"The strategic reason for crushing Saddam was to reverse the tide of global terror."

[heartsurgeon]

OP/ED piece from NYT

sounds right to me.

 

[Orsorum]

Of course it was. Doesn't everyone know that? This was a holy war to combat terrorism.

 

[Czar]

but what did Saddam have to do with global terrorism?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
OP/ED piece from NYT

sounds right to me.

Powell disagrees. Saddam had no al-Qaida links.

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: Czar
but what did Saddam have to do with global terrorism?

What are you talking about? I can't believe you are questioning this!!! Everyone knows that Saddam had nukes that could be launched in 45 minutes!!! What, are you telling me that you were going to wait for the smoking gun of a mushroom cloud? You heartless bastard!!!

 

[tallest1]

*reads article*

So let me get this straight... by scaring other countries into compliance with a bloody fist, we've made the world a safer place? Is this what you neo-cons call diplomacy?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: tallest1
*reads article*

So let me get this straight... by scaring other countries into compliance with a bloody fist, we've made the world a safer place? Is this what you neo-cons call diplomacy?

The problem is that most of those nation have no control of terrorist cells like al Qaida who can operate within their borders and rally support amongest the common folks. One of the reasons people like Mohammar Qaddafi of Libya suddenly wanted to play nice with us was because he feared the al Qaida cell that is gunning for him in his country. He has already had several attempts on his life by pro-Bin Laden supporters and now he's hoping to benifit from our protection.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Is this what you neo-cons call diplomacy?

well, it certainly appears to be having the desired effect..

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: Czar
but what did Saddam have to do with global terrorism?

Didn't he support Hamas and stuff?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

If you were going to reverse the tide of global terror wouldn't you go after Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, or dare I say it . . . Afghanistan?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"7. In North Korea, a half-world away from that example, an unofficial U.S. group was shown nuclear fuel facilities at Yongbyon to demonstrate that the world faced a real threat. But the U.S. has given China to understand that nuclear-armed Pyongyang would lead to missile defenses in Japan and Taiwan, a potential challenge to China's Asian hegemony. Our new credibility is leading China to broker an enforceable agreement like the kind Libya has offered, with economic sweeteners tightly tied to verification."


Huh?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

What kind of tool wrote that OpEd? Libya had a nuclear program that didn't work and a chem/bio program they didn't want to sustain (for various reasons beyond fear of Bush/Blair). The US would NEVER sell a missile defense system to Taiwan . . . primarily b/c most Taiwanese have enough sense to know it wouldn't work.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Is this what you neo-cons call diplomacy?

well, it certainly appears to be having the desired effect..

All well and good when it's not your kids in the military.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: tallest1
*reads article*

So let me get this straight... by scaring other countries into compliance with a bloody fist, we've made the world a safer place? Is this what you neo-cons call diplomacy?

when words dont work anymore...

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Czar
but what did Saddam have to do with global terrorism?

Didn't he support Hamas and stuff?

Yes, but global terrorism is not the definition of supporting one cause, all of which is encompassed within a 2,800 square mile region which happens to be next to israel.

If the palestinians are global terrorists then I guess we now get to call Sharon a global terrorist. Cool, it has a ring to it.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Czar
but what did Saddam have to do with global terrorism?

Didn't he support Hamas and stuff?

Yes, but global terrorism is not the definition of supporting one cause, all of which is encompassed within a 2,800 square mile region which happens to be next to israel.

If the palestinians are global terrorists then I guess we now get to call Sharon a global terrorist. Cool, it has a ring to it.

 

[Red Dawn]

I would have thought it was to kill Iraqi's!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Czar
but what did Saddam have to do with global terrorism?

Didn't he support Hamas and stuff?

Yes, but global terrorism is not the definition of supporting one cause, all of which is encompassed within a 2,800 square mile region which happens to be next to israel.

If the palestinians are global terrorists then I guess we now get to call Sharon a global terrorist. Cool, it has a ring to it.

He also backed the Trade Center bombing.

The PLO was active also outside of the Middle East. Many of the European gangs recieved their funding from the Soviet and Arab blocs.

 

[heartsurgeon]

but what did Saddam have to do with global terrorism?

he was host to Abu Nidal (curiously enough he "committed suicide" just before the invasion of iraq..gee, you don't think saddam had him killed so he could discuss his role in training Al Queda operatives do you?)

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

but what did Saddam have to do with global terrorism?

he was host to Abu Nidal (curiously enough he "committed suicide" just before the invasion of iraq..gee, you don't think saddam had him killed so he could discuss his role in training Al Queda operatives do you?)

He shot himself in the head.....twice...

quite convenient.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If you were going to reverse the tide of global terror wouldn't you go after Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, or dare I say it . . . Afghanistan?

I'd start with the rogue nations like Iraq, but I'm just thinking logically about this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

but what did Saddam have to do with global terrorism?

he was host to Abu Nidal (curiously enough he "committed suicide" just before the invasion of iraq..gee, you don't think saddam had him killed so he could discuss his role in training Al Queda operatives do you?)

No, I don't think so.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I'd start with the rogue nations like Iraq, but I'm just thinking logically about this.

What qualifies a country for rogue status? Disregard for treaties? Disregard for international law? Disregard for national sovereignty? Inadequate regard for civilians?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: StormRider

Originally posted by: Czar
but what did Saddam have to do with global terrorism?

Didn't he support Hamas and stuff?

Yes, but global terrorism is not the definition of supporting one cause, all of which is encompassed within a 2,800 square mile region which happens to be next to israel.

If the palestinians are global terrorists then I guess we now get to call Sharon a global terrorist. Cool, it has a ring to it.

Is it your contention that the Palestinians have never committed acts of terror outside of Palestine/Israel?

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Is this what you neo-cons call diplomacy?

well, it certainly appears to be having the desired effect..

It is embarrassing for me to have taken the same oath as you friend. Sad indeed.