Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Why not? I'm always interested in learning something new. Please feel free to explain who you think attacked America on 9/11. It might lead to new understandings, and prove enlightening. As far as exacting revenge on an ideology, it's difficult on such a scale, don't you agree? Asymmetric warfare and all that. The question then becomes how does a formal state operating with a formal army get access to guerilla training camps and radical madrassas fueling religious fundamentalism? It seems to me the only way is with the help of whoever's government those targets are found on.
|
That's what spies are for. A formal state has the foresight to not make dumb mistakes that end up having what could be peaceful people turn into violent radicals, and to have a consistant intelligence program.
The other thing isn't relevant to this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Not only financially, but spiritually, militarily, technically, morally, emotionally supporting religious extremism and anti-western sentiment. Unfortunately, it ain't just the Saudis. Before Hussein was removed, can there be any doubt that he was vehemently anti-western and intent on dominating the region militarily? Can there be any doubt that if and when he took over the region - even if it was by military proxy - that the world over would be that much more unstable? Can you imagine how China and India would feel with Sadaam Hussein as ruler of the Middle East? Or at minimum, continuing to destabilize the region through hostility? Do you think maybe with such a hegemony, Hussein would have become a moderate leader seeking to re-establish good relations with the rest of the world? Maybe once he was finished conquering the region, he would have mellowed out and became a friendier guy. It's a thought.
|
Funding for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, the country of orgin of all those who are suspects. Training can be chalked up to the CIA who trained Bin Laden and his religious zealots once upon a time. Morally? I'm not sure how relevant that is, but moral support came from all over in small doses. There are people who hate America all over the world, and want to see it's destruction (though it's not as cut and dry as an episode of 24). If we're going to attack an entire government because some of it's members want to see the US attacked, then Iraq was hardly the biggest target. France would probably be higher on that list than Iraq. That, of course, is quite moot. Sadam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. They were to weak to hope to attack Iran, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and yes, even Kuwait. Any thoughts otherwise suggest a fundamental misestimation of the military power of Iraq. A lot of people are basing their opinions on outdated information. It's not 1997 anymore. We all knew that Iraq wasn't a threat.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
More than that I would say. There were many, many countries - dozens - allied with the US against Hussein (at least publically), much before Gulf War 1 and stretching back decades. I think that even after the Iraq War, out allies will still be our allies, and our enemies will still be our enemies. It seems we have too many cultural similarities and international arrangements for everyone stay angry at America for ever. Hopefully, America will have fewer enemies in the future. Wouldn't it be beautiful if we can put Iraq back together? What an inspiration...just what the world could use right?
|
It'd be nice, but it's not going to happen at this rate. The US has only stopped one civil war in our history, and it was our own. We screwed the pooch in Korea, and this war is being waged in a very similar way to Korea. As long as W. Bush is in office, it will be difficult to get any kind of support from most counrties in Europe and Asia (or the UN).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Come on now, isn't that just silly? How many Scud missiles did Iraq fire into Israel during GW1...are you saying Iraq didn't fire them? Can you imagine what would have happened to Israel if one of those missiles were tipped with a chemical or worse agent? You want to talk about the Dead Sea overflowing. If Iraq wasn't a threat to Israel than I swear I must be living on another planet.
|
You're living in 1992, not another planet. This is 2007 now, and we invaded in 2003. In 2003, Iraq was not a threat to anyone. Why is that so complicated? Did you forget that there was a time period between the Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom of over 10 years? Are you aware of what happened in Iraq over that span of time? I am.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
/snip
|
Here is the logic you are putting down on the page: 9/11 happened, and Iraq gives moral support to terrorism, therefore we should invade Iraq. Tha is an alternate universe of thought.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
"He was..."
Man, I think you're just arguing to argue now. Not a blip on the radar? A true friend and trusted ally of the West was he?
Am I on the wrong planet again?
|
Only the sith deal in absolutes. Saddam was in a place between what you're saying (a real threat to the west) and what you sarcastically made my stance (a friend to the west). Saddam was not a threat. That's really all that matters. It doesn't matter if he sent kind thoughts to terrorists or whatever. He lacked the means in 2003 of attacking anyone with anything. All he was capable of at that time was kidnapping some of his own citizens and torturing them to death. While it's obvious that's horrible and wrong, we have no right to destroy the government because of it, and there are much bigger things to deal with.