The Iraq War Was a Mistake!

found that Saddam's regime had only ever met once with al qaeda, and Saddam subesquently rebuffed all offers to meet with al qaeda, and he NEVER provided assistance or training to them.

No, I am sorry, I have to correct you, that was not the conclusive finding at all. It was concluded that there was not enough credible evidence to prove more than one meeting, but that doesn't mean they proved there were no more meetings. They also found lack of proof to suggest Saddam was training them, but this doesn't translate into a fact either.

They also found little evidence that Saddam was actively working on WMD's, but he kept nearly 1000 chemical and biological weapons scientists on a pretty hefty payroll for 12 years, for SOME reason... I don't think they were developing a better falafel. What you pinheads need to try and grasp is, Saddam was not an idiot, and he wasn't a stupid man. He didn't leave behind a paper trail to "prove" our case with. He was very careful to always cover his tracks, and to anticipate he would do something else, is ludicrous. I would have actually believed your angle on his WMD's, had we found all of the old WMD's in the abandoned labs and facilities, instead of finding little of nothing. The fact that there was all of this intelligence, not just from our CIA, but EVERYWHERE, which said that he HAD WMD's, and was actively working on the programs... makes finding "nothing" a little suspect, in my mind.
 
Dixie said:
We didn't share a common motivation, did we? That's what I thought!
Click to expand...
YOU were the one who claimed that he was our adversary during that time...I only asked you to prove it.... we shared a pragmatic market relationship that prevailed in absence of any countervailing adversarial relationship. You suggested that we worked with Saddam for economic reasons even though we were adversaries...I asked you to show how we were adversaries at the time when republicans were providing him with weapons of mass destruction to use on Iranians and Kurds.... Our shared motivation was the profit motive. We wanted to use his oil to fuel our economic engine, and he wanted to sell it to us for financial gain.... there was no adversarial relationship as you falsely claim. There WAS, however, a strong adversarial relationship between Saddam and Wahabbism.... which clearly would have precluded any cooperation between the two.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
My patience has run thin, and I fear that our mutual objective of reasonable dialogue is in jeopardy. I suggest you cease and desist with the slanderous remarks you are directing at me, because reprisal will be swift and harsh.
Click to expand...

what will you do.... accuse me of fucking my son in the ass and use toby as your friend and credible source? lol

Look.... you don't know the difference between arabs and persians, wahabbists and palestinian nationalists or baathists and you don't care...to you it doesn't really matter.... they are dune coons who deserve killing whether they have done anything to hurt america or not...and you blythely ignore any caucasian terrorists and excuse their behavior as unimportant because they are caucasian. That is bigotry borne of ignorance. This isn't a war on terror, from your perspective, it is a war on terror only if employed by muslims of any stripe.
 
You must have caught some venereal disease messing with those foreign boys when you were overseas... that would explain why you're so sensitive about the subject. I don't blame you not wanting people to know that about you, Maine, I think I'd try to keep it a secret too, if I were like you.

It's really nothing to be afraid of admitting though, many powerful older men who have 'God Complex' will seek the company of a young boy, it is traditionally symbolic for ultimate power and control. It doesn't surprise me that you suffer from much the same sickness as the perverted Catholic priests, you can see it in your condescension, pious postings and liberal 'ethical license'.
 
YOU were the one who claimed that he was our adversary during that time...

No, I didn't claim this, you asked me to prove this. But you haven't proven that Saddam and alQaeda were adversaries before we invaded, you've given your opinion, which doesn't seem to be rooted in logic, since Iraq's so-called "adversaries" are inside of Iraq at the moment, fighting to kick us out.

The issue is not whether Saddam was an ally or adversary, any more than whether Russia was an ally or adversary during WWII. Whether it is Russia or Saddam, they both clearly turned out to be adversaries rather than allies, so I would conclude, our motives for once working together were not the same. That was the point Arnold tried to make, and failed. You have also made that argument to explain why Saddam's regime had met with alQaeda... Remember? All the US/Soviet talks throughout the 70's... didn't mean we were allied with them? So, it's fairly common sense, adversaries will often work together on a common objective, or a mutually beneficial objective, regardless of individual motivations being the same. The motivations do not have to be the same, and in most cases, the motives are quite different.
 
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." ...

No, I stated that the organisations have OPPOSING motivations. Two groups don't have the same motivation to work together, but if those motivations oppose it isn't possible. Islamic extremism working with the Iraqi regime would be like the British Government working with the Italian government during WWII, rather than the British government working with the Russians.....

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.

Again, there is no such organisation called AQ any more. There is just the idea of jihad in the defence of the Umma.

Islamic extremists may have declared that they want the west out of the ME, it is a motivational tool for recruitment etc. But their true intentions, in particular those groups associated with OBL, is to draw the west into attacking the ME. That is the only way Salifism can take hold in the minds of the Umma, by presenting them with a common, uniting enemy. They have tried and failed with every other effort, from assassinations to bombings in their own country.

If Islamic extremists want the west out of the ME, why would they provoke the West with actions such as 9/11, when it is obvious that a military response would follow?
 
Dixie said:
We didn't share a common motivation, did we? That's what I thought!
Click to expand...

Yes, we did. We shared the common motivation of preventing the Iranians expanding their revolution into the Arabian oil fields.

Saddam wasn't our enemy then, he was our great hope in the ME for secularism.

Comparing the relationship between SH and the US in the 80's doesn't correspond to the non-relationship between IE and SH. Stating that they both disliked the US isn't sufficient. Both the Allies and the Nazis disliked the Communists but that didn't mean that the Allies and the Nazis fought together....
 
What you pinheads need to try and grasp is, Saddam was not an idiot, and he wasn't a stupid man. He didn't leave behind a paper trail to "prove" our case with. He was very careful to always cover his tracks,

LOL! Imagine this in court!

Prosecution: Your honour, this man murdered his wife!
Judge: Do you have evidence to support this?
Pro: No, your honour, he must have destroyed all the evidence!
 
Dixie said:
YOU were the one who claimed that he was our adversary during that time...

No, I didn't claim this.
Click to expand...

oh...yes you did:

"Again, you are telling me what the individual motivations were... The US wanted Iraqi oil, and Iraq wanted US weapon technology and cash. That is illustrating how two adversaries will work together for a shared objective, although they have completely different motivations."
 
and you also claimed that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an arab... what a moron.

you're an idiot poorly masquerading as a middle eastern policy wonk... and when you get your ass handed to you you resort to slander...

pretty predictable, really... pretty pathetic.
 
Dixie said:
Then surely you can provide evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda had developed an alliance.

Why would I need to show this to argue they worked together on a common objective with different motives? The US certainly never formed an "alliance" with the Russians, when they cordoned off Germany and built the Iron Curtain. Saddam and alQaeda didn't need to have the same motives, or be "in alliance" with one another, to be cooperating with each other in a mutual objective. Certainly, the Saddam regime was not stupid enough to leave behind records of their associations, and if you are expecting me to produce that, I'm sorry, I doubt that can ever be produced, since the documentation never existed, and the dealings were done in secret.
Click to expand...

"Certainly, the Saddam regime was not stupid enough to leave behind records of their associations, and if you are expecting me to produce that, I'm sorry, I doubt that can ever be produced, since the documentation never existed, and the dealings were done in secret."

Translation: You've got no evidence that saddam and al qaeda were allied. All you got is your "gut feeling" and assumptions.


That's a strong case you're making there, dixie.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Translation: You've got no evidence that saddam and al qaeda were allied. All you got is your "gut feeling" and assumptions.


That's a strong case you're making there, dixie.
Click to expand...

exactly cypress! He says:

"I doubt that can ever be produced, since the documentation never existed, and the dealings were done in secret."

which begs the question: how the fuck does HE know about it if it was done in secret?????

LOL
 
You guys give me so much to respond to in such a short time... where to start?

Translation: You've got no evidence that saddam and al qaeda were allied. All you got is your "gut feeling" and assumptions.

I never stated that alQaeda and Saddam were allied. For any two parties to associate with each other, being an ally is not required. This is the lame and irrational argument you pinheads continue to try and make, and no one has ever said that Saddam was "allied" with alQaeda, only that his regime did lend support to them.

Again, there is no such organisation called AQ any more.

Really? I didn't know this! When did they disband?

Yes, we did. We shared the common motivation of preventing the Iranians expanding their revolution into the Arabian oil fields.

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.

Saddam wasn't our enemy then, he was our great hope in the ME for secularism.

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.

Islamic extremism working with the Iraqi regime would be like the British Government working with the Italian government during WWII

No, it's completely different. First, the Italian government was not a global terror organization. Secondly, they were in a war against the allied forces, alQaeda never declared war on Iraq.

No, I stated that the organisations have OPPOSING motivations. Two groups don't have the same motivation to work together, but if those motivations oppose it isn't possible.

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.

Stating that they both disliked the US isn't sufficient. Both the Allies and the Nazis disliked the Communists but that didn't mean that the Allies and the Nazis fought together....

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.

LOL! Imagine this in court!

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

which begs the question: how the fuck does HE know about it if it was done in secret?????

Because it is very common for international terror organizations and deceptive despot dictators to do things in secret. If Saddam made any deals with alQaeda, I doubt seriously they put it in written documentation form, for their enemies to uncover and expose. You seem to want to require this to be produced to prove it, and all it would prove is how utterly stupid alQaeda and Saddam were, which I don't believe is the case at all.

Dixie, are you aware that, in 1990, OBL offered Prince Faisal, head of Saudi intelligence, the use of his mujahadeen to overthrow Saddam when he invaded Kuwait?

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.
 
"If Saddam made any deals with alQaeda, I doubt seriously they put it in written documentation form, for their enemies to uncover and expose."

One could say exactly the same thing about Saddam and aliens from another galaxy. I am sure you are right...IF Saddam had promised to give weapons of mass destruction to an organization whose very raison d'etre was the destruction of Iraq's secular government, he certainly wouldn't keep any records of it. the POINT being, that the premise is profoundly flawed in the first place. IF pigs had wings, they could fly...IF my cat were best friends with my goldfish, he wouldn't EAT the fish given the chance..... IF IF IF.... there is no way in hell Saddam Hussein was ever going to help out an organization that was hellbent on his destruction, even if that organization hated America as much as he did.

And when are you gonna admit that you did claim that we were adversaries when we were not? and when are you gonna admit that you are dumb as a box of rocks and don't know the difference between a persian and an arab?
 
no one has ever said that Saddam was "allied" with alQaeda...

Yes, your lying, inept president did during the mission accomplished speech:

-George Bush: In the battle of Iraq, we an our coalition allies have prevailed...The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda..."

"only that his regime did lend support to them."

Lie all you want. Virtually ALL Top republicans on the Senate Intelligence committee, and the american intelligence community concluded in September 2006, that Saddam offered them NO assitance, training, or safe harbor.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

There was not a major ideological rift between Osama and the Saudi Royal family, by the way, until well after this incident. OBL and Saddam making a deal in the years prior to 9/11 would be as improbable as OBL making a deal with the royal family AFTER he had been declared persona non grata by them in '91.
 
...concluded in September 2006, that Saddam offered them NO assitance, training, or safe harbor.

Again, they did not conclude this as a definitive fact. They concluded they didn't have enough evidence to prove this, that's all they concluded. Had they made such a conclusion, there would be some evidence provided to prove that Saddam's regime and alQaeda never met, and that is not the case.

There was not a major ideological rift between Osama and the Saudi Royal family...

You can't be serious, can you? Are you claiming the Saudi Royal Family are ideologically aligned with alQaeda? Are you saying radical Islamic Fundamentalists are accepting of the Royal Kingdom? This is news to me!

there is no way in hell Saddam Hussein was ever going to help out an organization that was hellbent on his destruction, even if that organization hated America as much as he did.

I disagree. The Russians were pretty hell bent on our destruction, and they assisted us in ousting Hitler and Mussolini from Europe. Osama hated the Russian aggression into Afghanistan as much as we did, and despite our differing motives and contradictory ideology, we assisted him in kicking them out, because we shared a mutual objective. This appears to be the flaw in your overall thinking, that two entities need have a mutual motive to work together on a mutual objective, that just isn't hardly ever the case.

I've read through all of alQaeda's assorted Fatwa's and Edicts, and I don't find a word about overthrowing Iraq, as far as alQaeda's long or short term objectives. I see plenty of resentment for the west, and a mutual desire of Saddam's, to see the western influence eliminated from the region. The Saddam regime and alQaeda certainly didn't see eye-to-eye on things, but they were far from being "bitter rival enemies" as you suggest, and even if they were, "bitter rival enemies" often assist each other in mutual objectives, often having completely different motives.
 
Last edited:
...he certainly wouldn't keep any records of it.

Thank you for finally acknowledging this point. Of course there would be no records of it, this would be patently stupid on both parties part, and it's ridiculous to be clamoring for someone to produce such documents to prove a case. There was no "credible evidence" found, because none ever existed! This doesn't mean anything more than, Saddam and alQaeda weren't idiots who kept evidence laying around to be hung with! ...too bad it didn't totally work out for Saddam!
 
There was not a major ideological rift between Osama and the Saudi Royal family...

You can't be serious, can you? Are you claiming the Saudi Royal Family are ideologically aligned with alQaeda? Are you saying radical Islamic Fundamentalists are accepting of the Royal Kingdom? This is news to me!

are you capable of quoting someone without taking their words out of context? I SAID there was no rift at the time that OBL offered his assistance to the Saudi Royal family in killing Saddam. That is a fact. It is also a fact that wahabbism got its start in Saudi Arabia and that up until recently the Muslim Brotherhood and many other offshoots of wahabbism and qutbism and salafism were routinely granted sanctuary in saudi Arabia by the royal family. Al Qaeda itself is a relatively recent development only dating back to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.... and AQ was funded bigtime by not only Washington, but Saudi Arabia throughout that conflict.... there was NO ideological rift between the Saudi Royal family at all at that time. You are out of your league here Dixie.... you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

It is also a fact that the president of Iran is a persian and not an arab as you have claimed and not had the simple honesty to admit that you were wrong about. You are dishonest and moronic and bloating with self-importance.... a terribly unattractive combination

there is no way in hell Saddam Hussein was ever going to help out an organization that was hellbent on his destruction, even if that organization hated America as much as he did.

I disagree. The Russians were pretty hell bent on our destruction, and they assisted us in ousting Hitler and Mussolini from Europe. Osama hated the Russian aggression into Afghanistan as much as we did, and despite our differing motives and contradictory ideology, we assisted him in kicking them out, because we shared a mutual objective. This appears to be the flaw in your overall thinking, that two entities need have a mutual motive to work together on a mutual objective, that just isn't hardly ever the case.

Your disagreement is based upon idiocy, however. Russia was hardly hellbent on our destruction prior to WW2.... I don't think you will find anything in the writings of Lenin or Stalin or ANY russian soviet theorist prior to 1945 that indicated that the soviet union was "hellbent on our destruction". We assisted OBL in Afghanistan long before he publicly embraced wahabbism and long before he declared war on us. 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.

I've read through all of alQaeda's assorted Fatwa's and Edicts, and I don't find a word about overthrowing Iraq, as far as alQaeda's long or short term objectives. I see plenty of resentment for the west, and a mutual desire of Saddam's, to see the western influence eliminated from the region. The Saddam regime and alQaeda certainly didn't see eye-to-eye on things, but they were far from being "bitter rival enemies" as you suggest, and even if they were, "bitter rival enemies" often assist each other in mutual objectives, often having completely different motives.

Al Qaeda is an organization of wahabbists. Read up on the modern resurgence of wahabbism... read the writings of Qutb.... I have.... read the writings of Al Banna....I have.... and then tell me that Saddam and AQ weren't bitter enemies. And bitter enemies NEVER provide assistance to one another that could be used against them. It would be like America giving the soviet union a poseiden missile sub at the height of the cold war.

And really...someone who thinks that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an ARAB really ought not to attempt to pass himself off as a middle eastern expert. moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top