Have you forgotten.................Saddam = 9/11

[Tmy]

Have you heard that pro-invasion country song "Have you Forgotten" I think its #1 in the country charts.

The song is basically about how its right to go to war wh Saddam, dont you remember the terror of 911 and Bin Ladin.


I was wondering, who here believes there's a connection between 9/11 and Saddam? I don't think theres any, but alot of Americans do. Chalk it up to good spindoctoring?

There are plenty of justifications for invasion, but this 911 link drives me crazy cause I see it as emotional manipulation.

[BillyTK]

There's no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, but there's no evidence to disprove any link between Saddam and 9/11. It's easy if you think about it... ;)

[corplinx]

Haven't heard the song. Don't like country. However, 9-11 taught us that we can't let those who want to destroy us pursue those goals. Saddam not only has more resources than Bin Laden, but he also has his own airport.

I think the greatest self-deception people have is thinking that Saddam is not a threat while a Saudi brat hiding in a pakistan cave is.

[Tmy]

HA HA, that is funny how Saddam named the Baghdad airport after himself.. What do you think they'll name it after he goes? GW Bush Airport?.......now that'd be a hoot.

I think Ill write my own song

"Have you forgotten, the day when Uday flew those Iraqi Air jet planes into the Trade Center and Oklahoma City.......have you forgotten Bin Ladin.

Have you forgotten, when that Rhode Island club burned down, you know Saddam is a fan of Great White.......habe you forgotten Bin Ladin"

Originally posted by corplinx

I think the greatest self-deception people have is thinking that Saddam is not a threat while a Saudi brat hiding in a pakistan cave is.

OBL has proven his ability to attack us. Saddam has not. "Saudi brat hiding in a Pakistan cave"?

[Mel]

Originally posted by Tmy


There are plenty of justifications for invasion, but this 911 link drives me crazy cause I see it as emotional manipulation.

I agree and I think Bush killed his personal credibility to make such a claim without HARD proof.



BTW... isn't OBL (or UBL) from Yemen and not Saudi Arabia??

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet


OBL has proven his ability to attack us. Saddam has not.

Yes, and we should wait for Saddam to prove it to us also. Saddam is a terrorist through and through, and I am sorry to say some people still haven't learned that if you leave a terrorist because he isn't attacking you today; you could have a rude awakening tomorrow.

[saddam]

Really, I cannot stand that self-righteous Osama. "Allah this, Allah that," like he really believes that Islamic drivel. No one can talk to him, he is always right about everything.

But his people are very useful idiots. So I hint that maybe, if they don't give me too much trouble, I might help a little with the jihad.

Fifteen years ago, my Muslim "brothers" all hate me. Look now however at my fan club in Palestine! They think I am a Muslim hero.

HAHAHAHAHAH!

All Iraqis vow their souls and their blood are mine. Palestines people say they will martyr themselves for me, in the thousands. Nobody would do anything like that for your little Bush.

Originally posted by saddam
Really, I cannot stand that self-righteous Osama. "Allah this, Allah that," like he really believes that Islamic drivel. No one can talk to him, he is always right about everything.

But his people are very useful idiots. So I hint that maybe, if they don't give me too much trouble, I might help a little with the jihad.

Fifteen years ago, my Muslim "brothers" all hate me. Look now however at my fan club in Palestine! They think I am a Muslim hero.

HAHAHAHAHAH!

All Iraqis vow their souls and their blood are mine. Palestines people say they will martyr themselves for me, in the thousands. Nobody would do anything like that for your little Bush.

Your head will be on a pike soon, dictator...

[Charles Livingston]

"I was wondering, who here believes there's a connection between 9/11 and Saddam? I don't think theres any, but alot of Americans do. Chalk it up to good spindoctoring?"

I dont necessarily think that there is a connection between saddam and 9/11. Actually I dont know, either way, and I wont presume to guess. However, just because you dont think that there is a connection does not mean that the 'alot of Americans' that do have been brainwashed by spindoctoring. Not everyone bases their opinions on a bias for or against the current administration and its policies. Like someone mentioned above, whether there is a connection has not been proven or disproven. Bush may well be right, although I admit the evidence he has presented thus far is shaky at best.

[marxist2]

The anti-MONKIES support the Triangle Shirtwaist Company Fire! Saddam Hussien and all of those involved in 9/11 are anti-MONKIES! They are evil and work for the tofu EMPIRE! Remeber that 35% of the UNITED STATES died in the TRiangle Shirtwaist Company Fire! Obviously those involved in 9/11 were involved in this. This means that they are anti-MONKIES, and do not follow the teachings of the HOLY monkies, or those that are higher in the trees.

[Andonyx]

A reuters poll in January showed that %44 percent of those polled believed that at least some of the hijackers were Iraqi.

Of course NONE of them were.

More about that at salon:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/iraq_poll/index_np.html

[gnome]

I see the current reasoning as justification for a dangerous first-strike doctrine.

OBL hates us and see what he did. Iraq hates us and could do something like that, so we should hit them first.

This is not a completely insane argument, but I must disagree strongly.

We have traditionally adopted a policy (at least in our rhetoric) that we will not strike first at another country. We will wait until they force us into war by attacking us.

With this policy comes a risk and a price--the risk of being hit first when and where we don't expect it, and the price of the damage when that happens. I don't believe those that say we "can't" allow this to happen again. Because switching to pre-emptive strikes when we "figure" someone's going to attack us is a terribly dangerous precedent that I believe can only lead to more and more unnecessary conflicts, at a much higher price than what happens when we let our potential enemies attack first.

Personally, I believe we should go back to adopting a doctrine of preparedness... and then decisively and thoroughly retaliate only when attacked. Even when we know a country hates us and wants to attack... if we have a reputation for beating them soundly once they make the first move, many of those countries may never make that move. If other powerful countries then follow our example, we may find that war crops up a good deal less often. I think that's worth the risk.

EXcellent, gnome.

[Lurker]

We want gnome in 2004!

Um, if you way it fast enough it kind of rhymes. Cut me some slack, folks!

Lurker

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by gnome
Personally, I believe we should go back to adopting a doctrine of preparedness... and then decisively and thoroughly retaliate only when attacked. Even when we know a country hates us and wants to attack... if we have a reputation for beating them soundly once they make the first move, many of those countries may never make that move. If other powerful countries then follow our example, we may find that war crops up a good deal less often. I think that's worth the risk.

The key to this whole thing is that countries, unlike terrorists, do have a serious self-preservation motive. In general, countries won't make suicidal moves. For example, Iraq knows it can't attack the US without serious reprisal, but tries to take something it knows it can handle, like Kuwait. OTOH, they seriously underestimated the international response to such a move, and as a result were trounced back home.

If it's clear that the US response would be swift and decisive, it's a darn good reason for an opposing government to act to threaten us. Of course, that means that we have to be prepared to be swift and decisive.

Terrorists, otoh, (suicide terrorists, in particular) are a different breed because self-preservation is not an issue. They are acting, often in a rogue fashion, to make a statement. Killing them only martyrs them for their cause. Thus, they are less concerned about retailiation. The only way to stop them is to go root them out.

FWIW, the actions of the Iraqis are more consistent with those interested in self-preservation than those who are not.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by gnome
I see the current reasoning as justification for a dangerous first-strike doctrine.



And many others, including apparently most the current administration, think waiting to retaliate is an even more dangerous doctrine. I agree with them.

Who's next, or will diplomacy be a bit more effective for a time? I hope diplomacy will work to remove dangerous weaponry from dangerous regimes -- Iran, Syria, Yemen, NK ad nauseum.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by gnome
I see the current reasoning as justification for a dangerous first-strike doctrine.

