Apparently Mr. Rumsfeld was ready to hit Iraq a few hours after a plane crashed into his office building, despite not having any evidence (at that time, too) that Iraq had a hand in the attack. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
Ya see, this is the problem I have with people like you. I ask, why would Saddam Hussein attack Europe, and you respond with something out of you ass about Al Queda. Please try to differentiate between the leader of a secular nationstate and religious fanatics...
I just realized that I didn't edit out the Al Queda part, so I guess it wasn't completely out of your ass. However... I still don't understand why you insist on tying Iraq and Al Queda, when 1)there is no proof of collusion, and 2) their individual views/drive are about as diametrically opposed as possible.
I just don't understand why people demand proof? I know the UN was shocked during the Cuban Missile crisis, but come on. I think it is too much instant gradification in the US, the instant coffee, the microwave burritos, Court TV, the scratch and win lottery ticket and the ppv movies on demand we have at our finger tips. Now, I don't follow blindly anything or anyone, but do we expect to be informed at every point in what should be rather secret war plans. Exhibit A: Saddam is a dork
Because there is no logical reason why Saddam Hussein would ally himself with religious zealots... Who wants to know details of the war plan? certainly not me. However, I would like to be keyed in as to exactly why we're entering into the war in the first place. What troubles me most is when people call the war on Iraq a "war on terrorism", when there is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was involved in this.
Because we have the privilege of living in a free democracy, where the people exercising the powers of state do so because we allowed them to. That's the theory, at least. Reality bites, as they say, but the notion that the peoples of a free democracy should compel their elected leaders to provide proof of their contentions to go with the undeniable "He's just a twat, so let's sack him" motive is surely inarguable? We are talking about committing vast human resources to a task that will see an as yet uncertain number of them dead. As in, no longer alive. As in, the full Monty Python.
Right-O. I think people are still harboring illusions of this war being just another desert turkey shoot. Taking out 20 year old Iraqi tanks from a few comfortable miles away. This time Saddam knows he's getting whacked, so he'll be going all out. He will use chemical weapons. And this time we might have to come into Iraq from the mountains (very dangerous) and fight in the cities (suicidal). In urban combat, Army Rangers units (that's the Rangers, not grunts from the reserves and national guard that might be going in there) are told they can expect 50% casualties. 5 dudes with hunting rifles and a good hiding spot can hold back 100 times as many soldiers if they know what they're doing. My buddy in the guard who just came off deployment says his unit has been issued urban fighting equipment (elbow/knee pads, stun grenades, night vison, ect.) as well as the army's manual to urban warfare, which I was able to peruse one evening.... fun stuff....it should be called "the Top 100 ways 2 guys can kill half your unit before being detected". Any brave talk about teaching Iraq a lesson better factor in the possibility of enormous casualties.
Well, I would argue that the actual scope (and thus, danger) of the operation remains uncertain. Hence my ambiguous choice of words on the number s to be killed. The central point is not the number, but the actions and discussions and decisions and democratic processes that any healthy nation must look to undertake together before sending young men to a place where they MIGHT get killed.
so true. i remember watching a special on the history channel regarding the rangers and they followed them through training of urban warfare. i remember at one point one of the commanders saying they hope that they dont have to ever encounter this in a hostile country for real b/c the casualties would be huge just due to the circumstances.
This is absolute ************************. I've read some of your other posts and you seem to be able to construct sound arguments...this is a cop out.
Not really. It may be short on substantiation, but the idea that Saddam Hussein would fund/help/house/whatever a group committed to causing maximum pain and damage to Hussain's most implacable enemy hardly needs vast tracts of substantiation to be valid. What you can argue is that is does not amount to a reason for attacking him because it still leaves proof of collusion outstanding. But you cannot argue that it is not eminently possible, on the basis of precedent and/or common sense.
Not really. You said there was no logical reason why Saddam would ally himself with al Queda. I'm pointing out a possible logical connection. I'm not saying that they have formed an alliance (there's not significant evidence they have), but to say there's no logical reason isn't true. I've previously written in this forum that you can't make a case for attacking Iraq based solely on September 11, and I still believe that.
Images of Tuwaitha Nuclear Center Recent news reports talk about "unexplained construction" at one of Iraq's old nuclear weapons program sites. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020906-iraq2.htm John Pike has posted images of the site here. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha-imagery.htm
Yes ULB and Saddam have diametrically opposed views (secular madman vs. religious zealot madman), but that does not mean they could not form a mutually beneficial alliance. Remember during WWII we fought on the same side as the USSR, and Roosevelt and Stalin had equally divergent views. Also I don't think the leaders of Japan and Germany had too much in common during WWII. It is not uncommon for terrorist groups to act as a front for terrorist sponsoring nations. The recently departed, Abu Nidal was known in the 80s to front for terrorist nations that would sponsor him. Some have even claimed that some other group would commit the attack and just ask Nidal's group to claim responsibility. (It was a British paper that speculated Nidal was killed by Iraqi agents because he refused to train Al Qeada terrorists in Iraq.) The London Sunday Telegraph, in a report published today, said Abu Nidal was murdered by order of Saddam after resisting the dictator's pressure to train Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda fighters who fled to northern Iraq from Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda and Iraq were to work together, Tariq Aziz and Al Zuruhari would not hold a press conference immediately after the meeting. I don't think their are many Western journalist walking around Baghdad, or keeping close tabs on what Al Qaeda people doing. And satellite photos don't pick-up secret meetings inside buildings. So getting rock-solid conclusive proof from such a shadowy world would be very hard. They could benefit each other. Chechen members of Al Qaeda could help smuggle nuclear material from the old USSR stockpile. And Iraq might conclude it is more effective to have a terrorist smuggle a WMD into the heart of a city and use it there, than to stick it on top of a Scud missile only to have tumble uncontrollably out of the sky. A state like Iraq supplying a WMD to a terrorist group is not something that should easliy be dismissed or ignored.
> Yes ULB and Saddam have diametrically opposed > views (secular madman vs. religious zealot > madman), but that does not mean they could not > form a mutually beneficial alliance. I think it is as likely as us forming an alliance with Saddam to fight Bin Laden. > The London Sunday Telegraph, in a report > published today, said Abu Nidal was murdered by > order of Saddam after resisting the dictator's > pressure to train Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda > fighters who fled to northern Iraq from > Afghanistan. This sounds really bogus. Killing Abu Nidal doesn't help change his mind about training others. His acts and al Qaeda ones have very different styles and scales. Saddam wouldn't put any ally in norther Iraq because he does not control the area (he is letting the Kurds control the ground and the US controls the air). Besides, it doesn't look like al Qaeda needs any help with its plans. > Chechen members of Al Qaeda could help > smuggle nuclear material from the old USSR > stockpile. This is as likely as midwestern millitia members stealing nuclear material from our stockpile. And if the Chechen could get an intact weapon, I assure you they wouldn't hand it over in some desire to spread worldwide Islam. They would use it themselves to blackmail Russia into giving them an independent state. > And Iraq might conclude it is more effective to > have a terrorist smuggle a WMD into the heart of > a city and use it there, than to stick it on top of > a Scud missile only to have tumble uncontrollably > out of the sky. And why exactly would Iraq want to use gas or a nuclear weapon in an American city anyway? They are a sovereign nation - the only thing it would earn them is a nuclear response.