Which of the wars the US waged since 1945 can be justfied? - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Tanngrisnir3 · #31 (**permalink**) 08-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

You gotta watch when you break into the middle of a conversation that you know what's actually being said.

Yeah, thanks. You gotta watch when you're conversing not to make claims you're unable to support.

CYDdharta · #32 (**permalink**) 08-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

Now you're betraying your ignorance of the situation in Iraq before we went in. Saddam and his regime were nowhere close to allying themselves with Al Qaeda.

If ignorance is being displayed, it certainly isn’t on my part;

Quote:

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

What do you think all the bad guys in the world work together?

Not at all; but when you have OBL seeking out Saddam for assistance, then Saddam seeking out OBL for assistance, call me crazy, but it seems quite likely to me that, with an invasion imminent, they find some common ground.

CYDdharta · #33 (**permalink**) 08-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

Thing is all of the links of him to terrorists broadly, none of them linked him substantially to Al Qaeda specifically (nice back pedal there) and none of them linked him to major attacks against the US. Whats more there was nothing to suggest he could not have been contained or dealt with later when or if he ever became a threat. Ignoring Afghanistan while we pissed everything away in Iraq was stupid.

He WAS linked to al Qaeda, as I posted above. He wasn’t unquestionable linked to any attacks on the US (although there is evidence to suggest Iraq’s complicity in the 1993 WTC bombing), but there’s no way to say that would always have been the case. After an attack, it’s too late; all you can do is sit back and wispfully think what SHOULD have been done. I thought 9/11 would have taught that lesson, but I guess not for everyone.

CYDdharta · #34 (**permalink**) 08-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Yeah, thanks. You gotta watch when you're conversing not to make claims you're unable to support.

You're welcome. I have no problems supporting the claims I make. You just need to understand what claims I'm making.

Tanngrisnir3 · #35 (**permalink**) 08-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

You're welcome. I have no problems supporting the claims I make. You just need to understand what claims I'm making.

No, quite clearly either you don't, or you need to see a rhetorical doctor about a terminal case of hyberbolic exaggerationism. Let's see here......

'Reportedly', 'sources reported that perhaps.....', 'apparently', 'may have occurred....',

Not exactly justification for your rather over-the-top If we hadn't gone in and Iraq had become the al Qaeda haven it looks like it was likely to turn into.... Why, what ironclad evidence!

Sorry, you haven't made even a tangentially effective circumstantial case.

CYDdharta · #36 (**permalink**) 08-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

No, quite clearly either you don't, or you need to see a rhetorical doctor about a terminal case of hyberbolic exaggerationism. Let's see here......

'Reportedly', 'sources reported that perhaps.....', 'apparently', 'may have occurred....',

Not exactly justification for your rather over-the-top If we hadn't gone in and Iraq had become the al Qaeda haven it looks like it was likely to turn into.... Why, what ironclad evidence!

Sorry, you haven't made even a tangentially effective circumstantial case.

Ah, there’s the problem. In Tanngrisnir3’s world hypothetical situations need ironclad proof. Fortunately I made that statement in the real world, where no such rules exist.

Tanngrisnir3 · #37 (**permalink**) 08-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

Ah, there’s the problem. In Tanngrisnir3’s world hypothetical situations need ironclad proof. Fortunately I made that statement in the real world, where no such rules exist.

No, not really, 'ironclad' barely exists in any world. What I require, to entertain such vapid speculation, is something a little north of wild conjecture based on maybes.

And the real world is where your type of speculation is easily exposed as hollow.

CYDdharta · #38 (**permalink**) 08-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

No, not really, 'ironclad' barely exists in any world. What I require, to entertain such vapid speculation, is something a little north of wild conjecture based on maybes.

And the real world is where your type of speculation is easily exposed as hollow.

Then address my points, rather than wasting our time and space with all these off topic posts.

Mushroom · #39 (**permalink**) 08-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahmota

None of the conflicts the US have started where justifiable in the way we executed them. Most of the conflicts where all about the imperialistic spreading of american dogma ie Korea and Vietnam or lone wolf rogue nation action or interefering in purely internal affairs. The only way we should go to war is if it is a unilateral unified UN action or in immediate self-defense when there is a clear and credible internationally acknowledged force moving against the US.

Dude, read your history.

The Korean War was a UN War. In fact, the name of the offensive that pushed the North Koreans back north was the UN Offensive. And while the US was the major combatant, many other countries were involved. This includes the UK, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Columbia, Ethiopia, France, Freece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, and Turkey.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it to others incorrectly.

Mushroom · #40 (**permalink**) 08-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by redrover

I War, but not the second one. War can be justified to stop genocide and territorial aggression. Korea and Vietnam were civil wars we should have left alone.

Now how are those "Civil Wars"?

Korea was partitioned into 2 nations in 1943 under the Cairo Declaration. Before that it was a protectorate of Japan (1905-1945). Before that, it was a sattellite of the Chinese Empire.

With the end of World War II, Korea became 2 nations. And it remains that way to this day, with both nations having representatives in the UN. What you call a "Civil War" was an invasion. It was as much of a CIvil War as Iraq trying to take over Iran or Kuwait, claiming that traditionally they were the same empire.

The same goes with Vietnam. Partitioned in 1954 by the Geneva Conference, the North invaded because they wanted control of the entire nation. In fact, over 793,000 fled the newly formed "North Vietnam" in 1954 when the nation was given it's independence.

It was more of the same, a Communist nation attacking a neighbor because they wanted to control everything.

And if you believe that, then you should accept the rights of Germany to annex Prussia, Austria, the Saar region, Rhineland, Sudetenland, and eventually Czechoslovakia and Poland. Because even though these were independent nations, they were all once part of Germany. Therefore it had every right to seize them back.

Thematic-Device · #41 (**permalink**) 08-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

Not at all; but when you have OBL seeking out Saddam for assistance, then Saddam seeking out OBL for assistance, call me crazy, but it seems quite likely to me that, with an invasion imminent, they find some common ground.

In what world does supporting anti-saddam terrorists in kurdistan equate to seeking to help saddam?

Maybe you simply missed a few parts of your quote instead of willfully ignoring all contradicting evidence

Quote:

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin. In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.

You have a few meetings, some rumors, but not a single thing that the CIA or any intelligence agency finds compelling. Occasionally they had similar goals, but no real evidence they worked together rather then simply in parallel.

And perhaps you missed the 9-11 commissions conclusion

Quote:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)

Or the military's conclusion

Quote:

"This study found no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."

Others have reached the same conclusion, but no previous study has had access to so much information. Further, this is the first official acknowledgement from the U.S. military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.

Quote:

The primary target, however, of Saddam's terror activities was not the United States, and not Israel. "The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq." Saddam's primary aim was self preservation and the elimination of potential internal threats to his power.

U.S. Military Concludes No Saddam Link to Al Qaeda - Rapid Report

Thematic-Device · #42 (**permalink**) 08-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

He WAS linked to al Qaeda, as I posted above. He wasn’t unquestionable linked to any attacks on the US (although there is evidence to suggest Iraq’s complicity in the 1993 WTC bombing), but there’s no way to say that would always have been the case. After an attack, it’s too late; all you can do is sit back and wispfully think what SHOULD have been done. I thought 9/11 would have taught that lesson, but I guess not for everyone.

He was linked to Al Qaeda the same way you could claim the United States was a bastion of communism because both the US Navy and the USSR defended Kuwaiti oil transports during the Iran-Iraq War.

You linked to a commission which concluded that there wasn't a link, the US Military concluded there wasn't a link, the CIA gave a memo to George Bush telling him there wasn't a link. The FBI upon interrogating Saddam found that he didn't trust Al Qaeda and thought they were zealots. The senate revisited the issue in 2006 and again concluded that there were no links. The Pentagons inspector general attacked Feith's memo's . I mean how many people do you need telling you that you are wrong? Most of these are not peaceniks. Most of these are people who are predisposed if anything to exaggerating the threat.

CYDdharta · #43 (**permalink**) 08-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thematic-Device

He was linked to Al Qaeda the same way you could claim the United States was a bastion of communism because both the US Navy and the USSR defended Kuwaiti oil transports during the Iran-Iraq War.

You linked to a commission which concluded that there wasn't a link, the US Military concluded there wasn't a link, the CIA gave a memo to George Bush telling him there wasn't a link. The FBI upon interrogating Saddam found that he didn't trust Al Qaeda and thought they were zealots. The senate revisited the issue in 2006 and again concluded that there were no links. The Pentagons inspector general attacked Feith's memo's . I mean how many people do you need telling you that you are wrong? Most of these are not peaceniks. Most of these are people who are predisposed if anything to exaggerating the threat.

The Soviets offered the US an alliance during the Iran-Iraq war?!? The US later tried to ally itself with the USSR during the Iran-Iraq War?!? News to me.

The source I posted said there was not YET a collaborative relationship. (I could have sworn I had already said as much.) If we’d have waited for such a relationship to have been formed, the Bush Administration would have been castigated (rightly) for waiting too long. So Saddam didn’t trust OBL. What is that supposed to prove? Did Churchill trust Stalin? How about FDR? That didn’t stop an Alliance, did it? Extraordinary circumstances tend to create unusual allies. With al Qaeda facing immanent explosion from Afghanistan and Saddam facing renewed sanctions and increasing pressure from US/UK and potentially renewed military action, with Saddam and OBL both facing a death sentence when caught, with trained al Qaeda terrorists fleeing their homeland and Saddam needing a new way to influence events in and around his country, it’s pretty easy to imagine Saddam and OBL being able to overcome whatever obstacles that prevented them from coming to an agreement during their decade+ of negotiations.

Steve · #44 (**permalink**) 08-04-2009

To be frank, they can all be justified.

It just depends on who's justifying which one to whom...

htperr6565 · #45 (**permalink**) 08-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

To be frank, they can all be justified.

It just depends on who's justifying which one to whom...

oh yes, they can all be justified, it just depends on if you are addressing war hawks, morons, fools, thinkers, pacifists, or what not.

View Poll Results: Which of these post WWII conflicts were justified?
Iraq	11	18.03%
Afghanistan	31	50.82%
Korea	26	42.62%
Vietnam	7	11.48%
Cold War	28	45.90%
Yugoslavia	17	27.87%
None	16	26.23%
All	8	13.11%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 61. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode