Your statement was that you couldn't understand why people think the situation in Iraq has anything to do with the War on Terror. AQ is in Iraq. Iraq is part of the war on terror. Not hard to understand why people think Iraq is part of the War on Terror. Grizz, you can try and minimize all you want. Saddam supported terrorism. Its a fact. State sponsor of terror. Part of the war on terror. Not hard to understand. Your opinion, and that's ok. But if one believe's neocons run the ship - why would a central tenet of the ideology NOT be a consideration. That makes no sense by definition. Maybe you think they are NOT necons? A necon might use the ends to justify the means, but the goal is always a movement toward democracy. That's what makes them neocons, for crying out loud, instead of realists. What Reagan did is irrelevant - he wasn't a neocon as far as I can tell. This line of reasoning really doesn't make much sense. Because their goal is democratic does not mean they'll invade every nondemocratic country. Some countries you try to use 'constructive engagement' - trade, diplomacy, integration - like China. When you don't have any influence and are unlikely to, as in Iraq, the military option becomes more prominent. And? If you know what a neocon is, as I said before, and you believe they are running things, then by definition they are in favor of expanding democracy.
Paul Martin came from money, there’s not doubt about that. (But if you read the article I posted above you’ll know that money didn’t get him elected. I couldn't have, and that's the point of that reform). On Jean Chretien you’re dead wrong: Jean Chrétien was born in Shawinigan, Que., on January 11, 1934, the 18th of 19 children, only nine of whom survived. His mother was Marie Boisvert-Chrétien, his father Wellie Chrétien, who worked as a machinist at a paper mill. He began campaigning for local Liberal candidates when he was in his teens. While studying law at Laval University he was elected president of the Liberal Club. He returned to Shawinigan with his law degree in 1958 and opened a law practice. In 1963, at the age of 29 and with only a smattering of English, Chrétien ran for federal office in the riding of Saint-Maurice-Laflèche, winning the first of what would be 10 federal campaigns. He first entered cabinet in 1967 and over the next 17 years held every major portfolio. He was Canada's first French Canadian finance minister, and as minister responsible for constitutional negotiations, he played an important role in the 1982 patriation of the Constitution. His hard work and common sense approach to problems appealed to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who regarded Chrétien as his right-hand man. In the 1980s, the mayor of Quebec City asked Trudeau whom he should see about a problem and Trudeau immediately said, "See Chrétien. He's the one who gets things done around here." http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/chretien/profile.html I’d be very surprised if he’s a millionaire, but if he is he’s not much more than a millionaire. He certainly didn’t come from money or a privileged background.
And? What is your point? War is violence between states (to state the obvious), not terrorism. Terrorism is violence between groups/organizations and populations/states. Violence between states is by definition NOT terrorism. 'A lot people think' and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. A lot of people think Osama bin Laden is a good guy. So what. That doesn't make it true. Even if the Palestinian Authority was recognized as a state actor, Hezbollah and Hamas sure as hell aren't. They are NON-STATE groups/organizations who use violence to try and influence a particular outcome. The 'real issue' is that we don't want to give the same legitimacy to these actors as we do states.
You are twisting the question again. Yes, the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror because it is fuelling the cause of the terrorists. It’s making the problem worse and the world a more dangerous place for all of us. I don’t think, however, that this was the original question. I think the question was about whether the US went into Iraq to shut down terrorist activity that was going on there at the time. The answer to that question was that, no, that couldn’t have been a reason as there was no evidence and logic connection that would suggest that this was going on. Again you are playing word games. Did Saddam off to pay the families of terrorists? Yes. Was Saddam a significant sponsor of terrorism or did he post a significant thread to the US or Israel? No. Did Iraq pose anywhere near the threat that say Saudi Arabia did, where most of the 9/11 terrorists actually came from? Not even close. Not within many orders of magnitude. So when the US says that it’s going into Iraq to stop terrorism while not saying boo about SA, the world rightfully call BS. It’s not even a debate anymore. No one believes it. Now we’re getting into the vagaries of the word “neocon”. Reagan was certainly called a neocon at the time. I haven’t read all of this but have a look if you like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States) As far as whether the non-democratic nature of this administration makes them something other than neocons, I’ll let you be the judge. All I’m saying is that there is a big difference between the rhetoric and the reality of what this administration does. Ok, so what’s the logic of approaching Iraq in this way at this time? I agree that in SA, for example, pressure could be applied to the monarchy for them to turn over power to an elected body like, for example, the way it happened in England. So where’s that pressure? Where are the examples of this administration promoting democracy for democracy’s sake, and not in a situation where it appears to be rhetoric used in an attempt to advance the power and control of the US? If you widen the view a little bit and see it in context, it doesn’t wash, and no one believes it anymore. I guess we’ll have to think up a new name for them then. What words define them? Con men? Opportunists? Moral relativists? I guess these are all the characteristics that we’ll have to encapsulate in a new name.
Not twisting anything. Its part of the war on terror because terrorist like AQ are there fighting. You indicated you didn't understand why people would believe Iraq is part of the war on terror. AQ's presence there, and their commitment to fight there, makes the belief pretty reasonable. Your opinion, and that's nice. But irrelevant to this discussion. No evidence of AQ, agreed, prewar. But your opinion of what the War on Terror encompasses is too simplistic. The War on Terror is not just confronting AQ, but state sponsors of terror as well. Not saying this was the only rationale, certainly it wasn't. Not even the main one. But pre-intervention, Iraq was a supporter of terrorism. Post-intervention there is actual conflict with terrorists. In both cases Iraq is part of the war on terror. Scope is irrelevant. Did the state support terrorism? Yes? There you go. Does the state of SA openly support terrorism? No. There you go. I rarely use the word. More often its used by the anti-US and/or anti-intervention crowd like yourself. As defined by almost any source, a neocon believes in democracy as a central tenet of the ideology. As far as Reagan goes, he was a conservative who came up supporting Goldwater. Not a neoconservative. No, the point is that you need to stop calling them neocons if you don't think they're interested in democracy. You're either wrong about their motivations or you're mislabeling them. Its naive to think pressure is necessarily overt. Great pressure has been put on SA to crackdown on terrorists. Both within the country and the financing. Any example I name you could ultimately claim it was just in our interest, or for security. Of course the spread of democracy itself, or so neoconservatives believe, is in our interest and enhances our security. There was recently a thread about our supporting democratic institution building in Ukraine, if you want an example. Hey, that's for you to decide. Stop calling them neocons and then saying they don't believe in democracy as an end.
Did SA sponsor terrorists in the fashion that Saddam did? John Walker Lindh was an American; maybe we should attack ourselves. Hmmm, maybe we could leave it at his native California.
And around and around the mulberry bush we go … Saddam, if we believe he actually did anything, was targeting the state of Israel. The Palestinian authority is also very specifically targeting the state of Israel. But this discussion is essentially pointless. The fact is that terrible attacks are happening. Whether they fit the definition of terrorism you are trying to defend is not a very productive question, IMO. Well, other people’s opinions are as valid as yours, and your opinion doesn’t equate to truth either. I could ask whether Hezbollah and Hamas are acting as agents of the Palestinian Authority, or the Palestinian peopl, like private contractors are acting as agents of the US government, but this is getting pointless. This is becoming almost Pharisitical as we search for some loophole or trick of language that would sanction this war. In the court of public opinion, this war is a war crime. I'm out for a while. Gotta do some work.
AQ wasn't in Iraq when we attacked. What we did opened up Iraq to AQ. So it may have moved into a front on the war on terror, but that was because of bad planning by this administration, not out of necessity to fight AQ. Again, according this own administration, AQ wasn't active in Iraq at the time of 9/11.
Yes, far more explicitly, in both dollar and real terms. As has been explored ad nauseum by Robert Baer, among others, and as has been explained on these fora, to the same people, again and again, that, during the 90's, the House of Saud has gladly and publicly looked the other way while radical wahabbists preach hate and recruit jihadis- as long as they paint the US as Satan rather than the house of Saud. Saudi money, incluiding that from members of the Royal family, has flown into terrorist coffers, and most of the hijackers were Saudi. In fact, various high level members of the House of Saud are known or reported to be Al Qaeda sympathizers. Saudi money also finds its way to Palestinian bombers, etc as well, if that's the rather lackluster "trump card" you were planning on playing next. It's crazy, we repeat the same things over and over again for years and people just repeat the same old packaged pile of crap. I guaranteee you some yahoo claims in this thread that Osama Bin Laden was marched into Washington in handcuffs and Clinton set him free next, or that the WMD's are hiding in Syria.
Please find somewhere that I said AQ was allied with Saddam. Thank you. I didn't. What I DID say is that AQ is in Iraq NOW and that Iraq IS part of the war on terror. If you disagree, please elaborate.
Different completely from the state of Saudi Arabia overtly or covertly supporting terrorism. The 'House of Saud' has around 900 members. There is a difference between state sponsored terrorism, and support for terrorism emerging from a state. I'm NOT, btw, disagreeing that plenty of support for terrorism came out of SA.
Yes, and the House of Saud - at the highest levels - knew it was going on, ignored it, and in many cases encouraged it and actively supported it. Read Robert Baer's book Sleeping with the Devil if you don't believe me. When you're dealing with a heridtiary monarchy, and high level members of the monarchy (the king is incapacitated, bascially) run the government and are the state, and some of those members actively support terrorism - you can try to not call it "state sponsored terrorism", but I'm not sure why.
Not sure how you both ignore it and encourage it at the same time, but as I pointed out earlier you don't respond to every state the same way. They have cracked down on the financial backing, and on the open support of terrorists since 9/11. You wouldn't call it state sponsored terrorism because money is not coming from the state's coffers to further terrorism.
Well, call me a dumb ex-Texan but it doesn't seem like you try to mop up a problem by picking on the least enemy (Saudi Arabia). Instead you take out the weak sister (Iraq) to get a firm footing. I just have to ask: if this was so imperative, why didn't Clinton do something about it? Here comes: 9/11 changed everything.
If Clinton had Bush's backbone, and had overruled the Pentagon sallys, he would have put troops in Afghanistan like he originally wanted to, and 9/11 may never have happened.
There is no distinction between the House of Saud's treasury and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's treasury.
Yeah, pretty much there is. Like I said, the 'House of Saud' has 900+ members. You won't find in the budget of SA - item 462 2,000,000 to Osama bin Laden. If, for example, Jeb Bush donated money to Osama it wouldn't be correct to say 'the US is a state sponsor of terror because Jeb donated money to Osama.'
Hayes, read the damned book. First, you're wrong, the House of Saud has thousands of members rather than hundreds. Second, The House of Saud freely, willfully, and openly treats Government finances as their own personal piggy bank. They do this because they can, because legally and politcally they are the state. That is the definition of a heriditary absolute monarchy. And I am not talking about 3rd cousins 45 times removed who steal cable and send bootleg phish videos to Osama. There are high level princes who openly sympathize with bin Laden and divert funds to his ends. Rampant spending by the Princes is one of the reasons why the KOSA has been dangerously close to insolvency in past years, despite having access to jilllions of gallons of oil. THEY ARE the state. Our system of government is radically different from theirs - which is essentially a gangsterocracy. Read the book.