OBL hates us and see what he did. Iraq hates us and could do something like that, so we should hit them first.


Saddam has already struck. He supports, finances, and harbors terrorists. He has financed terror groups that have killed americans in the middle east. He has financed terror groups that have struck one of our allies in the middle east. We know he is dangerous. We know what he is capable of. We know he can't be left alone to fester.

This "first strike" policy with Iraq cannot be applied in a broad scope. We are moving towards a foreign policy that matches our bombs, precision. In Iraq, we go in. In North Korea, we deal. Different situations call for different circumstances.

A "strike them before they get us" literal worldwide policy would be brainless and reckless. Conversely, a "we must wait to be attacked" policy worldwide is equally brainless and also very dangerous.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by corplinx

Saddam not only has more resources than Bin Laden, but he also has his own airport.

Different kinds of resources. OBL is not exactly a pauper, and has the sort of rabid supporters known only to 'religious leaders'. If saddam has to go into hiding to continue his struggle in true terrorist fashion, I wonder how far the people will go in protecting and hiding him?

My concern is that damage this war is doing to our image throughout the Arab world will, if anything, increase the likelihood that we will be the target of terrorist attacks.

[Mel]

Originally posted by Dymanic



My concern is that damage this war is doing to our image throughout the Arab world will, if anything, increase the likelihood that we will be the target of terrorist attacks.

That's my concern also. I think that will be determined by the level of diplomacy AFTER this war. We need to make amends in Europe first and show we are not merely bullies. Very importantly, we have to hope that Saddam will be replaced by a government that embraces ALL the people of Iraq so there can be a real peace.

Another thing to consider is whether the remaining regimes in the region (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, etc) feel they are ready to make some changes and stop allowing terrorists to slowly destroy THEIR countries.

Iraq should be their wake up call.... it's time to stop blaming the US for the inside corruption in the region and time to DO something. 'Allah helps those that help themselves.'

[Tricky]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


The key to this whole thing is that countries, unlike terrorists, do have a serious self-preservation motive. In general, countries won't make suicidal moves. For example, Iraq knows it can't attack the US without serious reprisal, but tries to take something it knows it can handle, like Kuwait. OTOH, they seriously underestimated the international response to such a move, and as a result were trounced back home.

If it's clear that the US response would be swift and decisive, it's a darn good reason for an opposing government to act to threaten us. Of course, that means that we have to be prepared to be swift and decisive.

Terrorists, otoh, (suicide terrorists, in particular) are a different breed because self-preservation is not an issue. They are acting, often in a rogue fashion, to make a statement. Killing them only martyrs them for their cause. Thus, they are less concerned about retailiation. The only way to stop them is to go root them out.

FWIW, the actions of the Iraqis are more consistent with those interested in self-preservation than those who are not.
Good analysise, pgwenthold.

It brings up an interesting situation. If you really want to serve your country, the best way to do so is to disassociate yourself with your country. Since terrorists, quite obviously, are not pinpointed because of their nationality (or the US would be attacking Saudi Arabia right now), the best way to achieve the aims of your government is to strike without governmental sanction. In this way, Iraq has acted exactly the opposite of a terrorist group. Use of weapons of mass destruction and brutal tactics have been unequivacably the plan of the Iraqi regime, not a renegade group.

Outlaw and rebel organizations use terrorist tactics. If brutality, callousness and killing non-combatants is the hallmark of terrorism, the the US is the most terrorist nation of all time. But I don't believe that is the case. I believe that terrorism is defined by acting outside the government. Clearly, neither Iraq nor the US has done that. They are both bureaucratically brutal. Using these tactics within government sanction is defined as war.

[gnome]

Originally posted by corplinx
Saddam has already struck. He supports, finances, and harbors terrorists. He has financed terror groups that have killed americans in the middle east. He has financed terror groups that have struck one of our allies in the middle east. We know he is dangerous. We know what he is capable of. We know he can't be left alone to fester.

