what if someone argued that those were the closest instances of coming to ww3, as opposed to 'preventing' it?

__________________

Indeed, they could have escalated into WWIII. MacArthur pushed for a bigger involvement during Korea and got sacked for it, but most generals during Vietnam were content with a "contained" war, except for involving Laos and Cambodia.

I might have added that Cuban adventures into South America and Africa were part of the Cold War as well.

yes, most military posturing during the 50's - 80's was cold war related.

however, one could agree that the cold war was an inevitable power struggle, and thus justified, but not accept that smaller conflicts done in the name of cold war were automatically justified.

__________________

The Finns were negotiating with al Qaeda? The Japanese? The US? The USSR? You’ll have to back up that claim.

He also said he wasn’t guilty of attacking the Kurds, but as we all know, that was a lie. You’ll understand if I don’t take the word of a proven liar who was facing the hangman’s gallows not to respond honestly about things that hurt his case.

You’re the one making the idiotic claim that terrorists, with whom he’d had high-level negotiations for over a decade, were trying to really overthrow him.

No, Baghdad is in central Iraq;

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/c...-301/sec12.pdf

If by shaky, you mean reported by numerous intelligence organizations here and abroad, and confirmed by captured al Qaeda prisoners, then yeah. In fact, those claims were so shaky that Saddam admitted to his dialog with OBL.

Pure fantasy; no one tries to overthrow a leader they’re negotiating with.

The country’s conservatives hated when he amended the nation’s flag to include “Allah Akbar” (in his own handwriting). Actions such as this wasn’t done to appeal to anyone inside his country, it was to appeal to extremists outside of his border, groups like al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda wasn’t able to win the war on their own, neither was Saddam. In a fight to the death, which they were both engaged in, you accept help from anyone willing to offer it. Al Qaeda needed a safe haven, which Saddam had already offered. Saddam needed any forces he could muster to dissuade another invasion, or, if unsuccessful at dissuading them, to fight the invaders. OBL needed a safe haven where he could conduct operations with his cells around the world. He may be able to survive, hold up in a cave, but his organization is able to very little more than just survive. The situation for both parties had changed considerably from what it had been a decade before. This is why they were likely to able to overcome any past difficulties, and come to a mutually beneficial operational onderstanding.

No, al Qaeda wouldn’t; and yes, Saddam would, and did. Whoever became the new leader might have had control of the treasury department, but Saddam had already emptied the coffers when we went in.

Al Qaeda in Iraq certainly seems to have built up a respectable close-knit intelligence network in short order. I’d hate to imagine what they’d have been able to do, given more time and support.

The lines in Afghanistan are too blurry to definitively say who belongs to what group.

If Saddam knew we wouldn’t invade again, he could have retaken Kuwait. The thing is, there was no way for Saddam to discount the possibility, indeed the probability, of another invasion. He had to prepare for such an eventuality, whether it came of not.

You’re right, with the long posts, I missed what you were quoting. As to your original point; no I didn’t miss it, it’s entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. Obviously if Clinton’s DCI believed Saddam WAS working with al Qaeda, there can be no doubt that he believed they COULD or likely WOULD work together.

Not hardly; the Undersecretary of Defense is a very different position than the Director of Central Intelligence.

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

This is a justification of all US wars:

THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11

There should be two "Iraqs" - The Gulf War of 1990-1991 and then OIF for the action starting in 2003. Heck you might want to throw one in for the enforcement of the "no fly zones" etc following the fist gulf war.

__________________
"I am no Martin Luther King or Ghandi motherfucker. I have no idea what those guys were talking about. You spit on my ass, I will knock you out. No motherfucking marching and singing in the street for me." - Jim Brown, NFL Hall-of-Famer and Cleveland Browns running back, 1957-1965

I can't open it but what do you have for us, another conspiracy theory about Bush blowing up the towers himself? Anything in there about how Georgia picked a fight with Russia last year, hmmmmmmm

__________________
"I am no Martin Luther King or Ghandi motherfucker. I have no idea what those guys were talking about. You spit on my ass, I will knock you out. No motherfucking marching and singing in the street for me." - Jim Brown, NFL Hall-of-Famer and Cleveland Browns running back, 1957-1965

No, it is not a "conspiracy theory", just lots and lots of documents concerning not only 9/11, but lots of other aspects of geopolitics, and a CIA affiliated dude pondering over them.

Don't forget the 1993 plot by Iraqi Intelligence to assasination President George H. W. Bush. President Clinton ordered a barrage of 23 cruise missiles launched at the Iraq Intelligence Service Headquarters in Baghdad in retalliation.

Contrary to popular belief, Iraq was not some quiet cuddly nation between 1991 and 2003. If you ask me, President Clinton should have declaired war over the assassination plot, and gone after them again.

Theres all sorts of evidence indicating Iraq working with terrorist organizations, and on other hostile plots throughout the 90s. The attempt to buy yellow cake is one of the more common ones. Less common was the order by Hussein to have the IIS work with people in Somalia on killing american soldiers there at the time. The documented proof is out there. I dont expect certain people will buy it. No sweat.

__________________
"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

None of these wars were justifiable but it was their cruel and brutal ambitions as like the animals (might is right).

the war on iraq; heh! totally untruth, from this war we knowed that how many times the americans are lying.
bush: iraq has weapons of mass destruction
collin powel: iraq has weapons of mass destruction
and other american leaders, thus leaders in democracy is representing the peoples, means that all of u are liars, uncivilised.

war on afghanistan: america launched war on afghanistan without any prove and surprisingly within 3 weeks of 9/11.
taliban till this they told we are ready to gave osama to any other 3 muslim country and his trial should occures mustly in that country. this is justifiable because the afghans have their own traditions for whom they should obey. the tradition to help protect the guests. but americans intension were cleared. because 9/11 was the game of the CIA only to make attack on us justifiable on moral grounds. the americans came here for the natural resources of the caspian sea and central asia. but they should know that it is the grave yard of supper empires i think their soldiers and generals should study history.

__________________
Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

See, it's people like you who make me think, "You know what? Fuck Afghanistan. Let's just crop dust those mud-hut-dwelling savages with Zyklon-B".

Y'all were only too willing to bend over and allow the Taliban to fuck your country in the ass, but as soon as Americans arived they're "imperialist aggressors"?

LMMFAO.

Talk about animals. You people only understand brute force. The Taliban used it liberally and you cowered from them like beaten dogs.

America "trys" to build schools and hospitals, provide utilities and civil service, and generally bring you cavepeople into the 21st century and that's "evil"?

A nation of idiots is what you are.

But I gues that's to be expected of people who have never read a book other than that comic book you call the Koran.

__________________
...Old Europe, a once-dominant region now reduced to sucking at the geopolitical teat of America... they spent the better part of the last millennium conquering the world and taking the good stuff home with them... And what do they get for their troubles? Ungrateful colonies demanding their independence. And after you taught them how to play cricket!...

-Jon Stewart

What business is it of yours who allows what in their own home?

You, Americans, are only too willing to bend over and allow your power elit to to love you "in the ass" over health care, personal freedoms, education and economic crisis (do you know that at the time you are losing your jobs and homes, your government alocated 29 millions on "support of democratic movement" in Russian Federation? Add to it money on "democracy" in Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuenia, etc. and you will have a clearer picture of your government's priorities. Why don't you ask someone to invade you because of that?

None. The only wars that were even close to being justified in the whole 20thc were WWII and Afghanistan, and WWII was really a continuation of WWI, which was the most unjustified there ever was. ALL the rest could have been easily avoided through diplomatic means, but we have this tendency to elect thugs and gangsters who look on international relations the same way teenage athletes look on "meaningful" relations with cheerleaders.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

In what way, shape, or form was WW2 a continuation of WW1?