The Iraq War Was a Mistake!

cypress...I think Dixie inadvertently made a pretty strong concession just a few posts ago..... "if Saddam knew alQaeda 'had it in' for Iraq, he probably wouldn't support them, either." Hell...EVERYONE knew what the mission of radical islam was vis a vis the caliphate.
 
Last edited:
maineman said:
cypress...I think Dixiee inadvertently made a pretty strong concession just a few posts ago..... "if Saddam knew alQaeda 'had it in' for Iraq, he probably wouldn't support them, either." Hell...EVERYONE knew what the mission of radical islam was vis a vis the caliphate.
Click to expand...



Saddam knew what al qaeda's goals and motive's were.
 
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.

As as Maine so eloquently admitted, you won't see any shred, it would be stupid of Saddam and OBL to leave behind such evidence, if it existed. So... You don't have tangible evidence, and will not likely ever find tangible evidence, and would be a fool to expect tangible evidence to turn up, because it would have taken fools to have left it to find in the first place.

You need to realize, you are assuming that the lack of something that didn't ever exist, and would have been utterly foolish to have existed, is not proof of anything. The fact that we haven't found any documents or signed deals between Saddam and OBL, doesn't mean there were no deals. That has not been established as a fact, and THAT is the fact.
 
Dixie said:
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.

As as Maine so eloquently admitted, you won't see any shred, it would be stupid of Saddam and OBL to leave behind such evidence, if it existed. So... You don't have tangible evidence, and will not likely ever find tangible evidence, and would be a fool to expect tangible evidence to turn up, because it would have taken fools to have left it to find in the first place.

You need to realize, you are assuming that the lack of something that didn't ever exist, and would have been utterly foolish to have existed, is not proof of anything. The fact that we haven't found any documents or signed deals between Saddam and OBL, doesn't mean there were no deals. That has not been established as a fact, and THAT is the fact.
Click to expand...


"As as Maine so eloquently admitted, you won't see any shred, it would be stupid of Saddam and OBL to leave behind such evidence, if it existed. So... You don't have tangible evidence, and will not likely ever find tangible evidence, "

That's a strong case, Dixie. You and bush took us to war, on evidence "we can't see".

In other words, you just have a gut feeling that they were cooperating, but you have no evidence to back it up.
 
maineman said:
cypress...I think Dixie inadvertently made a pretty strong concession just a few posts ago..... "if Saddam knew alQaeda 'had it in' for Iraq, he probably wouldn't support them, either." Hell...EVERYONE knew what the mission of radical islam was vis a vis the caliphate.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting on you to show me where OBL stated the objectives of alQaeda, were to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I'm also still waiting for you to disprove alQaeda and Saddam's mutual objective of removing the US presence from the region. The thing is, you can't do it. Those are the facts, regardless of the differing motivations.

The caliphate has nothing to do with Saddam being the dictator of Iraq. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, not an Infidel or Jew, so he posed no threat to the spread of radical Islamofascism. It's important to note the pattern of other governments in the region, and how they handled the influx of radicalism... Lebanon, for instance... embraced the terror organization Hezbollah, because they built schools, bolstered the infrastructure, provided security like the Mafia. Saudi Arabia is another example, here the Kingdom was willing to allow the radical movement to infiltrate their schools and poison the minds of the youth, in return for a little peace and no trouble for the Royal Family. Pakistan... another good example of this. Afghanistan, under the Taliban, was the ultimate result of allowing the radicalism to prevail, but in an oil-rich nation like Iraq, things may have been much different.

No, I don't have much faith in your premise, that alQaeda could be meandering all over the deserts in Iraq, and Saddam was diligently trying to round them all up, and never had any intentions of helping them in any way shape or form. I don't buy it, Maine. Saddam was no more impervious to alQaeda influence than any other country in the region. You can save your philosophical discussions on Wahhabi's, for someone who is easily distracted, this debate is about the spread of radical Islamic Fundamentalism, and Iraq under Saddam was certainly NOT immune to it.
 
In other words, you just have a gut feeling that they were cooperating, but you have no evidence to back it up.

No, it was substantially more than a "gut feeling" and I never said that. There was plenty of evidence, it just wasn't tangible. Sometimes, you don't have tangible evidence, you have to rely on other evidence. For instance, patterns of activity, communications between known operatives, laws of probability, and motives.

This is why I stated, it was a mistake to base this war on WMD's, a tangible property. It was a mistake to base this war on anything other than ideological principles surrounding the overall war on terror. On that ground, a viable case might have been made, on the mistake of introducing a tangible physical property, you open the door to skeptics who demand the tangible be produced, or tangible evidence be produced, and as Maine has argued, this would be utterly stupid on Saddam's part, to leave behind.
 
Dixie said:
I'm still waiting on you to show me where OBL stated the objectives of alQaeda, were to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I'm also still waiting for you to disprove alQaeda and Saddam's mutual objective of removing the US presence from the region. The thing is, you can't do it. Those are the facts, regardless of the differing motivations.

The caliphate has nothing to do with Saddam being the dictator of Iraq. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, not an Infidel or Jew, so he posed no threat to the spread of radical Islamofascism. It's important to note the pattern of other governments in the region, and how they handled the influx of radicalism... Lebanon, for instance... embraced the terror organization Hezbollah, because they built schools, bolstered the infrastructure, provided security like the Mafia. Saudi Arabia is another example, here the Kingdom was willing to allow the radical movement to infiltrate their schools and poison the minds of the youth, in return for a little peace and no trouble for the Royal Family. Pakistan... another good example of this. Afghanistan, under the Taliban, was the ultimate result of allowing the radicalism to prevail, but in an oil-rich nation like Iraq, things may have been much different.

No, I don't have much faith in your premise, that alQaeda could be meandering all over the deserts in Iraq, and Saddam was diligently trying to round them all up, and never had any intentions of helping them in any way shape or form. I don't buy it, Maine. Saddam was no more impervious to alQaeda influence than any other country in the region. You can save your philosophical discussions on Wahhabi's, for someone who is easily distracted, this debate is about the spread of radical Islamic Fundamentalism, and Iraq under Saddam was certainly NOT immune to it.
Click to expand...

the caliphate had everything to do with the dissolution of secular political nation states in the geographic region in question. And I don't need to show you any writings of Osama specifically aimed at Iraq to prove my point... Anymore than I would have to show you the specific writings of Benjamin Harrison stating that he desire to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to prove that he was a supporter and a defender of the constitution. Osama is a wahabbist...and an adherent of their goals. Those goals are well known and Saddam undoubtedly knew them. Secular governments of all stripes were in the crosshairs... including the panarabist secular baathists in Iraq and Syria.
 
and Dixie.... do you realize that anyone who thinks that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an ARAB and not a persian really has blown their credibility as a middle eastern policy wonk.

You don't know what you are talking about and most folks on here and the previous site have figured that out.... the fact that you get your ass laughed at on fp.com is undoubtedly the reason you ran away from that site in the first place.
 
Dixie said:
This is why I stated, it was a mistake to base this war on WMD's, a tangible property. It was a mistake to base this war on anything other than ideological principles surrounding the overall war on terror.
Click to expand...

Without the WMD hype, we don't have this war. You surely are aware of this. The W had to manufacture a threat, and he did so in the form of the WMD, which has been shown to be a bunch of bullshit.

If he tried to sell this war for what it is, we wouldn't have ended up in this mess.

But W wanted this war, he wanted to have a tidy little battle like Gulf War I, that would give his legacy the aura of a great leader, a world changer, a man with foresight. But his dreams of glory have turned to shit, and there's 23,000 wounded and over 3,000 dead American soldiers for it.

Without basing the war on the nonexistant WMD, we don't have these casualties.
 
Dixie said:
Cypress: In other words, you just have a gut feeling that they were cooperating, but you have no evidence to back it up.

No, it was substantially more than a "gut feeling" and I never said that. There was plenty of evidence, it just wasn't tangible. Sometimes, you don't have tangible evidence, you have to rely on other evidence. For instance, patterns of activity, communications between known operatives, laws of probability, and motives.

This is why I stated, it was a mistake to base this war on WMD's, a tangible property. It was a mistake to base this war on anything other than ideological principles surrounding the overall war on terror. On that ground, a viable case might have been made, on the mistake of introducing a tangible physical property, you open the door to skeptics who demand the tangible be produced, or tangible evidence be produced, and as Maine has argued, this would be utterly stupid on Saddam's part, to leave behind.
Click to expand...

No, it was substantially more than a "gut feeling" and I never said that. There was plenty of evidence, it just wasn't tangible.


TRANSLATION: You have nothing credible to refute the September 2006 conclusions of virtually all the REPUBLICANS on the Senate Intelligence committee that saddam was NOT aiding, training, or providing safe harbor for al qaeda.
 
TRANSLATION: You have nothing credible to refute the September 2006 conclusions of virtually all the REPUBLICANS on the Senate Intelligence committee that saddam was NOT aiding, training, or providing safe harbor for al qaeda.

Again, that was not the conclusion, read it carefully. Nowhere does it state that proof exists, Saddam was not aiding, training, or providing safe harbor for alqaeda. The only conclusion made was, the tangible evidence of proof wasn't found.

Without the WMD hype, we don't have this war. You surely are aware of this. The W had to manufacture a threat, and he did so in the form of the WMD, which has been shown to be a bunch of bullshit.

As I said, it was a mistake to base the war on the WMD's, because we ended up with pinheads like you, who don't see any other reasoning or rationale, and since the WMD's weren't found, they must have never existed and it was all made up. I think the war should have, and could have been fought, on the basis of principle in the war on terror. Much the same as it was in Afghanistan.

the caliphate had everything to do with the dissolution of secular political nation states in the geographic region in question. And I don't need to show you any writings of Osama specifically aimed at Iraq to prove my point...

Aw, com'on Maine, I want to see you dance around on the head of a pin, trying to explain how OBL and the Saudi's had no rift whatsoever, and alQaeda was perfectly okay with the Saudi Royal Kingdom, but not okay with a secular political nation state. Dance like the goofy liberal bitch you are, and tell us how the Caliphate was enough to cause Saddam to fear alQaeda, but it somehow wasn't a problem for the Saudi's, and up until they rejected OBL, they were all fine with each other. I guess the Saudi Royal Family must have been under the impression they were going to get to run the Caliphate, and maybe you have information to show that was the plan up until the Saudi's rejected OBL.... I have no idea what you think, it's so convoluted now, it makes spaghetti look organized.

Those goals are well known and Saddam undoubtedly knew them. Secular governments of all stripes were in the crosshairs... including the panarabist secular baathists in Iraq and Syria.

Secular pan-arabist governments as well as the Saudi Kingdom. This is the reason the Saudi's turned down OBL, and it wasn't like you said... "no rift" between the two. You have tried to over-simplify things, and then confuse them with your jargon and mumbo-jumbo about Wahhabis and Pan Arabists.
 
As I said, it was a mistake to base the war on the WMD's, because we ended up with pinheads like you, who don't see any other reasoning or rationale, and since the WMD's weren't found, they must have never existed and it was all made up. I think the war should have, and could have been fought, on the basis of principle in the war on terror. Much the same as it was in Afghanistan.

And I am telling you that the only way to get his beloved little bloodbath rolling, was for W to hype WMDs. If he didn't base the war on that, there would NOT have even been a war.

You couldn't have had this war basing it on what you think we should have based it on because your reasons do not warrant a war. The public wouldn't have allowed it to happen and the idiot congress wouldn't have voted for the war. And yes, the war resolution was a vote for the war and any cowardly politician who claims that he didn't think W would use it is a retard.
 
And I am telling you that the only way to get his beloved little bloodbath rolling, was for W to hype WMDs. If he didn't base the war on that, there would NOT have even been a war.

You couldn't have had this war basing it on what you think we should have based it on because your reasons do not warrant a war.

Are you claiming that WMD's no one believes existed, was a better reason?

I think we could have had this war on the basis of the war on terror, just like we had the war in Afghanistan, based on the war on terror. I think we should have based the war on this, and we shouldn't have gone to the UN. I think we could have done this, because we DID do it, in Afghanistan!

Base our reasons? Do you think, 3,000 dead American citizens is not a good enough basis for our reasons? Get this through your pinhead, it was a mistake for Bush to have hyped the WMD's, because the WMD's were never going to be revealed, from the very start, there was no way these infamous WMD's were going to turn up, whether they existed or not. You've based the war on a tangible physical item, in this case, WMD's... they are NOT going to be found. This doesn't mean they were not there at one time, this doesn't mean Saddam wasn't developing them, this doesn't even mean he didn't have stockpiles of them, at one time. The mistake, was Bush basing the war so strongly, on the WMD's. To the point, it is virtually ALL anyone will consider as a valid reason for the war. I feel there was a much more important reason, and it should have been the centerpiece of the argument for the war from the start. It is the principled and philosophical argument regarding the overall war on terror, or radical Islamist Extremism. Planting the seeds of Democracy in the heart of this radicalized world of Islamofascism, and how that is crucial to defeating this new and formidable enemy which struck us on 9/11.

Pinheads will claim that Bush tried to tie Saddam to 9/11, but my argument is, he didn't do enough to tie him to 9/11. That was Bush's biggest mistake. What's more, he didn't need Congressional approval or UN oversight, to launch a unilateral attack on Saddam Hussein, and could have done this on 9/14/01, without hesitation, as a part of the war on terror. Speaking of which, was another mistake, not having Congress formally declare war on terror and terror states.
 
the caliphate had everything to do with the dissolution of secular political nation states in the geographic region in question. And I don't need to show you any writings of Osama specifically aimed at Iraq to prove my point...

Aw, com'on Maine, I want to see you dance around on the head of a pin, trying to explain how OBL and the Saudi's had no rift whatsoever, and alQaeda was perfectly okay with the Saudi Royal Kingdom, but not okay with a secular political nation state. Dance like the goofy liberal bitch you are, and tell us how the Caliphate was enough to cause Saddam to fear alQaeda, but it somehow wasn't a problem for the Saudi's, and up until they rejected OBL, they were all fine with each other. I guess the Saudi Royal Family must have been under the impression they were going to get to run the Caliphate, and maybe you have information to show that was the plan up until the Saudi's rejected OBL.... I have no idea what you think, it's so convoluted now, it makes spaghetti look organized.

since wahabbism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia, it is not a stretch to imagine that the Saudi Royal family had less of a problem with AQ than the ba'athist regime of Saddam. And the Saudis DID break their ties with Osama when his version of radical extremist Islam became too radical for them... along about 1991 (do you even bother to study the history of the middle east before you attempt to bloviate about it???) And if the Saudis, who had some natural predeliction for wahabbism, were through with Osama as early as 1991, why, pray tell, would the BA'ATHISTS of Iraq be willing to give him weapons of mass destruction a decade later???

Those goals are well known and Saddam undoubtedly knew them. Secular governments of all stripes were in the crosshairs... including the panarabist secular baathists in Iraq and Syria.

Secular pan-arabist governments as well as the Saudi Kingdom. This is the reason the Saudi's turned down OBL, and it wasn't like you said... "no rift" between the two. You have tried to over-simplify things, and then confuse them with your jargon and mumbo-jumbo about Wahhabis and Pan Arabists.

No confusion...no mumbo jumbo. Osama bin Laden and his brand of extremist Islam was enough to get him to lose his invite to return to Saudi Arabia in April of 1991. It was certainly enough to make the secular ba'athists in power in Iraq realize he was no one to trust earlier than that. The myth that Saddam would have been willing to assist Osama a decade after the Saudis severed ties with him is just that - a fucking MYTH perpetrated by assholes like you who know so little about the middle east, you think that Iran's PERSIAN President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an ARAB!
 
Just for the record Dix, I'm curious, knowing what we know now, should we have started this bloodbath?
 
and for you to lump the Saudi Royal family in with baathist pan arabists is yet another example of just how little you understand about the region.

go back to arguing about fractions.... you have no business whatsoever attempting to pass yourself off as any sort of authority on the middle east....

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ARAB AND A PERSIAN!
 
CYPRESS: TRANSLATION: You have nothing credible to refute the September 2006 conclusions of virtually all the REPUBLICANS on the Senate Intelligence committee that saddam was NOT aiding, training, or providing safe harbor for al qaeda.

DIXIE: Again, that was not the conclusion, read it carefully. Nowhere does it state that proof exists, Saddam was not aiding, training, or providing safe harbor for alqaeda. The only conclusion made was, the tangible evidence of proof wasn't found.

BINGO!

No tangible evidence was ever found that Saddam ever aided, trained or provided harbor to al qaeda. And the evidence that was found suggested that he wasn't even even considering doing so.


You keep saying you could have sold your war on the basis of saddam's link to al qaeda, and just ignored the WMD argument.

But, I GUARANTEE you, you would never have been able to sell your war, if you didn't have a shred of tangible evidence to back up your assertions of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and OBL
 
it doesn't much matter....he DID sell us his sham of a war, it HAS cost us over 25K dead and wounded, and over a half a trillion dollars and all of that cost has not bought us an ounce of security and only made us more hated and less trusted throughout the world. the republican party should be banned from the grown up's table for at least a few decades.
 
dixie: you never did address this issue:

Did you really think President I'm 'o need a job (or whatever his name is) of Iran was an "arab" nationalist?


DIXIE: "Some Arab Nationalists are in line with the concept of an Islamic Caliphate. Armagedongoneinsane and OBL are two such "so-called Arab Nationalists" who believe in the Caliphate objectives."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top