But so what.......the bigger issue is why did it work assuming that it did work?
Once again, this discussion centered upon your statement that Saddam didn't support terrorism. The very public payouts Saddam made, prove otherwise. So, quit trying to say Saddam didn't support terrorism, and say Saddam didn't support Al Qaeda.
He barely supported terrorism...in fact, there are Saudi princes who have paid more bonuses to suicide bomber families than Saddam. And as for al Qaeda, you have not proven any link so get over yourself.
Its not another problem.....its the heart of the problem
That is not what we were discussing. We were just discussing whether Saddam supported terrorism, period. Secondly, Saddam can't make that offer anymore, so that offer isn't a problem anymore.
First of all, you and I were not discussing the subject; it was Ten and I and you interjected. Secondly, the heart of the problem is always the heart of the problem no matter what the discussion is all about.
A losing gambit? Just like the Taliban's tactics were a losing proposition against Russia; like the Viet Cong attacks were a losing gambit against the US? Its these "losing gambits" that tend to bring goliaths to their knees.
The Taliban probably never wuld have ousted the Russians, if Carter hadn't ordered the CIA to help them with tactics and supplied weapons, especially Stinger missiles.
That's impossible.......the Taliban didn't come into power until the early 90s, maybe the late 80s.
There isn't a CIA like operation in existence, which could offer that much help today. Secondly, most of the warlords, banded together, not just the Taliban, to defeat Russia' Today, most of those same warlords, joined the Karzai lead effort, and passed a new constitution, in a loya jirga.
Really, you think? Then why isn't Karzai safe outside of Kabul? In fact, why isn't he safe in Kabul?
As for Vietnam, that was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
And I contend that Iraq is the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. You can bookmark this post.
More importantly, not only were the battle field conditions worse, and the battlefield tactics terrible, there also was a strong Russia, and China, providing weapons, just as the CIA did in Afghanistan etc etc etc.
There are always variables that distinguish one war from the next. Rarely, does a variable make one war better than the other. They are all hell.
And btw, this war has just started. Wait til the Kurds and the Shiites start fighting with each other.
Excuse me, Russia left Afghanistan with its tail between its legs and the war in Iraq isn't over yet. And FYI, its not going well for the US!
Of course you want to tell everyone, Iraq isn't going well right now. Undermining administration efforts has been your main priority forever.
Dang! Was that easy to come up with or what?
But considering the predictions of Garafolous, Clooney, and your other Hollywood pals, the finishing of the 12 yr Iraq war is going just fine. The Shia, and Kurdish elements, which constitute 80% of Iraq's population, want to see a duly elected democratic gov. Probably, even 80% of Iraq's Sunni population also want to see a democratic gov. It is just that 20% of the Sunni population, and the foreign fighters, who seem to be resisting at this point. Which isn't that bad, considering, it is right now, still less than a yr. since the war began.
In six weeks, it will be one year and the country is less under control than it was a year ago.
I have always said we should go after al Qaeda. However, I was not stupid enough to suggest starting a war and then drawing them in.
Which is why you never will be accused of being a military strategy thinker. It is common military tactics to draw the enemy into a trap. Just how else did you intend to round up the terrorists?
If that's the best response you've got for my statement, then we are in big trouble.
That's a mighty big 'might' and we may well spend multiple billions and lose thousands of lives trying to figure out if it will work. For what? So Iraq has a chance at playing democratic. I don't think so!
It already is working to a degree. Several Al Qaeda higher ups have been arrested in Iraq already.
Excuse me.........al Qaeda is not a standing army. Arresting al Qaeda "higher ups" means little.........al Qaeda has numerous cells each with its own leaders. That's why fighting Saddam did squat for......the war against terrorism except drain our treasury.
WASHINGTON -- Critics are blasting Vice President Dick Cheney for his recent interview with the Rocky Mountain News of Denver, in which he said the “best source of information” about alleged connections between Iraq and al Qaeda was a magazine article that the Pentagon already had called “inaccurate” and based on “deplorable” intelligence leaks.
I will let this article do the talking for my rebuttal.
.............................
newsmax.com
Weekly Standard Sticks to Its Guns in Face of DOD Denial
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Monday, Nov. 17, 2003
Defending its blockbuster expose of ties between Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein from a strongly worded Department of Defense statement that "News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate," the Weekly Standard’s Nov. 24 issue provided convincing details of the link.
The DOD Nov. 15 statement noted that a "letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."
Sorry, but I ain't buying it. I don't trust what our gov't says on the subject. |
