12-17-2003, 03:53 AM
At least, not to anyone with a brain and a sliver of a clue as to Mid East security policy, nor to anyone who understands why folks are critiquing the "pre emption" policy on Saddam Hussein. Pre emption is to do something to prevent someone doing something to you. What was done in Afghanistan was, and is, payback.
One of the messages being sent before March of this year was not that he did Sept 11 -- pretty certain Osama was the fella behind that -- but to prevent him doing "X Y and Z." To us AND our allies. Note the second element. Now, there is a lot of productive discussion on the nature of that probability, capacity to act, and real capability. I would like to see the informed and reasoned debate and investigation continue, but all we seem to get is Hot Air: from all sides.
Those who thought there was a tie to Al Quaeda from Saddam need to show a bit more evidence. Those who assert that Saddam supported terrorism, which means he engaged in state sponsored terrorism, merely had to look at the $25,000 dollar checks he admitted to giving to Palestinian suicide bombers who attacked Israeli citizens. (So, how do you explain his hit on Abu Nidal, a fella who was not a friend to US? Easy: in the Arab world
ITS NOT ALL ABOUT US
Saddam's suicide bomber payola is a cut and dried case of state sponsored terrorism, a legit issue in the war on terrorism, but it is not "retribution" for 9-11. Afghanistan and the Taliban felt that wrath a lot sooner, and a lot harder. So are some folks in Gitmo. Is it, or was it worth, going to war? Not by itself, or maybe it is. At what point is a line drawn?
I suppose the caveat to Mr Stewarts comment would be "who had nothing to do with September 11 as far as we know."
My guess is that Saddam cheered it and wished he'd been able to pull it off himself, but that is just guesswork on my part.
One of the messages being sent before March of this year was not that he did Sept 11 -- pretty certain Osama was the fella behind that -- but to prevent him doing "X Y and Z." To us AND our allies. Note the second element. Now, there is a lot of productive discussion on the nature of that probability, capacity to act, and real capability. I would like to see the informed and reasoned debate and investigation continue, but all we seem to get is Hot Air: from all sides.
Those who thought there was a tie to Al Quaeda from Saddam need to show a bit more evidence. Those who assert that Saddam supported terrorism, which means he engaged in state sponsored terrorism, merely had to look at the $25,000 dollar checks he admitted to giving to Palestinian suicide bombers who attacked Israeli citizens. (So, how do you explain his hit on Abu Nidal, a fella who was not a friend to US? Easy: in the Arab world
ITS NOT ALL ABOUT US
Saddam's suicide bomber payola is a cut and dried case of state sponsored terrorism, a legit issue in the war on terrorism, but it is not "retribution" for 9-11. Afghanistan and the Taliban felt that wrath a lot sooner, and a lot harder. So are some folks in Gitmo. Is it, or was it worth, going to war? Not by itself, or maybe it is. At what point is a line drawn?
I suppose the caveat to Mr Stewarts comment would be "who had nothing to do with September 11 as far as we know."
My guess is that Saddam cheered it and wished he'd been able to pull it off himself, but that is just guesswork on my part.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete