The Iraq War Was a Mistake!

Dixie said:
Which nationalist arab organization did Saddam support that advocated a Global caliphate:

Saddam's regime supported alQaeda.
Click to expand...

and your proof of this support is the fact that members of Saddam's intelligence services met on a handful of occasions with representatives from Al Qaeda?

THAT is "supporting Al Qaeda"??

Then I say again.... The United States was supporting the soviet union throughout the cold war.

YOu have NOTHING credible that puts anyone other than anti-Israel and anti-Iranian nationalists training at Salman Pak or anywhere else under Saddam's control or purview. NOTHING.

Saddam did not have any alliance with an organization that was committed to the demise of his very regime. That is ridiculous...and to think that any member of his inner circle would risk his wrath by aiding such an organization behind his back is even more ridiculous.
 
"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. In fact, most of the people who support the Islamofascist movement, are also Arab Nationalist, because the Caliphate itself, is a "national Arab state" by definition."

To suggest that Osama bin Laden is a Pan-Arabist is laughable.

To suggest that leader of Iran is even a fucking ARAB is proof that you are in way over your head.....

but hey... arab... persian... sunni...shiite... wahabbist... baathist... they're all just fuckin A-rab raghead dune coons to you, ain't they, Dix?
 
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. In fact, most of the people who support the Islamofascist movement, are also Arab Nationalist, because the Caliphate itself, is a "national Arab state" by definition.

Oh Good God! I missed this until MM pointed it out.

The leader of iran is not an "arab" nationalist. Do you have a clue what your talking about? The dude is a persian - the blood enemies of arabs.

OBL and al qaeda would probably slit Amneenajob's throat and piss on his grave, if they could. Al Qaeda kills, tortures, and beheads more shia by far, than americans and westerners.

What on God's Green Earth made you think sunni arabs would EVER submit to, or even collaborate, with a shia persian "caliphate"?
 
Getting rid of the suspected WMD's, and any trace of his programs, was far more than something to embarrass Bush with.

You are building supposition upon supposition, as you have with many of your justifications for the debacle.

What evidence do you have that SH disposed of WMD before the invasion in 2003?
 
Armagedongoneinsane and OBL are two such "so-called Arab Nationalists" who believe in the Caliphate objectives.

What? Do you know nothing about OBL? He is an internationalist, not a nationalist. What nation has OBL assigned himself to?
 
"Bush will be remembered as one of, (if not the), most unpopular two-term presidents in history."

Well, whatta ya know? I thought Dixie's entire post was going to be off the mark, but he hit this one out of the park. You could add to that "most incompetent" and "biggest failure," if you'd like a more comprehensive assessment.

Iraq was not a mistake because the American people did not "understand" it, Dixie. It was a mistake because it was a mistake - it was a war of choice that we never should have embarked upon. You've got blood on your hands until the day you die.

There is help, too...you really do need to seek out therapy of some kind; there are a lot of good professionals out there who can work wonders...
 
Bush sold the American people on "a pig in a poke" on Iraq, and once the poke was opened to see what we had been sold.......
 
AnyOldIron said:
Saddam's regime supported alQaeda

No it didn't. The two groups opposed each other.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what you pinheads keep saying, but the thing is, it's just not the case. If they were such bitter enemies, alQaeda wouldn't be there now, in fact, they would be celebrating that we took out one of their adversaries.

As I said earlier, they weren't exactly on the verge of making love, they weren't negotiating a long-term diplomatic trade agreement, and it wasn't like Lebanon and Hezbollah's relationship... but the regime of Saddam Hussein was giving support to members of alQaeda.

I fully understand why you can't allow this fact to be revealed, it does tend to give some justification for our actions, but the thing is, it doesn't remove the mistakes I outlined. This is just one of many mistakes, not making the case for war on the right grounds. War should have been declared on "terrorism" by Congress on 9/14/01, the connections between Saddam's regime and alqaeda should have always been the primary reason and justification for going into Iraq, and the UN should have never been involved.
 
Dixie said:
Yeah, that's what you pinheads keep saying, but the thing is, it's just not the case. If they were such bitter enemies, alQaeda wouldn't be there now, in fact, they would be celebrating that we took out one of their adversaries.

As I said earlier, they weren't exactly on the verge of making love, they weren't negotiating a long-term diplomatic trade agreement, and it wasn't like Lebanon and Hezbollah's relationship... but the regime of Saddam Hussein was giving support to members of alQaeda.

I fully understand why you can't allow this fact to be revealed, it does tend to give some justification for our actions, but the thing is, it doesn't remove the mistakes I outlined. This is just one of many mistakes, not making the case for war on the right grounds. War should have been declared on "terrorism" by Congress on 9/14/01, the connections between Saddam's regime and alqaeda should have always been the primary reason and justification for going into Iraq, and the UN should have never been involved.
Click to expand...

You Dixie are an idiot.

You are talking about something you clearly do not understand. Saddam Hussen promoted and extablished, with American help, a secular Government for Iraq. Two of Al Queda's main goals are to keep the United States from medling in Middle Eastern affairs and to Prevent the establishment of secular states.... Clearly Al Queda was directly opposed to Saddam's government!

If AQ is currently in Iraq it is not because they were friends with Saddam, its because they want to prevent America from establishing a government for Iraq!
 
Dixie said:
Yeah, that's what you pinheads keep saying, but the thing is, it's just not the case. If they were such bitter enemies, alQaeda wouldn't be there now, in fact, they would be celebrating that we took out one of their adversaries.
Click to expand...

What does one have to do with the other? They WERE bitter enemies.... and AQ is there now, because they want to stir up hate for the west and discord against secular arab governments. AQ IS celebrating that we took out one of their adversaries... they are also celebrating that we invaded Iraq - an oil rich arab state - with an army of christians, that we called it a "crusade", that we are still there, and that our presence has succeeded in creating enormous unrest amongst the population.

The war was a mistake. You should have shut your piehole after you made that pronouncement.
 
and really.... any credibility Dixie ever had on this subject should have been washed away when he called Ahmadinejad an arab.
 
Jarhead, I've never heard a more simplistic and shallow explanation and understanding of the mid east problem. Saddam became the leader of Iraq by murdering all his challengers and winning the election, and without any assistance from the US. The United States is against dictatorships and oppression, it's what we have stood for our entire existence, but even though we oppose dictators, we assisted and supported Saddam in his war against Iran. Now, if the US can overcome their disdain for dictators and aid Saddam, why can't alQaeda get over their disdain for secular governments and receive help from Saddam's regime?

There is a simple concept at play in both cases... The Enemy of My Enemy... alQaeda hated the US more than they hated the secular regime in Iraq. I understand their goals were completely different, and they were not on the same page, but they had a mutual enemy in the US, and this is very often the case in the world, as exampled by our assistance of Saddam against Iran or our assistance of Afghanistan against the Soviets.

If the all-powerful US would use this "strange bedfellows" strategy, why wouldn't a desperate and struggling bunch of unethical scum like alQaeda?
 
They WERE bitter enemies.... and AQ is there now, because they want to stir up hate for the west and discord against secular arab governments.

And I argue, that is also why they were there THEN. I've never argued that their motives for working with Saddam were pure. They certainly do have their own agenda, and it wasn't the same agenda as Saddam, but it didn't have to be.

They are in Iraq now, fighting for all they are worth, because they fully understand the establishment of a democracy will ultimately spell the end to despotic regimes they can exploit. If there is no oppressive dictatorships they can blame on the US, and point to when they recruit... well, it removes the main source of resentment which has allowed them to flourish.
 
Dixie said:
They WERE bitter enemies.... and AQ is there now, because they want to stir up hate for the west and discord against secular arab governments.

And I argue, that is also why they were there THEN. I've never argued that their motives for working with Saddam were pure. They certainly do have their own agenda, and it wasn't the same agenda as Saddam, but it didn't have to be.

They are in Iraq now, fighting for all they are worth, because they fully understand the establishment of a democracy will ultimately spell the end to despotic regimes they can exploit. If there is no oppressive dictatorships they can blame on the US, and point to when they recruit... well, it removes the main source of resentment which has allowed them to flourish.
Click to expand...

so AQ is this nefarious bunch of thugs who wants to overthrow Saddam but decides to fake it and assume that Saddam's folks are all too stupid to have ever read any of the wahabbist writings that detail their agenda....

and Saddam is this total moron who willingly decides to provide all of this assistance and cooperation to a group of wahabbists that want to bring him down just because they tell him that bringing Iraq down is the furthest thing form their minds and that they REALLY only want to fuck with the United States so Saddam should ignore all those things he may have heard about their aspirations?

and Ahmadinejad is an arab nationalist....

and you call ME a pinhead????

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 
Dixie said:
Jarhead, I've never heard a more simplistic and shallow explanation and understanding of the mid east problem. Saddam became the leader of Iraq by murdering all his challengers and winning the election, and without any assistance from the US. The United States is against dictatorships and oppression, it's what we have stood for our entire existence, but even though we oppose dictators, we assisted and supported Saddam in his war against Iran. Now, if the US can overcome their disdain for dictators and aid Saddam, why can't alQaeda get over their disdain for secular governments and receive help from Saddam's regime?

There is a simple concept at play in both cases... The Enemy of My Enemy... alQaeda hated the US more than they hated the secular regime in Iraq. I understand their goals were completely different, and they were not on the same page, but they had a mutual enemy in the US, and this is very often the case in the world, as exampled by our assistance of Saddam against Iran or our assistance of Afghanistan against the Soviets.

If the all-powerful US would use this "strange bedfellows" strategy, why wouldn't a desperate and struggling bunch of unethical scum like alQaeda?
Click to expand...

Because there's no evidence of it, that's why. As I've shown you over and over.

We've been in Iraq for four years, have had access to as much intelligence as were ever going to get on the Baath regime. And our Government has concluded that Saddam was not aiding al qaeda in any way. He in fact, considered islamic extremists a threat to him.
 
Yeah, that's what you pinheads keep saying, but the thing is, it's just not the case. If they were such bitter enemies, alQaeda wouldn't be there now, in fact, they would be celebrating that we took out one of their adversaries.

Errrrm, that might make sense if the Iraqi regime were in charge now, but they aren't. Islamic extremists (there is no such entity as an AQ terrorist organisation) flooded into the vacuum created when the coalition invaded and disbanded everything.

Islamic extremists wanted Iraq invaded....because it would give them an ideal training arena, and a cause celebre for them to point to of western aggression. By invading Iraq, we played into the extremist's hands in more than one sense....

I fully understand why you can't allow this fact to be revealed,

Fact? Everyone that knows anything about Islamic extremism in the last few decades would know that any offers / requests of support were rejected on both sides. If connections to Islamic extremists were a justification for invasion, why did we invade Iraq and not Pakistan, which has been the hub of Islamic extremism for decades?

Explain that and stay fashionable.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top