It's about time it was said

[asterism]

and AGAIN... after 9/11...Saddam was doing three things better than we have been able to do them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony...

We would be BETTER served today if we had let HIM keep doing those three things and WE had concentrated on Al Qaeda... the folks who DID attack us, after all.

1 and 2 NO HE DIDNT

bullshit.

there were no carbombs or suicide bombers attacking various factions in Iraq during Saddam's reign. AQ was NOT welcome in his country when he was in power.

Arab nationalist terrorists...now that is a different story...they were welcome and were given training...but wahhabist extremists.... not so.

You just contradicted yourself.

Our efforts to thwart the military threat posed by terrorists were not and should not be confined to just one sect within one group. But at least you are not denying that Saddam actively supported terrorist groups. I'm surprised how few people who opposed the war accept that.

 

[asterism]

do those defending our invasion of iraq with hundreds of thousands of ours and our allies troops still feel that the invasion served its purpose and was worth it as executed?

Yes and yes. The US is no longer considered a "paper tiger" and Iraq was one of many significant efforts to diminish Al Qaeda's capability.

Who doesn't think we are a paper Tiger? How badly did we "diminish Al Qaeda's capability?" What was the ratio of deaths to one AQ? If you don't know, that is ok. jus asking....

1. Iran, North Korea, China, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya
2. The means to finance terrorism and hide those finances are mostly gone.
3. I don't know.

 

[shintao]

Yes and yes. The US is no longer considered a "paper tiger" and Iraq was one of many significant efforts to diminish Al Qaeda's capability.

Who doesn't think we are a paper Tiger? How badly did we "diminish Al Qaeda's capability?" What was the ratio of deaths to one AQ? If you don't know, that is ok. jus asking....

1. Iran, North Korea, China, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya

And you have quotes from their leaders saying so? Please provide them, as this is interesting.

2. The means to finance terrorism and hide those finances are mostly gone.

And you know that because their checking account is almost empty? Are you privy to insider AQ information? Lets see some info if it isn't Top-Secret.

3. I don't know.

Ahh, an honest answer.

 

[DiveCon]

And you have quotes from their leaders saying so? Please provide them, as this is interesting.

as far as Libya, it was in the news
he said he didnt want to risk invasion like Saddam got
or something very close to that

and i have never known him NOT to give an honest answer
you, not so much

 

[maineman]

the point is i proved you wrong, once again
and YOU cant handle it'

you proved me wrong?

how so? I said:

Saddam was doing three things better than we have been able to do them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony...

all three of those statements are fact.

and he didnt do either 1 or 2 in your list

Al Qaeda was ALREADY IN IRAQ BEFORE OIF
to deny it is denying reality
he was a Sunni Muslim and he was killing both Shia and Kurd the whole time, maybe not the mass amounts he had done before but he was STILL killing them'?

AQ was NOT in Iraq before OIF... "AQ in Iraq", the franchise, did not come to be until AFTER we invaded Iraq.

And... as I SAID... Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. That is a fact. There was very little shia on sunni violence prior to our invasion.

 

[maineman]

That doesn't negate who Zarqawi was (al Qaeda) where he was before we invaded Afghanistan (Afghanistan) and where he went after his camp was routed (Iraq) before we invaded Iraq. It doesn't matter if Saddam harbored him or simply couldn't stop al Qaeda from setting up a base of operations there. The results would have been the same, Al Qaeda in Iraq.

We fought Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and followed them to Iraq. What's so difficult to understand about that?

except you got your timing wrong. Zarqawi was NOT part of AQ until AFTER he came to Iraq and until AFTER we invaded. AQ in Iraq was a home grown group of Iraqis angry at the US for invading their country, and Zarqawi became their leader.

What information do you have that contradicts this?



PWHCE Middle East Project: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Profile

Kurdish connection

The next stop on his itinerary was his old stamping ground - Afghanistan.

He is believed to have set up a training camp in the western city of Herat, near the border with Iran.

Students at his camp supposedly became experts in the manufacture and use of poison gases.

It is during this period that Zarqawi is thought to have renewed his acquaintance with al-Qaeda.

He is believed to have fled to Iraq in 2001 after a US missile strike on his Afghan base, though the report that he lost a leg in the attack has not been verified.

US officials argue that it was at al-Qaeda's behest that he moved to Iraq and established links with Ansar al-Islam - a group of Kurdish Islamists from the north of the country.

He is thought to have remained with them for a while - feeling at home in mountainous northern Iraq.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Profile: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Between Sept. 11, 2001, and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Zarqawi is believed to fled U.S. bombing in Afghanistan, traveled through Iran and sought medical treatment in Baghdad, Iraq between May and July 2002. He may have also gone to Syria and Palestine at some point.

Several associates also arrived in Iraq during his stay in Baghdad. Some remained until at least February 2003.

Around May 2002, a Kurdish militant group, Ansar al-Islam, built a explosives and poisons training camp in northern Iraq, in a region outside of Saddam's control. Associates of Zarqawi were said to be running this camp.

He is believed to have orchestrated the killing of American diplomat Lawrence Foley on Oct. 28, 2002.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

why would I need to CONTRADICT it? Your links clearly show that Zarqawi was not part of AQ until AFTER our invasion, which was my point all along.

 

[DiveCon]

you proved me wrong?

how so? I said:

Saddam was doing three things better than we have been able to do them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony...

all three of those statements are fact.

and he didnt do either 1 or 2 in your list

Al Qaeda was ALREADY IN IRAQ BEFORE OIF
to deny it is denying reality
he was a Sunni Muslim and he was killing both Shia and Kurd the whole time, maybe not the mass amounts he had done before but he was STILL killing them'?

AQ was NOT in Iraq before OIF... "AQ in Iraq", the franchise, did not come to be until AFTER we invaded Iraq.

And... as I SAID... Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. That is a fact. There was very little shia on sunni violence prior to our invasion.

forget it, you are too ******* stupid for words

 

[maineman]

and he didnt do either 1 or 2 in your list

Al Qaeda was ALREADY IN IRAQ BEFORE OIF
to deny it is denying reality
he was a Sunni Muslim and he was killing both Shia and Kurd the whole time, maybe not the mass amounts he had done before but he was STILL killing them'?

AQ was NOT in Iraq before OIF... "AQ in Iraq", the franchise, did not come to be until AFTER we invaded Iraq.

And... as I SAID... Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. That is a fact. There was very little shia on sunni violence prior to our invasion.

forget it, you are too ******* stupid for words

and you cannot refute my point that Saddam was better at three key issues than we are, and if we had let him continue to do those three things, and we had, instead, concentrated on absolutely burying AQ, we would be better off today.

YOu may know how to dive, but your knowledge of the middle east is laughably deficient.

 

[DiveCon]

AQ was NOT in Iraq before OIF... "AQ in Iraq", the franchise, did not come to be until AFTER we invaded Iraq.

And... as I SAID... Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. That is a fact. There was very little shia on sunni violence prior to our invasion.

forget it, you are too ******* stupid for words

and you cannot refute my point that Saddam was better at three key issues than we are, and if we had let him continue to do those three things, and we had, instead, concentrated on absolutely burying AQ, we would be better off today.

YOu may know how to dive, but your knowledge of the middle east is laughably deficient.

you are completely WRONG
but i doubt you would ever admit it
Saddam was Sunni and he was systematically killing both Shia and kurd
yes, he had killed MORE back in the 80's but to say he wasnt still killing them if a ******* despicable LIE

 

[maineman]

forget it, you are too ******* stupid for words

and you cannot refute my point that Saddam was better at three key issues than we are, and if we had let him continue to do those three things, and we had, instead, concentrated on absolutely burying AQ, we would be better off today.

YOu may know how to dive, but your knowledge of the middle east is laughably deficient.

you are completely WRONG
but i doubt you would ever admit it
Saddam was Sunni and he was systematically killing both Shia and kurd
yes, he had killed MORE back in the 80's but to say he wasnt still killing them if a ******* despicable LIE

go back and re read my three points... and then, show me where I am wrong with any ot them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. THAT IS A FACT
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven. THAT IS A FACT
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony. THAT IS A FACT

disprove them or STFU.

 

[DiveCon]

and you cannot refute my point that Saddam was better at three key issues than we are, and if we had let him continue to do those three things, and we had, instead, concentrated on absolutely burying AQ, we would be better off today.

YOu may know how to dive, but your knowledge of the middle east is laughably deficient.

you are completely WRONG
but i doubt you would ever admit it
Saddam was Sunni and he was systematically killing both Shia and kurd
yes, he had killed MORE back in the 80's but to say he wasnt still killing them if a ******* despicable LIE

go back and re read my three points... and then, show me where I am wrong with any ot them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. THAT IS A FACT
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven. THAT IS A FACT
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony. THAT IS A FACT

disprove them or STFU.

NO, those are OPINIONS
2 of which are WRONG on the facts

and i already HAVE disproven them, so YOU STFU

 

[asterism]

And you have quotes from their leaders saying so? Please provide them, as this is interesting.

No. That's not the only way of know these things.

And you know that because their checking account is almost empty? Are you privy to insider AQ information? Lets see some info if it isn't Top-Secret.

I know because the NYT told me so (well not exactly, but the NYT did document the program).[/quote]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/w...&en=18f9ed2cf37511d5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

3. I don't know.

Ahh, an honest answer.

It seems civil discourse isn't something you want. Have fun talking to yourself.

 

[asterism]

except you got your timing wrong. Zarqawi was NOT part of AQ until AFTER he came to Iraq and until AFTER we invaded. AQ in Iraq was a home grown group of Iraqis angry at the US for invading their country, and Zarqawi became their leader.

What information do you have that contradicts this?



PWHCE Middle East Project: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Profile



BBC NEWS | Middle East | Profile: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Between Sept. 11, 2001, and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Zarqawi is believed to fled U.S. bombing in Afghanistan, traveled through Iran and sought medical treatment in Baghdad, Iraq between May and July 2002. He may have also gone to Syria and Palestine at some point.

Several associates also arrived in Iraq during his stay in Baghdad. Some remained until at least February 2003.

Around May 2002, a Kurdish militant group, Ansar al-Islam, built a explosives and poisons training camp in northern Iraq, in a region outside of Saddam's control. Associates of Zarqawi were said to be running this camp.

He is believed to have orchestrated the killing of American diplomat Lawrence Foley on Oct. 28, 2002.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

why would I need to CONTRADICT it? Your links clearly show that Zarqawi was not part of AQ until AFTER our invasion, which was my point all along.

First, that's not true. My cited sources demonstrate Zarqawi's alliance with Bin Laden to do Al Qaeda's bidding. I don't think you understand that Al Qaeda is an umbrella organization with multiple factions.

Secondly, your point was:

except you got your timing wrong. Zarqawi was NOT part of AQ until AFTER he came to Iraq and until AFTER we invaded. AQ in Iraq was a home grown group of Iraqis angry at the US for invading their country, and Zarqawi became their leader.

What was Zarqawi doing in Afghanistan? Sightseeing? What's the significance of the group he joined in Iraq, at the behest of Bin Laden?

 

[asterism]

AQ was NOT in Iraq before OIF... "AQ in Iraq", the franchise, did not come to be until AFTER we invaded Iraq.

And... as I SAID... Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. That is a fact. There was very little shia on sunni violence prior to our invasion.

forget it, you are too ******* stupid for words

and you cannot refute my point that Saddam was better at three key issues than we are, and if we had let him continue to do those three things, and we had, instead, concentrated on absolutely burying AQ, we would be better off today.

Saddam certainly wasn't better at quashing sectarian strife, he was just on the winning (Sunni) side. Shi'a and Kurdis were losing. Saddam was not better and keeping Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a haven. He harbored and aided some, and others operated outside of his control - albeit sometimes with his own willful ignorance.

YOu may know how to dive, but your knowledge of the middle east is laughably deficient.

I'm not sure a personal attack is worthy of your stature. You sure you want to go that route?

 

[DiveCon]

forget it, you are too ******* stupid for words

and you cannot refute my point that Saddam was better at three key issues than we are, and if we had let him continue to do those three things, and we had, instead, concentrated on absolutely burying AQ, we would be better off today.

Saddam certainly wasn't better at quashing sectarian strife, he was just on the winning (Sunni) side. Shi'a and Kurdis were losing. Saddam was not better and keeping Islamic extremists from using Iraq as a haven. He harbored and aided some, and others operated outside of his control - albeit sometimes with his own willful ignorance.

YOu may know how to dive, but your knowledge of the middle east is laughably deficient.

I'm not sure a personal attack is worthy of your stature. You sure you want to go that route?

thats nothing of a personal attack than he has already done to me and others

 

[asterism]

and you cannot refute my point that Saddam was better at three key issues than we are, and if we had let him continue to do those three things, and we had, instead, concentrated on absolutely burying AQ, we would be better off today.

YOu may know how to dive, but your knowledge of the middle east is laughably deficient.

you are completely WRONG
but i doubt you would ever admit it
Saddam was Sunni and he was systematically killing both Shia and kurd
yes, he had killed MORE back in the 80's but to say he wasnt still killing them if a ******* despicable LIE

go back and re read my three points... and then, show me where I am wrong with any ot them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. THAT IS A FACT
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven. THAT IS A FACT
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony. THAT IS A FACT

disprove them or STFU.

Your own words regarding #2:

there were no carbombs or suicide bombers attacking various factions in Iraq during Saddam's reign. AQ was NOT welcome in his country when he was in power.

Arab nationalist terrorists...now that is a different story...they were welcome and were given training...but wahhabist extremists.... not so.

You can try to prove #1, but that would be difficult since the media was controlled by Saddam. I heard the stories firsthand so I know what I've been told. You can discard them if you choose because they are not vetted, but you cannot prove #1. #3 is true, but what was the validity of that strategy? Naysayers said for years that Iran was going to seize on the opportunity to dominate the Middle East now that Saddam's gone. 7 years and counting.....

 

[hortysir]

from that link:

"A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that there was no evidence Saddam's government was involved or even aware of this medical treatment, and found no conclusive evidence the regime had harbored Zarqawi. A US official told Reuters that the report was a mix of new information and a look at some older information and did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions. "To suggest the case is closed on this would not be correct," the official said."[84] A US official familiar with the report told Knight-Ridder that "what is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities." Another U.S. official summarized the report as such: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."

That doesn't negate who Zarqawi was (al Qaeda) where he was before we invaded Afghanistan (Afghanistan) and where he went after his camp was routed (Iraq) before we invaded Iraq. It doesn't matter if Saddam harbored him or simply couldn't stop al Qaeda from setting up a base of operations there. The results would have been the same, Al Qaeda in Iraq.

We fought Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and followed them to Iraq. What's so difficult to understand about that?

except you got your timing wrong. Zarqawi was NOT part of AQ until AFTER he came to Iraq and until AFTER we invaded. AQ in Iraq was a home grown group of Iraqis angry at the US for invading their country, and Zarqawi became their leader.

So, THAT'S why we found fully equipped and fortified camps only a week in??!!

 

[hortysir]

go back and re read my three points... and then, show me where I am wrong with any ot them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. THAT IS A FACT
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven. THAT IS A FACT
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony. THAT IS A FACT

disprove them or STFU.

Your claim, your burden

 

[DiveCon]

go back and re read my three points... and then, show me where I am wrong with any ot them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. THAT IS A FACT
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven. THAT IS A FACT
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony. THAT IS A FACT

disprove them or STFU.

Your claim, your burden

the only one that isnt an out right lie is #3

 

[antagon]

go back and re read my three points... and then, show me where I am wrong with any ot them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. THAT IS A FACT
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven. THAT IS A FACT
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony. THAT IS A FACT

disprove them or STFU.

Your claim, your burden

the only one that isnt an out right lie is #3

relative to the status quo in iraq today, all three points are accurate.