Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida (1 Viewer)

[RebSaint]

Based on everything I've read, you are quite correct about the immediacy of Saddam's threat, but it's an incomplete picture, we can agrue about the degree to which it's a distortion of the situation at the time.

As best I can piece together, and just reading through whatever public materials I can find when I've got the time for such matters, it's seems pretty clear that the U.N. sanctions against Saddam were falling apart. It also appears to me that Saddam had directly violated numerous U.N. sanctions.

It also appears that Saddam had the intentions of reconstituting his WMD programs, at least if you can believe the words coming from George Piro on the 60 Minutes interview. It is also apparently that Saddam had significant ties to various terrorist organizations, including Islamic Jihad, now known as al Qaeda, as well as Hamas.

So when you begin to paint a picture of Saddam, it's not a picture of a benign threat, but a picture of a potentially lethal threat. I'll concede that we've got to use the word "potential"; but it's not an unreasonable projection by any means.

It goes back to the absolute fallacy and spin I think your buying into to paint Hussein as truly a threat to American national security.

If the administration looked at all the evidence available at the time, they would have found that he did not have WMDs.
Hussein had no navy
Hussein had no army to speak of
No nuclear program
No real substantive ties to terrorist organizations

So your argument is based on a bunch of could-have-beens and counterfactual analysis. Further, it's also based on the doctrine of a pre-emptive war, which is even more troublesome and problematic.

So the invasion can be justified based on a possible threat? Really, do you realize how much this rationale just reeks of absolute spin?

The United States military had Hussein under control, as BA indicated with the no fly zones, sanctions, and constant monotoring there was no rational, credible, military reason to invade in occupy in lieu of what we had been doing.

 

[dapperdan]

I think your reasons are flimsy and stretches but agin we will just disagree.



But this word potential leads to pre-emptive and I am not for pre-emptive wars involving 200,000 troops in a standing army/nation building capacity. I can agree with pre-emptive surgical strikes on selected targets though.

It all begs the question of why we are still there to me. All goals have been accomplished. Why do we stay? Why do we need a large "embassy", why do we need 200,000 troops on the ground still? Why do we pay sheiks?

Bad foreign policy in my eyes and if I can see it, what do the Iraqis/rest of the world see?

Well, here we agree that pre-emption is a very slippery slope, and I do understand opposing the concept of pre-emption.

 

[RebSaint]

Well, here we agree that pre-emption is a very slippery slope, and I do understand opposing the concept of pre-emption.

The doctrine of pre-emptive war is completely based on this whole fallacy of the "potential" threat that Hussein posed. Pre-emptive war is based on a future threat rather than an actual threat, which makes it flawed.

 

[dapperdan]

Your intention here is ultimately to defend this administration and to defend the war because you uncritically attribute all of Saddam's motivations to some desire to harm Americans.

Whatever his intentions with reagrd to weapons programs they were aimed...

1) at retaining power and suppressing internal challenges.

2) having a credible deterrent aimed at Iran and Israel, one a long standing enemy with an enormous manpower advantage, the other a nuclear armed state that had attacked Iraq in 1981.

Basic geopolitics dictates that Iraq will seek ways to defend itself from threats and Iraq faced threats too. There was simply nothing to be gained by Saddam from a terror attack on the United States but further isolation or complete loss of power.

But you continue to interpret all of Saddam's actions as aimed at the United States.

BA, I agree with you 100% regarding #1 and #2. I don't know why you'd say that I continue to interpret all of Saddam's actions aimed at the U.S., that's simply not the case. I recognize the other issues.

But recognizing the other issues does not mean brushing off the very real threat he was becoming to the U.S. Imo, if he could've taken a shot at us, over the course of time, he would have. Just my opinion.

 

[varanook]

The doctrine of pre-emptive war is completely based on this whole fallacy of the "potential" threat that Hussein posed. Pre-emptive war is based on a future threat rather than an actual threat, which makes it flawed.

I think preemption in foreign policy re- surgical strikes has its place.

I think the missle attacks in Afghanistan by Clinton were useful preemptive strikes. maybe not 100% effective but it was a message sent.
I am sure more useful preemptive strikes can be found as well.

An entire war based on potential though is completely insane.

Potential is beside the point though when it comes to Iraq. Iraq was setup before Bush 1 and was tried with Clinton and was enacted with Bush 2.

Iraq had little to do with potential threat and more to do with oil, whether from a corp standpoint or resource stanpoint and Israel from a security standpoint. Albeit a weak security standpoint because there is no doubt in my mind Israel can defend itself very effectively if needed.

 

[RebSaint]

But recognizing the other issues does not mean brushing off the very real threat he was becoming to the U.S. Imo, if he could've taken a shot at us, over the course of time, he would have. Just my opinion.

