In Kurdistan the anti-saddam OBL funded group ran into difficulties with the Kurds, forcing them to focus on the Kurds, Saddam also attacked the Kurds. causing them to work in parallel but not together. Seems like a pretty close analogy to the extent to which the US worked with the USSR during the Iran-Iraq War.

So for what, a decade, they had been alternately trying to kill each other or uneasily discussing a truce, we have Saddam who was convinced that Al Qaeda would inevitably betray him, and you believe that this ever would have formed into an alliance? You don't think ten years of hostility is a good indication that they'd never become allies? What, were they in therapy to work out their differences?

Saddam's number one concern from all sources was staying in power. To accomplish this he directed terrorism against his own people. Al Qaeda, who eventually wanted to overthrow Saddam, does not have a similar goal, making them poor allies of convenience. Further, since Al Qaeda was a group of Sunni extremists and Iraq is primarily Shi'a how precisely would they manage to keep the situation under control? They didn't have an army, they don't do occupations, and all they would do is make any of Saddam's problems worse.

In World War II Churchill and Stalin knew that eventually they'd be enemies but primarily they were focused on defeating Nazi Germany, giving them a common goal, if a temporary one. H

Really? And how was Al Qaeda supposed to end US sanctions?

How was Al Qaeda supposed to keep Saddam in power? If you look at the way Saddam operated he put his trusted allies in the role of keeping himself in power. To put someone who wants to overthrow you in the sole job of keeping you from being overthrown requires an act of monumental stupidity.

Al Qaeda had nothing to offer him, which is why there was no substantive link, and its why no serious analysis believes that there could have been one.

I noticed the government commission failed to mention Osama - US cooperation. Credible report...

And how did that affect the US?

Anyway, guess what? The "communist" Vietnam won, and it is still communist!

Because South Vietnam was an ally. And one thing you do not do is abandon your allies. What would our standing be if we had done that?

Ever heard of a “Domino Theory”?
The bottom line is: the Ngo Dinh Diem’s regime was VERY unpopular with the locals; given a chance of free elections they would’ve voted for communists, that’s why US blocked the elections causing Vietnamese Buddhist monks to kill themselves in protest of America’s involvement.

It was not South Vietnam that was US ally, it was kept elite of Diem’s regime that America allied itself with; that’s why America lost in Vietnam.

Much, much higher then it is now.

I went for a majority of them, with my general guiding point being that war can be justified if its in defense of a sovreign state, to protect democracy or too prevent genocide. Thus the second Iraq war cannot be justfiied (spreading democracy was just a side product of a war for oil) while the first Iraq war can be.

__________________

Do you still believe in tooth fairies? Care to define "democracy"?

The US and USSR had high level talks about seeking a truce to sort out the Iran-Iraq War?!? Precisely the same situation How could I have possibly missed that before!?!

Was therapy needed to get FDR to send billions in aid to Stalin? Was therapy needed for the US to ally itself with the ONLY nation to attack our capital, set ablaze our nation’s seat of government and home of our nation’s leader? History is full of unlikely allies. Therapy, in contrast, is a fairly recent invention.

… and years before, the US stated we would accept nothing less than regime change in Iraq and after 9/11 the eradication of al Qaeda and capture or killing of OBL. Unlikely alliances have been formed on much, much less.

Not true at all. What I have is two organizations that have a long history of trying to forge a collaborative relationship. They had been unsuccessful, but that was before 9/11 and the imminent demise of those organizations and the likely execution of their leaders.

As you said, Saddam's number one concern was staying in power. From the moment Bill Clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 making regime change the stated policy of the US, Saddam knew he was likely to once again face US troops. He also knew there was no way he had no chance in a conventional fight. As his subsequent actions have demonstrated, he knew his only hope in the face of US-backed troops was to wage an unconventional war. Al Qaeda had the most experienced fighters in just the sort of warfare Saddam was looking for, and he had just the sort of semi-officially sanctioned homeland to offer these fighters, who had just been expelled from their own homeland. It’s terribly foolish to think that two groups, who were seeking an alliance during relative peace-time, wouldn’t come together during a time of war.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

You have a point, but I suspect those wars (possibly with different outcomes at least in the case of Korea) could have been fought the way Kennedy initially envisioned Vietnam to be fought ... with military advisors helping the side we wanted, without involving massive US military buildups. In other words, Korea and Vietnam were fought in the name of the cold war, but were actual wars in their own right, the cold war could have been fought much differently without ignoring Korea and Vietnam, but without sending millions of troops either (which is by definition not a cold war).

High level talks? Prove it. Because none of the contacts, discussions, hints, or rumors you cited suggested a high level. In Kurdistan you had two enemies focus on a third mutual enemy while neither engaged with each other and maintained low level engagements against each other. Much like how the USA and USSR didn't actively attempt to stop each other from escorting Kuwaiti tankers but did actively torpedo other efforts by the other side.

A common goal was,

It took close to a century (102 years) between the end of the war of 1812 and the US joining World War I.

And they all had common goals.

WWI: Defeat the Central Powers
WWII: Defeat the Axis Powers

Saddam Hussein
Goal:
-Stay in Power
--Avoid Sanctions

Al Qaeda
Goal:
-Attack US
--Overthrow Saddam

You don't see how the two have mutually exclusive interests? Honestly in what circumstance does funding Al Qaeda help Saddam avoid sanctions. How does funding a group of Sunni extremists who want him overthrown help him stay in power?

Really... So in your great book of strategy, the way you avoid a war with someone is giving them a two for one deal by allying yourself with a group which is utterly incapable of preventing you from being attacked, but who your enemy would really, really, like to attack?

A long history of failing to forge a collaborative relationships.

Considering

1.) Iraq Could Not Defend Against the US
2.) Al Qaeda Can't Change that
3.) Al Qaeda Can't Help With Sanctions
4.) Al Qaeda Only Makes the US Happier to Attack Iraq
5.) Al Qaeda Ultimately Wants to Kill Saddam

How do they form a working alliance? Provide me with the actual strategy of how Al Qaeda could benefit Saddam.

As you said, Saddam's number one concern was staying in power. From the moment Bill Clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 making regime change the stated policy of the US, Saddam knew he was likely to once again face US troops. He also knew there was no way he had no chance in a conventional fight. As his subsequent actions have demonstrated, he knew his only hope in the face of US-backed troops was to wage an unconventional war. and he had just the sort of semi-officially sanctioned homeland to offer these fighters, who had just been expelled from their own homeland.[/quote]

Alright so lets get this straight, Al Qaeda fights for Saddam and what? Gives Iraq back to him? Further if there is a Guerrilla war, Saddam doesn't need to give his permission to Al Qaeda to operate, they can do so regardless, whats more if Saddams goal was to operate the insurgency he would be interacting with insurgents. But what he was really doing was hiding in a hole. If he had a grand plan to retake power his capture should have had some type of effect on the insurgency. Except it didn't.

Why would Al Qaeda who you assume is capable of winning this war for Saddam, not simply win the war for themselves and put who they want in power, not someone they want to overthrow?

Al Qaeda is experienced in terrorism not guerrilla warfare. Name one guerrilla war which Al Qaeda fought in as an organized group before 2003.

Its bizarre to think that an alliance will form solely based on a mutual enemy, despite divergent goals, despite a lack of trust, despite the repeated suspensions of disbelief required, despite the lack of benefits to offer, despite what Saddam told FBI investigators, despite unclassified documents, despite the US Military's conclusion, despite the CIA's conclusion, despite the conclusions of independent analysts, the US congress, and just about everyone who wasn't George Bush or his most ardent supporters.

Alright so lets get this straight, Al Qaeda fights for Saddam and what? Gives Iraq back to him? Further if there is a Guerrilla war, Saddam doesn't need to give his permission to Al Qaeda to operate, they can do so regardless, whats more if Saddams goal was to operate the insurgency he would be interacting with insurgents. But what he was really doing was hiding in a hole. If he had a grand plan to retake power his capture should have had some type of effect on the insurgency. Except it didn't.

Why would Al Qaeda who you assume is capable of winning this war for Saddam, not simply win the war for themselves and put who they want in power, not someone they want to overthrow?

Al Qaeda is experienced in terrorism not guerrilla warfare. Name one guerrilla war which Al Qaeda fought in as an organized group before 2003.

Its bizarre to think that an alliance will form solely based on a mutual enemy, despite divergent goals, despite a lack of trust, despite the repeated suspensions of disbelief required, despite the lack of benefits to offer, despite what Saddam told FBI investigators, despite unclassified documents, despite the US Military's conclusion, despite the CIA's conclusion, despite the conclusions of independent analysts, the US congress, and just about everyone who wasn't George Bush or his most ardent supporters.[/QUOTE]

Will you please stop resorting to reason, historical facts, rational, thoughtful arguments and what actually happened? It's making it hard to take the Fantasy Land stuff seriously when you do that.

Oh yes, the Communists are very popular in SE Asia. That is why there were so many hundreds of thousands who left once they took power. And almost a million that went from North to South before the partition was official.

I hear coprolite like this all the time, but have yet to ever see reasonable proof of it. Name me one nation that has ellected in a Communist Government and has remained a democracy.

Oh, and the monks burned themselves because of a prohibition of the Buddhist Flag, not over the election. It had nothing to do with either the election, or the US involvement.

I always wonder, is it very hard to do research for most people?

The US did not allow elections to happen on THEIR "democratic" turf, not in the North. The US simply recognised South Vietnam as an independent state run by US puppets, no elections needed!

The Buddhist crisis was over Diem's regime propped up by the US. A prohibition of the Buddhist flag was simply a proverbial straw.

You can argue as much as you want about the popularity of the communists in Vietnam, but the facts are: US were fearing Vietnamese people will make a "wrong" choice given an opportunity of a free election; once US got directly involved, communists were seen not only as a preferential choice of elected power, they were seen as freedom fighters against the US invasion! Of course they were popular: you can't win a war without a popular support.

Many people did not like communists, this is true. But I think your underestimating the shear unfailing stupidity of the South. Honestly, oppressing Buddhists in a predominantly Buddhist society? Did Diem want to become so hated that even the people who loathed the communists didn't want to support his government?

In Vietnam there was a possibility of appealing to the sentiment that distrusted both the southern government and that hated the communists, and this was proposed both to the French Military and to the American Military, and it was ignored. Had the US made the slightest effort to help the Vietnamese people there may have been a chance. But the leadership was too wrapped up in waging a conventional war to actually try and help the Vietnamese people. Instead they focused on bombing, napalming, shooting, the people into submission. Which sort of harpoons any claim that the US had noble intentions for Vietnam.

none of my business but which way did you go on Viet Nam ?

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand