Isn't that tantamount to what Saddam did? Saddam left a long verbal and contractual history of defiance against both the US and the UN. We all know that Saddam was not Nazi Germany but it is a useless exercise to compare the two because the struggle is different. Saddam was a rogue who would have been happy to develop any kind of WMD (nuclear included) and sell them off to someone else to do the damage to the US. Name any war that was NOT elective? What was so precious about Kuwait that American lives were worth losing... that is not true of Iraq?
Absolutely not. Saddam for many years did have WMD's and never sold them to anyone. All of the intel agencies, in fact, PRIOR to the invasion said that even if Saddam did have WMD's that he wasn't a risk the sell them off to anyone. There is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that he would have sold any WMD's off. Now add to that the fact that the UN inspectors were in Iraq verifying that he didn't even have any WMD's to begin with.
That is an interesting response from someone who has yet to acknowledge that we have internal memos from Al QAEDA saying they WANT THE US MILITARY TO STAY IN IRAQ. Certainly internal memos would carry more weight than the public spin put out by a terrorist organization. One is just trying to put the best face on events. The other documents the actual workings of top officials in Al-QAEDA. It is odd that you choose to buy into the al-qaeda spin, and completely ignore the actual documentation that shows the internal working of the group. Keith has hit the nail on the head with the U.S. showing its weakness and stupidity by sending its troops to die for no reason, and to give more troops there to do exactly what Al-Qaeda's own internal memos says it hopes that we do.
I don't know how any logical person can conclude that escalating this war will do any good. The generals on the ground don't support it, the Iraqis don't want this and the American people want to bring the troops home. As for the dying neo-conservative movement: they don't deserve to be listened to anymore. They have no credibility. On every conceivable topic regarding foreign affairs in the middle east they have been wrong. Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, the war and occupation of Iraq would not be a "cakewalk" and the US was not "greeted with flowers." They were wrong about the numbers of troops needed to occupy the country. They were wrong to disband the Iraqi military and civil service apparatus. Every forecast they have made about the progress of the war has proven to be wrong. We should not listen to them anymore than we should consult with the Daughters of the Confederacy. Their movement, ideas and leaders are hallow and will soon be removed from prominence. These chickenhawks in government and the media will go down as some of the biggest fools in history.
And under the UN resolutions the UN was the organization that was supposed to authorize any invasion. The UN never did and infact the US pulled out the UN process when it looked like the vote wasn't going the US's way. Its always struck me as an ironic excuse that we invaded to uphold the UN when did it without UN approval. Saddam probably wanted to develop WMD but its highly speculative that he could and even more so that he would've sold them. Those aren't supported by facts that even were known in 2002. War of 1812 when the US was invaded. WWII when Japan bombed US territory and its ally Germany (Al Qaeda was never allied to Saddam) declared war on the US. That is a good question since I didn't support Operation Desert Storm either. Leaving my own opinion aside there are a few key differences: - Desert Storm was authorized by the UN. - Desert Storm had achievable well defined goals - Desert Storm had a broad coalition behind it. - Desert Storm was adequately funded. - Desert Storm was adequately equipped. - The US wasn't fighting another conflict with a known, not speculative, threat.
Al Qaeda will spin the occupation either way. If we stay they will spin it as they are bleeding us. If we leave they will spin it as they drove us out. I don't think we should be going by what Al Qaeda wants to make decisions since no matter what we do they will present it as a victory.
But what I am talking about was not spin by al-qaeda. It was information taken from an internal memo that was never meant to be seen by the public. I agree that they will spin whatever happens the best way they can. But we know what their real hopes are from the internal memo that was uncovered in which they were criticizing some of the tactics being used in Iraq, and stating their hope for the U.S. armed forces to stay longer. This was an internal memo by al-qaeda and not spin. I was pointing out that basso has never once commented on the memo and yet buys into al-qaeda spin. It is a curious position to hold. But basso ignores many facts that contradict his own idea of the way things are, so I shouldn't be surprised.
Confiscated memos and email also show that one of A-Q's biggest reasons for 9/11 was getting the US to invade Afghanastan. They had hoped to do what they did to the USSR (with the US's help...they "forgot" that part). These were memos from before any invasions. It didn't happen there but it is happening in Iraq. Regrdless, they just wanted the US to get bogged down, make some mistakes (killing innocents) so they can basically say "The US is a bully...but we can still "effectively" fight them...so join us).
Wasn't a huge part of the problem that most of the UN Security Council had their hands in the Iraqi cash box? France. Germany. Russia. Who else? That's whose leadership we should attend? 1. Where are all those collective quotations from every politician under the sun touting their own personal conviction of the assured posession of WMDs by Saddam? 2. It's always tough to know which is the reliable intel. It's always a tougher call to prevent disaster. It always much easier to make decisions in hindsight. What was the nature of the alliance between Japan and Germany? Did they have anything in common other than some sadistic hatred and racism in their heart? SOUNDS like The Taliban. SOUNDS like Saddam. SOUNDS like bin Laden. Yeah, the structure is different. So what.... I'm not ready to have the US give up their sovereignty to the UN.
SOUNDS like you haven't given up on your WWII/Saddam/Osama comparisons, giddy. Sorry, but it just SOUNDS silly. That's a shame, because I see no reason you couldn't make your points without dredging up some inane comparisons by Bush/Rove/Rush that were absurd to begin with. D&D. The Sounds of Silence fade away.
why compare them? saddam attacked kuwait.. did saddam attack iraq? how many american soldiers died in desert storm I and how many has died so far in iraq? sounds like korea, sounds like iran, sounds like the kkk, sounds like christian exterimist fundamentals etc.. to compare two powerful countries who initially dominated world war ii to rougue states who can't even successfully conquer their neighbors is stupid.. if degree of hatred is your deciding factor on who should be attacked then the kkk should be nuked..