So the United States invaded Iraq based on the potential, rather than the realistic threat which Hussein posed.

I for one am sold now! Brilliant! Really, you know how foolish this logic is? Based on this rationale the United States should invade any and all nation-states which pose some potential threat down the road.

Again, I simply don't buy it. If the United States were in the business of displacing all "potential" threats, we'd have a draft right now and be continuously at war--which makes the argument that the war was about removing this "threat" equally silly.

 

[varanook]

But recognizing the other issues does not mean brushing off the very real threat he was becoming to the U.S. Imo, if he could've taken a shot at us, over the course of time, he would have. Just my opinion.

I think the basis for your opinion lacks substance and logical thought but I can appreciate your opinion since I was a blind follower of America once too. Plus hindsight is always 20/20.

Saddam was never taking a shot at us. He was not like a extremeist with no real country or nothing to lose, he had a great deal to lose if would have been caught.

 

[dapperdan]

No real substantive ties to terrorist organizations

Huh?

The entire report I posted was that he had real,subtantive ties to terrorist organizations. Essentially the entire report. Translated. From Saddam's Government. Direct, substantive ties. To Terrorist Organizations.

Was this just a cut and paste from one of your previous posts?

 

[RebSaint]

Iraq had little to do with potential threat and more to do with oil

Well glory Hallelujia, this point has been repeated by yours truly over and over in various forms and formats here on this very message board!

Then why all this needlessly gainsaying about this phatom "threat" which Hussein posed which necessited invasion?

 

[RebSaint]

Huh?

The entire report I posted was that he had real,subtantive ties to terrorist organizations. Essentially the entire report. Translated. From Saddam's Government. Direct, substantive ties. To Terrorist Organizations.

Was this just a cut and paste from one of your previous posts?

Again, goes back to that dicey definition of "ties." Seems to me you and the blog you cited are willing to engage in a bit of crass reductionism to make this connection.

Saudi Arabia has ties to terrorist organizations. So. do. countless. other. countries.

 

[dapperdan]

Saddam was never taking a shot at us. He was not like a extremeist with no real country or nothing to lose, he had a great deal to lose if would have been caught.

Well, it's quite possible that he already did take his shot, and get caught.

I realize that arguments have been made that it can't be proven that Saddam was behind the attempted assassination of Bush 41. And that might be because the intelligence community doesn't want to release the intelligence, fair enough. But you can bet that Bush 41 knows who tried to kill him. He knows. And if it was Saddam, then he did get caught, and he did have a great deal to lose. And he lost it.

 

[varanook]

Well glory Hallelujia, this point has been repeated by yours truly over and over in various forms and formats here on this very message board!

Then why all this needlessly gainsaying about this phatom "threat" which Hussein posed which necessited invasion?

I wouldn't count my opinion as much, lol.

Just seems pretty obvious to me now that it is the primary reason. (only took 5 years or so, ) Everything seems in 1 way, shape or form to boil down to oil as sad as that is.

 

[dapperdan]

Again, goes back to that dicey definition of "ties." Seems to me you and the blog you cited are willing to engage in a bit of crass reductionism to make this connection.

Reb, it is certainly well within your rights to ignore whatever evidence that you want to ignore in order to defend your beliefs.

Forget the blog. I just cut and pasted the report name out of the Australian column and googled the report name. That blog happened to come up, so I cut and pasted for some background. The blog opinion, itself, is not the issue. What is of issue is the substance of the report, which is why I directly linked the report, so you could read it and make up your own mind.

 

[varanook]

Well, it's quite possible that he already did take his shot, and get caught.

I realize that arguments have been made that it can't be proven that Saddam was behind the attempted assassination of Bush 41. And that might be because the intelligence community doesn't want to release the intelligence, fair enough. But you can bet that Bush 41 knows who tried to kill him. He knows. And if it was Saddam, then he did get caught, and he did have a great deal to lose. And he lost it.

It's a stretch though to equate that with a potential threat to US soil in my eyes. He had a score to settle with Bush 1. Bush 1 threw him out of Kuwait after he was basically given the go ahead to invade.

 

[varanook]

Again, goes back to that dicey definition of "ties." Seems to me you and the blog you cited are willing to engage in a bit of crass reductionism to make this connection.

Reb, it is certainly well within your rights to ignore whatever evidence that you want to ignore in order to defend your beliefs.

Those ties are shakey Dan.

Islamic jihad EVENTUALLY became al queda

Giving money to the palis has little to do with the USA.

Should it not be normal for a man in charge of a nation to keep tabs on the many factions within his nation extremist or not?

I think others pointed this out to you but you have side stepped the issue a bit.