The Iraq War Was a Mistake!

I SAID there was no rift at the time that OBL offered his assistance to the Saudi Royal family in killing Saddam.

Apparently, there was, the Saudi's didn't find the mutual objective to be important enough to ally itself with alQaeda.


We certainly would NOT have provided OBL with stinger missiles and other armament and assistance after he had declared us to be his enemy. Similarly, Saddam would not provide any assitance to AQ for exactly the same reason.

Show me the Fatwa against Iraq! Show me where alQaeda or OBL ever once mentioned being in a Holy War against Iraq or Saddam Hussein! I've not found it, and you've not shown it! You just keep on muttering it, like some idiot who doesn't have any sense. OBL's motives for fighting the Russians in Afghanistan were not the same as our motives! You've got to be smoking crack to think that is the case. Our assisting OBL against the Russians didn't mean that OBL was passing out American flags across the middle east and singing Yankee Doodle! Our ideologies have ALWAYS been different, our motivations have ALWAYS been different, we once had a mutual objective and did work together, because this is often the case when adversaries become 'allies'.


You want to throw out all these WWII examples, what about Mussolini and Hitler? Did they share the same "vision" for Europe? Or did the situation for their empires depend on mutual cooperation with each other? What about Germany and Japan? Did they share the same ultimate vision for the world? Your argument has been based on this very idiotic and ignorant premise, and I have exposed it for all it's glorious pinheadedness.
 
Cypress said:
for those who don't have the patience for long-winded diatribes, allow me to provide the Reader's Digest summary:

1) It's the american people's fault: They simply don't understand Dixie's and Bush's vision.

2) Bush should have spun and sold the war differently. Spinning and selling correctly makes all the difference.
Click to expand...

Oh thank God. I was like, wtf, this guy can't really believe I'm going to read this.

Give us the summary on all of his posts, will you Cypress? I mean, when you come down to it, they're all the same right?
 
I SAID there was no rift at the time that OBL offered his assistance to the Saudi Royal family in killing Saddam.

"Apparently, there was, the Saudi's didn't find the mutual objective to be important enough to ally itself with alQaeda."

what might seem "apparent" to someone with the depth of understanding of the middle east equal to a layer of skin, is not really the case. The Saudis did not break with OBL until a year later. Clearly, after that, they would NEVER assist him....much like Saddam would never assist him.


We certainly would NOT have provided OBL with stinger missiles and other armament and assistance after he had declared us to be his enemy. Similarly, Saddam would not provide any assitance to AQ for exactly the same reason.

Show me the Fatwa against Iraq! Show me where alQaeda or OBL ever once mentioned being in a Holy War against Iraq or Saddam Hussein! I've not found it, and you've not shown it! You just keep on muttering it, like some idiot who doesn't have any sense. OBL's motives for fighting the Russians in Afghanistan were not the same as our motives! You've got to be smoking crack to think that is the case. Our assisting OBL against the Russians didn't mean that OBL was passing out American flags across the middle east and singing Yankee Doodle! Our ideologies have ALWAYS been different, our motivations have ALWAYS been different, we once had a mutual objective and did work together, because this is often the case when adversaries become 'allies'.

I've pointed you to the writings of two wahabbist theorists..... both of whom write about bringing about the downfall of secular regimes in the Islamic world. Go read.... try to absorb what they are saying...and then come back and let's talk about what you've read.

When OBL was fighting the soviets in Afghanistan, we supported him, because he had yet to state his antipathy and enmity for the United States. Had he been a vocal critique of the US...had he "declared war" on the US as he did later, we certainly would not have supported him in Afghanistan (although, it was republicans running the show back then, so that statement perhaps ought not to be so "certain"). "The enemy of my enemy is almost always my friend" except, of course, when that enemy of my enemy is also my enemy. That is why we would NOT have supported OBL in his fight against the soviets if he had also stated his desires to do US harm. Similarly, Saddam would not have provided assistance to adherents of wahabbism, salafism and qutbism - LIKE AL QAEDA - because those theologically based islamic movements were diametrically opposed to pan-arabist ba'athism.

Look...Dixie.... I have studied the middle east for decades. You don't even know the difference between an arab and a persian. You are no one to be calling anyone ELSE an idiot on this subject. Trust me.


You want to throw out all these WWII examples, what about Mussolini and Hitler? Did they share the same "vision" for Europe? Or did the situation for their empires depend on mutual cooperation with each other? What about Germany and Japan? Did they share the same ultimate vision for the world? Your argument has been based on this very idiotic and ignorant premise, and I have exposed it for all it's glorious pinheadedness.

Again... for someone who thinks that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an arab....you really are in no position to call anyone else idiotic, ignorant or a pinhead. The situation for baathism and wahabbism has never depended upon mutual cooperation...their "empires" are mutually exclusive. For baathist Iraq to prosper, the wahabbist vision of the caliphate could NOT prosper.... and vice versa. Saddam knew this. He also knew that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a persian....so in that, and in many other measures, he was significantly smarter than you. Shit.... my f=ucking CAT is smarter than you. You are the most obtuse redneck I think I have ever known.
 
DIXIE: OBL's motives for fighting the Russians in Afghanistan were not the same as our motives! You've got to be smoking crack to think that is the case. Our assisting OBL against the Russians didn't mean that OBL was passing out American flags across the middle east and singing Yankee Doodle!

And what are the chances that we EVER gave OBL or the afghan mujahadeen our best and most destructive weaponery: nukes, biochem weapons, and advanced jet fighters?

NIL. WE WOULDN'T TRUST HIM WITH IT.

And what are the odds, Saddam would EVER consider giving al qaeda - a group committed to his destruction - his best weapons: WMD or ballistic missles?

NIL. ZERO. ZILCH.
 
Darla said:
Oh thank God. I was like, wtf, this guy can't really believe I'm going to read this.

Give us the summary on all of his posts, will you Cypress? I mean, when you come down to it, they're all the same right?
Click to expand...

He also says that Hussein would have hid his weapons or destroyed them just prior to invasion.

Hussein was pretty smart. He would have figured that after laying waste to his country and not finding any weapons, we wouldn't have anything on him, he wouldn't have faced any consequences and the W would have egg on his face.

Yes, in fact he thinks that strategically and tactically, the best move Hussein could have made on the ever of invasion by his biggest and strongest enemy, would be to get rid of all his best weapons, grow a beard, and live with ground hogs until he was found and executed.

Its what I would do. If people we coming to my apartment to kill me because I had a bunch of guns, the first thing I'd do is get rid of those guns. Then they'd be "owned" and I would have won.

I'm really not even exaggerating.

Dixie thinks this is plausible, if not more likely than the alternative.
 
Darla said:
Oh thank God. I was like, wtf, this guy can't really believe I'm going to read this.

Give us the summary on all of his posts, will you Cypress? I mean, when you come down to it, they're all the same right?
Click to expand...

where ya been, senorita?

All you need to fully comprehend all of Dixie's posts, are these key elements:

-It's Clinton's fault
-Democrats are traitors
-France moved the WMD to syria
-It's not Bush's fault; and
-George Bush looks great in tight blue jeans
 
I predict a long winded diatribe from Dixie tellimg me I'm stupid for not seeing it his way.
 
The Saudis did not break with OBL until a year later.

No, the Saudi's broke with OBL the minute they said "no" to him. Are you sniffing glue now, too?


Had he been a vocal critique of the US...had he "declared war" on the US as he did later, we certainly would not have supported him in Afghanistan

Correct, and if the Russians had disclosed their motives to dominate and oppress Eastern Europe, and instigate the Cold War, we probably wouldn't have supported them in WWII.... if Saddam knew alQaeda 'had it in' for Iraq, he probably wouldn't support them, either. If Mussolini knew that Hitler planned to double-cross him and he would die anyway, he might not have allied with Hitler... the list goes on and on. If we had the luxury of hindsight, we wouldn't ally ourselves with enemies sometimes, because the motives could come back to bite us in the ass. Unfortunately, in the reality we live in, we don't have the ability to see into the future, so we can't possibly know for certain, what any actions will result in.

