Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Clarification on my position on Iraq

Once again folks...the current administration has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quaeda or 9/11 .

Quit beating that dead horse already.

Matt-that isn't the case---"no direct link to 9/11" means what it says--Saddam didn't buy the plane tickets or box cutters, and didn't know what flights would be hijacked. That is not the same as, and the administration has never said, that there is no connection between al Quida and the Iraqi security services. If you believe a government that paid Palestinian suicide bombers and tried to assasinate Bush I would not and did not make common cause with al Quida and anyone else trying to hurt the Great Satan, I think you're being naiive.

[/quote]
Once again folks...the current administration has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quaeda or 9/11 .
Quit beating that dead horse already. [/quote]

I don't agree with that statement, even if that is their stance. The problem is the general US population won't accept what needs to be said. What needs to be said is, if we go into the most powerful Arab country, and kick their ass, then the rest of those countries will step in line. Our population at large won't accept that we need to be a bully, that we need to kill people and break things in other countries so that it doesn't happen here. Well, those are the facts, but unfortunately our administration has to come up with some sugar coated fairy tail to justify the war, and as we all can clearly see, that fairy tail, ie wmd, and the old intel didn't pan out.

The truth can't be expressed as a clear and present threat in our western understanding of such. What is required is faith in doing what is right and necessary. This really is a test of whether we are a nation of faith, or a faithless nation. To those that understand this, no explanation is necessary, to those who do not understand this, no explanation is possible. If you cannot understand and accept this, than you likewise cannot understand and accept the threat.

Stop it already! Show me the proof then. And if you find proof, show it the Senate Intelligence committee which concluded that there was no connection.



Meanwhile, here's some things to ponder:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030106&s=bergen

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/2003/0205intelligence.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19822-2003Jun21

In other words, you believe it regardless of the fact that there is absolutely no credible evidence to back this up, and it has been denied by our government.

That's called faith.

Matt--Haven't had time to do more than scan your links, but did note that one is based on a BBC report in Feb, 2003--those would be the same BBC reports a British government inquiry decided were deliberately distorted to attack the Blair government. And another is to the Nation, which scarcely needs comment for anybody who has ever read it. I'll send you some more reliable links for your reading pleasure. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thanks.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Joe,

Sorry for the length of this reply, but you had a number of good questions.

Joe,

�I do not agree that we are in an all out war for survival. If after fifty years of constant all out struggles and concerted attacks, Palestinian terrorist have failed to finish off the tiny and relatively militarily weak country of Israel, what can they do to us in the long run?�

The Israeli military may be weak in comparison to the US, but there is nobody in the Middle East that can contend with them. The Israeli military is designed primarily for defense and not in keeping with the �hold and occupy� doctrine of more conventional armies, at least on any large scale. A lot of desert has to be crossed for an army to get at Israel, and the 6-Day War proved the Israelis are more than capable of making that impossible. What can they do to us in the long run? You answered your own question � fifty years of constant and all out struggles and concerted attacks.

�Nevertheless, assuming that we are in such a life or death struggle, I fail to see how the invasion of Iraq has helped. And if I go one more step with you guys and grant that invading Iraq was necessary, I fail to see how our current policies and tactics are accomplishing anything.�

I don�t believe we are in an immediate life or death struggle. The goal of preemptive war is to avoid the cataclysmic outcomes of the world wars, ethnic cleansings, and the host of other horrors that have plagued the world over the last 100-years. So much death could have been avoided if the flames had been doused before they became infernos. However, hindsight is sure, guessing the future is not. The best-case scenario is a peaceful Iraq. If that scenario becomes a reality we will never know what was avoided.

�Are we there to win friends and set up a pro-U.S. government? Then we are too heavy handed and killing too many people. Are we there to kill all the terrorists, bring Iraq to heel, and prove that you don't mess with Americans, then we don't have enough troops and we aren't doing enough.�

The Iraqis and Muslim world will continue to hate us indefinitely. The only cure is a cultural revolution that can only be brought by democracy and the resulting freedom of the people to see the world through their own eyes. We had a similar transformation in America, as the children of ignorant bigots have grown up smarter than the parents. The power of democracy is incredible, and one need look no further than the Germany or Japan of 1945 to those of 1955. We might be killing too many people and might need more troops, or things might go off as planned on June 30th. Only time will tell.

�Everything about this war has been completely predictable. I knew from just reading history that things would be exactly like they are now. The way things are now is a big reason Bush I didn't go all the way to Bagdad the first time. Many people knew and tried to caution the administration, and they were shouted down as being unAmerican. General Shinsecki was repaid for crossing the administration by testifying in Congress that we would need at least 250,000 troops by having his replacement named almost a year early, making him a lame duck.�

I agree with you, this war has been completely predictable. The loudest voice telling us this would be a long, hard, road belongs to President Bush. Every time I hear the man he is preaching patience and strength of will. The war on terrorism has only just begun. The media will either be at odds with what the administration says or fragment statements out of context because controversy sells.

�The administration rushed into this war with no plans, no exit strategy, no real idea of how Iraqi people thought and reacted. All critical voices were shouted down and the hubris of it all was staggering.�

We disagree. The invasion of Iraq and fall of Saddam Hussein will go down in history as one of the most successful military operations of all time. American soldiers and even the media say the vast majority of citizens are very happy with the situation (and of course, will be even happier when we leave). The exit strategy was on the table November 15, 2003, starting with the aforementioned June 30, 2004 handover of power to the transitional Iraqi government. I have faith in the Bush Administration, but man, I�m marking my calendar. The subsequent chain of events leading to Iraq�s sovereignty will tell the tale, and President Bush has left himself zero wiggle room. That�s as refreshing as it is scary. As for the return home of our troops, President Bush has repeatedly stated, �When they are no longer needed.� All the second-guessing has come from others. The final answer will have to come from the people of Iraq, and is impossible to predict.

