What If We Actually Win In Iraq?

[Paddy]

You talk about al-queda like it's a huge, highly organized, technologically advanced, formidable enemy.

It's not.  It's a bunch of unsophisticated brainwashed third world dirtbags with a lot of money behind them looking for an opportunity to kill/maim/terrorize.  9/11 happened because of our weaknesses, not their strengths.  It was not necessary to send our military into Afghanistan & Iraq.  The bombing raids on both would have accomplished as much. 9/11 was a wake up call for us to guard our flanks, beef up our defenses (ie border security, and immigration policy) and keep our ears and eyes open.  That's all.

If they're not here, they can't hurt us, on the CONUS, anyway, which, we are told is what it's about, right?

[The Rabbi]

Removing their training grounds (Afghanistan & Iraq)

Remarkably dishonest to conflate the two.

Which is to say that's often the only way we often see justification for the debacle in Iraq - when it involves assigning credit for victories in Afghanistan to our Middle East adventurism (which, of course, stalled progress in Pakistan and Afghanistan...).

Nothing dishonest about it.
Both countries aided and abetted terrorists.  Saddam had a 30 year history of supporting terrorists.  When the US reached Baghdad they picked up the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking.  He was there for his health.

[Perd Hapley]

You talk about al-queda like it's a huge, highly organized, technologically advanced, formidable enemy.  It's not.  It's a bunch of unsophisticated brainwashed third world dirtbags with a lot of money behind them looking for an opportunity to kill/maim/terrorize. 

Where do you get your information on Al-Qaeda? 

[wooderson]

Nothing dishonest about it.

Of course there is. Afghanistan and Iraq are two separate theaters - in 2003, were two different wars. The victories in one are not victories in the other.

Speaking of dishonesty...

Both countries aided and abetted terrorists.  Saddam had a 30 year history of supporting terrorists.

Ah, right, he 'supported terrorists.' We, the people, are supposed to then infer that he was 'supporting terrorists' who posed a threat to America, and perhaps even the 9/11 hijackers... but wait - he wasn't.

Numerous nation-states - including the US and Britain - have a recent history of "aiding and abetting" terrorists against their enemies (aiding and abetting Saddam as well...), not to mention dictators and assorted low-life thugs around the globe. That's what happens when your guiding policy is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The argument you can't make except through insinuation (because it's untrue) is that Saddam's "support" posed a realistic threat to American security. I mean, your trump card here is...

When the US reached Baghdad they picked up the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking.  He was there for his health.

The hijacker - from an era when Saddam was functionally our ally against Iran - of an Italian cruise ship, leader of a functionally irrelevant Palestinian sect (who had apologized for the hijacking).

[Paddy]

Where do you get your information on Al-Qaeda?

Probably the same place you get yours.  We just interpret it differently.  Some of us have had it with the multicolored fearmongering.

[Perd Hapley]

The charge of fear-mongering is as ludicrous as it is ubiquitous.   

Anyhow, I wonder why your information on Al-Qaeda doesn't include one of its most prominent figures, a physician named Al-Zawahiri.  And I wonder why you don't also recall the medical students in the UK, recently picked up on terrorism charges. 

[The Rabbi]

Nothing dishonest about it.

Of course there is. Afghanistan and Iraq are two separate theaters - in 2003, were two different wars. The victories in one are not victories in the other.

And both were part of the same WOT.  So what's your point?

Speaking of dishonesty...

Both countries aided and abetted terrorists.  Saddam had a 30 year history of supporting terrorists.

Ah, right, he 'supported terrorists.' We, the people, are supposed to then infer that he was 'supporting terrorists' who posed a threat to America, and perhaps even the 9/11 hijackers... but wait - he wasn't.

Nice straw man argument there.  No one claimed Saddam aided the 9/11 hijackers (although he did meet with al Qaeda in Prague, as the Czech secret service still insists).  But many do claim, rightly so, that Saddam aided and abetted a lot of terrorists.

Numerous nation-states - including the US and Britain - have a recent history of "aiding and abetting" terrorists against their enemies (aiding and abetting Saddam as well...), not to mention dictators and assorted low-life thugs around the globe. That's what happens when your guiding policy is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

ANd that's relevant how exactly?

The argument you can't make except through insinuation (because it's untrue) is that Saddam's "support" posed a realistic threat to American security. I mean, your trump card here is...

When the US reached Baghdad they picked up the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking.  He was there for his health.

The hijacker - from an era when Saddam was functionally our ally against Iran - of an Italian cruise ship, leader of a functionally irrelevant Palestinian sect (who had apologized for the hijacking).

No, my argument is that Saddam was in material breach of numerous UN resolutions, that he had a program for WMD (which has been established numerous times), that he had a demonstrated tendency to aid and abet terror as well as invade neighbors and destabilize the region.  And for all those reasons he became a prime candidate in the post 9/11 world for removal.
And a terrorist is a terrorist, no matter how many times he apologizes.

[MechAg94]

You talk about al-queda like it's a huge, highly organized, technologically advanced, formidable enemy.

It's not.  It's a bunch of unsophisticated brainwashed third world dirtbags with a lot of money behind them looking for an opportunity to kill/maim/terrorize.  9/11 happened because of our weaknesses, not their strengths.  It was not necessary to send our military into Afghanistan & Iraq.  The bombing raids on both would have accomplished as much. 9/11 was a wake up call for us to guard our flanks, beef up our defenses (ie border security, and immigration policy) and keep our ears and eyes open.  That's all.

If they're not here, they can't hurt us, on the CONUS, anyway, which, we are told is what it's about, right?

The attack on the USS Cole and our Embassies were not in the CONUS.  I guess you don't mind attacks in Hawai? 

If you think the leadership of al-queda is that unsophisticated, you must not be paying attention.  The actually suicide bombers may be stupid, but the people organizing them and setting it up are not.  You need to pay more attention to what you are saying.

[jeepmor]

History being an indicator of the future.  The guerillas always win.  

They did in Vietnam against the US.
They did in Afghanistan against the Russians.
and they're winning in Iraq against the US yet again.

When you cannot sway the hearts and minds of the people your fighting, they won't give up. When they won't give up, you won't win.

Their resolve is not politically driven in the same context as our is.

War is not a political football game, I disagree, it always has been.  And this one is a good example of the blatant profiteering the art of war really is for our current administration.

[wooderson]

And both were part of the same WOT.  So what's your point?

So you can't credit the Normandy invasion for ensuring that the Japanese fleet didn't attack Pearl Harbor again. Duh.

But many do claim, rightly so, that Saddam aided and abetted a lot of terrorists.

And, as stated, you carefully avoid stating that the terrorists in question weren't actually those involved in attacks on American soil. You keep forgetting to add that qualifier.

One might wonder why...

ANd that's relevant how exactly?

Because your argument is that Saddam "supported terrorists" - not that he "supported terrorists who posed a threat to America" or that he and his military posed a threat - and everyone 'supports terrorism.'

Your house of cards has no foundation.

No, my argument is that Saddam was in material breach of numerous UN resolutions, that he had a program for WMD (which has been established numerous times),

I don't see anything their about the safety of Americans, or posing a threat to the US or planning a terrorist attack on Americans or...

Anyway, the statement I've been responding to this entire time was that if we had not toppled Saddam, we most certainly would have had another attack on American soil, 'because he was a gosh-darned terrorist suporter' and blah blah blah. If you don't agree with that argument, then you didn't really need to respond to me.

invade neighbors and destabilize the region.

Haha, we had to destabilize the region because Saddam (twice - once thirty years ago with our support and once twenty years ago without) attempted to 'destabilize the region'! You're a laugh riot.

[Tallpine]

Be careful, or else this thread will turn into another argument about the Iraq war 

[Bogie]

Okay... Here's how it works...
 
You own Bubba's Auto Sales. You're the best, most reputable, car dealer in your metro area.
 
Joe el-Badgui owns Camel Auto Sales. Most of 'em run.

Joe wants your customer base. He wants your house. He wants your wife. He wants your daughters. And since he's a member of the Church of Not Liking Other People, he also wants you dead.

But he knows that if he does anything, the sheriff's gonna get his SWAT team together, and visit him at 3:00 ayem, with herd of crotch-eatin' attack poodles.

Joe doesn't want that.
 
So, he goes over to the bad side of town, and talks to a few trailer trash... He's gonna give 'em a brand new used pick'em'up truck if they do bad things to your car lot. He doesn't want to know what. He doesn't want to know how. He just wants to make your life a living hell. Your customers get carjacked. Your lots are egged. BB-gun damage is found all over the lot every Monday morning... Your service bays catch fire.
 
That's what state sponsored terrorism is.
 

[wooderson]

More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam played a role in attacks on American soil, or had the desire and capability to do so in 2003.

[The Rabbi]

More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam played a role in attacks on American soil, or had the desire and capability to do so in 2003.

He certainly had the desire to do so.  He planned to assassinate an ex president.  As to capability, he certainly had the capability to fund terrorism and was known to do so.  He had the capability to allow terrorists to train in his country.  And was known to do so.
It's called war by other means.
No, he was not threatening to launch an all out invasion of the US mainland, so by your reading he wasn't a threat, I guess.
Your arguments are nonsensical, tiresome, self-contradictory.

[The Rabbi]

History being an indicator of the future.  The guerillas always win. 

They did in Vietnam against the US.
They did in Afghanistan against the Russians.
and they're winning in Iraq against the US yet again.

Yes, just like they won in the Philippines. 
Or just like they won in Malaysia.
Or in various south American countries.

Oops, no. The guerrilas lost in every one of those conflicts.
Yet another argument blown away in the clear light of facts.
Next.

[Perd Hapley]

More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam played a role in attacks on American soil,

And none is required.  None was implied. 

[wooderson]

And none is required.  None was implied.

So we can agree that Saddam was not involved in executing successful terrorist attacks on American soil, nor did he have the capability to do so in 2003?

Excellent.

[wooderson]

He certainly had the desire to do so.  He planned to assassinate an ex president.

I have "the desire" for a three-way with Heidi Klum and Mary-Louise Parker. In that we don't want to endlessly play with words, let's assume that 'desire' here denotes a realistic capability.

As to capability, he certainly had the capability to fund terrorism and was known to do so.

You left out the qualifier again: "was known to do so, as long as you're not talking about, like, attacks against the US."

No, he was not threatening to launch an all out invasion of the US mainland, so by your reading he wasn't a threat, I guess.

He wasn't threatening anything in, near or around the US mainland.

Yes, just like they won in the Philippines. 
Or just like they won in Malaysia.
Or in various south American countries.

The first required a genocide.
The second was essentially a stalemate over 40 years - and weren't, of course, facing a foreign invader.
Not sure what "various south American countries" refers to - guerillas have generally been rather successful overthrowing governments in the region.

[Perd Hapley]

More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam played a role in attacks on American soil,

And none is required.  None was implied.

So we can agree that Saddam was not involved in executing successful terrorist attacks on American soil, nor did he have the capability to do so in 2003? 

That's not what I said.  I said nothing about whether he had the capability to attack America.*  Look at the statement which I quoted.  I don't recall the administration, or Rabbi, claiming that Saddam had played a role in attacks on American soil.  Rabbi explicitly denied such.  Even if Bush had so claimed, that was never THE basis for the Iraq war.  Bush emphasized other valid reasons, which Rabbi has been kind enough to list.  Of course, you will now claim that Bush moved from one reason to the next, as each was proved false.  This is not true, but that won't stop you. 


*  Of course it would seem quite foolish to suppose that he couldn't.  If al-Qaeda did, why couldn't the Iraqi Baathists?  Or why couldn't they collaborate with others to do the same? 

[stevelyn]

Because it wasn't done in response to a clear and imminent threat.

Ha!!

Double ha.
If you are only ready to go to war when the enemy has been massed and awaiting orders for attack, then you've already lost.

Iraqi army amassed and awaiting orders to cross the border to attack us......

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA.............................


This is Israel's proxy war that we were dumb enough to get sucked into.
Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle worked behind the scenes manipulating half assed intel and hiring PR firms to turn public opinion against Iraq enough to where the American gullibles would be beating their war drums demanding blood.

It's not a dem or rep issue since there's no different between the two.

Read "A Pretext For War: 9/11, Iraq and the abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" by James Bamford. If you want to skip the dry reading, start on page 250.

[Paddy]

I'm afraid stevelyn has nailed it and all the rest of you are just PR consumers. (suckers).

Sorry. 

[wooderson]

Or why couldn't they collaborate with others to do the same?

"Why couldn't the North Koreans?"
"Why couldn't the Chinese?"
"Why couldn't the Russians?"
"Why couldn't the Italians?"

[Bogie]

Wrong, campusstudentcenterdebatesocietyboy...
 
More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam DID NOT PLAY a role in attacks on American soil, or THAT HE DID NOT HAVE the desire and capability to do so in 2003.
 
Hey, wait... We're pretty sure he DID have the desire and capability... And he sure was pretty free and easy with using weapons of mass destruction on both his own people and his neighbors...
 
So, we can agree that Hussein was in all probability acting in support of the attacks upon US soldiers and civilians, and that his regime did, in fact, pose a clear and present danger to the United States?
 

[Paddy]

You have no factual argument that Saddam DID NOT PLAY a role in attacks on American soil, or THAT HE DID NOT HAVE the desire and capability to do so in 2003.

Bullcrap. George Bush already admitted as much.

[Bogie]

According to the "provable debate society model."

If Hussein was paying someone to screw with us, then he's got what they call plausible deniability.