Hussein was pretty smart. He would have figured that after laying waste to his country and not finding any weapons, we wouldn't have anything on him, he wouldn't have faced any consequences and the W would have egg on his face.

I don't think Saddam thought we would invade without the UN blessing, Clinton didn't, and neither did Bush 41. Why would he assume this president to be any different? I think Saddam thought his oil for food bribes of Germany and France, would be enough to stave off an American-led invasion, and ultimately, the UN inspectors would be allowed to waste enough time trying to find the WMD's and give up, thus lifting the sanctions and leaving him to do whatever he wished from there.

You have to think like a megalomaniac here, and you don't seem to be able to. You have WMD's... You are not going to be able to keep the WMD's and remain in power, this isn't going to happen in any scenario... Is it better to be ignorant and use the WMD's in a defiant last fit of rage in the end game, or is it better to hide, destroy or give them away, and hope that the threat to your power eventually goes away. If you are a maniac idiot moron, you fire them at Israel, fire them at the incoming troops in their chem/bio suits, barricade yourself in one of your palaces, surrounded by rigged chem/bio explosives... and wait for your death or war crimes tribunal... if you are a genius madman megalomaniac, you think of a more intricate plan that leaves you in power.... but it starts with the acceptance of the fact, you can't remain in power and keep the WMD's.
 
Dixie said:
I don't think Saddam thought we would invade without the UN blessing, Clinton didn't, and neither did Bush 41. Why would he assume this president to be any different? I think Saddam thought his oil for food bribes of Germany and France, would be enough to stave off an American-led invasion, and ultimately, the UN inspectors would be allowed to waste enough time trying to find the WMD's and give up, thus lifting the sanctions and leaving him to do whatever he wished from there.

You have to think like a megalomaniac here, and you don't seem to be able to. You have WMD's... You are not going to be able to keep the WMD's and remain in power, this isn't going to happen in any scenario... Is it better to be ignorant and use the WMD's in a defiant last fit of rage in the end game, or is it better to hide, destroy or give them away, and hope that the threat to your power eventually goes away. If you are a maniac idiot moron, you fire them at Israel, fire them at the incoming troops in their chem/bio suits, barricade yourself in one of your palaces, surrounded by rigged chem/bio explosives... and wait for your death or war crimes tribunal... if you are a genius madman megalomaniac, you think of a more intricate plan that leaves you in power.... but it starts with the acceptance of the fact, you can't remain in power and keep the WMD's.
Click to expand...

For crying out loud Dix. The whole freaking world knew that this war was going to happen way the hell in advance. Stop pretending otherwise, its making you look like a fool.

With the war looming, Hussein, if he had weapons, would have to be even more retarded than your dumbass to disarm, and you know it.
 
Beefy said:
For crying out loud Dix. The whole freaking world knew that this war was going to happen way the hell in advance. Stop pretending otherwise, its making you look like a fool.

With the war looming, Hussein, if he had weapons, would have to be even more retarded than your dumbass to disarm, and you know it.
Click to expand...
Well, that can't be so... All the poli-wonks on this site were telling me John Kerry was too stupid to know.
 
Beefy said:
For crying out loud Dix. The whole freaking world knew that this war was going to happen way the hell in advance. Stop pretending otherwise, its making you look like a fool.

With the war looming, Hussein, if he had weapons, would have to be even more retarded than your dumbass to disarm, and you know it.
Click to expand...

LMAO, yeh, Damo is right... Kerry and the Democrats claimed they gave Bush permission to 'rattle the sabres' and not go to war... remember? Now, all of a sudden, the whole world knew Bush was going to invade Iraq.... that's cute!

I honestly don't think Saddam thought we were going to invade. I believe he thought, ultimately, the inspectors would be the ticket to his escape, and getting rid of the WMD's was a part of that strategy.

