• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

If Saddam Had Stayed

One of the primary conclusions of the Duelfer Report was that Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG.And yet this clown keeps pushing the nonsense about the lone sarin shell, which was determined to have come from an Iran-Iraq war-era stockpile and thus almost certain to have been a dud.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html

Oh, and Dave Gaubatz is an inveterate liar, bigot and kook. Anyone who's read even excerpts of his book Muslim Mafia would come to that conclusion [assuming they weren't sipping the same Kool-Aid]. And Pete Hoekstra might be the biggest joke on Capitol Hill. He's the same guy that leaked his exact whereabouts while on a trip to Iraq ON TWITTER.

If you're citing those clowns, you're beyond help. Not worth arguing with. Probably in need of psychiatric evaluation.
 
FireGarden said:
Al-Qaeda couldn't operate in Iraq except in those parts where Saddam couldn't send his army. Until Saddam was removed, that is.
Click to expand...

Except that the CIA said they were operating in Baghdad well before the invasion. And Saddam's regime apparently was even aware of that fact. And the terrorists who were caught plotting to kill tens of thousands of Jordanians (and whole bunch of Americans) in Amman stated they'd met with al-Zarqawi IN BAGHDAD BEFORE THE INVASION to initiate a bunch of plots. And the CIA stated that when Saddam actually caught a member of al-Zarqawi's terrorist cell BEFORE THE INVASION, Saddam himself ordered he be released (over the objections of the Iraqi police who caught him). Nah, al-Qaeda couldn't operate in Iraq before the regime was toppled. :rolleyes:

FireGarden said:
Quote:
(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.
Click to expand...

Your attitude is truly amazing. But not unexpected considering your tone in our past discussions. Regardless, what those soldiers found in those camps was very interesting. And if nothing else, it makes one understand why bombing would not have worked, any more than it worked with bin Laden's camps.

FireGarden said:
Are you aware that Iraq was bombed quite a few times before the invasion? Including, btw, under Clinton's watch, during the sanctions.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And those bombing attacks didn't accomplish much, did they?

FireGarden said:
Bush could easily have bombed a chemical weapons factory and still invaded.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Perhaps not. You just can't know how the domestic and international community would have reacted to a major bombing attack in Northern Iraq. All it would have taken is one vote on the Security Council to have prevented the resolution that Bush used to justify the invasion. It might have interfered with the UN weapon inspections that were upcoming at the time. And as pointed out, it's questionable whether bombing would have worked to prevent a terrorist attack, anyway. It certainly didn't when it was tried previously against al-Qaeda.
 
The Charnel Expanse said:
Between the two parties, Saddam would be the one more likely to reject a partnership.
Click to expand...

Yet the CIA said it was Saddam who offered bin Laden sanctuary.

The Charnel Expanse said:
For a strongman trying to maintain power over a country with artificial borders and a diverse population [the majority of which is hostile towards him], such an alliance would offer no long-term benefit and very little short-term benefit.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. Saddam was CRAZY. There were no short or long term benefits to his actions in late 2002 and early 2003. NONE. They just ended up getting him and his sons killed and regime toppled.

The Charnel Expanse said:
Saddam would have no assurance that if he were to sell weapons and offer training to al Qaeda that al Qaeda wouldn't then turn on him and work to overthrow his secularist Ba'athist government.
Click to expand...

LOL! Talk about making up non-existent worries.
 
leftysergeant said:
Given the quality of intel coming out of Iraq pre-invasion, I no longer trust the descriptions of some of the atrocities attributed to Saddam and the boys. Remeber the reports about the incubators stolen from Kuwait? I still get confliucting reports as to how true that was.

There is the question as to whether, if they were such monsters and ne'er-do-wells, the boys would have been able to fill their father's shoes.
Click to expand...

This is gold. Saddam atrocity denial right from the horse's mouth.
 
Wiki;

Takfiris have been classified by some commentators as violent offshoots of the Salafi movement, yet while Salafism is seen as a form of 'fundamentalist Islam', it is not an inherently violent movement and does not condone terrorism.[3] Takfiris, on the other hand, condone acts of violence as legitimate methods of achieving religious or political goals.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri
 
Virus said:
Wiki;



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri
Click to expand...

I don't have my study notes handy right now, but the Qur'an commands very clearly "Be not schismatic in your faith."

Takfiri are schismatic. The Qur'an also says, clearly and without equivocation:"It is not for any Muslim to say of another 'You are not a Muslim' that he may spoil him."

Takfiri are heretics. Saddam would have had no use for one.

Boy, did we ever hand them a golden opportunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom