How do we see the Iraq War now? (Colin Powell, enemy, solutions)

[liebknecht]

The biggest joke of all is that the Iraqis you supposedly came to rescue are worse of today than they were under Saddam. A job well done dubya

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by burdell

But WHAT made it a priority target after the US was attacked by an organization known to have operations in more than 40 countries yet few/none in Iraq?

That is a legitimate question.

First, the "War on Terrorism" was not limited to just al Qaeda. Congress included the phrase "..in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" in its declaration of war.

Second, there was more justification, internationally, to go after Iraq than either Iran or Syria as a result of all the UN Resolutions scoffed at by Saddam. This is where I think Bush made his biggest mistake. He attempted to justify the war with Iraq using WMDs as an excuse to make Iraq a priority, when he should have focused on Iraq's support of international terrorism.

According to Congress, terrorism was the reason Iraq was a legitimate military target, it had nothing to do with UN Resolutions. Bush used WMDs to make Iraq a priority military target, and he had good reason to do so. It was already well known from the late 1980s that Saddam had Sarin and VX gas in artillery shells, and the Sarin gas attack in Japan had already demonstrated its use by terrorists. It was therefore prudent to take out a known supporter of international terrorism with WMD capability.

[botticelli]

Originally Posted by Glitch

That is a legitimate question.


Second, there was more justification, internationally, to go after Iraq than either Iran or Syria as a result of all the UN Resolutions scoffed at by Saddam.

Did the US attack other countries who didn't abide UN resolutions?

I am not familiar with UN policies. Does the fact a country scoff at UN resolution give the United States automatic authorization to attack this country?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by botticelli

Did the US attack other countries who didn't abide UN resolutions?

I am not familiar with UN policies. Does the fact a country scoff at UN resolution give the United States automatic authorization to attack this country?

That would be NO and NO

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by botticelli

Did the US attack other countries who didn't abide UN resolutions?

I am not familiar with UN policies. Does the fact a country scoff at UN resolution give the United States automatic authorization to attack this country?

Of course not. Nor did we attack Iraq because Saddam chose to violate UN Resolutions. Like I said, Congress declared "War on Terrorism" and that made Iraq, as an active sponsor of international terrorism, a legitimate military target. The fact that Iraq also had WMDs of the same type that were known to be used by terrorists, made Iraq a priority target over Syria and Iran (who also actively sponsor international terrorism), and we were already at war with Afghanistan.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Glitch

That is a legitimate question.

First, the "War on Terrorism" was not limited to just al Qaeda. Congress included the phrase "..in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" in its declaration of war.

Second, there was more justification, internationally, to go after Iraq than either Iran or Syria as a result of all the UN Resolutions scoffed at by Saddam. This is where I think Bush made his biggest mistake. He attempted to justify the war with Iraq using WMDs as an excuse to make Iraq a priority, when he should have focused on Iraq's support of international terrorism.

According to Congress, terrorism was the reason Iraq was a legitimate military target, it had nothing to do with UN Resolutions. Bush used WMDs to make Iraq a priority military target, and he had good reason to do so. It was already well known from the late 1980s that Saddam had Sarin and VX gas in artillery shells, and the Sarin gas attack in Japan had already demonstrated its use by terrorists. It was therefore prudent to take out a known supporter of international terrorism with WMD capability.

I understand what you're saying but............................................... .................

When one is attacked, is the best course of action to seek and destroy your attackers or go after those who possibly, maybe, might attack you in the future? In the very narrow sense of being an enemy of al Qaeda, Saddam was actually an ally and I still see little wisdom in having made him a priority target nor do I see any justification to attempt dethroning him with a full scale invasion/occupation and US funding of building a nation that IS NOT our duty to build.

And IF, as you say, Bush should have focused on Iraq's support of international terrorism, how could he then justify our supposed friendship with Saudi Arabia, no slackers in the support of terrorism?

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by burdell

I understand what you're saying but............................................... .................

When one is attacked, is the best course of action to seek and destroy your attackers or go after those who possibly, maybe, might attack you in the future?

Absolutely, and that was what Congress had intended with Public Law 107-40. My biggest beef with that law is that it is too ambiguous. It essentially gives the President a blank check to wage war against any "nation, organization, or person" the President "determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons..." That is a very broad scope indeed.

Originally Posted by burdell

In the very narrow sense of being an enemy of al Qaeda, Saddam was actually an ally and I still see little wisdom in having made him a priority target nor do I see any justification to attempt dethroning him with a full scale invasion/occupation and US funding of building a nation that IS NOT our duty to build.

Saddam was not exactly an enemy of al Qaeda. Like Iran, Iraq facilitated the movement of al Qaeda operatives, and in at least one case provided medical assistance. They certainly had philosophical and religious differences, but they were also united in their hatred of the US, Saudi Arabia, and the European nations in general.

I do not disagree with you in regard to Nation Building. It is not the purpose of the US military to rebuild nations. Once the Baath Party was permanently removed from power, and Saddam captured and turned over to the Iraqi people, we should have ended military hostilities and left. However, that was in 2004 and it would have hurt Bush's chances at being reelected. A war-time President is typically retained.

Originally Posted by burdell

And IF, as you say, Bush should have focused on Iraq's support of international terrorism, how could he then justify our supposed friendship with Saudi Arabia, no slackers in the support of terrorism?

The government of Saudi Arabia does not sponsor international terrorism. That is what separates Saudi Arabia, and every other country on the planet from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria at that time. In Osama bin Laden's Fatwah, dated February 28, 1998, he declares war against the US and our "western allies" in addition to Saudi Arabia. Why do you think he included 15 of the 19 terrorists on 09/11/2001 as Saudi nationals? Obviously it was a vain attempt to get his two greatest enemies to war upon each other. Saudi Arabia has been attacked by al Qaeda far more often than the US has in the last 12 years.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Glitch

The government of Saudi Arabia does not sponsor international terrorism. That is what separates Saudi Arabia, and every other country on the planet from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria at that time.

Then how do we categorize funding hate spewing radical madrassahs?

Is enabling the planting of the seeds of terrorism any different than sponsoring it in reality or only when the need for oil is entered in the equation?

Originally Posted by Glitch

In Osama bin Laden's Fatwah, dated February 28, 1998, he declares war against the US and our "western allies" in addition to Saudi Arabia. Why do you think he included 15 of the 19 terrorists on 09/11/2001 as Saudi nationals? Obviously it was a vain attempt to get his two greatest enemies to war upon each other.

Being Saudi himself, wouldn't you think that may well because it was a place he had more trusted contacts as well as Saudis being more easily inserted into the US?

Originally Posted by Glitch

Saudi Arabia has been attacked by al Qaeda far more often than the US has in the last 12 years.

Mainly because of SA's relatiuonship with the US.

And I believe the old adage "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is pure, unadulterated BS.

That Saudi Arabia has been attacked by al Qaeda doesn't automatically make them a nation we can trust, very often the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy..

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by burdell

Then how do we categorize funding hate spewing radical madrassahs?

Is enablingthe planting of the seeds of terrorism any different than sponsoring it in reality or only when the need for oil is entered in the equation?

In the case of the various Saudi princes, in addition to then Crown Prince, and now King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud, all the funding for the Wahhabi madrasahs were "personal" and not government sanctioned. It would be no different than some private citizen in the US sending donations to the IRA in Ireland. It is not government sanctioned, but it is still done.

Originally Posted by burdell

Being Saudi himself, wouldn't you think that may well because it was a place he had more trusted contacts as well as Saudis being more easily inserted into the US?

A distinct possibility, I do not know the nationality make-up of al Qaeda members.

Originally Posted by burdell

Mainly because of SA's relatiuonship with the US.

And I believe the old adage "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is pure, unadulterated BS.

That Saudi Arabia has been attacked by al Qaeda doesn't automatically make them a nation we can trust, very often the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy..

The US has had a long standing relationship with the House of Saud, going back to 1945. There is some truth to the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." After all, we got into bed with the USSR in order to defeat Germany during WW II, only to become bitter enemies after the war ended.

I also never said anything about trusting Saudi Arabia. I understand why they privately support the Wahhabi sect of Islam, but they can never be trusted while they continue to do so.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Glitch

In the case of the various Saudi princes, in addition to then Crown Prince, and now King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud, all the funding for the Wahhabi madrasahs were "personal" and not government sanctioned. It would be no different than some private citizen in the US sending donations to the IRA in Ireland. It is not government sanctioned, but it is still done.

And it would be no different than the POTUS funding a school teaching the hate and destruction of one of our alleged allies?

That'd certainly make for some entertaining political talk shows.

Originally Posted by Glitch

The US has had a long standing relationship with the House of Saud, going back to 1945. There is some truth to the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." After all, we got into bed with the USSR in order to defeat Germany during WW II, only to become bitter enemies after the war ended.

Having a common enemy doesn't automatically make anyone a friend to be trusted, we may have hopped in bed with Stalin but I don't believe there was ever any love there, just a convenient roll in the hay.

Originally Posted by Glitch

I also never said anything about trusting Saudi Arabia. I understand why they privately support the Wahhabi sect of Islam, but they can never be trusted why they continue to do so.

Simply put, if you can't truly trust someone they are not a friend. In many ways I'd much rather have someone like Saddam who'll admit to being an enemy than some lying SOB who despite shaking your hand and proclaiming 'friendship' will reach around and stab you in the back at every opportunity.