Beefy, you are a historical buff, go find me the last time an army was attacked defensively with chemical and biological weapons, and if the army knew and expected such an attack. See if you can find any instance of it ever happening, because I believe that would be a first in the annals of military history. You might locate a few instances, where an advancing army was attacked by the defenders using a weapon the advancing army expected, and the results for such instances are consistently bad for the defenders.

You keep classifying the WMD's as "Saddam's Best Weapons" and that description is a little shallow and vague. While the chemical and biological weapons were the most lethal weapons Saddam had, this didn't make them "the best" weapons, that determination is made by the situation. As a defensive weapon, on an advancing military who is fully prepared to face chemical and biological weapons, they are essentially useless. His intermediate missile battery, which hadn't been the subject of UN sanctions, was much more dangerous to invading troops, and would have to be considered his "best weapons" other than the liberal American media.

Chemical and biological weapons, (aka:WMD's) are dangerous to unsuspecting victims, as in, urban civilian population centers. This is why they are considered important to keep out of the hands of terrorists. They are never used as a defending weapon on attacking forces, especially forces who are fully prepared for them, it would be military suicide to rely on this ineffective defense. It's the equivalent to facing off against a gang with AK-47's... AND, oh yeah... gas-masks, armed with MACE!

It amazes me, how you can be so "book smart" and know so many things, yet be so utterly and profoundly stupid in other areas. It's like Einstein not knowing how to tie his shoes, and oddity that can't be explained!
 
Beefy, try to think about this from a different perspective... you have the WMD's, and you are as guilty as Bush made you out to be, and you have indeed been manipulating the UN to your advantage. You want to remain in power for a long time to come, and it has come time for you to develop a strategy on what to do.

The first priority is always, to remain in power, so you look at what has to happen for this to be the most likely scenario... the only scenario that is ever acceptable to a megelomaniac. The point of contention, is the WMD's and programs you have been trying to keep the UN away from, and these old munitions that are degrading as time goes by, as well as the latest technology to produce binary WMD's, which have unlimited shelf-life. If you get rid of all this crap, you can always make more, and BETTER ones! There is really no need to hold onto a perishable commodity like WMD's, when it is the elimination of them, which will ultimately give you the UN's blessings, and ultimately accomplish your objectives.

If you keep the starter strains in some obscure rural refrigerator, and your chem/bio scientists on the payroll, perhaps you can satisfy Hans Blix and the Keystone Cops, and the best way to do this, is to get rid of any WMD's you might have laying around. Let them come in, look around, find no WMD's, and go back to tell Kofi and the Gang, you are "clean as a pin!" Then, the UN and the US have no choice, but to leave you be, lift the sanctions, and let you go about your business of being a megalomaniac tyrant dictator again.


You gotta think like a megalomaniac, not a pinhead!
 
Really? I didn't know this! When did they disband?

After the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The organisation AQ was always very small anyway, and one amongst many extremist groups using afghanistan prior to 2001. Few claimed a bayat with Emir Osama.

Al Qaeda means three seperate things.

It means 'the base'... IE the base of the organisation in Afghanistan
It means 'the vanguard'.... IE the hardcore around OBL
It means 'the message'.... The notion of jihad for the defense of the Umma.

It was always designed, by people like Sayed Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood and Zawahiri of Islamic Jihad, so that when the 'invading forces' (don't forget that jihad has to be deemed defensive) overran the base and the vanguard that the message would survive and continue, continue to inspire individuals and small groups to attack the 'Oppressing peoples'...

Even prior to 2001, the OBL vanguard predominantly concerned themselves with being facilitators, rather than enactors of terror.

So,no, we aren't fighting a terrorist organisation called Al Qaeda, but a message, designed to inspire individuals and small groups....

Really? When did Iran attempt to expand into the Arabian oilfields of Iraq? And, if you are correct, you are saying that Saddam's motives for keeping the Iranians from expanding was the same motives we had? I don't think you've proven this at all. You have given an opinion on why you think the two entities worked together, they shared a mutual objective... they never had a mutual motive for doing so. Not that I agree with you, but you just proved how two entities diametrically opposed to one another, can indeed work together for a common objective.

