Jeff R
Thank you for responding, we are obviously not going to agree, but we are managing to keep it civil.
BoscoBarbell
Again an excellent post! I agree completely.
Brian Smith
I hear so many of the Bush and war supporters always talking about this link to al qaeda or that link. I feel like they think if they say it enough everybody will believe it. Instead of these thin theorys show us some in your face, clear, Im not going to doubt you, evidence that their is a link between al qaeda and Saddam!
"Brian Smith
I hear so many of the Bush and war supporters always talking about this link to al qaeda or that link. I feel like they think if they say it enough everybody will believe it. Instead of these thin theorys show us some in your face, clear, Im not going to doubt you, evidence that their is a link between al qaeda and Saddam! "
Elkhntr1, you’re not dealing with the actual evidence presented. You’re just dismissing it outright. If you want to deal with it and THEN argue that it is insufficient because of various other facts, then fine. If you’re interested in a detailed case for the connection, look up Stephen Hayes’ well-known article in the “Weekly Standard” (although a couple of the claims in this article have been disproven or severely weakened).
For my part I readily admit that any strong relationship between Iraq and Al-Quaeda would have been IN THE FUTURE. And a link between the Iraqi government and Al-Quaeda, both as it was AND as it would have been, would not have been my justification for the Iraq War.
The only justification was to point out to the security council and the American people “material breach” and then say “massive human rights violations” in the same breath.
(And Saddam should have been toppled right after he tried to assassinate the first President Bush.)
Please read my earlier post. The link is clear. If you don’t believe me, run a search. If you support removing Al Qaeda, Iraq harbored Al Qaeda.
Please note the part about the Al Qaeda members involved in active training in the camps. They called it “seeding.” Please note the direct link to Saddam.
Once you have completed this task, please give me an alternate scenario that would have allowed us to avoid conflict in Iraq while maintaining our security? Can you guarantee that the ricin made in the Kurdish camp would not have made it to your city? If so, please explain.
To “admit” is adding an editorial comment to what he said. He said they had no link with the actual 9/11 attack. He did not say that Al Qaeda wasn’t training terrorists with Saddam’s approbation. Again, Brian and I have provided convincing evidence.
It’s along the same lines as “rush to war.” That is an editorial commentary. It doesn’t take into account the continuous hostilities that have been present between Iraq and the United States since 1991. It doesn’t take into account the myriad of broken treaties by Saddam. It is an editorial comment that Brian was correcting for you.
By the way, I’m still waiting for an alternate scenario that is superior to our current actions. Thanks,
“By the way, I’m still waiting for an alternate scenario that is superior to our current actions.”
The situation in Iraq did not require a rush to invasion. The weapons inspectors were doing their job. Had Bush allowed the weapons inspectors to continue to do their job, we would have learned that Iraq had no WMD without spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, and costing hundreds of American lives.
As I said, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that eventually Saddam would have collapsed on his own. Look at the old Soviet Union, they have WMD and were 100 times more of a threat. We never felt the urgent need to “free” them, did we? Instead we were patient and eventually they collapsed under their own weight. Since it might take 20 years to install a true democracy in Iraq, I don’t understand the urgent need to depose Saddam, when it could have happened naturally, with Iraqis taking the iniative.
Please read this carefully: "Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.
That’s from the memoirs of George Bush Senior. Too bad that his son says that he doesn’t read books or newspapers.