You can view who voted for what by clicking on the numbers in the poll

thanks ! I did not realize that.


OK either I'm too stupid to figure out how or you are mistaken.

__________________
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

I agree with it. The US often started wars which were not justifiable. It just wanted to meet its own benefit.

For example U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum - View Poll Results is the link

I'm talking about the numbers not the percentages. e.g. three people voted for Vietnam, if you click on the 3 you'll get taken to the page which lists all the peoples usernames.

thanks !

__________________
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

And at that time period the UN was run by the US. It was not so much a true united nations as the US and her allies and proxies and the USSR and her allies and proxies. And thats pretty much it. The whole Domino theory BS was a waste of human lives and resources. People should not fight against communism and let the natural course of things come about. Which is as humanity evolves and becomes better equipped from a maturity level is the rise of true communism as it is the better more humane way of doing things.

__________________
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of
a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

– George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000

OBL meeting with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer and an Iraqi delegation with the authority to offer Bin Ladin safe haven in Iraq aren’t high level talks?!? What world are you living in??? It certainly isn’t the real world. Once again, nothing at all like the US and USSR during the Iran-Iraq War. Give it up; you’ll never be able to make an accurate comparison.

Congressional Reports: Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

You mean like to keep from being annihilated by a common enemy?!? Good Answer!!! Precisely the point I was making.

In international relations, time makes no difference, only events. (See my signature)

You’re reading it all wrong (intentionally, I suspect). The “Overthrow Saddam” crap was only BEFORE the first Gulf War. During the first Gulf War, Saddam turned to Islam. Obviously he was pretty successful, because it wasn’t long after that war that OBL started negotiations with him. Only an idiot would try to negotiate with a leader he’s trying to overthrow for space in that country to establish training camps and expect them to assist him in procuring weapons. OBL was a lot of things, but stupid wasn’t one of them.

…but, of course, they never faced the threat of annihilation as they did after the invasion of Afghanistan. There’s really no point in you bringing this up again and again, as I keep giving the same answer over and over.

1) They can’t stop an invasion, they can stop an occupation.
2) Al Qaeda would have been a HUGE help in thwarting the occupation.
3) Al Qaeda wouldn’t have made a difference one way or the other on the sanctions (We already thought they were working together).
4) See #4
5) Again, wrong answer. Once Saddam turned to Islam during the Gulf War, any interest OBL had in ousting Saddam dissipated.

A working alliance is pretty simple and straightforward, they just agree to the terms they had been working on over the past decade. Saddam allows al Qaeda to establish training camps and assists them in procuring weapons, and OBL calls a truce between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime and focuses on the other countries on his hit-list, the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia… Of course saddam would have some say in setting the priority of the targets on the list.

Why would you assume Iraq would ever be al Qaeda’s to give to anyone? Besides, why would OBL need to run a country? Why would he even want to run a country? It runs contrary to his strategy. If he’d have wanted to run a country, he’d have been Mullah Omar’s opposition rather than his ally. OBL needs allies in high placed positions in the Middle East. You can’t get any higher placed than Saddam in Iraq.

Right, they’re just SO different. It took al Qaeda and the Taliban so long to adjust their tactics.

It isn’t at all bizarre, in fact, it isn’t even unlikely; history is full of alliances built on much less. (I’m sure I’ve already stated that before, also.) All of those individuals and organizations were singing a different tune just a few years earlier. The June 2002 CTC report was titled “Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship” not “interpreting a nonexistent relationship that could never develop”. Clinton’s DCI certainly wasn’t willing to dismiss the possibility;
PBS - frontline: gunning for saddam: interviews: r. james woolsey

Nor did all the analysts dismiss the possibility;

REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ

It didn’t become relatively unanimous until after the invasion, when such conclusions became politically expedient; and at that, those conclusions were that Iraq and al Qaeda hadn’t forged any operational ties, not that they never would.

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

Just this bit: Some analysts concur with the assessment that intelligence reporting provides "no conclusive evidence of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," but believe that the available signs support a conclusion that Iraq has had sporadic, wary contacts with al-Qaida ..."

Hilarious! Reads like a palmistry in a gypsy parlor!

Would it be the same U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY that told Blair Saddam is ready to start lobbing his WMDs in the next 45 minutes? Credible source to quote... )

Oh mannn.... this poll shows alot of love for war and destruction .. .regardless of whether its justified or not. Our American counterparts, I understand the vast majority in this forum,.. are just sooo programmed to love and support war. I wonder what views would be like if you were at the receiving end of these wars. But I can see why you can comfortably tick the boxes from your comfort zone because your army is the biggest, the baddest and can attack anyone anywhere for any purpose.

Really this poll says alot... not only which war is justified and which isnt!!!...

WS.

__________________
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom"- Malcom X

US and USSR had contacts. Fairly regular ones. In fact most nations and organizations have contacts. Further many of these meetings and contacts are mere rumors by already fairly distrusted groups.