This "first strike" policy with Iraq cannot be applied in a broad scope. We are moving towards a foreign policy that matches our bombs, precision. In Iraq, we go in. In North Korea, we deal. Different situations call for different circumstances.

A "strike them before they get us" literal worldwide policy would be brainless and reckless. Conversely, a "we must wait to be attacked" policy worldwide is equally brainless and also very dangerous.

Corplinx, that was a well-reasoned response. I could even feel a bit better about Iraq if I saw signs that we were easing off that "first strike" policy, but I hear its rhetoric every time the administration speaks.

Also, are we dealing with North Korea? I thought we were refusing to talk to them.

I agree, however, that a policy of never striking first should acknowledge acts of war that are not a direct assault--but the line can be blurry and you can tell which side I prefer to err on.

Originally posted by Tricky
Outlaw and rebel organizations use terrorist tactics. If brutality, callousness and killing non-combatants is the hallmark of terrorism, the the US is the most terrorist nation of all time. But I don't believe that is the case. I believe that terrorism is defined by acting outside the government. Clearly, neither Iraq nor the US has done that. They are both bureaucratically brutal. Using these tactics within government sanction is defined as war.

I disagree here with your definition of terrorism. I think of terrorism as brutal tactics against non-combatants designed to demoralize and destabilize your enemy with fear. This can be done by outlaws and governments alike. I believe there is such a thing as state terrorism, and I believe it is dishonorable no matter who is doing it.

[Dymanic]

I disagree here with your definition of terrorism. I think of terrorism as brutal tactics against non-combatants designed to demoralize and destabilize your enemy with fear.
I agree. And when I hear talk like this:
...waiting to retaliate is an even more dangerous doctrine.
it seems clear that those tactics have met with some success. That's fear talking.

The problem is that we are at a distinct disadvantage in dealing with these people, because unlike them, we place value on things like honor, fairness, and compassion. This is why (for instance) we view tactics like the 'surrender ambush' as beyond contempt. We do not have a perfect track record of meeting these ideals--during times of crisis, there have always been those who advocated abandoning these principles as a necessary means to some worthy end, and indeed there have been times when our leadership chose such a course. I think most of us view the results as regrettable, and it is partly because of this that when our standards for these principles are not met by our leadership, we complain, and loudly.

Pre-emptive strikes against percieved enemies is a strategy born of fear, and one which will have grave consequences if it becomes popular. Will America lead the way?

It's not easy being the good guys, because it means you have to fight fair. Some of us think it's worth it.

[Richard G]

Support terroism, feed terrorism, fund terrosism, harbor terrorism, you are a target.

Terroist training camps have been destroyed in northern Iraq. Terrorist are attacking our soldiers with homicide bombings. Iraq is a cesspool of terrorists. That is being remedied.

[afree87]

Originally posted by corplinx
This "first strike" policy with Iraq cannot be applied in a broad scope. We are moving towards a foreign policy that matches our bombs, precision. In Iraq, we go in. In North Korea, we deal. Different situations call for different circumstances.

It seems to me that we drew our foreign policy out of a hat. Or maybe we rolled a d20.

BTW, there's this guy, and he's the dictator of a country, and he's developing weapons of mass destruction, and the U.S. has been actively against his government for decades, and he starves his own people to death. But it's not like we need to invade or anything, we shouldn't be making the first strike.

[CapelDodger]

From Richard G:
Terroist training camps have been destroyed in northern Iraq. Terrorist are attacking our soldiers with homicide bombings. Iraq is a cesspool of terrorists.
Drastically over-stated. The Islamists in the north have no allegiance to the Ba'ath regime, and any connections they have are tenuous (or convincing evidence would surely have been provided). Iraq has certainly been involved with secular terrorists - even in the days when they were America's buddies - but not with fanatics that could easily get out of control. A cesspool-full of terrorists would be a threat to the regime, and they don't / didn't (I haven't checked CNN for a few hours) allow that. The groups they have used have been (at least originally) involved with Israel but have been more commonly active against Arab regimes. In return for money and logistic support they do jobs for their patrons. Those patrons are not going to give terrorists weapons that could make them independent.

Saddam could have nothing to gain from the 9-11 attacks or anything similar. If done secretly, what good does it do. If he claims it - well, we've seen the spanking he's getting when he claims not to be involved. The only kind of strike he would make against America would be one which dramatically reduced it's ability to respond, to the extent that he could resist militarily. There isn't any such strike that I can see him achieving (even before this war).

[CapelDodger]

From Charles Livingston:
However, just because you dont think that there is a connection does not mean that the 'alot of Americans' that do have been brainwashed by spindoctoring
In my experience people don't need 'brainwashing'. When they hear 9-11 and Iraq constantly referred to in the same TV programmes, newspaper articles and politicians' speeches they'll connect the two. They don't need the evidence - 'it must be there or the two wouldn't be linked all the time, would they?' Sadly, that's how most people (fail to) think.
Yes, I'm a cynic, I know.

[Dymanic]

Support terroism, feed terrorism, fund terrosism, harbor terrorism, you are a target.
Maybe we don't even need an excuse? Why not just say we can attack anyone we want, just because we can?
Terrorist are attacking our soldiers with homicide bombings.
Using the word 'terrorist' in reference to attacks on armed soldiers seems to be a deliberate attempt to incite an emotional response. If you like doing that, my advice would be to be a bit more frugal in the use of that word; if you use it too often, it may lose some of its inflammatory effectiveness.
Iraq is a cesspool of terrorists. That is being remedied.
Would you say that the problem of illegal drugs entering our country is being remedied by the efforts of the US Border Patrol?

[Agammamon]

W said so, don't you trust the government?

[gnome]

Originally posted by Richard G
Terrorist are attacking our soldiers with homicide bombings.

What's the difference between a homicide bombing and just a bombing?

By refusing to call it a "suicide bombing" you are substituting a redundancy AND trading accuracy for image. Isn't that the whole problem with "PC" vocabulary?

[Nasarius]

Terrorist are attacking our soldiers with homicide bombings.

And we're bombing them from the air. What's the difference?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Tmy
Have you heard that pro-invasion country song "Have you Forgotten" I think its #1 in the country charts.

The song is basically about how its right to go to war wh Saddam, dont you remember the terror of 911 and Bin Ladin.


I was wondering, who here believes there's a connection between 9/11 and Saddam? I don't think theres any, but alot of Americans do. Chalk it up to good spindoctoring?

There are plenty of justifications for invasion, but this 911 link drives me crazy cause I see it as emotional manipulation.


Have you forgotten .......

Iran = 9/11


Alleged Iran Links Denied (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3925079.stm)

[Dorian Gray]

I think the greatest self-deception people have is thinking that Saddam is not a threat while a Saudi brat hiding in a pakistan cave is. 1) You're kidding, right? That cave-hider is the one who orchestrated the attack on the US. He hasn't been caught. Ridge keeps squawking about future attacks. You figure it out.

2) BY THE WAY, if you'll recall, Mr. Selective Memory, for a great deal of time Saddam Hussein was ALSO a cave-hider - his was a spideyhole! So you're comparing a person who pulled off a successful attack and hides in a cave, ELUDING our forces, to a person who NEVER attacked the continental US, had no WMD, and was CAPTURED while hiding in a hole.

3) ALSO by the way, you need to get with the times. Currently, Saddam is in PRISON, while Osama is AT LARGE, so actually, Corplinx, Saddam ISN'T a threat, while "a Saudi brat hiding in a Pakistan cave" is. Here is your corrected quote:
I think the greatest grasp of reality people have is thinking that Saddam is not a threat while a Saudi brat hiding in a pakistan cave is.

You're welcome. I look forward to your regurgitation of the neoconservative rhetoric on Iran.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
2) BY THE WAY, if you'll recall, Mr. Selective Memory, for a great deal of time Saddam Hussein was ALSO a cave-hider - his was a spideyhole! So you're comparing a person who pulled off a successful attack and hides in a cave, ELUDING our forces, to a person who NEVER attacked the continental US, had no WMD, and was CAPTURED while hiding in a hole.

3) ALSO by the way, you need to get with the times. Currently, Saddam is in PRISON, while Osama is AT LARGE, so actually, Corplinx, Saddam ISN'T a threat, while "a Saudi brat hiding in a Pakistan cave" is. Here is your corrected quote:

lol.

Looks like corp doesn't win the JREF prize.

Try to keep in mind, corp, the next time you're ranting about who is or isn't hiding in a cave... The person you say isn't a cave-hider in April of 2003 may be one by Dec of 2003 - and then won't your face be red 7 months later? Or something.

Also, back in April of '03, you needed to get with the times. Or something.

[Dorian Gray]

Okay, didn't see his post date. But still, he was wrong about that stuff, and if he can be wrong about that, he could be hiding Wrongness of Mass Disillusion in his shorts.

[Art Vandelay]

TrickyIf brutality, callousness and killing non-combatants is the hallmark of terrorism, the the US is the most terrorist nation of all time.
How anyone could be so divorced from reality still confounds me. And no one challenged him on it! It's things like this that make people associate leftism with isanity and hatred of America.

[Ladewig]

Have You Forgotten lyrics. (http://www.anysonglyrics.com/lyrics/d/darrylworley/haveyouforgotten.htm)
I hear people saying we don't need this war
I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground?
We didn't get to keep 'em by backing down
They say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start preaching
Let me ask you this my friend

CHORUS 1
Have you forgotten how it felt that day
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away?
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside
Going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

Wow. The song accuses people who are against the Iraq war of saying "we shouldn't worry 'bout Bin Laden." I've poked around some pretty left-wing sites on the internet and never have I ever heard anyone who is against the war say "we shouldn't worry 'bout Bin Laden." In fact some of them say that we should have used all the resources spent on invading Iraq on searching for ObL because a) he is a bigger threat and b) he should be brought to justice for past crimes.

[Dorian Gray]

Guess What Ladewig! There IS a person who said he isn't worried about bin Laden. A pretty important person at that:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=22012002-034743-1472r
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 (UPI) -- President Bush said Tuesday in West Virginia that he is not worried about finding Osama bin Laden as he cannot hide from the U.S. forces forever.

At the same time, a federal judge in Los Angeles ordered a hearing next month on a civil rights case involving 110 Taliban and al Qaida prisoners at a U.S. base in Cuba.

"There are only so many caves he (bin Laden) can hide in," said Bush in arrival remarks at Yeager Airport in Charleston, W.Va. The United States, he said, is winning the war on terrorism, even if the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks is still at large.

"He's the one who needs to be worried. But I want to assure you the objective is not bin Laden. We'll get bin Laden.

"We want him dead or alive ... but we are not too worried about him. ... He is the one who needs to be worried," Bush said.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf last week suggested bin Laden might have died from kidney disease, but U.S. officials declined to speculate on what might have happened to him.

His government's "primary task," Bush said, is to "prevent another attack ... the best way to secure the homeland of the United States is to find the enemy where he hides and bring him to justice (Boy, we sure have done that, huh.).

"In order to defeat the evil ones, we must use the mighty U.S. military ... to rout them out of their caves and bring them to justice." (Right after we attack Iraq, that is.)

(more)

Also interesting was this part: "At the same time, a federal judge in Los Angeles ordered a hearing next month on a civil rights case involving 110 Taliban and al Qaida prisoners at a U.S. base in Cuba." Civil rights at Guantanamo were questioned as early as January 2002 - yet today, nothing much has been done except on paper.