Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida (2 Viewers)

[dapperdan]

Bush 1 threw him out of Kuwait after he was basically given the go ahead to invade.

Maybe I've got a poor understanding of history; my memory of the situation was that there was a U.S. diplomat in the room when Saddam mentioned his plan. But after the plan was revealed to her, she did not have the authority to speak for the Administration, and so she kept silent. And that this is the basis for the argument that Bush 1 gave Saddam the go ahead. I'm sure my memory is a bit foogy, maybe you could fill in the blanks a bit for me.

 

[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.


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.

In this specific instance, I believe that quote from Reb stated "No real substantive ties to terrorist organizations" I cut and pasted the exact quote to make certain that I was accurately reflecting Reb's views, I don't want to put words in Reb's mouth.

The issue then is not whether Islamic Jihad had eventual ties to al Qaeda, but whether Islamic Jihad qualifies, on it's own merits, as a terrorist organization. In my opinion, I would say that Islamic Jihad, standing on it's own two legs, qualifies as a leading terrorist organization.

I would say that if you categorize Saddam's role as "keeping tabs" on Islamic Jihad then you probably haven't read the actual report. I don't blame you for not reading it, I haven't read the entire report either, not enough time in my life right now. Too much work to do. But it's something for the weekend.

It's been fun, but I've got to get back to work.

Have a great day y'all.

 

[RebSaint]

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.

I'm not ignoring evidence to defend my beliefs. I'm not denying that Hussein did, indeed have connections to terrorist organizations. But again, I don't see these connections to warrant the justification to overthrow his regime and remove him from power.

Again, if Hussein had ties to terrorist organizations, how deep and significant were these ties. That blog you cited seems to be spinning things to inflate this "threat" which Hussein posed. The argument does stem from the fact that the administration misled the American people about Hussein's connection to various terror networks--furthermore, if one wants to be real reductionist, a case can be made to invade several countries just because either the governments and/or the dictators had and continue to have ties to terrorist organizations.

Where is the hew and cry to invade these regimes?

Again, any Middle Eastern expert will point out that Hussein purposely held most of these radical jihadist organizations at arm's length. To paint Hussein as a prime sponsor and supporter of these organizations is completely misleading.

I categorically deny any innocent intentions of spinning this supposed "connection" between terror organizations by conflating the meaning of "connection" and "link" to "potential threat."

The issue again boils down to whether or not these "ties" to terrorist organizations justified invading Iraq. And the answer is categorically, uniquivically, hell no because if the United States is in the business of invading countries with governments who have "links" to terror organizations based on "potential threats," then we might as well just invade most of Africa, the middle east, southeast Asia, and South America.

 

[DadsDream]

And the answer is categorically, uniquivically, hell no because if the United States is in the business of invading countries with governments who have "links" to terror organizations based on "potential threats," then we might as well just invade most of Africa, the middle east, southeast Asia, and South America.

The list of countries we've invaded in those areas in our entire history is longer than the list of the countries we haven't invaded in those areas.

 

[dapperdan]

I'm not denying that Hussein did, indeed have connections to terrorist organizations.

I'm just quoting what you wrote.

You wrote: "No real substantive ties to terrorist organizations."

I'm simply saying that, according to the report, Saddam did have ties to terrorist organizations, Islamic Jihad was prominently mentioned.

Now you say that you're not denying that Saddam did have connections to terrorist organizations. Fair enough.

Is it fair to assume that you believe Islamic Jihad to be one of those organizations?

 

[dapperdan]

The issue again boils down to whether or not these "ties" to terrorist organizations justified invading Iraq. And the answer is categorically, uniquivically, hell no because if the United States is in the business of invading countries with governments who have "links" to terror organizations based on "potential threats," then we might as well just invade most of Africa, the middle east, southeast Asia, and South America.

I agree with you here. It does boil down to whether the ties to terrorist organizations, taken together with the crumbling U.N. sanctions, Saddam's violation of U.N. sanctions; and in hindsight with Saddam's stated desired to rekindle his WMD programs (which we could only find out about in hindsight, with the benefit of the interviews conducted by George Piro) justify, in hindsight, the U.S. going to war to remove Saddam.

Personally, I have no problem with our decision to go to war and remove Saddam. And I understand you disagree with that decision. Fair enough.

 

[varanook]

I would say that if you categorize Saddam's role as "keeping tabs" on Islamic Jihad then you probably haven't read the actual report. I don't blame you for not reading it, I haven't read the entire report either, not enough time in my life right now. Too much work to do. But it's something for the weekend.

I have not read it, I did look at the blog though. I'll read it because I want to see something tangible that definitively proves Saddam had on-going relationships with terrorist orgs that attacked America or did anything that provoked the US into preemptive war.

 

[RebSaint]

Personally, I have no problem with our decision to go to war and remove Saddam. And I understand you disagree with that decision. Fair enough.

I really don't understand this position. To me, it borders on an almost foolish recognition that Hussein actually posed a real threat, despite so much overwhelming evidence on the contrary.

Based on that litmus test, you shouldn't be opposed to knocking off every-other government/dictator with any links to any terrorist organizations, including the Saudi Royal family and countless other nation-states which have governments and leaders who have "links" to terrorist organizations.

So you ready to expand the U.S.'s role to being a global policeman?

No, of course your not. The United States invaded Iraq, not because of any "threat" Hussein posed, but again for the oil. So many want to knock this position, but I go back to the salient issue: if it was about knocking off Hussein, building a democracy, getting a government up and running, why the **** are we still there? All the other reasons trotted out were meaningless side shows.

If the U.S. was in the business of knocking off every tip-pot dictator or government with any ties to terrorist groups, again a draft would be necessary and we'd have to invade lots of countries.