�We have a mess over there. Right or wrong whether we should have gone in, we have a mess. How is it to be fixed? It probably can't be, we have missed the window of opportunity and alienated too many people. The question is how long do we stay over there killing people and being killed before we realize the futility of it all.�

Wars and forced occupations are always messy and Iraq will be no different. The responsibility to fix things is with the people of Iraq and the transitional government. I don�t doubt President Bush�s resolve to stay in Iraq if the citizens blow this chance of a lifetime. I do believe that recent rise in violence is a grab for power that will fade as things come up to speed.

�As for those that think the deaths of Iraqi civilians is somehow justified by the deaths of innocent Americans on 9/11, why didn't we just attack Costa Rica or some other equally small and pitiful country. There would have been just as much culpability on the part of their citizens as those of Iraq. The average Iraqi had nothing to do with those attacks and they should not lose their lives in retaliation for them.�

There is no consolation for the death of the average Iraqi � due to the US or Saddam Hussein. At least with us the killing will stop. Iraq has a future now.

�The only way I know to judge another man's actions is to try and place myself in his shoes and look at the world through his eyes. If a foreign army were here in East Texas, for any reason, and my friends and family had been killed, I know what I would be doing. Nothing galvanizes any culture like a foreign invader. People who hated Saddam and were glad we kicked him out, now hate us because we have stayed and things have gotten worse, not better. Those people over there see us as we are, and not as we wish ourselves to be seen. Sewer running in the streets, an occupying Army that refuses to allow elections that might elect someone with which it finds exception, 11,000 former government workers and their families held prisoner with no charges or allegations, all of these things speak very loudly to the average Iraqi. And despite all of our high minded rhetoric, they speak very loudly to exactly what kind of country we have become.�

All in all, what you have described is a drastic improvement for the average Iraqi. What you have lived as a free American is beyond their comprehension for the moment. Yep, we need to get our asses out of Iraq but not until the work is done.

I completely agree that we need to get the job done in Iraq before bailing out.

One thing to consider: The principle of freedom and democracy is not one that's very much at home in the Arab middle east.

I don't believe that you can "give" freedom and democracy away like that. It must be earned, fought for (By the Iraqis), and most of all, WANTED.

A quick search turned up these comments from two democrats, one of whom sits on the Intelligence Committee:


Democrats who before the war discounted the possibility of any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda have largely fallen silent. And in recent days, two prowar Democrats have spoken openly about the relationship. Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana who sits on the Intelligence Committee, told THE WEEKLY STANDARD, "the relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide."

And Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat and presidential candidate, discussed the connections in an appearance last week on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Said Lieberman: "I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I never could reach the conclusion that [Saddam] was part of September 11. Don't get me wrong about that. But there was so much smoke there that it made me worry. And you know, some people say with a great facility, al Qaeda and Saddam could never get together. He is secular and they're theological. But there's something that tied them together. It's their hatred of us."

Kind of what I said----No, Saddam didn't pack the hijackers' bags or drive them to the airport. But that is not nearly the same thing as concluding that Al Quida and Iraq did not cooperate whenever it served their mutual interest--it would be illogical in the extreme since they had so many common interests, and Saddam certainly had no scruples about dealing directly with terrorists, since he was bankrolling the recruitment of suicide bombers.

I'll get back to you. Let me research this.

Matt--I just did a very fast google---I can PM you some stuff from some defense oriented websites when I get time that gets a lot more technical--there was a three way link, through the Sudan, that got a lot of press in 1998 when Slick was shelling the "aspirin" factory, which was making aspirin like the "baby milk" plant in Saddam's famous GWI photo op was making milk.
I agree on the 9/11 thing, but I believe you will find plenty of well-sourced stuff on other connections, common associations with third parties, and cooperations.

Waiting on your PM...may take me a day or two to read through though. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Like I have been saying - What about Sadamm would make you think he is above helping out UBL? Where has he ever shown a moral compass that would tell him that UBL was too radical for his taste--"Hmm UBL wants to attack and has attacked the US, well that ain't right I'm gonna just stay away"

I am willing to bet a lot that this thought never passed his mind.

I offer this, FWIW. Whether or not it can be "proven" that Saddam Hussein had links with terrorist groups like al Quaida, it cannot be proven that he did not. I am inclined toward the "enemy of my enemy..." theory. I have a picture of my son sitting on an ornate throne given to Saddam Hussein by Yasser Arafat in appreciation of his support of the Palestinians against Israel. I showed the photo to an Arab who translated the writing surrounding the back of the throne. I can't remember all of it, but "Palestine is ours" was one phrase that sticks in my mind. There were other statements about unity, etc.

Paul

Sorry, but for starting a war, I'd like to see concrete evidence FOR the case. Don't just say "Well, there ain't no evidence he's not with OBL".

It don't work that way. Not for long, anyways.

So what are the options in Iraq? A considerable show of force that wipes out civilians and insurgents alike? Or do we get sucked into a war that ends up being what the USSR found itself in in Afghanistan? Either is a no win situation for the US.

The real and present threat to the US and the world is UBL. It's a shame that we are bogged down in Iraq instead of going after the real enemy, one who really does pose a threat to the American public, instead of some 3rd world dictator who posed about as much danger to me as my 1st grade neighbor. We had an opportunity to get the whole world behind us in order to hunt down UBL. That opportunity was lost, and he is still out there with intentions of more terrorist activity. What the hell was Bush thinking when he made such a stupid decision.

It's time to make some GLASS!!!!!!

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Good One Terry!