Neither of them could offer that to the other. If Saddam regained power the first thing he'd need to do would be to get Al Qaeda out. If Al Qaeda became a force capable of installing a new strongman they'd appoint their own strongman not an enemy

Time makes quite a difference because personalities make quite a difference. Saddam didn't act in the interest of Iraq, he acted in the interest of himself. Calling on a group which wanted him dead to reinstate him into power, was not sane, nor would it have worked in his favor. He knew that, he said as much to the FBI. So tell me, why would Saddam knowingly act against himself?

Actually it was throughout the 90s. Around 1998 they decided that they wanted to focus more on attacking Kurds then they wanted to tangle with the republican army. Now that doesn't suggest they were allied.

Really? Because the experts say otherwise

Transcript: Day Two of Rice Testimony (washingtonpost.com)

Which suggests it was never going to happen, not that they were going to become close allies.

Explain to me why Al Qaeda which believed Saddam should have been overthrown, would put Saddam Hussein back into power. While you're at it, explain to me why someon would expect an insurgency to have great success when it is run by Al Qaeda, a group of Sunni extremists, in Iraq a nation of primarily Shi'a. Further show to me the tremendous Guerrilla Warfare skill that Al Qaeda had demonstrated prior to 2003.

Al Qaeda had no experience in Guerilla Warfare

Al Qaeda is intensely

If by "we" you mean "idiots" then yes.

Stunning Argument

A complete fabrication.

You don't take ten years of negotiations and have a treaty ready to go on a moments notice. But lets use a historical example.

Yugoslavia in 1941, you have two competing factions, the Monarchists and the Communists, following the German invasion both sides are fighting against the common enemy of Nazi Germany. Does this mean they worked together? Hell no, instead they engaged in one of the bloodiest cases of internecine warfare in history. Somewhat similar to what we saw in Iraq. Similar to what we actually saw Al Qaeda do in Iraq.

Further if the sole reason of joining together was to wage an insurgency, why would they ally with each other if we didn't invade? Where does this invasion help us? Even if I agreed with all the nonsense you've stated, it would only provide motivation to [b]not[/i] invade Iraq because that would ensure that Saddam never allowed Al Qaeda into his country.
I didn't you suggested they could do something useful for Saddam, if they couldn't help put him into power, they couldn't help him.

He could put someone he likes into power rather then someone he hates into power.

Except they weren't allies. Further if everything you said was true, he could have put someone else into power.

Yeah heres the thing, concerted guerrilla strategy requires a few things

1.) Organizing the people
2.) Maintaining close knit intelligence networks throughout the people
3.) Maintaining the support of the people
4.) Engaging in consistent low level actions

None of which Al Qaeda has done before. Instead they've typically engaged in a few isolated high profile events which in no way relied on the local people. Which is completely different.

For the Taliban the people of Afghanistan have fought insurgencies.

In 2002 Cheney was already leaning on every single intelligence branch to churn out reports about why should invade Iraq. If the best he could get out of them was "murky relationship" thats saying something.

Did you miss this?

I heard from my barbers friends cousin that a four year old Stephen Harper was the man on the grassy knoll, I say we invade Canada for the "possible ties" between them and the assassination of JFK.

You have yet to provide an actual explanation of how they could ever help each other.

Al Qaeda has fairly regular contacts with most nations?!? You’ll have to back that one up.

There are never guarantees, yet it hasn’t stopped alliances from being formed. Since Saddam and OBL were far from enemies, the rest of your response is pointless.

A complete fabrication.

They wanted to get rid of Saddam when they were negotiating with his intelligence services for space to establish training camps and assistance in procuring weapons.


That’s the contention of one expert. Other experts have stated otherwise;

It wasn't a question of operational alliance. It was a question of an attitude about terrorism that allowed Zarqawi to be in Baghdad and to operate out of Baghdad.

There were contacts going back to the early '90s and those are, indeed, detailed in the 9/11 report.


Negotiating with a leader he’s supposedly trying to overthrow for space in that country to establish training camps and expecting him to assist in procuring weapons doesn’t suggest an alliance?!? In what world?

First, explain to me why, if al Qaeda wanted Saddam overthrown, was OBL reaching out to Saddam for help shortly after the end of the first Gulf War?

Here’s a tip; you’ll get your point across much more effectively if you post in complete sentences.

Right, because our intelligence agencies are supposed to ignore meetings and potential alliances among our adversaries. What better reason to pay huge sums of money for intelligence-gathering than to ignore their findings, right?

Thanx

Um, yeah; Saddam instituted Sharia law, increased mandatory Koranic studies and put “Allah Akbar on the national flag because he was trying to appeal to Mormons, right?

Regime change was the official US policy in Iraq since the end of the 90’s. Saddam had made it clear that he would need to be forced from power. He would need all the allies he could get to maintain his hold on power. Al Qaeda had just been forced from Afghanistan, and needed a place to relocate their command. If we had allowed al Qaeda to set up shop in Iraq and we had invaded, they would have been entrenched, and would have been able to execute a much more effective insurgency than even what we saw, which was already more than most Americans were willing to bear. If we had allowed al Qaeda to set up shop in Iraq and we hadn’t invaded, Saddam would have kept his position of power, and al Qaeda could have claimed victory by once again facing down the West.

Not yet, that’s the whole point. And no, there aren’t too many people that could have been put in power. Very few people had the contacts and support for the position, and NO ONE else had the Iraqi treasury.

This response leads me to think you know nothing about al Qaeda. They’re exceptional at organizing people, they maintain a close-knit world-wide intelligence network, they’ve not only been able to maintain the support of the people, they’ve been able to expand their support, and they’ve in low, medium, and high level actions; all of which explains why they were able to so effortlessly shift in Afghanistan.

Not really; we aren’t discussing the links they’d have made if we hadn’t gone into Iraq when we did, not what they had been able to successfully negotiate.

Yeah, I did; because it isn’t in the linked interview.

Hmmm, was your barbers friends cousin ever the head of the most powerful intelligence agency in the world? If so, then yes; we probably should look into it.

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

With many nations in that area yes. Just as Iraq and Iran sometimes ended up on similar sides of things even though they were bitter enemies.

Its not that theres no guarantee, theres no reason for it to happen ever
Nope

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - 60 Minutes - CBS News

You are the one making the idiotic claim that Saddam would seriously negotiate with terrorists who were trying to overthrow him.

The only experts you have admit they can't prove anything but they've got a hunch.
Before the invasion he was in the northern, part of Iraq which Saddam Hussein could not control. He didn't begin making in roads on Baghdad until after the US invasion.
If you read the reports on the pre-war intelligence you'd have realized just how shaky those claims were.


As late as 1998 OBL was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He wanted him overthrown because he wasn't concerned with any conflicts between Sunni and Shi'a or between the West and the east, instead he was concerned with retaining his own power. Which puts him at odds with OBL.
Their findings? Their findings were that there was no strong evidence, that is the finding of the Pentagon upon reviewing hundreds of thousands of classified Iraqi documents and from the House and Senate upon reviewing the documents from the various intelligence agencies.

Because he needed to do small scale actions to co-opt the claims of the conservatives who hated him.
If Al Qaeda could win the war, they would not keep Saddam as a leader, Saddam was a secular leader who at times had to fight off conservative challenges, Al Qaeda wanted an intensely, fervently conservative leader. Hence why they attempted to overthrow him. If given the opportunity there is no reason for them to put Saddam into power, thus there is no reason for Saddam to accept them.

This is a classic prisoners dilemma, and because Al Qaeda will always defect, Saddam will always defect, which will mean the result will always be a lack of cooperation, just as it was for the last decade.

AQ would have the treasury if they won the insurgency, SH wouldn't have the treasury during the insurgency.

In an insurgency the attacks require the help and assistance or at the very least the disinterest or fear of the people. In all of Al Qaeda's previous attacks they have never needed that. That alone makes it a very different situation

The thing is, insurgent intelligence networks can't be that close knit, you need to be able to get information from a huge group of people. Al Qaeda can't do that because most of Iraq hates them.
Al Qaeda isn't a threat in Afghanistan. In fact we're not primarily fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, primarily we're fighting drug lords, and the Taliban.

Links which would have no reason to be forged. If we didn't go into Iraq not only would Saddam face a group which wanted him dead, they'd have even less to offer him.

If the US wasn't going to invade, what would Al Qaeda have to offer?

Not only was it actually in the linked interview you even quoted it.

You mean how the Pentagon Comptroller criticized the undersecretary of defense because his meddling in intelligence gathering lead to unfounded conclusions?

Actually, I am. I am spending the next year in this wonderful Garden Spot of the world, where the day time temp often tops 130 F, and the usual garnish for food is sand.

But I would rather be here, fighting for the safety of my family then sitting on my arse back home, where the front lines are outside of my house.

I have served for over 12 years now, in 3 different decades. I have served as a grunt in the mud, and now sitting back behind the lines watching the sky. It is all stressful, all miserable, and all ugly. But I have seen and done things that most people would never imagine.

But do not think for a minute that I love war, most of us spend our career hoping that we never have to use our weapons other then in training.

Im not sure the Cold War was a war in itself, as there was no battles fought, except maybe through proxies. The rest were justified as we were either peacekeeping, or defending one country from another, ours from terrorists, koreans from other koreans, vietnamese from other vietnamese. Declared or not, war is two countries or self governing groups fighting each other.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Vietnam and Korea were merely outcrops of the Cold War. If you justify the Cold War, Vietnam and Korea kept it from becoming WWIII.