The Iraq War Was a Mistake!

The United States is against dictatorships and oppression,

You forgot to qualify this statement with 'unless they are friendly to us...'
 
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?

Your sense of logic is shockingly bad....

Because the two organsations motivations aren't the same.]

The US does things entirely for economic interests, supporting Iraq was meant to help prevent Islamic radicalism spreading out of revolutionary Iran and threatening the US's oil interests in the gulf. Thus the US is pragmatic, if supporting a dictator like Saddam is in its economic interests, it will do so.

Islamic extremism is motivated by religious zeal alone, which makes it much less pragmatic.

Are you aware that in 1990, OBL offered the Saudi head of intelligence to take his mujahadeen, just returned from Afghanistan, and take Saddam out?

 
alQaeda hated the US more than they hated the secular regime in Iraq.

You really are getting desperate now....

You seem to think that because Islamic extremists are fighting in Iraq now, that they supported the regime? Islamic extremists wanted to create a cause celebre, an invasion of Muslim lands by 'kufr' forces.

What on earth do you think 9/11 was? Just an attack? Bollocks. 9/11 was a provokation.

And the Islamic extremists got what they wanted. They outwitted the US and have got exactly what they want.
 
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?

Your sense of logic is shockingly bad....

Because the two organsations motivations aren't the same.]

No, my sense of logic is fine. What motivations did the US have in common with the Secular Dictatorship of Saddam Hussein? Also, what motivation did we have in common with the Russians in WWII?
 
alQaeda hated the US more than they hated the secular regime in Iraq.
You really are getting desperate now....

You seem to think that because Islamic extremists are fighting in Iraq now, that they supported the regime? Islamic extremists wanted to create a cause celebre, an invasion of Muslim lands by 'kufr' forces.

No, I didn't ever say they supported the regime, or that the regime supported them, as far as their motivations and objectives. The regime certainly did give them support, as they are giving the ousted regime loyalists support now.

You people keep trying to claim alQaeda "wanted us to invade Iraq", and I don't understand this. They certainly don't indicate they desire a democratic Arab country in the heart of the Caliphate, so I really find it hard to believe they wanted us to invade Iraq. They have flocked to Iraq to do everything they can to force us to withdraw and give up, including getting a lot of themselves killed. They have done everything they can to cause a Civil War and thwart democracy... This seems an odd thing to do, if they wanted us to invade Iraq. Plus... they are blowing up our soldiers... WTF? We do what they want and they blow us up? This makes no sense. So, I think you have a way to go in explaining how you came to such an irrational conclusion.

No, I don't think alQaeda wanted us to invade Iraq and establish a democracy in place of Saddam. I think that is probably closer to the last thing they wanted us to do. You seem to be confused about what alQaeda wants, so let me clear it up for you... they want us out of the middle east, not to invade Iraq, or any other country. They want the Jews eliminated forever, as well as the Infidels (us). They want the rest of the world to conform to 5th Century Muhammad Law, and those who refuse to convert, to be executed by beheading or stoned to death if they are lucky.

These things are not present in a democratic Arab society, so I don't think alQaeda wanted us to establish it in Iraq.
 
If the all-powerful US would use this "strange bedfellows" strategy, why wouldn't a desperate and struggling bunch of unethical scum like alQaeda?

Because Islamic extremists don't consider themselves unethical, much as you don't see incidious actions of the US as unethical.

As religious extremists, they see themselves as ultra-ethical.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Islamic extremism Dixie, demonstrated by your reference to AQ as an organisation itself, which it ceased to be many years ago.

Al Qaeda means three things. The base (the terrorist organisation extant in the 1980s/1990s), the vanguard (those who spread across the world to instigate and radicalise the Muslim world) and the methodology.

We are now fighting the most dangerous part, the methodology. and we are losing to it, because those in command don't understand the nature of the threat and continue to play into their hands...
 
If the all-powerful US would use this "strange bedfellows" strategy, why wouldn't a desperate and struggling bunch of unethical scum like alQaeda?

Because Islamic extremists don't consider themselves unethical, much as you don't see incidious actions of the US as unethical.

As religious extremists, they see themselves as ultra-ethical.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Islamic extremism Dixie, demonstrated by your reference to AQ as an organisation itself, which it ceased to be many years ago.

Al Qaeda means three things. The base (the terrorist organisation extant in the 1980s/1990s), the vanguard (those who spread across the world to instigate and radicalise the Muslim world) and the methodology.

We are now fighting the most dangerous part, the methodology. and we are losing to it, because those in command don't understand the nature of the threat and continue to play into their hands...
 
No, my sense of logic is fine. What motivations did the US have in common with the Secular Dictatorship of Saddam Hussein? Also, what motivation did we have in common with the Russians in WWII?

No, Islamic extremism and the US have different motivations, not the US and SH???

Islamic motivation is religious and moral inforcement, and so is idealistic and dogmatic. US motivation is economic, and so is pragmatic (as in supporting SH when Iranian revolution threatened its oil supply)

 
Last edited:
No, I didn't ever say they supported the regime, or that the regime supported them, as far as their motivations and objectives. The regime certainly did give them support, as they are giving the ousted regime loyalists support now.

No they aren't, they are different groups (sunni Iraqi nationalists and Islamic extremists) with different motivations.

Iraqi nationalists want to prevent the Shia becoming dominant over them, Islamic extremists want to create civil war.

As for the regime giving IE aid, this has been refuted many times, not just by the lack of evidence of assistance, the fact that OBL offered to remove SH in 1990 etc etc etc
 
You people keep trying to claim alQaeda "wanted us to invade Iraq", and I don't understand this. They certainly don't indicate they desire a democratic Arab country in the heart of the Caliphate, so I really find it hard to believe they wanted us to invade Iraq.

Islamic extremists understand the ME better than you. They realised, as many in the west did, that holding a ballot in Iraq wouldn't bring a prosperous and functioning Iraq, a 'shining beacon' in the ME.

They recognised the schisms in Iraqi society and knew that Iraq would dissolve into sectarian fighting and become a failed state, giving them the opportunity to introduce 'order' through Shariah, much as they did in Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan.

You don't understand why IE wanted the west to invade Iraq because you don't understand what 9/11 was. You seem to think it was simply a horrendous attack. It wasn't.

The Islamic extremists returned to their own countries after Afghanistan was liberated from the Soviets, with the intent of instigating popular uprisings in the Muslim world. They failed, simply because the Muslim people rejected their notion. So they changed tact. They knew that the only way to motivate and unite the Umma was to give them a common enemy. So they began attacking the US, in the provokation that the US will respond, attack the Umma and motivate them to rise up.
 
Last edited:
These things are not present in a democratic Arab society, so I don't think alQaeda wanted us to establish it in Iraq.

They simply knew that the idea that Iraq would miraculously resolve its deep problems by holding a ballot is idealistic daydreaming and extremely niaive.

They knew that it was more likely that Iraq would simply descend into violence, creating anarchy and giving the extremists the opportunity to garner recruits, support and a motivational cause, and if Iraq descended far enough, the chance to offer stability through introduction of Shariah, as they did in Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia.

We cannot afford to be idealistic and niaive when we are faced with the threat we are faced with.....
 
anyold.... the more we go through this exercise in futility, the more I think we need to step back and ask ourselves why we do it. Why do we continue to try to intelligently debate middle eastern policy with a moron who shoots from the hip about every aspect of the subject?

Dixie like to portray himself as this middle eastern policy wonk, but he is unable to disguise the fact that he really is nothing more than a bigot who hates muslims. He doesn't know the difference between a persian and an arab. He doesn't know the difference between a wahabbist and a pan-arab nationalist. He refuses to acknowledge the cold hard facts surrounding the enmity between ba'athism and wahabbism and continues to trumpet the erroneous assertion that the two would be capable of and actually were working together to fight America. He needs to hold onto that falsehood because it justifies his bigotry and it justifies this terrible terrible war in Iraq that he continues to wave pompoms for.
 
anyold.... the more we go through this exercise in futility, the more I think we need to step back and ask ourselves why we do it. Why do we continue to try to intelligently debate middle eastern policy with a moron who shoots from the hip about every aspect of the subject?


Because it's hilarious to see the monumentally-misinformed tap dance, spin, and make up excuses to justify his war.
 
AnyOldIron said:
No, my sense of logic is fine. What motivations did the US have in common with the Secular Dictatorship of Saddam Hussein? Also, what motivation did we have in common with the Russians in WWII?

No, Islamic extremism and the US have different motivations, not the US and SH???

Islamic motivation is religious and moral inforcement, and so is idealistic and dogmatic. US motivation is economic, and so is pragmatic (as in supporting SH when Iranian revolution threatened its oil supply)
Click to expand...


Hold on a second, you just said, in order for any two entities to work together, they must have a motivation that is mutual.... "Because the two organsations motivations aren't the same." ...I am asking you what motivation the US and Saddam had in common, and you haven't answered. You have told me what the US motivation was, but Saddam couldn't have cared less about the US oil supply, so that is not a mutual motivation. I've also asked you what the mutual motivation was between the US and Russia in WWII. I understand that getting rid of Hitler was a mutual objective, but the motivations were completely different.

You see, the point is, entities are often allied over a mutual objective because they each have some motive which benefits them, and it doesn't have to be mutual. alQaeda wants us out of the middle east so they can continue to bully that part of the world into 5th century Muhammad Law, Saddam wanted us out of the middle east so he could continue his maniacal reign of oppression on the people of Iraq. The two groups had a mutual objective, although their motivations were completely different.
 
Last edited:
Dixie like to portray himself as this middle eastern policy wonk, but he is unable to disguise the fact that he really is nothing more than a bigot who hates muslims.

What is a "wonk" exactly? Is that anything like a pedophile who preys on little boys and threatens to rape little girls at gunpoint?
 
Dixie.... why must you take the low road like that? It is pretty clear by your own words that you are unable to distinguish between the various types of muslims and you you seem to think that killing them in Iraq has been a great idea... you applauded shock and awe... you pooh poohed Abu Ghraib and Haditha... they really are just dune coons to you...why don't you just admit it and not have to throw up slanderous pedophile shit like that as a screen?
 
Dixie said:
Hold on a second, you just said, in order for any two entities to work together, they must have a motivation that is mutual.... "Because the two organsations motivations aren't the same." ...I am asking you what motivation the US and Saddam had in common, and you haven't answered. You have told me what the US motivation was, but Saddam couldn't have cared less about the US oil supply, so that is not a mutual motivation. I've also asked you what the mutual motivation was between the US and Russia in WWII. I understand that getting rid of Hitler was a mutual objective, but the motivations were completely different.

You see, the point is, entities are often allied over a mutual objective because they each have some motive which benefits them, and it doesn't have to be mutual. alQaeda wants us out of the middle east so they can continue to bully that part of the world into 5th century Muhammad Law, Saddam wanted us out of the middle east so he could continue his maniacal reign of oppression on the people of Iraq. The two groups had a mutual objective, although their motivations were completely different.
Click to expand...

The pragmatic reason that Saddam and Reagan got along was the market place. Saddam had something to sell Ronnie and Ronnie had cash (and chemical weaponry) with which to purchase it. And to make some distinction between motivation and objective is pretty silly. People (and nation states) are motivated to achieve their objectives.... the motivations, therefore, of the US and USSR were identical in WW2.

and again... please explain why Saddam would provide any assistance to AQ given the fact that AQ's primary raison d'etre was the elimination of Saddam's government and all other secular governments like it in the region? Do you honestly think that Saddam was unaware of the stated mission of wahabbism? Do you honestly think that Saddam would have trusted AQ to not use any assistance he provided them against him if they had the chance? Do you think that OBL crossed his heart without crossing his fingers?
 
Dixie said:
Dixie like to portray himself as this middle eastern policy wonk, but he is unable to disguise the fact that he really is nothing more than a bigot who hates muslims.

What is a "wonk" exactly? Is that anything like a pedophile who preys on little boys and threatens to rape little girls at gunpoint?
Click to expand...

I forgot that your vocabulary was so limited.... here:

wonk noun Slang. 1. a student who spends much time studying and has little or no social life; grind. (dixie likes to imagine himself like this!)
2. a stupid, boring, or unattractive person. (now THAT definition is right on the mark!)
3. a person who studies a subject or issue in an excessively assiduous and thorough manner: a policy wonk. (what dixie likes to portray himself as - see above)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top