I'm not saying the US should've invaded either just pointing out how hypocritical and ludicrous it was invading Iraq because the sponsor terrorism and 9/11 changed everything when we continue to support other supporters of the exactly the same terrorism that Saddam did and whose citizens actually participated in 9/11.
CreepyFloyd, Your the one of likes to call posters out who don't believe in your views, what do you expect will happen?! The posters you just called out are vets here! Insulting others won't help your cause. Remember it's great that we have every views expressed in a civil manner. I think it's great that you joined us to add more views.
I dont think the creepy flod fellow is sane. i've provided him numerious links about his beloved mollahs being linked to terrorist groups. ruining an once great country and abusing the basic right of every woman in iran. yet he chooses to ignore those cold hard facts. he seriously must be blind, or dosent know how to open a link. yet in all his nonsense he has spewed out so far, he has'nt once put forward an source or a link to backup his outrages lies. by the looks of it, most posters here can see who the raveing lunatic is.
i'm sorry, you're just stupid i dont think you even realize what you're saying and please run your responses through a spell check
thanks, but if you look at what blazer ben posts, if you can understand what he says because his grammar and spelling are horrible, he's the one calling people names and making ridiculous assumptions....i'm just offering a different perspective that you might not hear in the mainstream or from government propaganda
Ao every link about the mollahs are crimes are lies and there is no fact behind it?...you are a very popular figure here it seems. it seems the jig is up. you can blow the trumpet for the islamic fascists, but you're only showing you're true clours.
Can you support that, please. It's only hypocritical if you look at it in a vaccuum, irrespective of other circumstances. Saddam's support of terrorism was one of many reasons to intervene, not a stand alone rationale. Further, we CAN influence Saudi Arabia whereas we had no influence with Saddam. When you have a diplomatic alternative that is showing results, you can use that first. This is the same as when people say 'well why aren't we invading ALL dictatorships then?' The reason is that you use different means for different situations. In Central Asia, for example, we're dealing with dictators but trying to use our influence to get them to reform. In Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Kuwait we're using influence and diplomatic pressure to reform with some success. So its nonsensical to say you'd approach all governments in the same manner. Do you treat the constitutional monarchy of Britain the same as the constitutional monarchy of Saudi Arabia? That's too simplistic. Also I think you need to add in the context the relation of our containment of Saddam and 9/11. Everyone likes to act as though there is no relation between 9/11 and Saddam. I'm not sure how, really, since troops were IN Saudi Arabia BECAUSE of Saddam.
Here's a link but its pretty well known that the House of Saud along with Emirates have been some of the biggests, if not the biggest supporters of Palestinian groups. They've been supporting them much longer than Saddam was supporting them too. http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR1703 I don't have time to answer your other points right now but will try to get to them later. Sidenote. Hayes do you live in Houston? Any interest in meeting Rhester and me for lunch next Tuesday?
I'm not disputing the Saudi have provided support, rather that the state of Saudi Arabia has done so. Would love to but unfortunately I'm in Dallas.
Are you trying to justify the Iraq war Hayes? Saddam was a nut ball. And according to a lot of Arabs they believe that the U.S(C.I.A) gave Saddam the green light to attack Kuwait. Then turned on him. At that time Iraq was the most powerful country in the middle east (after Israel). They believe that the C.I.A probably knew that Kuwait and Saudi would need the U.S after that. Very profitable war in terms control of oil exports. By the way I’m not very knowledgeable about the global political scene, just have a bunch of Arab friends who give me that story every time we discuss the Middle East situation. An interesting read. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/oil-f19.shtml
The House of Saud is the government of Saudi Arabia. Too bad. I don't agree with you a lot but I think you're one of the cleverest posters here.
You raise some good points and I agree with you that you have to approach different contries differently. That said though even looking at a range of rationals there is still is a flip side of the issue to any undertaking and that is looking at the costs. In regards to Iraq you along with most supporters of the invasion primarily look only at benefits while not looking at the costs in terms of money, influence, resources and of course lives. I agree that looking on the benefits, reasons for intervening, there are a variety of reasons that would dictate any course of actions yet there are a variety of reasons that would dictate against that too. The other problem is that IMO you give a much better and more nuanced argument than most war supporters and even Admin. itself on the invasion. Largely the Admin. have made their arguments extremely simplistic and dogmatic which is why when confronted with counter arguments, in the case of showing that the Saudis have also supported Palestinian terrorism, they come off as hypocritical and practicly ludicrous. To your credit you've grasped the nuance but unfortunately you're not in the Admin. and it is certainly fair to point out where the Admin's arguments fail. The problem with this argument is that yes US troops in Saudi Arabia did motivate Al Qaeda to react and US troops were there to contain Saddam yet at the same time it wasn't Saddam's choice to put the US troops there because GH Bush could've chosen to invade in 91 or US troops could've been based elsewhere and instead focussed on developing rapid deployment or just relied on strategic air strikes to contain Saddam. The problem with your argument is that what led to 9/11 was on a continuous chain of events and if you're stretching out that chain beyond the immediate perpetrators you can pick anyone or anything there to say that there was a connection. Under that reasoning its just as logical to say that GH Bush was connected to 9/11 since he ordered US troops into Saudi Arabia or TE Lawrence since without him there might not have been an Iraq or Saudi Arabia in the first place.
Yes, but there is a difference between the state doing something and private fundraising in a country. I'm sure we'll get a chance to have a drink somewhere down the line. Of course you're right that there are counterarguments. I don't think I ignore the costs in my evaluation though. I just feel the benefits outweigh the costs. I think your argument is true to a point. But there is a difference between BEING hypocritical and being PERCEIVED to be hypocritical. Except that this a direct link, not down the line of causality. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait is the reason the troops were originally there. The policy of containing Saddam was the reason they stayed there. My point is that so many people repeat as a mantra 'Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11,' when in fact it has everything to do with 9/11. It's the reason offered as #1 by Osama on why he chose to attack the US. A benefit to the intervention is that US troops are no longer based in SA. That doesn't mean that Al Queda is going to suddenly roll back, but it does mean that an essential motivating factor in 15 Saudis flying planes into NYC is gone. Iraq and 9/11 are inextricably linked. Further, people also say 'oh democracy blah blah blah' - when I see it all as part of the same reaction to 9/11. 9/11 was blowback from the containment of Saddam. We couldn't stop containment without risking Saddam's prolif, yet it was us - not the EU or Russia or China that was eating the costs of the blowback (defense expeditures, 9/11, the embassy bombings, the Cole, the barracks bombings). The move to democratize the ME is part of that response. IF the liberals are right, that it is the despotic regimes that are fueling anti-americanism/anti-west terrorism, then let's get the ball rolling to democratize. I won't pretend the administration properly justified the intervention in Iraq, or has run the intervention well. Yet still I feel it was the right thing to do, and the benefits will end up outweighing the costs.
That's a disingenuous statement. From the link in Sishir's post: Go ahead ramify the difference with Saddam's support of Palestinians. You are using the a posteriori fact to rationalize an a priori policy. That's the typical Haysian-style Straw Man's argument in my judgment. The fact that US didn't engage Saddam diplomatically after the Gulf War doesn't mean it couldn't. US had plenty of experiences dealing with Saddam pre-Gulf War -- I am not in the mood today to post the Rumsfeld-Saddam handshaking photo. After the War, Saddam on more than one occasion secretly sent concillitory gesture to US, hoping for improvement of the relation, but the U.S. disregarded it outright. Historically, however, it is not unprecedented for US to ease animosity with its enemy (under the exact same regime) through diplomatic means. Further, how come the U.S. CAN influence Saudi now whereas it didn't or couldn't in the past? What's the moral reason to appease Saudi, given the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi whereas there is "no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks"? Winding up, we could say the ill-prepared interview by April Glaspie with Saddam at the dawn of Kuwait invasion has everything to do with 9/11. Unless, of course, in an attempt to escape congressional pressure brought by the Iran Contra investigation, George Bush Sr. and co. deliberately instructed Glaspie to convey the message to Saddam that "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
^ great post wnes.....an especially good observation was how you caught his building of the straw man argument
Don't accuse me of being disingenous. I'm still trying to get him to resolve the question. I am not contradicting his conclusion. Calm down. Lol, how is it a straw man? I'm stating my own views, not distorting someone elses. And my view is that the policy decision was based on experience, so while your distinction sounds cool it doesn't make any sense. Sanctions, which are the hard end of diplomacy short of war, barely kept him from producing weapons he wasn't supposed to - much less having any internal reform. Pre-Gulf War I relations are irrelevant to this discussion - none of that dealt with internal reform or disarmament either. A policy for which it is daily criticized by you and creepfloyd no less, lol. I can say that neither the harshest end of diplomacy nor the softest of soft power would have gotten Saddam to reform internally. If you feel otherwise then I am confident I have the better end of the argument, but you feel free to present any evidence you have that suggests Saddam was willing to reform internally. Nor do I think you'll be able to show that cooperation with Saddam would be able to capture the benefits the intervention has. Qualify this please. Who said we couldn't in the past? This isn't about 'appeasing the Saudis.' If they had their choice I'm sure they wouldn't want US pressure to reform. And as usual you're missing the connection between Saddam and 9/11, which is strange because I went to great lengths to explain it above. OK. If your point is that this mistake is in the historical linkage leading up to 9/11, then yes - it would seem so. You could say 'osama being born' is in the causal chain of 9/11 too. That doesn't disprove in any way that 'containment' as a policy was directly responsible for 9/11.
