Re: USA & Iran


AC wrote:
On 3 May 2006 18:17:18 -0700,
wf3h <wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
..

the fact that it was not a conventional military threat does not mean
it wasn't a threat.

It wasn't a threat.

who sez?


indeed, atomic weapons are sought by most nations
PRECISELY because they have shattered and ineffective armies.

It had no such weapons.

perhaps we should have waited until a mushroom cloud appeared over your
city?


nuclear
weapons allow them to achieve world class status on the relative cheap.

But Iraq had no such weapons.

see above.




'hussein was a secular DICTATOR'.

the fact he was secular NEVER was a guarantee he would not consort with
AQ if he thought it was in his best interests.

Why would consorting with religious fanatics of the kind that threatened his
power base in his best interests?

uh, because he COULD have, at some point, seen ANOTHER threat that was,
in his mind, bigger than AQ. in that case he would have had no problem
setting up an arrangement.

And why are we even having a discussion
about hypotheticals. The claim was made that Hussein and al Qaeda were in
some sort of cahoots as a justification for the invasion.

perhaps you can refresh my memory. don't recall that claim being made.

The claim was
false, and even a trivial analysis of how Hussein did business would explain
precisely why.

you guys keep saying this as if it were gospel

prove it.

and this is based on the word of hussein that he would NEVER ('i swear
on the souls of my grandchildren'...apologies to the don)...consort
with terrorists. even though he DID

But notably, not with the ones that flew planes into buildings on September
11th, 2001.

that is true. it's also irrelevant. if he did business with islamist
terrorists, their particular uniform, so to speak, is unimportant.



but the issue is, under what conditions is the US an evil imperialist
war machine. iraq does NOT demonstrate that it is. specious comments
that it 'armed' or 'supported' iraq do not, in view of the sotto voce
support of the french and germans who, while they were 'pursuing peace'
were arming hussein and buying his oil.

The issue is the justifications used prior to the invasion. The key here is
how those justifications suddenly changed when it had become clear that
Hussein had posed no threat to his neighbors. Then it became some sort of
saintly mission of liberation.

perhaps. in that case, instead of nation building, we should have just
wrecked the place and left.

i agree with you.

I'm sure he would co-operate with murderers, just not the kinds of murderers
that base their intent on religious doctrines that were as much a threat to
him as to the West.

again, proof? he DID have conversations with AQ. they didn't amount to
much, but he certainly kept the lines of communication open.

Proof? The proof is that he treated his own religious fanatics with his own
manner of tender mercies. AQ was no friend to him.

which does not mean he was their enemy. he certainly had low level
conversations with them. he was an opportunist, not exactly a man of
principle.



hell, the shi'ite terrorists in teheran offer asylum to AQ and AQ has
routinely murdered iranian diplomats.

Cite?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479438/site/newsweek/
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/782ppuml.asp
http://www.meforum.org/article/670
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/22/alqaeda.iran/

So far as I can tell, outside of the mad imaginings of Bush and his cohorts,
no one thought Hussein was capable of building a bomb.


except the germans and the french...

I recal them saying that more data was needed.

i recall them saying hussein had WMD's (chemical primarily). in
addition, since hussein DID at one time have a nuclear program, what
makes you think he wouldn't have continued it as soon as it was
convenient?


the US ignored the whole situation. again, you seem to think that's
wrong. why? why should we have NOT ignored hitler, but SHOULD have
ignored hussein? how do you know they 'dont represent a danger' until
they attack? do you WAIT until they DO attack? why?

The Allies were wrong. They needed to demilitarize Germany, and by the
1930s, all but abandoned it. If they had intervened at key moments, such as
forcing the disbandment of the General Staff, Germany's teeth would have
been pulled without a single shot.

why should the US have gotten involved? at the time the french army was
MUCH stronger than the german. they could have handled it in days. this
reminds me of the massacres in kosovo. the EU and UN did nothing all
the while whining about the slaughter. FINALLY the US had to step in
and threatened to destroy the bosnian govt. only THEN did they stop.

but, i suppose, you were against that, too.


which is not an answer to the question of how you know he wouldn't
consort with terrorists.

These terrorists are religious fanatics.

which is not an answer to the question.


because you keep screaming about US influence but IGNORE the influence
of others. where WW2 is concerned it's not a 'black and white world',
but where the US is concerned, it seems, it is.

So, in other words, you were just creating strawmen.

nope. i'm merely hoping to have you confront reality.


bombers require bases. bases require protection. protection requires a
build up...a buildup is prelude to war...

The US spent a decade keeping Hussein in check with the force that was
there.

the 'force' was a trip wire, just like the 37,000 troops in korea. they
were a deterrence, not the main body of a defensive force.


including iraq...

Which posed no threat.


and we have saddam's word on that.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: USA & Iran
    ... stated Iraq posed no threat. ... at BEST, iraq needed MORE inspections. ... Germany was, even after its defeat in 1918, a highly ... the links between AQ and hussein were minimal...but they were there. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: USA & Iran
    ... it wasn't a threat. ... Why would consorting with religious fanatics of the kind that threatened his ... were arming hussein and buying his oil. ... except the germans and the french... ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: USA & Iran
    ... stated Iraq posed no threat. ... at BEST, iraq needed MORE inspections. ... Germany was, even after its defeat in 1918, a highly ... the links between AQ and hussein were minimal...but they were there. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: USA & Iran
    ... ONLY thing allowing UN inspectors in was the threat of force...in what ... And, unlike Nazi Germany, where every indication of militarism in violation ... the links between AQ and hussein were minimal...but they were there. ... The weapons inspectors had been let back in, but were never given a chance ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: USA & Iran
    ... ONLY thing allowing UN inspectors in was the threat of force...in what ... And, unlike Nazi Germany, where every indication of militarism in violation ... stated Iraq posed no threat. ... the links between AQ and hussein were minimal...but they were there. ...
    (talk.origins)