Following the overthrow of the Shah, the US was extremely concerned about Iran expanding its revolution into other areas of the Muslim world. Do you dispute this? That doesn't mean Iran annexing the Arabian oilfields, but inspiring Islamic revolution in areas of the Arabian oilfields. As mentioned the other day, the US operates its foreign policy to suit its economic needs, so when Iraq attacked Iran in the early 80's, the US supported it, because they shared a common goal, the halt of the spread of Islamic revolution. Saddam was concerned with the revolution spreading to Iraq Shia and beyond, the US concerned with it spreading into the oilfields and creating a hostile supplier.

He became our enemy, so his motives for working with us, were clearly not the same as our motives. I assume that our motive was not to create an enemy.

The US and SH worked together once because they shared a common purpose, the stop of the spread of Iranian Islamic revolution. SH and the Salifists have never worked together as they haven't had a common purpose.

Adversaries often have opposing motivations for working together, this is normal. I have given examples of this, and you merely brush by them and ignore what is being said. There is probably no better example of two adversaries working together, as the US and USSR in the 70's and 80's on nuclear proliferation. Now, the USSR did not share the US motives for doing this, and the US did not share the USSR's motives for doing this, although they did share the common objective of reducing nuclear arms. This didn't mean the US was "allied" with the USSR or visa versa, nor did they have to be, in order to work together on a common objective.

They must at least have a purpose to work together. As I said, SH and the US had a shared purpose, as did the US and USSR. But SH and the Salifists have never shared a common purpose, simply because one of the Salifists' main goals is to inspire the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam in favour of a Shariah government.

Your idea that SH and the Salifists worked together is fundamentally flawed and also lacking in any supporting evidence.

Stating that alQaeda and Saddam shared a mutual objective to get us out of the middle east, is indeed sufficient to show they had a mutual objective. Both the Allies and Nazi's disliked Communists, but the Allies shared a common objective with the Communists, which was not shared by the Nazi's and the Communists, therefore, Russia and the Allies worked together for a common objective, even though their motives were completely different. Again, this did not mean that the US and Russia had the same ideology, or agreed with each other on government, religion, or anything else, nor did this have to be the case in order for them to work together.

This is the argument you keep trying to make, and can't seem to do it. You want to claim that Saddam and alQaeda couldn't have possibly worked together because their ideologies differed, and that is not a prerequisite for cooperation, and never has been.

There ideologies not just differed, they were opposing. When Iraq and Saddam worked together, they weren't opposing in ideologies. It was only when Iraq invaded Kuwait, according to Iraq for payment for protecting Arabia from the Persians, and thus threatened the Saudi oil fields that the US and SH split ranks, and this was because the US had a deal to protect the House of Saud in exchange for access to their oil reserves.

There is a fundamental difference between differing ideologies and opposing ideologies.

SH working with the Salifists is like the US working with the Salifists.

LOL... We ain't talking about COURT!

Court is where we test arguments dixie. Your argument surmounts to little more than innuendo, Muslims and the US tend to be antagonistic today, SH was nominally a Muslim, Salifism is Muslim, ergo SH and Salifists worked together against the US.

It isn't even logically valid....

Yes, I am aware of that. Are you aware that the Saudi Royal Kingdom and alQaeda are about as ideologically opposed as alQaeda and Saddam? Yet, you give an example, a very good example, of two entities who were diametrically opposed, sharing a common objective, and attempting to work together. The Saudi's turned down the offer in this case, but in many other cases, there is a deal made, and it hardly ever requires a mutual motivation.

lol Of course they aren't. Saddam was a secular leader, the House of Saud are steeped in Wahhibism. The house of Saud rules in Saudi Arabia now because of its connections to Wahhibism... OBL only fell out with the HoS when they authorised the use of Kufr troops to protect the holy sites during GW1. It is the House of Saud, and other aristocratic groups in Saudi that have financed Salifism for so many years???

You should study the geo-politics of the ME Dixie....
 
