If Saddam Had Stayed

[leftysergeant]

LOL! That was from a letter posted online by the Pentagon, CE. A letter by a member of the Saddam Al Mukabarat to a superior. A letter that multiple translaters said was correctly translated in the version that was posted on Free Republic. And you want to know why you can't go back to the Pentagon website and look at the letter? Because the Pentagon shut it down because it contained information that posed a National Security risk regarding weapons of mass destruction.

Were you aware that there was a lot of false information entered into the official records during the lead-up to the invasion, such as the yellow cake from Niger?

Were you aware that the Pentagon was, at that time run by the sorriest excuse for a Secretary of Defense in living memory? Were you aware that the silly twit Sec Def had for yrears been plotting a way to find an excuse to invade Iraq?

Did you know that that sorry failure of a Sec Def, while working in the Ford administration, spent billions of our tax dollars looking for a way to detect a class of Soviet submarines that noibody else even believed existed, and that whales are now dying by the hundreds because of the methods invented on his watch?

Are you going to trust any "intelligence" that these idiots released to justify the invasion? I can see no cause to trust them if they tell me it is likely to rain in Seattle in October.

 

[leftysergeant]

Oh he was more than *indulging*. In 1994, he began to play the "faith card" big time. He built schools that promoted mandatory Qur'an studies. He built training centers for imams. And don't forget the Saddam University of Islamic Studies. Iraq's radio stations began airing Qur'anic lessons. Alcohol was banned in restaurants. Even Baath party officials were required to take courses in the Qur'an. Murals of Saddam sprang up all over with him shown in prayer. He built three huge mosques (one was the third largest in the Muslim world) and even had a Qur'an written in his own blood.

Actually, the Qur'an is a better guide to the conduct of a modern government than is the Bible, in that it actually codifies women's rights to own and inherit and bequeath property. It outlaws usury.

Shari'a law is quite another matter, but I have seen no indication that Saddam had any intention of increasing the role of the Shari'a courts in goiverning Iraq. Quite the contrary, it seems to me that he would, by instituting government-controlled religious institutions, be able to re-shape Shari'a as it was applied in Iraq. The Qur'an, for instance, specificly does NOT impose a death penalty for adultery. (Floging and a prohibition against marrying any believer who has not also been convicted of adultery.)

Religious freedom was actually a lot greater under Saddam. Fanaticism was suppressed, but Christians and even Baha'is (thousands of whom had fled to iraq to escape persecution and murder in Iran after the revolution) were free to worship and to do business.

Most of the Christians and just about all of the Baha'is have decided since the invasion that Syria looks like a far better place to live.

 

[willhaven]

So you don't think Americans would have just died fighting all those al-Qaeda we killed in Iraq during the war somewhere else instead?

And what about the terrorist plots that would surely have been hatched from the relatively safety of Iraq?

You must be aware of the fact there was a chemical bomb plot against the US embassy in Amman that was funded by al-qaeda associated terrorists in Iraq. This case was tried in a Jordanian court, with witness after witness testifying, with the jury being shown the vehicles, chemicals and explosives the dozen terrorists brought into the country, with the terrorists admitting on video and in the court room to many details of the plot, including it's ultimate purpose, and with the jury convicting the terrorists, including al-Zarqawi. And that plot began in meetings in Baghdad, right under Saddam's nose. A good case can be made that the reason the plot failed is because of intelligence garnered from our presence in Iraq after the invasion and because we kept the mastermind of the plot more focused on running and hiding than overseeing the details of the operation? If so, perhaps that attack would have occurred and tens of thousands of Jordanians would now be dead (along with everyone in the US embassy in Amman at the time). Those were the estimates of casualties had the plot succeeded.

And what would make you think that would have been the only plot to come from the relative safety of an Iraq under Saddam's control in the intervening 7 years? You'd be naive to think it would have stopped there. You'd be naive to think Saddam wouldn't have helped them, given all we know about the connections he had with terrorism against the West and US, and his specific connections to al-qaeda and the Taliban. Only now we'd be worried that the next attack would be with Iraqi supplied WMD.

You're naive to believe that Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Saddam would have gotten along.

The ideological founder of the Ba'ath Party which Saddam followed was a Christian. Saddam's right hand man was born a Christian. Women were going to college as early as the 1960s in Iraq.

Until the late 90's, Al Qaeda's focus was on moderate middle eastern countries. Al Zawahiri pushed Bin Laden to focus on "the far enemy" in the US.

As far as middle eastern countries and political/religious movements go, it's hard to get much further apart than Al Qaeda and Iraq.

 

[Upchurch]

Well, I know that I've always found that religious fanatics just love hanging out with secularists who have different political goals. What's not to believe?

 

[dc1971]

Given that, I think Obama should have offered more thanks than he did to Bush during his recent Iraq address. The last thing the world needed was one more nuclear armed lunatic.

Okay then, thank you George Bush... Thank you for not being president anymore!

How's that, BAC? Would all of your conservative friends accept that THANKS as well?

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

1) Tell us the contents of the trucks that were observed going to Syria before the war (that a "credible" source told the ISG was WMD related)?

Oh, that old thing? Show me some conclusive proof that those trucks existed first.
And if this did happen, I must say it represented a pretty major blunder on the part of the American military brass. What's the point of invading a country to capture its WMD if it's gonna spirit them across the border just before the invasion and foil you? Rather significant oversight. And from Saddam's perspective, what good does shipping your weapons across the border do? Why not, you know, use them against the military that's about to invade your country?

2) Tell us the contents of the concrete bunker that was built under the Euphrates in 2002 (that locals said contained WMD) and that was looted before the CIA (in all it's *wisdom*) decided to take a look at it in 2006?

You tell me, dawg. It's your story. Nobody aside from a few true-believer NeoCons seem to think the "bunker" even exists ^link

3) Tell us why Iraq selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD? They did this before, during and even after the invasion, according to the ISG. What were they hiding?

Oh, I dunno.
You do realize that Saddam and a lot of his high-ranking officials were kindasorta TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES following the invasion? Could've been trying to destroy evidence of THAT? Could've been trying to destroy evidence leading to the location of their "hidey holes"?
You tell me, Borgnine.

4) Tell us where that still viable binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED actually came from and how you *know* it was the only one?

Could've come from practically anywhere. Iran, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Russia. Surely if it were part of some hidden stockpile left over from Saddam there would've been more than ONE.

5) Tell us what the documents dated 2002 from Saddam that were found in Iraq but not translated until much later meant when they ordered "special" materials to be hidden ("special" materials was the way Iraq referred to WMD at the time)?

[citation needed]

6) Tell us why you think invading Iraq was only about finding completed WMD munitions, and not precursors and the means to produce WMD as well (you see the ISG concluded that Iraq had not given up it's pursuit of WMD and that Saddam planned to reconstitute his chemical munitions within six months to a year after the UN gave Iraq a clean bill of health and sanctions ended)?

a) Because everything the Administration said in the run-up to the war would've had us believe that Saddam was a clear and present danger and had active stockpiles of WMDs.
b) Because perceived intent is not a justification for invading a foreign country. If you broke into your neighbor's house and shot him then used the "I thought he was planning to buy guns to shoot me with" defense, you'd be put away for a very long time.
c) Because if they thought mere PURSUIT of such weapons represented a reason to invade, North Korea would've been a much more logical target.

Hmmmmmm?

You are obnoxious.

 

[BeAChooser]

Which part of Iraq? Was it up North

So FG, are you incapable of reading the excerpts I posted, too? Is this just a common affliction of people on your side of this debate?

A good case could be made that the Bush admin wouldn't have given a damn about such an attack, since they took no action against what they were told was a chemical weapons lab under the control of Zarqawi.

That's a distortion of the facts. Bush didn't ignore the threat those camps posed. The Bush administration simply made the decision not to make the same mistake that Clinton made when he lobbed a few cruise missiles at bin Laden's camps. Because bombing (even with precision guided warheads) carried no guarantees of killing any specific person or closing the camps. Clinton's missiles didn't kill bin Laden and they didn't close the camps. And just a few years later we experienced 9/11 at the hands of people sent there by bin Laden himself … people who trained in those very camps Clinton had bombed.

Instead, Bush wisely decided to end the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq once and for all by toppling Saddam and taking over the country … including the area where those camps were located (btw, did you ever take the time to read the first hand account of the soldiers who led that attack?). Because Bush knew that the problem of terrorists in Iraq extended far beyond the camps in Northern Iraq. Bombing the Northern camps would made an invasion later almost impossible. It would have created a firestorm of opinion at home and abroad (mostly negative, one should point out, from folks on the left). So Bush decided to prevent (with certainty) the possibility (strong likelihood) that one day Saddam (or one his sons) would turn crazier than they already were and decide to surreptiously arm al-Qaeda or some other group of terrorists with WMD to use against us. He decided to hold off and invade.

Now you will fault Bush for that decision, but I certainly don't. In hindsight, he was absolutely right. Because of the invasion we found out (according to the ISG) that Saddam had every intention of reconstituting his WMD arsenal the moment the UN left the country and the sanctions ended (and that was only a matter of time considering that so many UN nations … like Germany … had already negotiated arms for oil deals with that expectation in mind). Because of the invasion we found out that even with the UN ready to bless Iraq's cooperation with inspections and give it a WMD clean bill of health, Iraq was only 6 months to a year away from being able to reconstitute chemical weapons (according to the ISG). And we found out just how crazy Saddam was … crazy enough to let his country be destroyed rather than give up his WMD ambitions. Crazy enough to have ordered the use of WMD against a non-combatant (Israel) in an earlier war (we found an audio tape of him doing that). Crazy enough to hide in a dirty hole in the ground to keep on fighting what was a hopeless fight.

But thanks to Bush's strategy, Saddam is dead, his sons are dead, his regime is gone, the possibility of Iraqi WMD is gone, al-Zarqawi is dead, the northern camps are gone, the back of al-Qaeda in Iraq has been broken, and Iraq is on the road to becoming a modern western-friendly muslim nation. A pretty remarkable accomplishment that the left is to petty to properly acknowledge.

It's been ignored the other times I've seen it posted on this forum.

Actually, it's not been ignored. I said pretty much the same thing on those occasions too. Now my response was ignored or just dismissed out of hand then, however.

By the way, I wish you folks on the anti-war left could make up your mind about al-Zarqawi. I couldn't count the number of times that pre-war the left dismissed the idea that al-Zarqawi was any sort of serious threat at all. Dismissed the idea that al-Zarqawi and his band of terrorists were involved in any way with chemical or biological warheads. Dismissed the idea that he was in Baghdad at any time. Dismissed the idea that he was connected to al-Qaeda in ANY way. And now here you are claiming that Bush made a mistake by not TRYING to kill him before the war by lobbing a few cruise missiles in the same way that Clinton TRIED to kill bin Laden (and didn't)?

BTW, what would have happened to Saddam's army if he had sent it north to take out Zarqawi?

LOL! Must I point out again that the 9/11 Commission reports clearly states "There are indications that [by 2001] the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.” Must I point out again that a 2002 CIA document summarized its overall view of possible Iraqi complicity regarding al-Zarqawi's presence and activities this way: "The presence of al-Qa'ida militants on Iraqi soil poses many questions. We are uncertain to what extent Baghdad is actively complicit in this use of its territory by al-Qa'ida operatives for safehaven and transit. Given the pervasive presence of Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa'ida operatives to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence." What makes you think Saddam had any intention of taking his army north and wiping out Zarqawi?

 

[leftysergeant]

1) Tell us the contents of the trucks that were observed going to Syria before the war (that a "credible" source told the ISG was WMD related)?

Why would Saddam send his weapons to a country that was more friendly to us whjen we were about to invade Iraq?

2) Tell us the contents of the concrete bunker that was built under the Euphrates in 2002 (that locals said contained WMD) and that was looted before the CIA (in all it's *wisdom*) decided to take a look at it in 2006?

Art treasures, most likely.

3) Tell us why Iraq selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD? They did this before, during and even after the invasion, according to the ISG. What were they hiding?

The fact that they had no means of fighting back anymore. They still needed the ability to bluff if Bagdhad fell but we had not yet secured the countryside.

4) Tell us where that still viable binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED actually came from and how you *know* it was the only one?

We sold it to Saddam years earlier, and it was not viable. Lots of duds lying about loose on artillery impact zones. Idiot boy Rummy thought that he didn't need to send enough troops to secure such areas and the old ammo bunkers that the troops found on the way in.

5) Tell us what the documents dated 2002 from Saddam that were found in Iraq but not translated until much later meant when they ordered "special" materials to be hidden ("special" materials was the way Iraq referred to WMD at the time)?

If there were such orders and they related to actual weapons, why have no weapons been found based on that intel?

6) Tell us why you think invading Iraq was only about finding completed WMD munitions, and not precursors and the means to produce WMD as well (you see the ISG concluded that Iraq had not given up it's pursuit of WMD and that Saddam planned to reconstitute his chemical munitions within six months to a year after the UN gave Iraq a clean bill of health and sanctions ended)?

Why do you think the Shrub would have decided not to invade if he were convinced that Saddam was utterly impotent and compliant?

 

[FireGarden]

So FG, are you incapable of reading the excerpts I posted, too? Is this just a common affliction of people on your side of this debate?

Yes, I am. Yes, it is.

Instead, Bush wisely decided to end the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq once and for all by toppling Saddam and taking over the country …

You're joking! Al-Qaeda couldn't operate in Iraq except in those parts where Saddam couldn't send his army. Until Saddam was removed, that is.

(btw, did you ever take the time to read the first hand account of the soldiers who led that attack?).

No, I didn't. You don't inspire the confidence required to think it would be worth it.

Because Bush knew that the problem of terrorists in Iraq extended far beyond the camps in Northern Iraq. Bombing the Northern camps would made an invasion later almost impossible. It would have created a firestorm of opinion at home and abroad (mostly negative, one should point out, from folks on the left). So Bush decided to prevent (with certainty) the possibility (strong likelihood) that one day Saddam (or one his sons) would turn crazier than they already were and decide to surreptiously arm al-Qaeda or some other group of terrorists with WMD to use against us. He decided to hold off and invade.

Are you aware that Iraq was bombed quite a few times before the invasion? Including, btw, under Clinton's watch, during the sanctions. You are making up rationalisations which do not make sense. Bush could easily have bombed a chemical weapons factory and still invaded.

 

[Juniversal]

Ever hear of Russell's Teapot?

Never heard of that but I liked the quote. Will be added to my quotables thread.

 

[Virus]

You're naive to believe that Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Saddam would have gotten along.

You're naive. You think mad people are men of principle? You don't choose your friends in the Middle East. If Saddam though he could benefit himself by supporting Jihadists, he'd do it. The Baath party in Syria does it.

It's like saying that Hitler and Stalin could never be allies.

 

[Upchurch]

You're naive. You think mad people are men of principle? You don't choose your friends in the Middle East. If Saddam though he could benefit himself by supporting Jihadists, he'd do it. The Baath party in Syria does it.

It's like saying that Hitler and Stalin could never be allies.

I believe Saddam might fall in with Bin Laden, if it suited his purposes. I have a hard time believing the reverse would also be true. Whatever his many other faults, Saddam was no religious zealot. Bin Laden is.

 

[leftysergeant]

It's like saying that Hitler and Stalin could never be allies.

Hitler needed wheat and Stalin needed steel and nitric acid and time to build T-34s.

I don't think Osama much needed oil or dates.

 

[Virus]

Hitler needed wheat and Stalin needed steel and nitric acid and time to build T-34s.

I don't think Osama much needed oil or dates.

Money? Arms? Safe houses?

 

[leftysergeant]

Money? Arms? Safe houses?

 

[Virus]

I believe Saddam might fall in with Bin Laden, if it suited his purposes. I have a hard time believing the reverse would also be true. Whatever his many other faults, Saddam was no religious zealot. Bin Laden is.

His derangement was taking an increasingly religious tone.

 

[Virus]

Share the joke with the rest of us. Osama says no to money, arms and safe houses for his jihad does he? What does he wage it with? Pointed sticks?

 

[Upchurch]

His derangement was taking an increasingly religious tone.

You could argue, as it has on this forum, that Saddam falls back on religion as a calculated effort to counter a falling popularity. However, Saddam was has never been the same flavor of Muslim as Bin Laden. It's like arguing that a fundamentalist would fall in with a Catholic. After all, they're both just Christians, right?

 

[Virus]

You could argue, as it has on this forum, that Saddam falls back on religion as a calculated effort to counter a falling popularity. However, Saddam was has never been the same flavor of Muslim as Bin Laden. It's like arguing that a fundamentalist would fall in with a Catholic. After all, they're both just Christians, right?

What makes you think he's OK with professing faith to bolster his popularity but draws the line at funding jihadists? He funded Hamas.

The Syrian Baathists have been keeping the fundamentalists off their back by giving them money, guns and sending them across the border for ages.

So to summarize, he already did it, and his counterpart in Syria does it. Which proves that, contrary to perceived "common sense" secular Arab regimes have no problem financing jihad at all.

Arabs are at war, primarily with each other. Islamists are just another player to be used as tools or crushed as the regimes see fit.

 

[eeyore1954]

Not to mention a minimum of 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

Oh, and the U.S. would be > $1trillion less in the hole.

Seriously, anyone still trying to justify this war is both intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Seriously, anyone who disagrees with The Charnel Expanse is both intellectually and morally bankrupt and lacking the higher faculties that the Charnel Expanse has.

How many Iraqi civilians would have died with Saddam in power?