[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Lastly, as I mentioned before the Arab Spring has toppled several governments including our second most important ally in the region(Mubarak). [/quote]
The Egyptian people ousted an autocratic leader they didn’t want.
Where did they get that crazy idea?
Edit: As for the difficulty of the decision about ONS, why did Gates advise against it?
By the way, the Washington Times is a rag founded by a cult, and is not halfway a reputable source.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Lastly, as I mentioned before the Arab Spring has toppled several governments including our second most important ally in the region(Mubarak). [/quote]
The Egyptian people ousted an autocratic leader they didn’t want.
Where did they get that crazy idea?
Edit: As for the difficulty of the decision about ONS, why did Gates advise against it?[/quote]
The people? So you advocate direct democracy in Arab countries allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to come to power? Yes wasn’t it great when the social democrats in Germany came to power after the Kaiser’s abdication? After all he was ‘an autocratic leader they didn’t want.’
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
She believes in werewolves. Werewolves! [/quote]
I hope you are not really this dumb and that is an attempt at humor.
[/quote]
OK, technically it’s Werwölfe . And it is 100% true.
Edit: it’s not letting me post the German word properly.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Lastly, as I mentioned before the Arab Spring has toppled several governments including our second most important ally in the region(Mubarak). [/quote]
The Egyptian people ousted an autocratic leader they didn’t want.
Where did they get that crazy idea?
[/quote]
The French, duh.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, the Washington Times is a rag founded by a cult, and is not halfway a reputable source.[/quote]
And Haaretz is a liberal left leaning paper. If you want to dispute anything in the article go ahead.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
…Not some bullshit about Obama’s heroism in killing OBL. Any president would have done that…
[/quote]
This one always gets me. I don’t give a flying fuck what Gates said, Bam or any other president, was no hero for killing #1 Wanted Man in the World. Sheesh.
[/quote]
Wasn’t OBL living in a bunker that he could never leave, with a bunch of nagging wives when they shot him ?
Meh, there is a point where “death to America” doesn’t mean shit. Shit, we probably put him out of his misery.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
had Gaddafi lynched
[/quote]
Didn’t Reagan drop a whole pile of bombs on his palace because he was a terrorist? IIRC, the only reason he made it past 1986 was because the either the French or Italians tipped him off.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’ll read the article and respond in full later.
For now, I’ll say that Rice was key to an administration whose record on foreign policy, in contradistinction to that of the current one (and despite the mushy narrative that is coalescing, evidence-free, in many otherwise intelligent minds), was an utter fucking disaster.
[/quote]
It’s rather interesting that some can sit in their canoes with no paddles, uncontrollably descending the rapids and simultaneously squawk about the guy in the next drainage over who earlier did the same thing but was prescient enough to remember to bring a fooking paddle.
Point? The Bam Admin is almost universally recognized as having the stupidest (I could probably come up with a more sophisticated adjective, I admit) foreign policy in American history. It’s indefensible. It’s a policy with no rudder unless one fantasizes that one made of leftist lunacy cardboard is somehow getting the job done. I just see a boat swirling in circles and ejecting its community organizer passengers at every whirlpool.
Bam, H. Clinton, Kerry, et al, are making us look like fools on the world stage.[/quote]
Universally recognized by whom, exactly? Conservative pundits perhaps. Certainly not the preponderant scholars and practitioners of international relations and its sub-fields. You know, the people who actually have training and experience in analyzing these kind of things.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, the Washington Times is a rag founded by a cult, and is not halfway a reputable source.[/quote]
Opinions are like assholes and belly buttons…[/quote]
If you scroll down the page concerning the fate of Iraqi WMD you’ll discover that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by Russian and Chinese economic terrorist attacks. Seems legit to me.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And we have Stephen Hayes’ book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Connection-Collaboration-Hussein-Endangered/dp/0060746734
Reviews:
From Publishers Weekly
Weekly Standard reporter Hayes marshals a wealth of evidence that, in contrast with the tenuous connections that have so far made news, point to ties between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda. Most intriguingly, Hayes finds links between Iraq and the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, one of whom apparently received shelter and financial support from Iraq after the attack. Hayes also gets confirmation by Czech officials of the alleged Prague meeting between September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent. Elsewhere, Hayes points to Iraqi intelligence documents that mention a “good relationship” with bin Laden. Other sources note an alleged agreement for Iraq to assist al-Qaeda in making chemical and biological weapons. Relying both on “open sources” like news articles, transcripts from the 1998 embassy bombing trials, as well as anonymous intelligence reports and informants, Hayes allows that some of these stories may prove unreliable. But he contends that the number, consistency and varied provenance of reports of high-level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq throughout the past decade allows one to “connect the dots” into a clear pattern of collaboration. Despite the frustrating absence of source notes and no knowledge of what cooperative efforts ever came of these contacts, most readers will conclude from this volume that the Saddam?al-Queda thread has some play left in it.
Looking at the previous reviews of this book, the ones with few stars are obviously politically motivated. It’s doubtful that they’ve read the book, and some indulge in outrageous and even dystopian tangents that have no connection to the subject at hand. However, after the outcry for “connecting the dots” after 9-11 it doesn’t make sense to sweep other connected dots under the rug. Did Saddam Hussein have connections to terrorists? Indisputably. To argue otherwise is to hide one’s head (to speak diplomatically) in the sand. Was he connected to 9-11? Possibly. The important thing to understand is that author Stephen F. Hayes can only put forth “dots”. Like any good prosecuting attorney, he presents his case clearly, giving exhibits that build a case on circumstantial evidence. But to be fair, the “dots” that should have been connected to stop 9-11 (if it could be humanly stopped) are also tenuous, unless one sees them with the benefit of hindsight. I will not say whether Hayes (in the interest of full disclosure, it must be said he works for the Weekly Standard, which raises as much hackles as a worker for The New York Times to a so-called Neo-Con) proves his case. READ THE BOOK FOR YOURSELF, especially before you have the temerity to write a negative review. In fact, the reviews (all reviews) of this book, including positive ones, should be ignored because they are meaningless. If one thinks Iraq is the centerpiece on the war on terror, the reviews will be positive (though also one has to admit in those cases the book was probably read); if one adamantly refuses to admit Saddam Hussein had ties to terror at all (which is a foolish decision) and think the Iraq leg on the war on terror a diversion or a sideshow (which is at least an arguable position, though I don’t accept it) one probably isn’t going to read the book because a belief may sometimes be shaken when confronted with cold facts. The important thing to do with this book is READ it and give the facts a fair hearing, even if you reject them. If you ever said the phrase “connect the dots” in relation to 9-11, you must read this book. Your opinion may not be changed (dogma rarely is) but you will at least see what connecting dots amounts to. It’s done here to good advantage. Is the book true? How do I know – I’m not a CIA operative! But it is IMPORTANT. Here are the facts. Accept them or reject them. In the climate the world is in at present, with terrorists crossing oceans to kill innocents, even affecting elections in western countries, you’re doing yourself a disservice and even being dumb if you don’t at least give these dots a fair hearing before writing your reviews to denegrate the book.
This is a very short book and smaller than half the size of a typical magazine page, so it didn’t take long to read it over lunch hour today. But the contents more than make up for its size. If you have read any of Hayes’ articles in the Weekly Standard over the last year or so, you won’t find a lot of new material here, but he does connect a few more dots, but also exposes the sad truth about journalists today- they are lazy and have a political agenda to discredit any evidence which does not fit the mantra of the liberals that there was no connection between Hussein and bin Laden. Hayes cites numerous examples of Saddam’s funding of terrorists all over the Middle East, and complements Laurie Mylroie’s books which links Iraq to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi native who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center, moved back to Iraq after the bombing and actually was paid by Saddam, as newly discovered records show. The supposedly “discredited” link of Iraqi intelligence meeting in Prague with Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers is examined in full, with the CIA “sources” who dismiss the claim looking more like the incompetents that they are. Hayes does a good job of dissecting stories published by the NY Times and the Washington Post which confirm their political agenda rather than objective reporting. One small example is their citing of al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida alias Abu Zubayadah, alias Abd al-Hadi Al-Wahab, alias Zain Al-Abidin, alias Muhahhad Hussain, alias Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, alias Tariq, alias Abu-al Hasanat, alias Noorud Din, alias Dawood, alias Kamil, alias Badar alias Al Mujahid,a Palestinian born at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Zubaida has been the source of numerous pieces of information gleaned during his interrogation by the CIA and FBI at Guantanamo after his capture in Pakistan in 2002. Every threat cited by him (which actually resulted in an increase in the threat level being raised to orange last year) has turned out to be totally false. But he is cited as the source of “credible” intelligence by the Times and Post when he denies that there was any link between Iraq and al Qaeda, even though other al Qaeda leaders have said there were links. Now why should a thug who has been proven to be lying in everything he has told interrogators suddenly become credible when he said there was no connection. Yet his denial has become one of the cornerstones in the mantra that there was no linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda? Hayes cites numerous examples which shows the partisan political agenda of the left-wing media which refuses to be bothered by the facts, and their reliance on their “sources” in the US intelligence community. This is the same community whose failure is laid bare by the hole in the ground where the WTC once stood in New York.
I am certain that there will be numerous reviews written by Bush haters who will never hold this book in their hands, but objective observers who want to understand why Iraq was one of the “Axis of Evil” countries cited by Bush last year should get this book. Hopefully Hayes will write about Iran’s recent embarrassing admissions about their nuclear program after denying its existence to the IAEA for the last decade.[/quote]
So if information existed that could tangibly link Al Qaida to the Iraqi government, why didn’t the Bush administration use it to their political advantage?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
She believes in werewolves. Werewolves! [/quote]
I hope you are not really this dumb and that is an attempt at humor.
[/quote]
OK, technically it’s WerwÃ?¶lfe . And it is 100% true.
Edit: it’s not letting me post the German word properly. [/quote]
The werewolf= Der Werwolf
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’ll read the article and respond in full later.
For now, I’ll say that Rice was key to an administration whose record on foreign policy, in contradistinction to that of the current one (and despite the mushy narrative that is coalescing, evidence-free, in many otherwise intelligent minds), was an utter fucking disaster.
[/quote]
It’s rather interesting that some can sit in their canoes with no paddles, uncontrollably descending the rapids and simultaneously squawk about the guy in the next drainage over who earlier did the same thing but was prescient enough to remember to bring a fooking paddle.
Point? The Bam Admin is almost universally recognized as having the stupidest (I could probably come up with a more sophisticated adjective, I admit) foreign policy in American history. It’s indefensible. It’s a policy with no rudder unless one fantasizes that one made of leftist lunacy cardboard is somehow getting the job done. I just see a boat swirling in circles and ejecting its community organizer passengers at every whirlpool.
Bam, H. Clinton, Kerry, et al, are making us look like fools on the world stage.[/quote]
Universally recognized by whom, exactly? Conservative pundits perhaps. Certainly not the preponderant scholars and practitioners of international relations and its sub-fields. You know, the people who actually have training and experience in analyzing these kind of things.[/quote]
Oh no, perish the thought. I meant to say your preponderant scholars and practitioners of international relations and its sub-fields.
I have no doubt you can rustle up your share of French, Cuban, Ecuadorian and Venezuelan masterminds.
So no, “universal” was a misstatement on my part. Then again, I did qualify it with that thar adjective “almost.”
[/quote]
I highly doubt you have studied many, if any, of the major theoretical works and illustrative case studies of IR. So who are “my” scholars exactly? The vast majority are American and heavily influenced American foreign policy in the 20th and 21st century.
Go ahead. Find and produce the opinions of reputable IR scholars claiming that the Obama’s administration’s foreign policy is “the stupidest in American history.” Make sure they are American too. We all know that other nationalities have nothing to offer.