The Cost of the War on Terrorism

[giddyup]

Published 6/6/2005 12:09:07 AM


On the Saturday night before Memorial Day, the cost of the war on terrorism were wearing red T-shirts. They were in a small ballroom on the second floor of the Crystal City Doubletree Hotel in Northern Virginia, within sight of the Pentagon.

There were about 250 of them. Children of men and women who had been killed in the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and in training. They were maybe from age five to fifteen. They were handsome. They were pretty. They were cute. They had haunted eyes, some of them, and some of them cried. One family had five kids, and the oldest, a beautiful 15-year-old girl, could not stop crying.

They were being watched over by about thirty mentors, who were good-looking men and women from the Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Army Honor Guard at Arlington National Cemetery. They serve as mentors and guides for the kids as the kids mourn their loss.

The kids had just gotten back from a field trip and were in a giddy, but still haunted mood, as they ate pizza. I spoke to them, hugged them, smeared my tears away as I could. I told them how pretty they were if they were girls and how brave and handsome they looked if they were boys.

A spectacularly cute little red-headed girl named Dawn slithered around me and pretended to be a dog to be patted. Or is it petted?

I told the kids their parents had died to save this country, to give kids in Iraq and Afghanistan the chance to choose their lives and to have the freedoms we take for granted. I told them there were not enough words in the English language to thank them enough for what they had done. For the sacrifice they had made. I told them their fathers and mothers had died doing God's work.

Then I signed autographs, mostly on the kids' T- shirts for about an hour.


I WISH I WERE ELOQUENT enough to tell you how brave these kids were and what a price they are paying. To lose a father while the rest of us complain about taxes and the stock market and the price of real estate. Quite a sight. Quite a concept.

How can we possibly repay them? How conceivably? There is nothing we can do. But be grateful and keep them in our hearts forever.

I walked with my friend Marina Malenic, ace in WMD, to a far larger ballroom, where the widows, mothers and fathers, fiancees, widowers maybe, of the men and women who were killed were gathered.

I sat with the head of the great organization, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, Bonnie Carroll, who conceived of TAPS when her AF general husband was killed in training in Alaska many years ago. Maybe it was 1998. She is a pretty, extremely smart woman, with a heart as big as a Cadillac. We sat also with several women who had lost their husbands. They were all brave, all sharing their experience, strength, and hope with each other. One woman next to me said I did not need to feel sorry for her on the death of her husband in the Mosul bombing. "I got to live with him for 22 years," she said. "I was blessed."

Everyone there wore a button with a photo of the man who had died. The men looked impossibly healthy, fit, optimistic. They could not possibly be dead, and yet they were.

Several wives spoke of their last talks with their husbands, about what it was like when the Chaplain came up the driveway. Some read letters from their husbands talking about how happy they were to be helping the Iraqi children.

Bonnie spoke, perhaps the most moving speech I have ever heard in person, a difficult act to follow. She used to work with Reagan and maybe that explains her amazing ability to get in touch with truth.

Then I spoke and gave a little talk about how we could live without the stock market, could get on without Hollywood or new cars, but could not last a week without our armed forces and the armed forces could not last a week without the military family. "To most," I said, "the war on terrorism is an abstraction. But there is blood all over this room."

They gave me one standing ovation after another and I left the stage dizzy with gratitude. These women -- overwhelmingly women -- are paying a fearful price so the rest of us can get on with our daily selfishness and greed without hindrance.

So that the witches of Beverly Hills and Fifth Avenue can go on with their shopping, these women lost their husbands. Mothers and fathers were there, too. One came up to me, a crusty couple, husband a Marine, and showed me a dollar bill from his late son's wallet when the son was killed in Iraq. The edges were covered in blood.


HOW CAN WE THANK these families? How can we possibly praise enough the sacrifice they and their husbands have made? How can it ever be enough?

Yet, they have something the rest of us rarely have: meaning. They know why God put them on earth, why they live and suffer. They never doubt their worth.

Bonnie drove Marina and me back to The Watergate. I felt as if I had been with the finest people on earth that night, the ones in God's image.

Mostly, I see the dregs of human selfishness. When I am around the military -- the Honor Guard, the families, the kids, the parents, the ones who are the thin line between life and death for freedom, the ones who make our lives worth living, I have hope for the human spirit. The best of the human spirit is alive and well inside those red T-shirts.









http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8261
by Ben Stein

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
Published 6/6/2005 12:09:07 AM


So that the witches of Beverly Hills and Fifth Avenue can go on with their shopping, these women lost their husbands. Mothers and fathers were there, too. One came up to me, a crusty couple, husband a Marine, and showed me a dollar bill from his late son's wallet when the son was killed in Iraq. The edges were covered in blood.


http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8261
by Ben Stein I understand the sentiment here, and I agree that these folks have sacrificed. I'm just sad that in the case of Iraq it had zero to do with whether or not we could still shop. That was never ever a threat from Iraq. It is ashame because of one administration's midguided warlust these people lost their husbands and fathers.

[RocketMan Tex]

http://www.eonline.com/On/Snl/PhotoGallery/Images/snl101.myers.richman.010704.jpg

There is no war on terrorism. There is only a war on fundamentalist Islam that, unfortunately for the US, over half of the world views as a war on all of Islam.

Discuss.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I understand the sentiment here, and I agree that these folks have sacrificed. I'm just sad that in the case of Iraq it had zero to do with whether or not we could still shop. That was never ever a threat from Iraq. It is ashame because of one administration's midguided warlust these people lost their husbands and fathers.
The real irony here is that you find very few people like those in the sory who have really suffered who would share your specific sentment of regret

[glynch]

Sadly, at the picnic you won't find the sons, daughters or relatives of the folks in the White HOuse, who brought us this unnecessary war.

They will never have any relatives killed in the unnecessary war in Afghanistan and Iraq that they put these working class kids' parents into.

Maybe if the chickenhawks in the White HOuse at least attended this type of picnic they would think twice about unnecessary war.

[giddyup]

<b>URGENT MEMO TO GLYNCH:</B> The draft ended in the early 1970s. Check your encyclopedia for details--- even the ones in print. Thank you.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
The real irony here is that you find very few people like those in the sory who have really suffered who would share your specific sentment of regret I don't find that ironic at all. They need to believe that it was for the most noble cause they can. It makes the death that much easier to deal with. Of course it isn't easy no matter what. But many of those that died believed they were fighting for freedom in the U.S. That was the job they signed up for, and believed them. The sad thing is that someone changed the job on them after they started. But because they believed it, it is only natural that their families would believe it. In both cases I think the people need to believe it.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I don't find that ironic at all. They need to believe that it was for the most noble cause they can. It makes the death that much easier to deal with. Of course it isn't easy no matter what. But many of those that died believed they were fighting for freedom in the U.S. That was the job they signed up for, and believed them. The sad thing is that someone changed the job on them after they started. But because they believed it, it is only natural that their families would believe it. In both cases I think the people need to believe it.
Granted..... but the sentiment was there before death, too.

The job of the soldier never changed. Some maybe chose to ignore the risk or pretend the risk didn't exist.

You are exhibiting one of the quintessenial annoying characteristics of Liberalism (and it pains me to say this because you seem like a very nice, earnest guy whom anyone would be lucky to call a friend): in a broad, sweeping way you think you know what is better for someone than that person themself knows.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by giddyup


You are exhibiting one of the quintessenial annoying characteristics of Liberalism (and it pains me to say this because you seem like a very nice, earnest guy whom anyone would be lucky to call a friend): in a broad, sweeping way you think you know what is better for someone than that person themself knows.

Like Medical Marijuana? Or Gay people getting married? Or gay people being foster parents?

Look in the mirror Giddy. "Your side" does the same damn thing.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
Like Medical Marijuana? Or Gay people getting married? Or gay people being foster parents?

Look in the mirror Giddy. "Your side" does the same damn thing.

Well said.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
Granted..... but the sentiment was there before death, too.

The job of the soldier never changed. Some maybe chose to ignore the risk or pretend the risk didn't exist.

You are exhibiting one of the quintessenial annoying characteristics of Liberalism (and it pains me to say this because you seem like a very nice, earnest guy whom anyone would be lucky to call a friend): in a broad, sweeping way you think you know what is better for someone than that person themself knows.

The job did change. They were supposed to defend our nation. When they went into Iraq it wasn't about defense of our nation. The U.S. wasn't in danger from Iraq.

Honestly I don't know much, but I do feel that I know better than anyone who looks at the facts and says that invading Iraq protected the U.S. so that folks could still feel free to shop. The reason I feel I know better than someone who believes otherwise isn't because of my own arrogance, or superior attitude. It is because other military, intel agencies, weapons inspectors, and people who studied the situation also believed that. Then evidence comes to light that GWB fixed intel to say otherwise, CHeney, and Rice are cuaght lying about the war, doesn't bolster their side's arguments.

People like Kaye who were appointed by Bush, and a supporter of the war came to the same conclusion I've reached about the threat posed by Iraq. Those of us on 5th ave, or Rodeo drive in Beverly Hills weren't ever in danger. If I believe that 2+2 = 4. I will feel that I know better than someone who tells me it equals 3.

I allowed for a long time that I might be wrong in the belief that we were in danger, but the reports and facts are finally in, and we weren't. Some may need to believe that we were, and that is up to them. The facts just don't agree.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
Like Medical Marijuana? Or Gay people getting married? Or gay people being foster parents?

Look in the mirror Giddy. "Your side" does the same damn thing.
There are complex problems that have all kind of implications (legal, health, institutional) and then there is just tying to think for somebody because you think that their thinking is faulty.

BTW, I'm all for gay marriage and medical marijuana. I'm not so sure about the foster parenting, though.

Now what side am I on again? :D

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I allowed for a long time that I might be wrong in the belief that we were in danger, but the reports and facts are finally in, and we weren't. Some may need to believe that we were, and that is up to them. The facts just don't agree.
Ever hear of 9/11? We were and we are in danger. It is a question of how ripe the danger is. President Bush chose to take an aggressive plan of action to the rout out the terrorists before they could organize and strike again.

We have had no further attacks on US soil. Are you saying that there has been nothing to fear or to prevent?

Somehow I have a feeling that you and I don't have all the facts.

[wizardball]

We have had no further attacks on US soil. Are you saying that there has been nothing to fear or to prevent?

that's right there is nothing to fear.....al-queida was nothing.....that's the scary part for the U.S...that an organization that small was able to hit the U.S....that is why the war on teorrorism is soo big...so nobody big or small can repeat such an event..

[Sishir Chang]

Very moving story. I oppose the invasion of Iraq but support the troops. They are sent there on the order of civilian leadership so my disagreement is with that leaderhip.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by giddyup
They gave me one standing ovation after another and I left the stage dizzy with gratitude. These women -- overwhelmingly women -- are paying a fearful price so the rest of us can get on with our daily selfishness and greed without hindrance.

So that the witches of Beverly Hills and Fifth Avenue can go on with their shopping,

This part stand out about the story though and makes me suspicious that Ben Stein wrote this.

Remember when the President said it was patriotic for us to keep shopping. Ben Stein is a very intelligent guy and I have a hard time thinking he would make a comment like this when as a conservative supporter of the president he would be aware of this.

Also didn't Ben Stein used to be an economist and particularly a supply sider? I find it hard to believe that Ben Stein would engage in this kind of class warfare rhetoric in this sort of situation.

[Invisible Fan]

Originally posted by giddyup
Granted..... but the sentiment was there before death, too.

The job of the soldier never changed. Some maybe chose to ignore the risk or pretend the risk didn't exist.

You are exhibiting one of the quintessenial annoying characteristics of Liberalism (and it pains me to say this because you seem like a very nice, earnest guy whom anyone would be lucky to call a friend): in a broad, sweeping way you think you know what is better for someone than that person themself knows.

Even if some soldiers don't agree with Bush's policy, they're expected to follow orders and shut their traps about that issue to the public.

So no one really knows how much of that sentiment is prevalent inside the lower levels of the military. For better or worse, they're witnessing Bush's decisions first hand in the battlefield. That's something we won't have a picture of until many decades later.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by giddyup
We have had no further attacks on US soil. Are you saying that there has been nothing to fear or to prevent?


This seems like very specious reasoning. Between 1993 and 2001 there were no foriegn launched terrorists attacks on the US so in 1995 would you have said that the Clinton Admin. had successfully contained Islamic terrorism?

You're right that we don't know all the facts which is why I would argue for caution. Yes, you're right the invasion of Iraq was an aggressive move but one that is being shown to be more and more questionable and one that has costs the lives of many of the people that this thread is about.

While we rightfully should honor these men and women for sacrificing their lives to fulfill their duty but how much does and Admin. respect the value of those lives by sending them out based on questionable intelligence, rumors and paranoia driven speculation.

[wnes]

Just curious to know if anybody or some government agency (IRS for instance) tracks how much, if any, of proceeds from selling those "support our troops" magnet ribbons have actually gone on to supporting the troops.

[SWTsig]

Originally posted by giddyup
Ever hear of 9/11? We were and we are in danger. It is a question of how ripe the danger is. President Bush chose to take an aggressive plan of action to the rout out the terrorists before they could organize and strike again.

We have had no further attacks on US soil. Are you saying that there has been nothing to fear or to prevent?

Somehow I have a feeling that you and I don't have all the facts.

you're smarter than this.

[glynch]

Somehow I have a feeling that you and I don't have all the facts giddyupp

Unshaken faith in Bush and the GOP. The facts about the Iraq War haven't supported this faith, but it remains nevertheless. Always assuming that Bush must have secret info that hasn't come out yet that will justify his actions and therefore the faith entrusted to him was justified. It seems to be a common attribute of the Bush faithful.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
Ever hear of 9/11? We were and we are in danger. It is a question of how ripe the danger is. President Bush chose to take an aggressive plan of action to the rout out the terrorists before they could organize and strike again.

We have had no further attacks on US soil. Are you saying that there has been nothing to fear or to prevent?

Somehow I have a feeling that you and I don't have all the facts. 9/11, yes. I have heard of that, and that is why I made a distinction between those serving in Afghanistan and those serving in Iraq. The service of the troops are equally honorable and to be commended. The mission however is vastly different. One of the two missions(Iraq) has absolutely nothing to do with defending the U.S. We weren't in danger from Iraq.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by glynch
Somehow I have a feeling that you and I don't have all the facts giddyupp

Unshaken faith in Bush and the GOP. The facts about the Iraq War haven't supported this faith, but it remains nevertheless. Always assuming that Bush must have secret info that hasn't come out yet that will justify his actions and therefore the faith entrusted to him was justified. It seems to be a common attribute of the Bush faithful. That was very well put.

[giddyup]

Do you two seriously think that you know everything about everything going on on the other side of the world that the Bush White House knows? :eek:

What are your resources? The internet? :confused:

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by giddyup
Do you two seriously think that you know everything about everything going on on the other side of the world that the Bush White House knows? :eek:

What are your resources? The internet? :confused:

Wait a minute. So because they (FB) can't possibly know everything the Bush White House knows, all their data is moot? And we should consequently just believe everything the Bush Adminstration says?

I sense naivety and patriotism-induced ignorance.

[rhester]

Originally posted by giddyup
Do you two seriously think that you know everything about everything going on on the other side of the world that the Bush White House knows? :eek:

What are your resources? The internet? :confused:

If we knew everything the Bush White House knows we would run the whole government out of office and start over.

[giddyup]

It's not just the Bush White House... it's any White House.

The empowerment brought by the internet has gone to some of your heads.

It is just laughable that some of you think that your level of intel is more than a thimble-full of what any White House has at their disposal and that they tell us everthing they know.

Let's get real.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by giddyup
Let's get real.

Yes lets.

We live under a democracy where the first enumerated right is freedom of speech. While we will never know everything about the government, for instance if there are aliens in Area 51, that doesn't mean we shouldn't blindly trust the government.

A healthy dose of informed skepticism is critical for a functioning democracy otherwise we might as well passively accept tyranny and continue voting in the governing party since no Admin. will willingly and openly present information that puts their policies in a bad light.

[rhadamanthus]

Originally posted by giddyup
Let's get real.

Right.

What's real is the lack of WMD in Iraq and the lies that got us there.

What's real is Osama Bin Laden still running around free while we waste time, money and lives in Iraq.

What's real is the systematic use of propaganda by this administration to justify actions (e.g., Saddam is linked to 9/11)

What's real is the disturbing trend of this adminstration to ignore critics and the civil rights that are the basis of what it means to be American.

What's real is the depressing use of patriotism to quell any undefensible critique of policy and/or action.

What's real is a staggering national debt and a wave of worldwide anti-American sentiment.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
It's not just the Bush White House... it's any White House.

The empowerment brought by the internet has gone to some of your heads.

It is just laughable that some of you think that your level of intel is more than a thimble-full of what any White House has at their disposal and that they tell us everthing they know.

Let's get real. It isn't just any whitehouse. It is most definitely this one in particular. I'm talking about reports from people like David Kaye who was appointed by the Bush Whitehouse. I'm talking about reports from Weapons Inspectors who were on the ground unlike anybody in the Bush Whitehouse.

I'm talking about lies told by the Bush whitehouse. I know you don't like the terms lies, but there is evidence to show that they lied. Cheney, Rice, and others were caught in those lies. Even if one wants to believe that others like Rumsfeld who said that he knew that there were WMD's and exactly where they were, just happened to be mistaken and not actually lying then why aren't they being held accountable for those mistakes?

Giddy, let's pretend we are both coming into this fresh. Neither of us knows whether whitehouse lied or not. We know that a report here or a report their said Saddam was a threat. We know that other reports that claimed that were debunked prior to the invasion. We know that other reports said Saddam wasnt' a threat.

Now, in our pretend world, we will give the administration the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they just believed the wrong set of intel. Then I ask you these questions...

Why were the people who correct about the lack of WMD's prior to the war(Scott Ritter) the people who believed that with more time they can determine with more certainty the current status of Iraq's WMD's(weapons inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq.) People who believed that looting and instability would occur without more troops, that we might not be welcomed by everyone with flowers and open arms, that we should keep a close eye and accountability on the money we spent, and that Iraq wouldn't be able to finance its own reconstruction all replaced and/or in some cases trashed publically in the media by the whitehouse?(One Marine General, The head of the joint chiefs of staff, several other military officials, Richard lugar, Chuck Haegel, Russ Feingold etc.)

With all those mistakes made, why wouldn't an leader with honest intentions who made an honest mistake want to reward those, and listen to those people?

Why would a war supporter and Republican Lawrence Eagleburger say on television that he knew at least five and maybe six people in the whitehouse who didn't want diplomacy to work, and actually wanted to go to war over diplomacy?

Why would minutes from a meeting with the U.S.' one ally who was willing to provide major troop support show that the policy had already been decided and the intel was being fixed around the policy?

Why were those that were wrong but still provided the case for going to war rewarded or at least never held accountable for,, not just any mistake but one that started a war, disrupted families, lives, and cost the lives of soldiers and civlilians? (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, etc.)

Are these the actions of somebody who is well intentioned but just made mistakes and relied on mistaken intel?

I may not know everything that the Bush Whitehouse knows. But I do know their actions, and reports generated by that whitehouse, and the case doesn't back up a guy who really is protecting the U.S. by the action in Iraq but just wasn't to tell us how we were in danger, or someone who thought we were in danger and has since realized that we weren't.

[giddyup]

The vast majority of all the terrorists captured (~47%) have been Saudis followed by, I believe, Syrians (~9%). Very few have been Iraqis.

The Bush White House mistake was not to lead sufficiently. I think they got busted trying to justify this with WMD threats when they just should have gone ahead and said we are going to settle this for once and for all.

We are going after this tinpot tyrant, Saddam, before Al Quada topples him and takes over Iraq. Then we'll see who's next... but this crap is gonna stop.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
The vast majority of all the terrorists captured (~47%) have been Saudis followed by, I believe, Syrians (~9%). Very few have been Iraqis.

The Bush White House mistake was not to lead sufficiently. I think they got busted trying to justify this with WMD threats when they just should have gone ahead and said we are going to settle this for once and for all.

We are going after this tinpot tyrant, Saddam, before Al Quada topples him and takes over Iraq. Then we'll see who's next... but this crap is gonna stop.

So you think that the Bush administration should have gone to war on the off chance tha Al-Qaeda might have taken over Iraq? This is dispite the fact that nobody has shown any credible evidence that would suggest Al-Qaeda was capable of taking over Iraq. Is an imagined scenario by somebody on the other side of the world really the only threshold that you believe needs to be met before starting a war?

[wizardball]

We are going after this tinpot tyrant, Saddam, before Al Quada topples him and takes over Iraq. Then we'll see who's next... but this crap is gonna stop.


thats friggin hilarious...just tells me what you know.....AlQueda was not going to take over iraq...this is a new one....hilarious at that.....iraq is not a religous state..

most the bombers were Saudi..aas you said.....though do you know why???...if you know the answer to this one then you know your sh*t.....then you'll seee the whole 9/11 is a political agenda...never is or never was a religous "jihad".....

[giddyup]

Bush was reported to have said that he was tired of "swatting at flies" with regard to the terrorist problem. He wanted a more complete solution to the problem. This is just my scenario...

I think the US went after Saddam because he was a relatively easy, justifiable target based on the unresolved issues from Gulf War I.

There was no reason for AQ not to want to topple Saddam. They considered him a lesser infidel, I'm sure. The very fact that Iraq is not a religious state is the very opening that they need to go after Iraq.

Were there not already terrorist camps in the Kurdish sections of Iraq which were not under Saddam's control? It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see AQ getting rid of Saddam to control the nation and grow their jihadist effort against the west.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
Bush was reported to have said that he was tired of "swatting at flies" with regard to the terrorist problem. He wanted a more complete solution to the problem. This is just my scenario...

I think the US went after Saddam because he was a relatively easy, justifiable target based on the unresolved issues from Gulf War I.

There was no reason for AQ not to want to topple Saddam. They considered him a lesser infidel, I'm sure. The very fact that Iraq is not a religious state is the very opening that they need to go after Iraq.

Were there not already terrorist camps in the Kurdish sections of Iraq which were not under Saddam's control? It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see AQ getting rid of Saddam to control the nation and grow their jihadist effort against the west. Giddy, if that is your scenario that is fine. There isn't much of a point in arguing it. But it doesn't give GW Bush a plausible explanation for their actions if you want to accept them as honest or at least honest intentioned.

Bush did want a more complete solution to the problem. But again Iraq didn't pose a threat to the United States. Other nations posed more of a threat even from terrorists and would be a much more direct strike at the heart of terrorism if he didn't want to swat at flies.

I do agree that perhaps Saddam was an easy target and wasn't seen as beeing too hard of a task to take out. Those reasons also don't justify starting a war by any standards in the modern world that I am aware of.

And to get back to the original point, none of it leads one to believe that we are fighting in Iraq to protect our nation and its freedoms.

[giddyup]

As has been pointed out before, when the US decided it was time to go after Hitler in 1941 the first place we "targeted" was North Africa. Why not Berlin?

[FranchiseBlade]

As has been pointed out before, when the US decided it was time to go after Hitler in 1941 the first place we "targeted" was North Africa. Why not Berlin?
There is a huge difference. Hitler was actually active and involved in N. Africa.

The case is not so for Iraq, having terrorists cells that were a threat to the U.S.

The analogy doesn't work.

[Major]

The Bush White House mistake was not to lead sufficiently. I think they got busted trying to justify this with WMD threats when they just should have gone ahead and said we are going to settle this for once and for all.

We are going after this tinpot tyrant, Saddam, before Al Quada topples him and takes over Iraq. Then we'll see who's next... but this crap is gonna stop.

...

Bush was reported to have said that he was tired of "swatting at flies" with regard to the terrorist problem. He wanted a more complete solution to the problem. This is just my scenario...


I see at least two problems with this line of thought.

First, there's no evidence that Al Queda wanted or needed Iraq. The nature of a terrorist organization is to be elusive - you don't want a big ol' centralized headquarters in a country that everyone can see. Afghanistan was good because it is not urban and wasn't really "run" by anyone. You can't de-urbanize Iraq. And if you did want a nation under your command, you'd take over a country that already has instability problems. You certainly don't try to go after the one that has the most notorious leader in the region, ruled with an iron fist for 30 years (not to mention a pretty large army).

Second, if that was our thinking, it would have been the dumbest thing to do. Why not LET Al Queda take over Iraq? Let them do the dirty work of ridding us of Saddam? Then, go in and obliterate them. Now, you've killed two birds with one stone. By invading Iraq first, you scatter Al Queda, so now you got Saddam but still have Al Queda running around. Al Queda taking over Iraq (or trying to, at least) would have been the best thing that could have happened to the U.S.

[AggieRocket]

Ever hear of 9/11? We were and we are in danger. It is a question of how ripe the danger is. President Bush chose to take an aggressive plan of action to the rout out the terrorists before they could organize and strike again.

We have had no further attacks on US soil. Are you saying that there has been nothing to fear or to prevent?

Somehow I have a feeling that you and I don't have all the facts.

People say that we haven't had any other attacks on our soil and that we are winning the War on Terror. Militarily, that statement is obviously true. Not a single person on this Earth thought or thinks that Al-Qaeda would defeat us in a conventional war. OBL's one attack, however grave and tragic, was all he was going to do. I don't think his henchman were planning to get us twice on American soil.

However, that being said, the terrorists and Bin Laden have won the psychological war. In my opinion, the psychological war is the only one Bin Laden was looking to win. Look at our lives today as Americans. We are a paranoid country. We are involved in a paranoid war because we want to supposedly eliminate the threat before it becomes a threat. We have colored alerts on a daily basis. Any time we see someone or something remotely suspicious, we sh*t our pants. We are supposedly involved in shady practices in Gitmo. The country that was once the beacon of humanity and the epitome of civility is now turning into the world's largest hypocricy. Never will our lives as Americans be the same. Never will we enjoy America like we did pre- 9/11. Never will we be the same country that we were pre- 9/11. In my book, that's a victory in the psychological war by our enemies.

In my book, the largest defeat for us is our population's indifference to what is happening. We have given our leaders a blank check to do as they please. For those old enough to remember, we gave the same blank check to LBJ during Vietnam, and we all know how that turned out. The only difference is that the population held our government accountable. LBJ screwed up in Vietnam and America let him know it. That is why he didn't run for reelection in 1968. The Democrats would not have nominated him although he was the sitting President. We are headed for Vietnam part II and it is a shame.

Why do I say all of this? Because I as an American feel guilt towards these children that the article mentions. Every one of those kids will face hardship and difficulty because of our government. Every one of those little girls who lost a father will be walked down the aisle by someone else. Every one of those boys would lost a dad will be taught how to throw a curveball by someone other than their father. There is a thread on the BBS Hangout about the greatest challenge one has faced. Each one of those kids would have something to contribute to that thread, and that hurts me. It hurts me as a man and it hurts me as an American. I would not know what to say to those kids if I ever had to face one of them. I could feed them the line that their parent died protecting our homeland, but the statement would be disingeneous. Our government robbed these kids of what is most precious and most important to them. That is a travesty. It's a real shame.

[glynch]

However, that being said, the terrorists and Bin Laden have won the psychological war

This is largely true because of GWB. GWB also wanted to scare the hell out of the American people. He decided for electoral politics reasons and to accomplish his agenda of invading Iraq to blow the whole 9/11 thing up, to try to scare the people of the US to do his bidding. Other countries have had terrorist attacks without permanently traumatizing the whole country, starting a never ending war on terror, trashing a long and glorious history of the rule of law.

[Sishir Chang]

Bush was reported to have said that he was tired of "swatting at flies" with regard to the terrorist problem. He wanted a more complete solution to the problem. This is just my scenario...

I think the US went after Saddam because he was a relatively easy, justifiable target based on the unresolved issues from Gulf War I.

There was no reason for AQ not to want to topple Saddam. They considered him a lesser infidel, I'm sure. The very fact that Iraq is not a religious state is the very opening that they need to go after Iraq.

Were there not already terrorist camps in the Kurdish sections of Iraq which were not under Saddam's control? It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see AQ getting rid of Saddam to control the nation and grow their jihadist effort against the west.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I seem to recall you saying that there was evidence such as those camps saying that was proof that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda. So now you're saying that Saddam wasn't but we had to invade incase Saddam got overthrown?

So are you now aggreeing with the anti-war side that Saddam and Al Qaeda were never cooperating and as many of those of us on the anti war side have been saying were actually opposed to each other?

If this is the case why would we invade Iraq when it would've been far easier to make peace with Saddam and work with him to fight Al Qaeda like we did with Musharraf even though prior to 9/11 he was a pariah in DC? Unresolved issues from the Gulf War 1 seem like a rather weak excuse when we could've made a powerful ally against Islamic terrorism at far less costs in terms of money, lives and diplomatic headaches. :confused:

[Sishir Chang]

Well said AggieRocket!

[giddyup]

There is a huge difference. Hitler was actually active and involved in N. Africa.

The case is not so for Iraq, having terrorists cells that were a threat to the U.S.

The analogy doesn't work.
The analogy does work; you have to calculate for a different kind of war. We are certainly now taking AQ on directly-- old-timers, new recruits, whomever.

My main point is that there is no point in being obsessed with OBL in the way we were not obsessed with killing Hitler.

[giddyup]

The Bush White House mistake was not to lead sufficiently. I think they got busted trying to justify this with WMD threats when they just should have gone ahead and said we are going to settle this for once and for all.

We are going after this tinpot tyrant, Saddam, before Al Quada topples him and takes over Iraq. Then we'll see who's next... but this crap is gonna stop.

...

Bush was reported to have said that he was tired of "swatting at flies" with regard to the terrorist problem. He wanted a more complete solution to the problem. This is just my scenario...


I see at least two problems with this line of thought.

First, there's no evidence that Al Queda wanted or needed Iraq. The nature of a terrorist organization is to be elusive - you don't want a big ol' centralized headquarters in a country that everyone can see. Afghanistan was good because it is not urban and wasn't really "run" by anyone. You can't de-urbanize Iraq. And if you did want a nation under your command, you'd take over a country that already has instability problems. You certainly don't try to go after the one that has the most notorious leader in the region, ruled with an iron fist for 30 years (not to mention a pretty large army).

Second, if that was our thinking, it would have been the dumbest thing to do. Why not LET Al Queda take over Iraq? Let them do the dirty work of ridding us of Saddam? Then, go in and obliterate them. Now, you've killed two birds with one stone. By invading Iraq first, you scatter Al Queda, so now you got Saddam but still have Al Queda running around. Al Queda taking over Iraq (or trying to, at least) would have been the best thing that could have happened to the U.S.
1. Terrorists don't want to be terrorists forever-- only as long as necessary to claim their objective. It is a necessary strategy because of where they come from.

2. No Remember there was no significant number of AQs in Iraq, however we have drawn them (and many other forms of extremists) there to the fight. Kill them there or kill them as they try to demonize the US, the UK, Australia et al.

[giddyup]

<b>AggieRocket</b>: I don't know about you, but my life is hardly differen post-9/11. While I get your drift, I think you have overstated the accusation of American paranoia.

Whether or not those kids' fathers/mothers lives were wasted sacrifices is something only history will judge. I know one thing: you wouldn't say that to their faces... and since you wouldn't (I conjecture) there is something unconvincing in that argument. If it were so patently true, it would not be offensive to them...

[giddyup]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I seem to recall you saying that there was evidence such as those camps saying that was proof that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda. So now you're saying that Saddam wasn't but we had to invade incase Saddam got overthrown?

So are you now aggreeing with the anti-war side that Saddam and Al Qaeda were never cooperating and as many of those of us on the anti war side have been saying were actually opposed to each other?

If this is the case why would we invade Iraq when it would've been far easier to make peace with Saddam and work with him to fight Al Qaeda like we did with Musharraf even though prior to 9/11 he was a pariah in DC? Unresolved issues from the Gulf War 1 seem like a rather weak excuse when we could've made a powerful ally against Islamic terrorism at far less costs in terms of money, lives and diplomatic headaches. :confused:
I am only trying to fill in some blanks that might explain the war being taken to Iraq. Whether or not AQ was already a strong presence in Iraq is immaterial to me. We had to carry the war somewhere and Iraq was, I guess, the weak sister-- GUILTY AS HELL SINCE THE FIRST GULF WAR and DEFIANT OF UN SANCTIONS IN THE DOZEN YEARS SINCE.

I think you are over-simplifying your characterization of the implied cooperation between Saddam and AQ. To me it was always described as a logical end because of shared anti-American sentiments.

You are taking the caricature postures and making them mainstream.

We were not about to partner up with Saddam-- talk about hypocrisy!

[rhadamanthus]

I am only trying to fill in some blanks that might explain the war being taken to Iraq. Whether or not AQ was already a strong presence in Iraq is immaterial to me. We had to carry the war somewhere and Iraq was, I guess, the weak sister--

:confused: Say what? We "had to" go to war somewhere else? WTF?


GUILTY AS HELL SINCE THE FIRST GULF WAR and DEFIANT OF UN SANCTIONS IN THE DOZEN YEARS SINCE.

Guilty of what - being a ruthless dictator? I think there are a lot of those around the world. Why was Iraq special? As for sanctions, there are a lot of coutries "defient" of UN resolutions. Isreal and Pakistan to name two off the top of my head.

I think you are over-simplifying your characterization of the implied cooperation between Saddam and AQ. To me it was always described as a logical end because of shared anti-American sentiments.

So the logic is:
1) Saddam doesn't like the US.
2) AQ doesn't like the US.

Conclusion: AQ and Saddam are working together.

Non Sequitor.

You are taking the caricature postures and making them mainstream.

We were not about to partner up with Saddam-- talk about hypocrisy!

Hypocrisy?

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20050609/ltr050609.gif

[FranchiseBlade]

I am only trying to fill in some blanks that might explain the war being taken to Iraq. Whether or not AQ was already a strong presence in Iraq is immaterial to me. We had to carry the war somewhere and Iraq was, I guess, the weak sister-- GUILTY AS HELL SINCE THE FIRST GULF WAR and DEFIANT OF UN SANCTIONS IN THE DOZEN YEARS SINCE.

I think you are over-simplifying your characterization of the implied cooperation between Saddam and AQ. To me it was always described as a logical end because of shared anti-American sentiments.

You are taking the caricature postures and making them mainstream.

We were not about to partner up with Saddam-- talk about hypocrisy!Giddy, the AQ scenario is, as you have just said, your own attempt to fill in some blanks. Is filling in blanks a reason to start a war? As far as not partnering up with Saddam, we did that already and when we were doing was during Saddam's most brutal period. The worst things Saddam did were done while we were his ally. We even prevented the UN from passing measures against Saddam at the time. So while I would never advocate partnering up against Saddam, I think it is strange place for many to be calling out hypocisy.

[AggieRocket]

<b>AggieRocket</b>: I don't know about you, but my life is hardly differen post-9/11. While I get your drift, I think you have overstated the accusation of American paranoia.

Whether or not those kids' fathers/mothers lives were wasted sacrifices is something only history will judge. I know one thing: you wouldn't say that to their faces... and since you wouldn't (I conjecture) there is something unconvincing in that argument. If it were so patently true, it would not be offensive to them...

As an individual, I agree with you in that my personal life is hardly different post-9/11. However, the total picture of American life has changed. My life is different maybe 10 days in a year when I am at the airport, when I see a suspicious looking Arab, etc. However, that ~10 days happens for most people and those 10 days aren't uniform. You are also right about history being the judge of whether these lives were wasted and I sincerely hope that history says that I was wrong and that my rant was out of line.

[giddyup]

Giddy, the AQ scenario is, as you have just said, your own attempt to fill in some blanks. Is filling in blanks a reason to start a war? As far as not partnering up with Saddam, we did that already and when we were doing was during Saddam's most brutal period. The worst things Saddam did were done while we were his ally. We even prevented the UN from passing measures against Saddam at the time. So while I would never advocate partnering up against Saddam, I think it is strange place for many to be calling out hypocisy.
We didn't start the war; we took the fight to a new place. Is GWB just correcting a past mistake made by the US by ousting Saddam? GWB did not have the relationship with Saddam in the past.

[giddyup]

<b>rhadamanthus: Say what? We "had to" go to war somewhere else? WTF?

Guilty of what - being a ruthless dictator? I think there are a lot of those around the world. Why was Iraq special? As for sanctions, there are a lot of coutries "defient" of UN resolutions. Isreal and Pakistan to name two off the top of my head.

So the logic is:
1) Saddam doesn't like the US.
2) AQ doesn't like the US.

Conclusion: AQ and Saddam are working together.</b>

The fight had begun and it wasn't us who started it. But then it came to our shores in a big way: 9/11. As GWB said, he was tired of swatting at flies, so his administration made a commitment to a war on terrorism to rid the world of that plague. So you gotta go find 'em and kill 'em.

Why Iraq? 1. Saddam was a ruthless tyrant, 2. Iraq had been an aggressor nation against Kuwait, and 3. Iraq's ME location.

The conclusion was not that they were working together, but they could work together eventually. What would it take? Some Iraqi who was part of Iraq's military police gets a boner for jihad and gets his superior to talk to one of the generals to talk to Saddam about arming him with anthrax and fund him a plane ticket to LA, NY or DC. Four degrees of separation.

Couldn't that have been done at anytime in the past? Well, yes it could but it wasn't because it is a risky proposition for Saddam. Why now then? Because post 9/11 would have been a good time to pile on the US. It certainly emboldened our enemies fantasies and it took a show of strength to quiet them down.

[Major]

The fight had begun and it wasn't us who started it. But then it came to our shores in a big way: 9/11. As GWB said, he was tired of swatting at flies, so his administration made a commitment to a war on terrorism to rid the world of that plague. So you gotta go find 'em and kill 'em.


First of all, the fight against terrorism IS swatting at flies - there's no way around that. Just because he was tired of it doesn't change anything. Second, if you gotta go find 'em and kill 'em, why attack somewhere where there are none of them?

The conclusion was not that they were working together, but they could work together eventually.

A few posts earlier, you said it was possible that AQ would try to take over Iraq; now you say they might have worked together? These two groups despise each other - Al Queda hated Iraq before they hated the US - the US is only a pawn in the game of getting the Middle East to be "true Islam" in their minds, and that is exactly what a secular Saddam doesn't want. Anything that benefits AQ was a huge negative for Saddam.

Couldn't that have been done at anytime in the past? Well, yes it could but it wasn't because it is a risky proposition for Saddam. Why now then? Because post 9/11 would have been a good time to pile on the US. It certainly emboldened our enemies fantasies and it took a show of strength to quiet them down.

The show of strength was Afghanistan - that was a true show of strength because it showed that the world was united against terrorism. All the Iraq war showed was that the world was not nearly as united, and that, if anything, would embolden terrorists because fighting terrorism requires global cooperation. Terrorist fears would have been far higher post-Afghanistan than post-Iraq. What Iraq taught terrorists is if they taunt, we'll strike out at whatever is easy, and we're now in the midst of a 3-year distraction from the core of the war on terror. Have we killed a few AQ in Iraq? Absolutely. But if we took all that time, money soldiers and intelligence resources over the last 3 years, we would almost certainly have tracked down far more AQ without Iraq. You can argue that it helped a large group of people (the Iraqis) pretty convincingly. You might be able to argue that it improves our position in the Middle East, but that won't be conclusive for a decade or more. It's almost impossible to argue that this aided in the fight against AQ, though.

As for being a good time to pile on the US, that's not at all true from a terrorist perspective. Terrorists rely on being able to do their thing and disappear with minimal retaliation. In post 9/11, any second attack would have resulted in huge consequences (albeit possibly against an unrelated enemy) - so post 9/11, an attack on American soil is the last thing a smart terrorist organization would do. The idea would be to wait several years and then hit again.

[glynch]

[QUOTE=giddyup]<b>AggieRocket</b>: I don't know about you, but my life is hardly differen post-9/11. While I get your drift, I think you have overstated the accusation of American paranoia.

This is perhaps true.

However, you and others use "everything has changed" arguments to justify evey mistake Bush has made since then. You seem to speak favorably of his "swatting at flies" remarks that basically says we couldn't have just gone after Bin Laden, we have to do this foolhardly project to try to remake the whole Arab world by conquering Iraq and installing Chalabi or other puppets.

[giddyup]

<b>major</b>: That the terrorists hated Saddam is exactly why Iraq could have been their target to establish another base of operations. Saddam was considered by them to be an infidel. They would not hesitate to get rid of him. His population was, for generations, downtrodden. AQ could have continued the domination.

If you read my "scenario" all it would take is for Saddam to say "yes" to one terrorist and ,bingo, he is working with AQ by definition-- and maybe not even know it! There is tension for Saddam by not wanting to strengthen AQ and wanting to damage the US. If he could accomplish the latter without doing the former he would.

This is all just "nightmare-casting" but the point is to provide possibilities where so many of you say there are none.

Afghanistan was a show of strength but so was Iraq. It's not a matter of how many appove or disapprove of what you do that measures strength, it is a matter of doing what you set out to do that measures strength.

FDR interred the Japanese-Americans during WWII. Is he beloved or reviled? Leaders sometimes have to make tough calls which can mean stepping on some hands along the way.

[giddyup]

This is perhaps true.

However, you and others use "everything has changed" arguments to justify evey mistake Bush has made since then. You seem to speak favorably of his "swatting at flies" remarks that basically says we couldn't have just gone after Bin Laden, we have to do this foolhardly project to try to remake the whole Arab world by conquering Iraq and installing Chalabi or other puppets.
Truth be told: not all of them are known to be mistakes. Some are setbacks. Some are miscalculations. Some may be mistakes but only time will tell.

Look, glynch, this is the polarized nature of politics in America. You deplore practically everything that President Bush does while I defend it.

Too bad we can't have a little more even-handed analysis of current events... :(

[rhadamanthus]

The fight had begun and it wasn't us who started it. But then it came to our shores in a big way: 9/11. As GWB said, he was tired of swatting at flies, so his administration made a commitment to a war on terrorism to rid the world of that plague. So you gotta go find 'em and kill 'em.

That's fine. But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. No matter how many times the adminstration hinted at it to gather support, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Why Iraq? 1. Saddam was a ruthless tyrant, 2. Iraq had been an aggressor nation against Kuwait, and 3. Iraq's ME location.

That's not the reasoning given by the administration. It was WMDs being used against the US and the aformentioned hints of a AQ connection to spur patriotic fervor for the war post 9/11.

The conclusion was not that they were working together, but they could work together eventually. What would it take? Some Iraqi who was part of Iraq's military police gets a boner for jihad and gets his superior to talk to one of the generals to talk to Saddam about arming him with anthrax and fund him a plane ticket to LA, NY or DC. Four degrees of separation.

This logic could be applied to almost every country!


Couldn't that have been done at anytime in the past? Well, yes it could but it wasn't because it is a risky proposition for Saddam. Why now then? Because post 9/11 would have been a good time to pile on the US. It certainly emboldened our enemies fantasies and it took a show of strength to quiet them down.

Based on the news, our "show of strength" has riled them up (insurgency, anti-americanism), and worn us down (army recruiting, civil rights erosion, defecit). Was it worth it for a made up claim of WMDs?

[giddyup]

You have over-stated and over-simplified the arguments for going to Iraq. Check out the SOTU2003-- plenty in there about Bad, Bad Saddam and very little about WMD's, although there is a hint at the kind of scenario I've included here.

You are only remembering what you want and ignoring what doesn't suit you. Did you see Colin Powell on Jon Stewart last night?

How can anyone do much more than "hint" at anything when there is only intelligence to back it up. Did you see the recent news on how we mis-assessed China in a big way?

[rhadamanthus]

From the SOTU2003:

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

THEY DID NOT EXIST. Paragraph after paragraph of intelligence (including the famous "nuclear" ability) and yet we gave up on our WMD search. That's not selective - his whole fscking speech regarding Saddam focuses on WMDs and the threat they pose to the US.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

[mc mark]

Save your breath rhadamanthus.

The apologists have told the lie so many times; they believe it's the truth now. Nothing will change their minds.

[Sishir Chang]

You are taking the caricature postures and making them mainstream.
!

I'm not caricaterizing anything. These were positions that I seem recall you stating and were positions stated by Rumsfeld and others in the Admin. that the presence of the Ansar Islam camps in Kurdish Areas of Northern Iraq were indications of Saddam's cooperation with Al Qaeda.


We were not about to partner up with Saddam-- talk about hypocrisy

Yet that's something we've done quite often. We've partnered with Musharraf in Pakistan even though prior to 9/11 he was strongly criticized for taking over in a military coup. The US also had sanctions on Pakistan for their undemocratic policies, nuclear proliferation and support of the Taliban. In fact right after 9/11 there was a lot of talk about invading Pakistan because there was plenty of evidence they were knowingly harboring Al Qaeda. Lets not forget our alliances with Joseph Stalin, Pinochet, Marcos and all sorts of unsavory characters.

IMO it strains credibility that we had to take out Saddam before Al Qaeda did. I've yet to hear anyone in the Admin. mention such an idea.

[Sishir Chang]

If you read my "scenario" all it would take is for Saddam to say "yes" to one terrorist and ,bingo, he is working with AQ by definition-- and maybe not even know it! There is tension for Saddam by not wanting to strengthen AQ and wanting to damage the US. If he could accomplish the latter without doing the former he would.

This is all just "nightmare-casting" but the point is to provide possibilities where so many of you say there are none.



"Nightmare casting" is exaclty what you're doing. You're going through revisionist speculative exercises to come up with all sorts of justifications to support different premises.

1. Saddam might be cooperating with Al Qaeda so we have to invade.
2. No Saddam was an enemy of Al Qaeda so we have to invade before they take him out.

Each time the premise is changed to support the result.

This isn't good policy this its a fishing expeditions to come up with some justification that sticks. There's nothing wrong with that in itself except that as you note at the begining of this thread there is a costs.

I don't know about you but for me I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that people are willing to support sending our troops into battle based upon wildly speculative nightmare casting.

[giddyup]

Yet that's something we've done quite often. We've partnered with Musharraf in Pakistan even though prior to 9/11 he was strongly criticized for taking over in a military coup. The US also had sanctions on Pakistan for their undemocratic policies, nuclear proliferation and support of the Taliban. In fact right after 9/11 there was a lot of talk about invading Pakistan because there was plenty of evidence they were knowingly harboring Al Qaeda. Lets not forget our alliances with Joseph Stalin, Pinochet, Marcos and all sorts of unsavory characters.

IMO it strains credibility that we had to take out Saddam before Al Qaeda did. I've yet to hear anyone in the Admin. mention such an idea.
We partnered wih Saddam years before Gulf War I which ended in 1991. To talk about re-partnering with him subsequently is beyond the pale. Just because we have had unholy alliances in the past doesn't mean that we have to take up every one that comes along. Maybe GWB is better than other past presidents about avoiding these entrapments.

I only hypothsized the idea of getting Saddam first as a plausible explanation for the Admin's aggressiveness in going into Iraq. I have no evidence but it could explain the actions that have been taken.

[giddyup]

From the SOTU2003:

THEY DID NOT EXIST. Paragraph after paragraph of intelligence (including the famous "nuclear" ability) and yet we gave up on our WMD search. That's not selective - his whole fscking speech regarding Saddam focuses on WMDs and the threat they pose to the US.
I don't have time to go back right now and research the 203SOTU, but you have taken a couple of lines out of a very long section of the speech that deals with Saddam.

There is much more that this speech addresses.

[giddyup]

1. Saddam might be cooperating with Al Qaeda so we have to invade.
2. No Saddam was an enemy of Al Qaeda so we have to invade before they take him out.

Each time the premise is changed to support the result.[/b]
No it is not.

The first is based upon Saddam's initiative. AQ would "use" Saddam if it furthered their cause. Then they would slit his throat.

The second is based upon AQ's initiative.

Both are valid. Both could be realized in sequence. Both serve to enhance the opporunity to damage the US.

Both are but possibilities and they are not mutually exclusive- except that you can't depose Saddam before you use his reach for your own ends.

[Sishir Chang]

Giddyup;

Your speculation points out another thing. The fact that a war supporter like yourself is putting forward an argument that hasn't even been hinted at by the Admin. shows how weak their argument is if even supporters of the policy feel the need to speculate on their own.

[Sishir Chang]

No it is not.

The first is based upon Saddam's initiative. AQ would "use" Saddam if it furthered their cause. Then they would slit his throat.

The second is based upon AQ's initiative..

This is even more wildly speculative. Now Saddam would use AQ and then they would slit his throat.

Both are valid. Both could be realized in sequence. Both serve to enhance the opporunity to damage the US.

No offense but this is sounding more and more like a Tom Clancy novel. You're presuming several things that there is very little evidence to support.

Both are but possibilities and they are not mutually exclusive- except that you can't depose Saddam before you use his reach for your own ends

So again it all comes down to getting rid of Saddam. You're trying to make arguments fit the results. It seems to me that you're saying it doesn't really matter what reason there is for getting rid of Saddam as long as we do it.

[giddyup]

Giddyup;

Your speculation points out another thing. The fact that a war supporter like yourself is putting forward an argument that hasn't even been hinted at by the Admin. shows how weak their argument is if even supporters of the policy feel the need to speculate on their own.
That's not the motivation. I'm just showing those who are satisfied to ascribe a profit motive to the war that there are logical security reasons to have made a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

Unlike many of you, I am claiming no special knowledge... :rolleyes:

[FranchiseBlade]

That's not the motivation. I'm just showing those who are satisfied to ascribe a profit motive to the war that there are logical security reasons to have made a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

Unlike many of you, I am claiming no special knowledge... :rolleyes:
It isn't about special knowledge. It is about what the administration said, what the results are, what the administration's actions have been to those who were correct, and what their actions have been to those who were wrong but still stood by the false claims, and painted the best possible scenario for going to war. It is about the studies, and conclusions reached by folks appointed by this very same whitehouse, and those reached by the military.

Of all those studies, and conclusions, as well as those by people appointed by more independent organizations not one of them show that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. Not one of them shows that Saddam was in danger of being toppled by Al Qaeda or working with Al Qaeda. None of that has been shown by Bush's own appointed overseers, and commissions.

You don't need any 'special knowledge' just look at the knowledge this administration and our military have provided. That is all you have to do.

The end result is that Saddam wasn't a threat to the U.S.

[giddyup]

This is even more wildly speculative. Now Saddam would use AQ and then they would slit his throat.

No offense but this is sounding more and more like a Tom Clancy novel. You're presuming several things that there is very little evidence to support.

So again it all comes down to getting rid of Saddam. You're trying to make arguments fit the results. It seems to me that you're saying it doesn't really matter what reason there is for getting rid of Saddam as long as we do it.
No, AQ would use Saddam and then slit his throat... you've got it backwards.

Yes, I'm speculating on rationale. Is it possible that Saddam could have quietly assisted a lone terrorist to harm the US? Yes. Is it more possible that he would do that than, say, the King of Sweden? Yes again. So picking on Saddam was not arbitrary? No it was not.

There is no speculation that we (and a lot of other people) wanted Saddam out of Iraq. Actually, almost everybody wanted Saddam out of Iraq; it was just a question of who would be willing to pay the price to do so.

I'm just working the problem backwards and interpolating some thinking that may have gone on.

[giddyup]

The end result is that Saddam wasn't a threat to the U.S.
Again, I think it depends on your timeline, your overall appaisal of the situation and your overall plan to stabilize the Middle East.

[FranchiseBlade]

Again, I think it depends on your timeline, your overall appaisal of the situation and your overall plan to stabilize the Middle East.
I don't believe any report has listed him as a credible threat to the U.S. under any timeline. He was easily defeated in the early 90's. His military at the time of the Bush II's invasion was only at about half the capability it was at that time of GWI, and at this point Saddam had no WMD's, a no fly zone over the northern, and southern chunks of his nation, heavy surveilence, with inspectors given access again inside the country, and potential for even closer surveilence to be ongoing. Nobody has suggested a timeline where he woudl be a threat to the U.S. except for Bush when lied about the IAEA report, and then subsequent reports in which Bush claimed that Saddam was 6 months away from a nuke.

No other report that I am aware of provides a future timeline where somehow Saddam was a threat.

[Sishir Chang]

That's not the motivation. I'm just showing those who are satisfied to ascribe a profit motive to the war that there are logical security reasons to have made a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

Unlike many of you, I am claiming no special knowledge... :rolleyes:

Unlike many anti-war people I don't believe oil was a primary factor. It was a factor but not the primary IMO. My own belief is that the motivations were mostly political.

That said though you are claiming special knowledge by going beyond any Admin. stated reasons for invading Iraq and offering a whole new explanation.

You're doing exactly what you criticize others by speculating on something that no one in the Admin has publically stated as a plausible reason for invading Iraq.

[Sishir Chang]

I'm just working the problem backwards and interpolating some thinking that may have gone on.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. You're creating arguments to fit the results.

To me that's a sign of how much the Admin. has failed to make their case when even war supporters have to go backwards to come up with justifications for the invasion that the Admin hasn't made. It just shows how little people buy the stated arguments of spreading democracy and finding WMD's.

[giddyup]

I'm just forwarding what might be unarticulated background. I'm not doing it out of necessity I'm doing it just to offer some plausible BIG PICTURE ideas that easily supplant the Bush as Oil Pimp or the Bush as Christian Crusader caricatures.

I think after two years of watching Bush be eviscerated here, I'm due some fantasizing of my own. It's just play and not my constant carping.

[Sishir Chang]

I'm just forwarding what might be unarticulated background. I'm not doing it out of necessity I'm doing it just to offer some plausible BIG PICTURE ideas that easily supplant the Bush as Oil Pimp or the Bush as Christian Crusader caricatures.

But don't you think if they were that plausible in the Big Picture the Admin. themselves would've put them forward to convince the large percentage of the US and World who are skeptical?

I'm not one to deny your fantasizing, fantasize all you want I'm doing it right now about Fergie's abdominals. Just saying that whether you feel compelled or not that you're calling it plausible shows that on some level you feel the Admin's rationals are weak since they've never brought it up or you wouldn't have bothered bringing it up in a debate.

[giddyup]

Leadership takes the longer view. The people need and want immediacy. Forgive the generalizations but they are realistic.