Apparently, there was, the Saudi's didn't find the mutual objective to be important enough to ally itself with alQaeda.

The Saudis were financing the 'Arab Afghans' who formed OBLs groups in the 80's????? There was no rift between the HoS and OBL until the HoS declined OBL's offer to remove SH in favour of using their deal with the Americans and OBL declared the HoS to be takfir.....

Dixie, you are so desperate to make your case that you are laying supposition upon supposition, inventing scenerios to support your claims no matter that they hold no logic or evidential support.

 
You gotta think like a megalomaniac, not a pinhead!

No, you are inventing suppositions to justify your position. Simple as that...
 
Had he been a vocal critique of the US...had he "declared war" on the US as he did later, we certainly would not have supported him in Afghanistan

"Correct, and if the Russians had disclosed their motives to dominate and oppress Eastern Europe, and instigate the Cold War, we probably wouldn't have supported them in WWII.... if Saddam knew alQaeda 'had it in' for Iraq, he probably wouldn't support them, either."

BINGO!!!. It is my assertion that, without doubt, Saddam had been well aware of the strategic goal of the radical islamic movement represented by Wahabbsim, Qutbism, Salafism and Al Qaeda for years. Their motives were never hidden. Their writings were prolific. Saddam was well aware that those organizations sought the downfall of his brand of secular ba'athist pan-arabism. So... it would be inconceivable that Saddam would NOT know that Al Qaeda "had it in" for him. It would be inconceivable that he would not have known about OBL's offer to the Saudis to help with his downfall. It would be inconceivable that Saddam would have supported Osama given that knowledge. I am glad you finally have admitted that there would be no reason for Iraq to provide support for an organization that sought its demise. So... another of Dixie's stupid reasons for invading Iraq has been discredited by Dixie's own admission. Took long enough!
 
Really? I didn't know this! When did they disband?

After the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

So, when OBL proclaimed Zarqawi the "Prince of alQaeda in Iraq" he was talking about a mythical group that no longer existed? Did someone forget to tell OBL they disbanded? And what about the CIA and State Department? They still list alQaeda at the top of the terror watch list, did someone forget to let them know to take alQaeda off? And what about all of these new terrorists we are creating each day? Where are they going, now that alQaeda has disbanded?

so when Iraq attacked Iran in the early 80's, the US supported it, because they shared a common goal, the halt of the spread of Islamic revolution.

The thing is, you can't "halt" something that hasn't happened. Iraq attacked Iran, not the other way around. Even if you are correct about the mutual objective, you have not shown where the US and Iraq had the same motive. We've already established, two adversarial entities will work together for a common objective, this is no big news, it's happened all through history, you argued that they must have the same motivations.

SH and the Salifists have never worked together as they haven't had a common purpose.

I don't know about "Salifists" but he did work together with alQaeda and other international terror organizations. The "common purpose" was to get the US out of the middle east.... or to frame it in your own context, to halt the spread of western influence in the region.


They must at least have a purpose to work together. As I said, SH and the US had a shared purpose, as did the US and USSR.

Purpose: TO GET THE US OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST! I don't know how I can state it any more clearly or plainly. You have offered nothing to refute this point, you just continue to rant right past it, and ignore me. The common purpose, the mutual objective, the catalyst for cooperation, was the elimination of US influence in the region. Yes! They shared this common goal, Saddam didn't want us there, alQaeda didn't want us there, they didn't like us being there, and they both wanted us to leave.

There ideologies not just differed, they were opposing. When Iraq and Saddam worked together, they weren't opposing in ideologies.

Well, sure they were. The US has never advocated for tyrannic dictatorial regimes over democracy, and Saddam never advocated liberty and freedom for all. Our ideologies were as different as night and day! You mean to say, there wasn't a conflict in our ideologies important enough to render cooperation impossible, and the mutual objective we shared was more important than the difference in our ideology. Ironically, this is the same condition Saddam and alQaeda had.

SH working with the Salifists is like the US working with the Salifists.

We did fund OBL in the Afghan/USSR war.

Court is where we test arguments dixie.

No, you may "test arguments" there, I don't. To me, arguments are tested by many other factors besides what men in black robes think. Facts go a long way in testing an argument... like when Prissy says the Iraq Commission determined there was only one meeting... that isn't a fact, the actual fact is, they only found proof of one meeting. This fact is not determined by whether a court case can be won, it's determined by logic and reason. If I murdered you, and no one witnessed it, and they never found your body... does that mean I didn't murder you? Certainly, in a court of law, you couldn't argue this case without any evidence, but does that change the fact of whether I murdered you or not? No, it has nothing to do with that fact.

There was no rift between the HoS and OBL until the HoS declined OBL's offer to remove SH in favour of using their deal with the Americans and OBL declared the HoS to be takfir.....

That's what I said, and Maine ignorantly insisted it was a year or so later. I have also read the Fatwa's and Edicts from the radical Islamic Fundamentalists, and they are not very accepting of 'Royal Families' who are in the back pocket of the West, in fact, it is much of the catalyst for their revolution. The radicalism that brought 9/11 can be traced way back, but it was certainly the US actions in GW1 that sparked such a dangerous and threatening condition with them. You simply want to jump back to a time before this all started, and claim alQaeda and the HoS were once allies... but we were once allies with Saddam... we were once allies with OBL!

There are ideological differences in all of the players here, and they all have different motives for their objectives. Sometimes, you can have two entities who don't share the same ideology or motive, work together on a seemingly mutual objective. When we were helping Saddam against Iran, it wasn't because we had an ideological alignment with Saddam, it was because we shared a mutual objective with Saddam, in toppling the radical Islamic Fundie government of Iran! It wasn't that Saddam was once ideologically aligned with the US, and just wigged out one day and changed his ideology! We both shared obviously different motivations for our mutual objective, and that is sometimes the rub.

You gotta think like a megalomaniac, not a pinhead!

No, you are inventing suppositions to justify your position. Simple as that...

How does one "invent" a "supposition" ????

I happen to believe it is very important, when dealing with megalomaniacs, to think like a megalomaniac. I also think, when dealing with psychopaths, it's best to think like one... when dealing with bank robbers... best to think like one... In the world I live in, this is called "Common Sense" ...what color is the sky in YOUR world?
 
There was no rift between the HoS and OBL until the HoS declined OBL's offer to remove SH in favour of using their deal with the Americans and OBL declared the HoS to be takfir.....

That's what I said, and Maine ignorantly insisted it was a year or so later. I have also read the Fatwa's and Edicts from the radical Islamic Fundamentalists, and they are not very accepting of 'Royal Families' who are in the back pocket of the West, in fact, it is much of the catalyst for their revolution. The radicalism that brought 9/11 can be traced way back, but it was certainly the US actions in GW1 that sparked such a dangerous and threatening condition with them. You simply want to jump back to a time before this all started, and claim alQaeda and the HoS were once allies... but we were once allies with Saddam... we were once allies with OBL!

the break between the House of Saud and Osama did not happen until April of 1991... the year after he offered them his assistance with Saddam. That's a fact. He was declared persona non grata in absentia soon after he departed Saudi Arabia that month.


But the larger unanswered point is that EVERYONE knew the strategic goals of radical Islam. Everyone knew of their vision for an Islamic caliphate stretching from the mediterranean to the indian ocean... You were correct when you said, "if Saddam knew alQaeda 'had it in' for Iraq, he probably wouldn't support them, either." Saddam certainly HAD to have been well aware of the aspirations of radical islam vis a vis his regime. He would NOT have provided them ANY support.... and undoubtedly did not do so. It is gratifying to see you finally admit that, even if in a very backhanded way.
 
200 posts later, and I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that Saddam was training, assisting, or giving safe harbor to al qaeda.

Virtually all the REPUBLICANS on the senate intelligence committee concured and conluded with the american intelligence community a mere 5 months ago, that Saddam offered no assistance to al qaeda, did not provide safe harbor to them, and was in fact trying to find and arrest Zarqawi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top