The Return of Al Qaeda

[GaryC 7]

I have shown that both sides wanted to go to war. All I am asking that if you think the war is wrong (thats your right) to place the blame where it belongs, with the entire congress that voted for the war. Ignoring the fact that dem after dem stood up and showed support for taking out Saddam and placing the entire blame on Bush is very dishonest. I know you will never admit that because it takes the political bullets out of your gun in the next election. That is really what this is all about. The left wants to lie and deceive about the war so they can regain the White House. They are willing to trade our nations security for votes. Winning power is all they care about. It is all they ever cared about. That is the dems for you.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

A correction to my previous post. It was indeed under Zia that AQ was seeded and fertilised. But Jehangir Karamat and Musharraf were the ACOS's who actually supplied personnel and materiel for Taliban during its takeover (and later rule) of Afghanistan--and it is quite true that Musharraf certainly did nothing to contain extremism until 2001.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point is - if that sort of fundamentalism was there to begin with, it was effectively contained by the (secular) military regime. All the conflict has done is kick over the anthill and start a bigger fire.

Inaccurate, as Zia's government and intel (both military) actually seeded and fertilised AQ, and also provided personnel-materiel support to them and Taliban in the latter's 1996 takeover of Kabul; no attempt whatsoever was made until 2001 to contain AQ or Taliban--Musharraf suddenly painted himself as "ally" after 2001/09/11 to "pip at post" India, before it could start planning a joint (with US) assault against Pakistan, leading to Musharraf's extinguishment.

Point is that there weren't daily truck and marketplace bombings under Saddam - for all his many faults. Violent anarchist/fundamentalist groups generally don't mix too well with (any) concept of law and order. More than that - the leadership wouldn't have been in power for very long if they couldn't get a handle on stuff like that.

Moqtada Al Sadr's father was done away with under Saddam as I recall. Now without the martial law - pandora's delightful box of tricks has been flung wide open

[GaryC 7]

The point is - if that sort of fundamentalism was there to begin with, it was effectively contained by the (secular) military regime. All the conflict has done is kick over the anthill and start a bigger fire.

Inaccurate, as Zia's government and intel (both military) actually seeded and fertilised AQ, and also provided personnel-materiel support to them and Taliban in the latter's 1996 takeover of Kabul; no attempt whatsoever was made until 2001 to contain AQ or Taliban--Musharraf suddenly painted himself as "ally" after 2001/09/11 to "pip at post" India, before it could start planning a joint (with US) assault against Pakistan, leading to Musharraf's extinguishment.

Point is that there weren't daily truck and marketplace bombings under Saddam - for all his many faults. Violent anarchist/fundamentalist groups generally don't mix too well with (any) concept of law and order. More than that - the leadership wouldn't have been in power for very long if they couldn't get a handle on stuff like that.

Moqtada Al Sadr's father was done away with under Saddam as I recall. Now without the martial law - pandora's delightful box of tricks has been flung wide open

So you would rather have Saddam back? He was such a nice guy after all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have shown that both sides wanted to go to war. All I am asking that if you think the war is wrong (thats your right) to place the blame where it belongs, with the entire congress that voted for the war. Ignoring the fact that dem after dem stood up and showed support for taking out Saddam and placing the entire blame on Bush is very dishonest. I know you will never admit that because it takes the political bullets out of your gun in the next election. That is really what this is all about. The left wants to lie and deceive about the war so they can regain the White House. They are willing to trade our nations security for votes. Winning power is all they care about. It is all they ever cared about. That is the dems for you.

Why is that so important to you. The leader 'must' assume ultimate responsibility for his decisions otherwise he has no business being the leader.

Kind of like blaming company employees for lacklustre corporate profits while letting the CEO get off scot free.

So you would rather have Saddam back? He was such a nice guy after all.

Gary if you were prepared to be a little less confrontational over this topic - you might realise that I don't exactly celebrate people like SH.

But I do think its prudent to know what you're getting into before kicking over a basket of snakes. Clearly that didn't happen.

[GaryC 7]

I have shown that both sides wanted to go to war. All I am asking that if you think the war is wrong (thats your right) to place the blame where it belongs, with the entire congress that voted for the war. Ignoring the fact that dem after dem stood up and showed support for taking out Saddam and placing the entire blame on Bush is very dishonest. I know you will never admit that because it takes the political bullets out of your gun in the next election. That is really what this is all about. The left wants to lie and deceive about the war so they can regain the White House. They are willing to trade our nations security for votes. Winning power is all they care about. It is all they ever cared about. That is the dems for you.

Why is that so important to you. The leader 'must' assume ultimate responsibility for his decisions otherwise he has no business being the leader.

Kind of like blaming company employees for lacklustre corporate profits while letting the CEO get off scot free.

Not letting off scot free. The left is using the war as a political football. If you think the war was a mistake then put the blame where it belongs, with everyone that wanted it. Your making it sound like Bush singlehandedly forced war upon a unwilling USA. That just isn't true no matter how much the left bashes Bush.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The point is - if that sort of fundamentalism was there to begin with, it was effectively contained by the (secular) military regime. All the conflict has done is kick over the anthill and start a bigger fire.

Inaccurate, as Zia's government and intel (both military) actually seeded and fertilised AQ, and also provided personnel-materiel support to them and Taliban in the latter's 1996 takeover of Kabul; no attempt whatsoever was made until 2001 to contain AQ or Taliban--Musharraf suddenly painted himself as "ally" after 2001/09/11 to "pip at post" India, before it could start planning a joint (with US) assault against Pakistan, leading to Musharraf's extinguishment.

Point is that there weren't daily truck and marketplace bombings under Saddam - for all his many faults. Violent anarchist/fundamentalist groups generally don't mix too well with (any) concept of law and order. More than that - the leadership wouldn't have been in power for very long if they couldn't get a handle on stuff like that.

Moqtada Al Sadr's father was done away with under Saddam as I recall. Now without the martial law - pandora's delightful box of tricks has been flung wide open

Of course, law-and-order is not something that Pakistan military has ever (since 1969) been good at maintaining; ask any Bangla about that and you will get the response that Pak military is rather a suppressor than enforcer. Of course, Zia's penchant for setting off bombs (to blame either KGB or RAW) in his own cities was only evidence of that.

Technically, Saddam Hussein's rule was not martial law, as Saddam was never a soldier.

[GaryC 7]

Gary if you were prepared to be a little less confrontational over this topic - you might realise that I don't exactly celebrate people like SH.

But I do think its prudent to know what you're getting into before kicking over a basket of snakes. Clearly that didn't happen.

Does your nads get sore sitting on that fence? You complain but you don't ever take a stand. On one hand you say you don't like Saddam and in the next breath you say we didn't do the right thing to take him out. For once in your life state your position. You should be a dance instructor.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not letting off scot free. The left is using the war as a political football. If you think the war was a mistake then put the blame where it belongs, with everyone that wanted it. Your making it sound like Bush singlehandedly forced war upon a unwilling USA. That just isn't true no matter how much the left bashes Bush.

I am saying that as leader he is ultimately responsible and accountable. Not hard to understand.

And lets not start throwing around "left" and "right" epithets - at best all that can be said is that support for the current strategy is waning and decidely mixed.

[Heracles 417]

I have shown that both sides wanted to go to war. All I am asking that if you think the war is wrong (thats your right) to place the blame where it belongs, with the entire congress that voted for the war. Ignoring the fact that dem after dem stood up and showed support for taking out Saddam and placing the entire blame on Bush is very dishonest. I know you will never admit that because it takes the political bullets out of your gun in the next election. That is really what this is all about. The left wants to lie and deceive about the war so they can regain the White House. They are willing to trade our nations security for votes. Winning power is all they care about. It is all they ever cared about. That is the dems for you.

The left fails to understand that no one wants war. Yet war is a reality of life. I do not think there has ever been a century in the history of humanity where there has been no war. Yet these guys make it out as if it is the republicans and George Bush to blame as the world has been at harmony for thousand of years.

The reality that others also fail to accept is that during the perceived time of peace, Al Qaeda was actually planning to attack and kill. If Bill Clinton had taken the appropriate action during those years we many not be in this mess. They are the ones who allowed Al Qaeda to build and recruit. They are the ones who turned a blind eye rather than open up a can of worms.

At least the current administration has them running for their lives and is hunting them down one by one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary if you were prepared to be a little less confrontational over this topic - you might realise that I don't exactly celebrate people like SH.

But I do think its prudent to know what you're getting into before kicking over a basket of snakes. Clearly that didn't happen.

Does your nads get sore sitting on that fence? You complain but you don't ever take a stand. On one hand you say you don't like Saddam and in the next breath you say we didn't do the right thing to take him out. For once in your life state your position. You should be a dance instructor.

I stated my position quite clearly throughout - I don't think we should be going around engaging in unilateral military adventures outside of the international community.

I don't celebrate Saddam as I said, but he was an ugly reality in that particular situation. An ugly reality which was holding at bay a whole host of other realities just as ugly, if not more so.

But again mentioning Iraq is muddying the waters of this topic, which is about AQ. The only reason Iraq ties into it is because groups like AQ weren't overtly active in that country under Saddam, but have become so in the subsequent instability. You keep missing that point.

I have shown that both sides wanted to go to war. All I am asking that if you think the war is wrong (thats your right) to place the blame where it belongs, with the entire congress that voted for the war. Ignoring the fact that dem after dem stood up and showed support for taking out Saddam and placing the entire blame on Bush is very dishonest. I know you will never admit that because it takes the political bullets out of your gun in the next election. That is really what this is all about. The left wants to lie and deceive about the war so they can regain the White House. They are willing to trade our nations security for votes. Winning power is all they care about. It is all they ever cared about. That is the dems for you.

The left fails to understand that no one wants war. Yet war is a reality of life. I do not think there has ever been a century in the history of humanity where there has been no war. Yet these guys make it out as if it is the republicans and George Bush to blame as the world has been at harmony for thousand of years.

The reality that others also fail to accept is that during the perceived time of peace, Al Qaeda was actually planning to attack and kill. If Bill Clinton had taken the appropriate action during those years we many not be in this mess. They are the ones who allowed Al Qaeda to build and recruit. They are the ones who turned a blind eye rather than open up a can of worms.

At least the current administration has them running for their lives and is hunting them down one by one.

Did you by any chance miss the OP post?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bush did not exhaust the diplomatic avenues or facilitate resolution through the United Nations as outlined in Section 2 (in fact, he hindered the UN from completing the job they were tasked to do by the Securoty Council). And Section 3a) puts the determination of the use of force in the President's hands. That makes him responsible for whether he made the right determination. He didn't. Any way you slice it, Congress did not pass any resolution ordering the President to use military force against Iraq.

He did exhaust all diplomatic avenues. If we did what you wanted we would still be dealing with Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN, shooting at our planes and killing his own people. Just as you ask "when will we have victory?" we would be instead ask "when has diplomatic avenues been exhausted?". We gave him more chances than he deserved. It was obvious that he would never comply. Your just using this as an excuse to bash Bush. He had the right and the authority to take out Saddam.

The authority to take out Saddam? Who gave him that authority?

The UN inspection was ongoing until the White House, not Saddam, told the UN to stop their activities and get the inspectors out. This was on March 16, 2003. Their work was hindered by Bush rather than Saddam. Always remember why the inspectors didn't find any WMD's: Saddam didn't have any. The sanctions had done the jb they were supposed to do and the world was weeks away from determining that. Bush just didn't want that determination to be made - would have taken away the support in the US for his illegal attack on that country.

[Heracles 417]

Did you by any chance miss the OP post?

Well if that is the case, why don't they come out in the open and show themselves?

[GaryC 7]

The authority to take out Saddam? Who gave him that authority?

The UN inspection was ongoing until the White House, not Saddam, told the UN to stop their activities and get the inspectors out. This was on March 16, 2003. Their work was hindered by Bush rather than Saddam. Always remember why the inspectors didn't find any WMD's: Saddam didn't have any. The sanctions had done the jb they were supposed to do and the world was weeks away from determining that. Bush just didn't want that determination to be made - would have taken away the support in the US for his illegal attack on that country.

Do you really believe that fairytale? Your memory is pretty short. Saddam would stop the inspectors at the front gate while he moved the contraband out the back gate. When he moved everything out then he let the inspectors in. He had WMD's. He hid them and at the end moved them to Syria. There is plenty of evidence for that but since we can't get into Syria it can't be proved.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did you by any chance miss the OP post?

Well if that is the case, why don't they come out in the open and show themselves?

Why would they do that?

The authority to take out Saddam? Who gave him that authority?

The UN inspection was ongoing until the White House, not Saddam, told the UN to stop their activities and get the inspectors out. This was on March 16, 2003. Their work was hindered by Bush rather than Saddam. Always remember why the inspectors didn't find any WMD's: Saddam didn't have any. The sanctions had done the jb they were supposed to do and the world was weeks away from determining that. Bush just didn't want that determination to be made - would have taken away the support in the US for his illegal attack on that country.

Do you really believe that fairytale? Your memory is pretty short. Saddam would stop the inspectors at the front gate while he moved the contraband out the back gate. When he moved everything out then he let the inspectors in. He had WMD's. He hid them and at the end moved them to Syria. There is plenty of evidence for that but since we can't get into Syria it can't be proved.

In other words there is no proof - just supposition and reasoned suspicion. Not saying it didn't happen - but lets not jump to wild conclusions.