France, Jordan and Egypt. That would be a massive conspiracy.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
That's one way of looking at it
The terms of the cease-fire and the other UNSCRs said nobody's word was to be taken, we get to see for ourselves. Saddam agreed that if he didn't follow these terms, Iraq could be invaded and his government deposed.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
Any other way and you've got people likely to jump to either side on a whim.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
No by "ruse" I meant an irrelevance. It didn't matter to the admistration whether Saddam still had WMDs in 2003 or not, it wasn't their reason to invade, but it was the only reason they could sell to congress etc.
Congress was already sold. They had the intel reports from the last decade before they voted. Most had already voted the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 into policy. The Bush administartion didn't convince them. You can read a couple of Kerry's statements, from his selling of the war, in my sig. Change "Congress" to "UN", and you may have a point, but until I see otherwise, it was still a defencive issue that was the catalyst.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
Precisely. Show me the money and I'll play the tune.
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility
Gottfried Leibniz
Not even Saddam's own generals knew he didn't have WMD. When Saddam called a war council meeting just before the war started and announced Iraq was WMD-free, his generals were shocked, and many of them simply didnt believe the claim.
No, it was no ruse. We actually believed they had the stuff because they actually believed they had the stuff...right up until the war when Saddam let it be known to his top aides there was no WMD. But again, as i said before, even his own closest advisors were skeptical of the claim that Iraq was "Clean".
The reason so many intel agencies were convinced about this is because the Iraqis went out of their way to make sure the world would not know for sure.
Right up until the start of hostilities Iraq coulda thrown open the doors and averted war. He didn't. Because even until the end he didn't believe the US would go into Baghdad. It was his final miscalculation.
There was nothing to hold up, so they had the egg on the face there, but where they really screwed up was in not more publically outlining Iraq's extensive ties to int'l terrorism in general. From paying $30k to the family of Pali suicide bombers, to housing terrorist training facilities, to his links with a variety of terror groups, that was really reason enough to go in....and it should've very much been played up.
If it was so estabished, then why did all the intel agencies believe he had WMD? You're writing revisionist history.
Last edited by Shek; 06 Sep 06, at 01:09.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: