But suppose Saddam is a real threat.

Post #86,983 by Another Scott 3/9/03 10:37:21 PM Reply	But suppose Saddam is a real threat. Suppose the war goes forward, as expected, and it's discovered that Saddam has verifiable ties to al Qaeda and had a hand in al Qaeda's training, choices of targets and tactics. Would you feel that Bush was right? I still remember many people saying the US was wrong to attack Afghanistan yet the consensus now is that the US was justified. By March 2004 will a similar shift in public opinion have taken place? I agree that some of the arguments put forward by Bush for acting against Iraq haven't been as convincing as they should be. But I believe it is just for us to demand that Saddam be disarmed now. Will I change my view if, after Saddam is deposed, no evidence of WMDs or prohibited missiles, or ties to al Qaeda are found? I don't know. I find it inconceivable that the US could (at this time in history) mount such an operation based on a veneer of lies and convince 20+ other countries to go along. But I do try to keep an open mind. We'll have to see what the future holds. As I mentioned before, I'm struck by the commonality of interests between Saddam and al Qaeda (both want the US out of the Middle East, among other things) and the timeline of al Qaeda's growth (after the 1991 war). Consider Jim Hoagland's OpEd in the WashPost [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59646-2003Mar7.html\|today]. Excerpts: [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] knows the answer to these two central questions: How did al Qaeda, within two or three years, go from obscurity to becoming super-terrorists capable of blowing up U.S. embassies, warships and skyscrapers with astonishing precision? And what are the links between 9/11 and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 by Ramzi Yousef, who authorities say is Mohammed's nephew? The captured viper also knows the answer to another question that should not be rushed past just because it is obvious: Why did he choose to hide in Rawalpindi, which is the headquarters of Pakistan's military and Inter-Service Intelligence agency, and which is immediately adjacent to the Pakistani diplomatic capital of Islamabad, where Ramzi Yousef was captured in 1995? o o o Why two men from the remote and ungoverned Pakistani province of Baluchistan who grew up in Kuwait would devote their lives to killing Americans is a mystery. How they acquired prodigious masterminding skills and, at least in Mohammed's case, rabid Islamic fanaticism after lives of intellectual mediocrity and pleasure-seeking, also is a mystery. So is their connection, if any, to al Qaeda at the time of the first World Trade Center bombing. So is their instinctive flight in extremis to the power centers of Pakistan. Mohammed migrated from the identity of small-time freelance terrorist to the top ranks of bin Laden's ultra-secretive band not long after the 1993 bombing resulted in the breakup of Yousef's U.S. network. Could al Qaeda have been the target of a takeover operation by an intelligence service with good legend-manufacturing skills and a great, burning desire for revenge on the United States? That is a question U.S. investigators should push more actively. In "Study of Revenge," author Laurie Mylroie sketches the strong ties that Iraq's intelligence services have developed in Pakistani Baluchistan. And the Iraqi Embassy in Islamabad has been publicly identified by Secretary of State Colin Powell as a center for contact with al Qaeda. Why did the two master terrorists get chased to earth a handful of miles from that embassy? The answer to the 9/11 mysteries may be hiding in plain sight. Yes, it may simply be searching for conspiracies that don't exist. But it gives me pause. It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, turns up after the shooting stops. And to see how the results in Iraq affect how the US and other nations react to North Korea. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #86,985 by Simon_Jester 3/9/03 10:56:33 PM Reply	You'all are looking for absolutes in a real world. Assumptions and what-ifs there's no evidence/total evidence. The world doesn't work that way. Valid reasons for going after Saddam will be found after the war. And there will be valid reasons to have opposed the war also found. And - after the shooting is over - those reasons won't matter one way or another.
Post #86,986 by boxley 3/9/03 10:58:12 PM Reply	A couple of points to note prior to last assaults in Khandagar and Kabul the pak government requested the assault stop so Pak ISI agents could be evacuated. Scores of C140's flew out without supervision of looking at the people on board. It is surmised the top Taliban and Al Qeuida people were evacuated to pakistan with the ISI folks. Pakestan was the main supporter of the Taliban regime due to the tribal ties via the Pathan nation. The president of Pakistan juggled the army vs the intel corp and pulled a coup to do what he deemed was in pakistans best Inerest, to avoid a war with America. He saw what his intel people didnt that Bush wasnt a Clinton ready to negotiate Trade Center Lives for a perceived advantage. Bush wanted blood and really wasnt too picky on whose blood. By locating these guys in upper class Pakistan they could be watched to ensure that whatever the ISI wanted matched up with what the Pak President wanted. The pakistani president is target number one to large segments of hid population who would love direct confrontation with America. The Iraqi's like every government on earth use intel to direct actions they deem useful to them. It would be inconceivable that they along with every other group in the world would not be in the thick of things to manipulate situations. my 2 cents thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]</br> "If you want to meet a group of people who have a profound distrust of, and hostility toward, our legal system, don't waste your time on political radicals; interview a random selection of crime victims, and you will probably find that they make the former group look like utopian idealists by comparison." Dave Robicheaux
Post #372,914 by Another Scott 3/25/13 4:17:33 PM Reply	With the recent retrospectives, thought I'd take a look... at things I posted 10 years ago. 1) I was far too easily persuaded by writers at the Washington Post. 2) I was far too trusting of the authority figures in the Administration. 3) I was far too dismissive of the real costs and dangers of war. "Enforcing the UN resolutions" wasn't a sufficient justification for the war, not when the was no unanimity in the UN that that was needed. The burden wasn't on Saddam to prevent the war; the burden was on the US to prove that war was the only solution. Thanks to those who pushed-back against my credulity. :-( Cheers, Scott.
Post #372,917 by crazy 3/25/13 4:44:28 PM Reply	Wow As I was wandering the house today, I was thinking about the many years I spent driving in to work with Murray. He's about 15 years older than me, and one of the quietest smartest guys I know. It was during the pre-Iraq war (Jr) border buildup. And he ranted and raged about how stupid it was to get involved there, and that the costs will never be justified. And I said, just get us in and out and don't worry about it. Just get it over. And I was thinking I needed to call him and tell him I didn't know shit then, and know just slightly more now.
Post #372,924 by boxley 3/25/13 5:21:08 PM Reply	glad to see number 2 is still valid :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #372,926 by Another Scott 3/25/13 5:25:02 PM Reply	Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. :-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!