Fact: Saddam hated Al Queda and never let them in the country.
What does your questionable fact have to do with my claim? Saddam hated everyone in Araby. He even hated his own sons. So making some superfluous assertion that he hated Al Qaeda says nothing to what was occurring in Iraq before the invasion.
Fact: Saddam ruled with an iron fist, no way was Iraq going to degenerate into an Afghanistan and develop Taliban-like forces while he remained in power.
That's no fact. It's your revision of history into the story you need to believe. Before the invasion Saddam's regime was already teetering under the devastation he had wrought on his own people, his reign of terror, and from rivalry from his own sons whom he knew were gunning for him.
It was Saddam who kept the currently warring factions from killing each other,
That's no fact. Another revision, Monday morning quarterbacking. The factions didn't exist as a political force until after Saddam's disposal. You have invented this conception based on an inference after the fact and then impressed it on the circumstances.
much like Milosevic did. And just like when Milosevic got tossed out, the warring factions resumed their wars and started killing each other again.
What do you mean by "again"? Beyond the norm of Arabic infighting that had been solidly in place since 1917 the environment for such action had been totally suppressed by Saddam going back 30 years.
Iraq is more likely to degenerate into an Afghanistan now, than it ever was when Saddam was in power.
You have so much confidence in people. You believe some people are intrinsically no good and can't understand freedom. At least you're admitting that there was a degeneracy problem. But you might be right. The 'crats could conceivably snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Fact: The world had Saddam under a microscope. UN inspections had occurred for years. Saddam wasn't going to obtain WMDs and actually use them without us finding out about it.
You conveniently forget that every time the inspectors got close, Saddam stopped them. That's why the UN quit in protest. They weren't allowed to do the job assigned.
And he knew that if we discovered he did obtain WMDs and use them, we'd nuke him into the Stone Age.
You're quite wrong about that. Don't know the structure of the peace that evolved during the years of the Cold War, do you. Such an attitude does follow the 'crat political philosophy of drawing a line the crossing of which 'crats say they will do this or that and then they do nothing. Next, when the line is crossed again, 'crats draw another line. This approach emboldens enemies. Neither the US nor any other state agreeing to the terms of nuclear non-proliferation will act that way. They're pledged not to use nuclear weapons until all conventional warfare is exhausted first. The reason for this is to avoid the devastation a nation brings upon itself in unexpected ways by flippant use of WMD where the intended use would be to destroy another..
He wasn't a martyr with a death wish, which is why he never actually obtained any WMDs.
That claim makes no sense. In fact, it's non sequitur, but outside that mere logical mistake, there's the mistake of associating a state of my mind obtained by outside observation with motivation invisible to the outside observer.
Fact: Afghanistan was where bin Laden was hiding, and where the 9/11 terrorists trained. Iraq had nothing to do with it. While Bush dicked around in Iraq, the Taliban has had a resurgence, and are stronger than ever.
The US didn't invade Iraq for purposes necessarily associated with the existing disposition of world terror, but in anticipation of what would become of Iraq if it was allowed to degenerate into an Afghanistan. Afghanistan doesn't have the developed oil production infrastruture needed to fund a war of terror. Iraq did.
Fact: Saddam was a bad guy, but so are lots of other dictators around the world. We cannot clean up all of them.
Who else can? You do see that you are assuming that one of these Khan Numian Singhs will bring about nuclear confrontation and devastation. In light of the surety of your assumption,you should be front and center supporting anything including invading Iraq or any other belligerent nation so disposed in order to preclude the thing you assume. The US has to clean them up almost at any cost including the loss of substantial American military lives.
And the fact is, Saddam kept a lid on the disparate factions in his country, while keeping Al Queda out.
Back to that? Running out of arguments so soon? You haven't even gotten to high school level of counter argument.
Fact: Al Queda is never going to "win."
How do you know that? If Al Qaeda got a nuke and placed it in NYC, I'd be willing to bet that 99% of 'crats would hand over their wives, or do whatever was necessary to comply including gutting the constitution and denying citizenship. They'd be wiling to convert to Islam to save their union jobs. As lonmg as the US retains its military might and its pose as given under repun adminjs, you will be right. With 'crats? Your ass is grass.
They are capable of creating havoc and killing people, but they are never going to be in power in this country to the point where they are going to run things and execute people, even if Gore or Kerry had been elected.
The benign assumption. No one kill you because you're such a good guy. How do you know? I am so assured by your begging. I hate to invoke Hitler, but he signed a non aggression pact with USSR and then immediately broke it and attacked USSR and killed 30 million Russians. As for Gore or Kerry they would have had to engage actions leading to the death of 100,000 Americans because they would have waited for the UN or made excuses to satisfy weaklings instead of acting unilaterally, and doing so would have been necessary. You don't understand the gravity of the situation. Israel, Turkey Saudi Arabia Georgia, and soon, Iran, all have nuclear weapons. Saddam knew that but wasn't concerned because he was apprised of the condition obeyed by all nuclear powers for extreme restraint. He knew he could drop SCUDs on Israel and Saudi Arabia because there's no way that that provides sufficient cause for those nations to use nuclear weapons in reprisal. That wouldn't be the case if any of these nation's nuclear capabilities fell into the hands of terrorists. This is the true threat in Iran, not from Iranese leaders but from an overthrow of Iran from operators like Al Qaeda. Thus, it's in the interest of the US and the ROW to exercise restraint and make sure nuclear capabilities is maintained in responsible hands. The US will go to any length to guarantee this doctrine.
How could you even say that with straight face? You have gone off the deep end if you believe it.
How could you be so naive to think otherwise? They already told you what they're willing to do in the 911 debacle and in all the events that the Clinton admin chose to ignore.
Uh, when has a small number of terrorists without a country been able to overthrow, conquer, and rule the world's most powerful country?
Bolshevik revolution of 1917, Hitler's rise to power from a nothing to dictator, overthrow of Julius Caesar. English history is rife with such takeovers from small groups. Then there's the histories of South American countries, even the Drug Wars. Colombia may yet go under. How about Castro in Cuba?
Please point out that historic event, I must have missed it.
There's a profound difference between reading history in a book and living it. You lived it but you still don't get it.
And in your answer, assuming you have one,
I haven't yet begun to write.
please point out the numbers of the historic invaders, and compare them to the number of Al Queda you think currently exist and the 300 million Americans who have the right to bear arms.
That's irrelevant. You're whole argument is 19th century. Nowadays, one guy can push a button and destroy NYC. No shots would be required, and all the guns in the US would be superfluous. The US must take any and all steps to stop the acquisition of nuclear weapons. If Turkey looks like it's going under to Al Qaeda, US with or without the ROW must invade. I hope you're getting the purpose behind a free Islamic Iraq. They're key to thwarting nuclear war in the ME. |
