Iraq How-to manual helped direct Afghan militants
I always supported taking out Saddam. I never doubted that he had WMDs. I never doubted that he supported terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. So this document doesn’t surprise.
I am, however, glad to see it surface. It will help debunk the naysayers who love to scream that Saddam was not part of the war on terror. I’d like to know how they respond to this training manual.
Of course, it won’t change their opinion. They will still naysay. They’ll come up with some lame explanation as to how this doesn’t prove anything. In fact, if Saddam himself were to admit to financial and military backing of Bin Laden, they would STILL find ways to explain it as inconsequential. So this won’t really change anything, except maybe it will make the naysayers look that much sillier.
But it will still be fun to hear their remarks.
16 comments:
Just for a minute, let's assume Saddam DID support Bin Laden and Saddam DID have WMD's.
It was still Bin Laden's boys who hijacked those planes on 9/11 and it was still Bin Laden who was responsible for it. Why not go after Bin Laden with the amount of force used on Saddam? --Deano
Fox"news" said:
"An Arab regime, possibly Iraq, supplied how-to manuals for Arab operatives working throughout Afghanistan"
It's always great to base the decision to go to war and have tens of thousands of innocent people be killed on a possible clue found years later. All one needs is a time machine to find those possible clues, then return to the present and say, "See? A possible clue! Add this to the possible WMDs and we've got enough evidence to invade a sovreign nation!"
But I'm with Deano. Suppose that Saddam had sent documents supporting rebel/terrorist forces in Afghanistan. Suppose that Saddam had WMD. Does that mean that if I could produce US documents supporting rebel/terrorist forces in Nicaragua, for instance, (or Venezuela, Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, Iraq, Iran, Liberia, etc, etc, etc)...does that mean that the US ought to be invaded and tens of thousands of our citizens killed? What's the rule you're advocating here?
At what point does it become legal to invade a sovreign nation and do the same rules apply for everyone and who makes the rules? What gives us the right to have WMD (thousands and thousands of them) - especially for those who don't believe in international law?
And let me continue to pontificate in this direction, as I'm still unclear on your reasoning. You said:
"I always supported taking out Saddam."
Let's consider this. You've always supported overthrowing another sovreign nation's leader.
Why? Because he might be a threat to us? Okay. Because he was violent towards his own people? Okay.
1. So, the rule then is that any nation can choose to overthrow another sovreign nation's leader if they think that leader might be a threat? Is that the internationally-applied rule you'd like?
2. No, I don't think so because you don't want to see any international rules, is that right?
Then,
3. You think each nation ought to decide for itself when another nation's leader can be overthrown/invaded?
I know we've touched on this, but I'm still unclear on your position. Would you care to clarify?
Dean,
You, and all other libs like you, need to understand that we are not at war with Bin Laden. The war on terror does not end with him and it's not JUST about him. When we kill him, what will happen? Will ALL the world's terrorists just lay down and raise their arms and give up?
No. You go after the ones who pose the biggest threat, then work your way down. In 2003, the biggest threat was Iraq, not Bin Laden. He was too busy hiding in his rat-cave to pose a threat to us. So stop with this "its all about Bin Laden" garbage.
Dan, once again you're doing what every liberal does in world politics, you're putting the US on an equal footing with other nations. That's the basis of your question, and in my opinion makes your question invalid.
So, I don't really care what other nations say or do. I believe that WE reserve the right to remove ANYONE from power who poses a threat to our peace and way of life. We've held that right for decades and have yet to abuse it, and the world is better off because of it. So who are you to question our motives, when our motives have always been the betterment of humanity? At what point did we give any foreigner grounds to ASSUME the worst about America?
Other nations don't have the right that we have because other nations don't give a damn about the rest of the world...we, for some reason, do. That's why your question is invalid. America never should be held to the same standard as any other nation on this planet until we give other nations a REASON to hold us to such a standard. Until then, our actions should be accepted for what they've always been...protecting freedom and peace.
"Other nations don't have the right that we have because other nations don't give a damn about the rest of the world...we, for some reason, do."
Pardon me, John. I know you're sincere and believe most of what you say and you're trying to do the right thing, but that answer is so full of shit as to dirty up the screen.
WE ARE NOT THE ONLY CONCERNED PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. WE ARE NOT BLAMELESS.
To suggest otherwise is to naively ignore history and reality.
"Go after the ones who pose the biggest threat"?? Bin Laden hijacked 4 freaking airplanes and killed thousands! Pretty large threat I'd say. But Bush apparently was so mad at Bin Laden over 9/11 that he invaded Iraq.
No, all terrorists won't "lay down" IF Bin Laden is caught, just like they didn't when Saddam was caught.
If this is some blanket war on terror, then when are we going to invade N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, and Liberia? --Deano
Dan,
You can curse and criticize my country all you want. But the fact is, every free soul on this planet is free because of the sacrifices of America. Without us, evil would rule this planet. "Blame" us all you want, but to deny this is to "naively ignore history and reality"
Are we blameless? No. I don't remember ever saying so. I did say that America has NOT abused her power, despite what all you people think. We've shown unprecendented restraint in keeping this world as peaceful as possible. I challenge you to name ONE other nation who has done this over the course of their history.
That's the point I was making. WE are interested in the well-being of others, sir. Very FEW nations are interested in the well-being of America.
Dean, what are you proposing? Complete surrender?
"I don't remember ever saying so. I did say that America has NOT abused her power"
This is where I'm confused. The US certifiably HAS abused her power. We've overthrown or tried to overthrow sovreign gov'ts. We've committed war crimes. We've supported terrorists. What would it take for you to think that we HAVE abused our power if all of the above doesn't convince you?
And for me to say that the US has abused her power is not the same AT ALL as me saying I don't love my country or that I'm excusing the bad behavior of others. Just that I expect my country to be responsible and behave (ie, don't commit war crimes or support terrorists).
Overthrown sovereign governments? Yes, you could say that about Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini, Milosevic, Noriega and Hussein. Maybe it's bad for us to "overthrow" these people in your mind. If that's the case, then I'M confused.
Yes, we supported the Mujahadeen and the Contras. You call this "supporting terrorism", I call it slowing Soviet aggression.
You may think the two A-bombs constitutes war crimes, and I agree that it was a terrible thing...terrible but, unfortunately necessary. Or would you rather have had us invade Japan conventionally? Estimated 3 million people dead, one third of those American. Would that have been a better option?
Or how about Hussein? How can you be such an advocate for peace and then condemn us for eliminating such a man? The contradiction is stunning. Are you even aware of what this guy did? Were you okay with him staying in power?
Just imagine for a moment if the US did not "support terrorists", "overthrow sovereign governments", or "commit war crimes" as you like to call it. Imagine the free reign that evil would have on this world if we refused to take action against it...because I don't see anyone else stepping up to the challenge. Imagine for a moment how this world would be if America had behaved throughout history as you would have had her behave.
Evil would have had its way with us like a two bit hooker.
So before you condemn, maybe you should consider the potential alternatives.
We just go 'round and 'round and I guess that's the way it is. We were convicted of war crimes in Nicaragua. THAT is wrong. We supported terrorists in Nicaragua. EVEN IF we did it to slow "the commies", it was wrong. We can't live forever in fear of the bogeymen out there and use their evil as an excuse to commit our own.
We don't have the moral authority that you believe we do. Just because you believe it doesn't make it so. Conversely, if a majority of the rest of the world perceives it to be the case that we're a rogue nation - even if they were wrong - that does matter.
Why? Because we ought to be afraid of hurting their feelings? No.
It matters because if a group of people are perceived to be an aggressive threat, eventually people are going to try to put that threat down.
The very notion of lawlessness on our part will be one of our undoings. If we are concerned about terrorism, then we must stop supporting it and start supporting some form of international law. We must stop placing ourselves in a separate category from the rest of the world. It will kill us faster than any terrorists could.
I'm sorry, but I've got to follow up on this.
"Just imagine for a moment if the US did not "support terrorists", "overthrow sovereign governments", or "commit war crimes" as you like to call it. Imagine the free reign that evil would have on this world"
Are you serious?! Do you hear what you're saying? "What if we DIDN'T commit those war crimes and support those terrorists? Can you imagine the free reign that evil would have?"!
What if we didn't commit evil? Can you imagine the free reign that evil would have?
Are you serious? As soon as we embrace evil - even to fight evil - then evil has won. We would be taking part in the free reign of evil.
You don't find that line of reasoning odd at all? Insane, even?
You're a good man, a reasonable person. How could you think such a thing?
Dan, you completely misunderstood what I said...I said those things "as you like to call it". I don't consider what we did "evil", you do.
I was simply using YOUR words, as you described America's actions, and asked you what the world would be like if we HADN'T done the things (in your own words) that we did.
And history has disproven your argument. You consider the A-bomb, the attack of "sovereign nations" and support of certain factions evil, and claim that embracing these things ends in defeat, yet history has shown that it absolutely has not. So either these things are not evil, or your claim is false.
I believe in the former.
Oh, I understood you, figured you were just using my word "evil," and didn't really believe it yourself. It doesn't matter too much, though, what you or I think is evil, what matters is what IS evil and whether or not we embrace it.
Would you feel comfortable explaining to the child whose arms were blasted off and parents incinerated in front of him how that action wasn't evil? Would you expect him to believe you? Would you believe you if you were the victim?
Another thing that further matters is not only whether or not it is evil, but how it's perceived by a majority of the world. Not because we give a rat's ass about what the world thinks but because if enough people think you are an evil nation who places yourself above the law, it won't be long before people start trying to take you down.
Again, if you thought China were an evil nation and if it were monopolizing the world and placing itself above the law, posing what you perceive to be a danger to the world, what would you do?
I suspect your own testimony will back my position that engaging in evil (even in the supposed opposition to evil) and even appearing to be engaged in evil is a threat and, well, just plain wrong.
But we've been over and over this, haven't we?
Dan, this is not a difference of opinion, it's a difference in our perception (or lack thereof) of reality.
I know what you're saying and it's admirable, it really is. But, unfortunately it's fantasy. As long as there has been man, there has been evil men who do evil things. There always has been and there always will be, until the End (you know your theology, right? You should know that peace will not come until the very end).
In the meantime, how do we deal with the evil people? Sit down and "talk it out"? This works on the assumption that the evil ones are interested in a mutually beneficial solution, which is wrong. Was Hitler interested in this? Was Ghengis Khan? Charles Manson?
If you think humanity is capable of sitting down and working out our problems in a civil manner, then you put WAY too much faith in humanity. Some of us may want this, but many do not, and all it takes is one to disrupt the peace that we create.
There comes a point when you have to accept the fact that evil people only want to do evil things, and nothing else. There is no way to negotiate or discuss with them. Sometimes force is the only way to stop them, whether it's a two-bit mugger on the street corner or a murderous dictator...sometimes the ONLY option is violence against them.
Sad? Yes. Shameful? Absolutely. But that doesn't change the reality. If it were up to me, there NEVER would be wars or bombs or bullets, but it IS a necessary thing at times. If we don't stop the evil people, if we "turn the other cheek", then the evil people will trample us, and there will be NO good in the world. You can't reason with evil. It must be stopped, and sometimes force is the only way.
This is the inherent difference between us. I, like you, want peace. I don't embrace evil, I simply acknowledge it's reality. You have trouble with this, not acknowledging it's existence so much as its nature. And I'm afraid until you do this you'll never understand my way of thinking.
"this is not a difference of opinion, it's a difference in our perception (or lack thereof) of reality."
To some degree, yes, I agree. Although, we do have a difference of opinion, too. I think it is wrong every time to use deadly violence that we know will kill innocent people. You think that sometimes it is justified. Those are opinions.
But in addition to that, we do have different perceptions of reality. You say:
"As long as there has been man, there has been evil men who do evil things."
And we agree there. Without a doubt.
One area of difference, though, is that I think (and classic conservatism agrees) that evil people are everywhere.
Or perhaps better stated, that humanity is flawed - all of us. we have limited genius, limited moral development. We will make some choices that have evil consequences. All of us. Some of us - especially those who've come from cultures that teach that deadly violence is an acceptable tool for conflict resolution - will make decisions that have more evil results more often.
To the degree that we have a difference in reality, this is probably the area where it's true. You've suggested repeatedly that
- It's naive to not believe that some people are just evil and can only be stopped with violence
And I'm suggesting
- It's naive to think that we ALL aren't capable of evil acts and
- That we ALL aren't capable of making decisions based upon our own perceived best interests
Which leads to your erroneous calculation:
"This works on the assumption that the evil ones are interested in a mutually beneficial solution"
And this is not what I've said at all. I've said repeatedly that "evil ones" WILL MAKE DECISIONS BASED UPON THEIR OWN PERCEIVED INTERESTS. JUST AS WE WILL.
Or perhaps our difference in perception of reality can be better isolated in this statement of yours:
"There comes a point when you have to accept the fact that evil people only want to do evil things, and nothing else."
This is not a view found in reality, in standard Christian theology (and I'd guess in most other belief systems) or in classic conservatism (although it can be found in all of the more deadly cultures' values). This is a view of the world in which some people are humans and some people are monsters.
Teaching this is a way of demonizing the enemy so that they're subhuman and thus we can rationalize killing them rather than do the more difficult work of finding their self-interest and helping them realize that deadly violence will not be of benefit.
I won't quote it again, but this is why I use that modified Chesterton quote so often...
"demonizing...monsters...subhuman"
Yes, yes, and yes. That's exactly how I'm characterizing them, because that's the reality. You seem to think their behavior is a product of their culture, maybe so, but that doesn't make it any less evil.
And I'm NOT rationalizing violence. I've said before, I don't like violence, I don't like the fact that has to be used; BUT I understand that it has to be used...SOMETIMES IT IS THE ONLY OPTION to avoid conquest.
This statement - "finding their self-interest and helping them realize that deadly violence will not be of benefit." - is phenomenal and echos my point about the 'nonviolent' Left, that there is a peaceful solution and even though it can be difficult, we must find it.
But what if that solution is unacceptable to you or me, Dan? I know their 'self-interest'. It's religious dominance. Their aggressive violence WILL end once this entire world is serving Allah. Are you prepared to make such a concession to end their violence?
Coexistence is not an option for them. You can't 'teach' them otherwise because what they believe is faith-based. I know how strong I serve my faith. No amount of counselling or sensitivity training will ever change what I believe. They're the same way, because what they believe can't be proven wrong...it's based on faith.
SO what do we do? Wage a necessary war aimed at containing their hateful violence, or convert to Islam?
Post a Comment