Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by PatMeebles at 2006-03-20 16:54:53

Nobody at the UN was laughing at Colin Powell. France gave us the intel on the alluminum tubes (which led to a really racist cartoon of Condi Rice). In fact, German, French, Jordinian, Russian, etc. intelligence all said that he had the weapons. And the State Department, despite what most people have said, was right on board in believing that Chemical Weapons were there.

And, if the new documents are found to be authentic (which they're looking to be), Saddam had open ties with Al Qaeda affiliated networks in Asia, and was training people in three locations in Iraq for clandestine operations, and was actively involved in a chemical weapons program as late as 1997.

I also don't think that al qaeda will be friends with Iraq at all. 1) Zarqawi has completely ruined that chance and 2) The religious parties didn't win an outright majority, so they need to form a coalition, which means that Islamic fundamentalism will not run the country.

Now to your last post...

"Was it truly a realist policy to ally ourselves with Hussein in the 80's? When Iraq attacked Iran, the West supported Saddam Hussein, seeing him as the lesser of two evils."

That is a textbook case of realism.

And it's not that realist policies are always right. It's just that realism does not deal with idealism, which is what this administration is trying to do (balance the two together so that they accomplish what they want with help in the region, even if it is Pakistan).

What you wrote about Iran is really interesting. I knew that the people were fed up; I just didn't know that Iranians were actually able to get away with so much. Do you have any links that goes further into that?

The problems with desertion in the Iraqi army lost any real seriousness since they got good at fighting. Yes, there were desertions in the beginning (I think the first falluja assault was a good example), but their morale is high now, especially after successfully diffusing (or delaying, from your point of view) a civil war without any casualties.

Now, your point about Iraqi journalists on the ground brings up a question: If the military were able to buy stories on the front page written by Iraqis, then what's stopping Al Qaeda or anti-Bush AP reporters from doing the same? I'm not saying that's always the case; far from it. I just don't buy all the negativity as well as ALL the optimism, although I think there's more optimism than negativity in the end.

I haven't seen any stories on Iraqis not trusting the Iraqi military. I know of one interview with a single iraqi blogger, but that's it.

I wish I could post more links. I feel like I'm not arguing well enough.

[default homepage]

[print][

2:34:02pm Apr 28,2024
load time 0.01661 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]