85 per cent say 'US mission was "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11"'

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-troops-favour-getting-out-of-iraq/2006/03/01/1141191729975.html



A POLL of US troops serving in Iraq has found that 72 per cent believed the US should leave Iraq within a year. At the same time, 53 per cent said the number of US troops and bombing missions should be doubled to control the insurgency.
Le Moyne College and Zogby International polled 944 soldiers at several locations inside Iraq, finding that only 23 per cent believed US troops should stay in Iraq for "as long as it takes", President George Bush's formulation for how long US forces will remain in the country.
In contrast, 29 per cent said troops should leave immediately.
The poll found that 58 per cent of the respondents said the US mission in Iraq was clear in their minds, while 42 per cent said they were unsure or did not understand the mission at all.
An overwhelming majority (85 per cent) said the main US mission was "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks".




85 Percent of US Troops in Iraq believe that? It is time the misinformation from the Bush Administration was stopped.

Despite that, the vast majority want to leave within a year.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Rove and his great media spin over the years has successfully linked Saddam and 9/11 in the minds of most Americans ....

Charlie (mission accomplished indeed) Monoxide

[Freakshow]

Rove and his great media spin over the years has successfully linked Saddam and 9/11 in the minds of most Americans ....

Charlie (mission accomplished indeed) Monoxide"Most Americans"? Got any evidence for that? (AUP's statement is just about soldiers in Iraq, not the whole US population.)

I think such a belief is actually somewhere in the area of 10%. Pretty sure it is not "most".

[Freakshow]

JREF sucks for letting you edit posts, but not delete them.

[Upchurch]

85 Percent of US Troops in Iraq believe that? It is time the misinformation from the Bush Administration was stopped.I'm not Bush Administration fan, but I'm a little suspicious of that rather anonymous poll. That, or I just find it really hard to believe that anyone (let alone 85% of anyones) still buy into that idea.

[Manny]

I'm not Bush Administration fan, but I'm a little suspicious of that rather anonymous poll. That, or I just find it really hard to believe that anyone (let alone 85% of anyones) still buy into that idea.I checked, and they apparently want twenty bucks (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075) to see the executive summary. Ed knows how much they'd charge for the full dataset.

That said, Zogby isn't a fly-by-night operation.

[Freakshow]

I checked, and they apparently want twenty bucks (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075) to see the executive summary. Ed knows how much they'd charge for the full dataset.

That said, Zogby isn't a fly-by-night operation.One of the things that drives me crazy about the media and the polling organizations is that there should NEVER be a story posted about a poll that doesn't also have all of the poll results. I know that is a lot of space in the newspaper, but maybe they could print less stories about Michael Jackson to make some space.

[Manny]

One of the things that drives me crazy about the media and the polling organizations is that there should NEVER be a story posted about a poll that doesn't also have all of the poll results. I know that is a lot of space in the newspaper, but maybe they could print less stories about Michael Jackson to make some space.I'd settle for links. And not just to polls. When they report on government statistics like unemployment or housing data or whatever, they should link directly to the relevant document. Also, full texts of bills passed, etc. If they choose to rehost the stuff to keep you on their site rather than someone else's, that's fine too. But yeah -- the whole point of the internet is that a lot of data is unfiltered by the media overlords. The filtering is often valuable, but the unfiltered data ought to be available too.

[Freakshow]

I'd settle for links. And not just to polls. When they report on government statistics like unemployment or housing data or whatever, they should link directly to the relevant document. Also, full texts of bills passed, etc. If they choose to rehost the stuff to keep you on their site rather than someone else's, that's fine too. But yeah -- the whole point of the internet is that a lot of data is unfiltered by the media overlords. The filtering is often valuable, but the unfiltered data ought to be available too.Absolutely. But they are too busy on reporting on missing hot blonde chicks to actually DO THEIR F***ING JOBS!!!!!!

[Mark]

"Most Americans"? Got any evidence for that? (AUP's statement is just about soldiers in Iraq, not the whole US population.)

I think such a belief is actually somewhere in the area of 10%. Pretty sure it is not "most".

Got any evidence for the 10% figure? I am serious...I don't know anyone in my area (highly Republican) who doesn't make that erroneous link.

[Lurker]

Polls are simple news. Hardly any work required. Why they are news is beyond me as I would rather our media do actual reporting and investigations than polling and soundbyte reporting.

Lurker

[Freakshow]

Got any evidence for the 10% figure? I am serious...I don't know anyone in my area (highly Republican) who doesn't make that erroneous link.That's why I said "I think" and "pretty sure". I haven't seen a recent poll on it in a while. Would be interesting if anyone has a link to post. It isn't something I worry about too much, because it doesn't really matter anymore.

[Upchurch]

Absolutely. But they are too busy on reporting on missing hot blonde chicks to actually DO THEIR F***ING JOBS!!!!!!
Yeah, well. I think media in general is going through a fundamental shift and we're experiencing the death throws of old media trying to stay relevent.

[DavidJames]

Got any evidence for the 10% figure? I am serious...I don't know anyone in my area (highly Republican) who doesn't make that erroneous link.Here's a Republican congressman who less then a year ago was convinced of a link:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/

A quick google didn't find any current polls, but the poll numbers back in 2003 was around 70% (when it counted ;)). Last one I saw was in the 40% range a year or so ago (again via google).

[FreeChile]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-troops-favour-getting-out-of-iraq/2006/03/01/1141191729975.html



85 Percent of US Troops in Iraq believe that? It is time the misinformation from the Bush Administration was stopped.

Despite that, the vast majority want to leave within a year.
I guess it is Iraq polling week.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52892

[Mark]

That's why I said "I think" and "pretty sure". I haven't seen a recent poll on it in a while. Would be interesting if anyone has a link to post. It isn't something I worry about too much, because it doesn't really matter anymore.

It matters to me every time someone says they support Condie in 2008.

[varwoche]

I haven't seen a recent poll on it in a while. Would be interesting if anyone has a link to post. This is old news but here's the PIPA polling that drew some attention a couple of years ago... Is it your impression the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization?

Believe evidence of close links to al-Qaeda found:

Full sample: 52%
Firm supporters of the war: 72%
Republicans: 68%
Republicans following Iraq news closely: 78%
_________________________________________

Do you think the Bush administration did or did not imply that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11th attacks?

Did imply: 71%
Did not imply: 25%

July 2003 - PDF (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqWMD_Jul03/IraqWMD%20Jul03%20rpt.pdf)

[Charlie Monoxide]

"Most Americans"? Got any evidence for that? (AUP's statement is just about soldiers in Iraq, not the whole US population.)

I think such a belief is actually somewhere in the area of 10%. Pretty sure it is not "most".I didn't have an issue with the 85% of the GI's linking Iraq to 9/11. It does seem high but a number of polls (ie http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm) has the link at 60%+. That's a lot of people that I think would fall into the "most" category.

Charlie (anything over 51% is most) Monoxide

[mumblethrax]

The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113579153636833083-Xd1XL6NfsXVhzTL0_JKthJ9Wiic_20061229.html?mod=blog s) reports that 41% of Americans still believe it's true that "Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda" as of December of last year. It's no longer the majority opinion, but it's believed by the plurality of Americans (33% believe it isn't true).

[Grammatron]

The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113579153636833083-Xd1XL6NfsXVhzTL0_JKthJ9Wiic_20061229.html?mod=blog s) reports that 41% of Americans still believe it's true that "Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda" as of December of last year. It's no longer the majority opinion, but it's believed by the plurality of Americans (33% believe it isn't true).

That's very different than people believing Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

[Tricky]

This poll (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544) is about a year old, but I'm betting the numbers are similar.


47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).
44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November).
36 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded (down slightly from 38% in November). If you're ever making a wager on the stupidity of the American public, you'd do well to err on the side of more stupid.

[mumblethrax]

That's very different than people believing Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
No poll can answer a question is wasn't designed to, so I wouldn't claim that these aren't different beliefs.

[Upchurch]

This poll (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544) is about a year old, but I'm betting the numbers are similar.

If you're ever making a wager on the stupidity of the American public, you'd do well to err on the side of more stupid.
I stand corrected and dumbfounded. :boxedin:

[NoZed Avenger]

I have looked for stuff on the poll from the opening post.

Zogby has not released specifics regarding locations polled or demographics of persons polled, has not released the polling questions, has not stated whether any results are weighted, and gives only a summary of results (as far as I can find).

That is not usual for professional pollsters. At the very least, the questions and any pre-polling statements/questions whould be released.

The poll may be accurate, but all I see currently is Zogby saying the equivalent of "trust me" regarding the methodology.

[Art Vandelay]

Saddam may not have consciously chosen to facilitate the 9/11 attacks, but he was a major link in the causal chain of events that led to it. It would be accurate to say that he had a role in 9/11, and that the US was justified in retaliating for that role.

[Upchurch]

Saddam may not have consciously chosen to facilitate the 9/11 attacks, but he was a major link in the causal chain of events that led to it. It would be accurate to say that he had a role in 9/11, and that the US was justified in retaliating for that role.
Pardon me for being dense, but what role did Saddam have in 9/11 that would justify deposing him?

[Freakshow]

This poll (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544) is about a year old, but I'm betting the numbers are similar.
[/list]If you're ever making a wager on the stupidity of the American public, you'd do well to err on the side of more stupid.Yep. I stand (sit, actually) corrected.

[DavidJames]

Saddam may not have consciously chosen to facilitate the 9/11 attacks, but he was a major link in the causal chain of events that led to it. It would be accurate to say that he had a role in 9/11, and that the US was justified in retaliating for that role.You are welcome to try support this claim with evidence. Keep in mind, however, that Bush has already stated he doesn't believe Saddam had a role in 9/11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

[Freakshow]

Polls are simple news. Hardly any work required. Why they are news is beyond me as I would rather our media do actual reporting and investigations than polling and soundbyte reporting.

LurkerActually, I trust polls more than I trust a news story that is the result of one reporter's passion to bring light to his pet cause. I would rather the news be much more "dry" than it is now, and just be a boring collection of facts and data. Let me decide the rest for myself.

[Melendwyr]

People are, basically, stupid.

People who doubt that people are basically stupid are, basically, really stupid.

[The Fool]

People are, basically, stupid.

People who doubt that people are basically stupid are, basically, really stupid.
Just keep typing the words Saddam and 9/11 so they appear close together. Thats all thats required.

Or if thats way to simple start using terms like "major link" and "causal chain of events"

[a_unique_person]

I don't think it's because they are stupid. It's more likely it's what they have been told.

[Ladewig]

You see, kids, the basic difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.
__________
As for who was implying it, I think Cheney was much more Saddam-has-links-to-alQueda than the president ever was.

[Ladewig]

I don't think it's because they are stupid. It's more likely it's what they have been told.


Choosing Fox News as one news source among many is not stupid.
Choosing Fox News to be one's only news source is stupid.

[CapelDodger]

Or if thats way to simple start using terms like "major link" and "causal chain of events""Potentialised the paradigm".

Look. It's simple. Shut up. Saddam hates the US. Al-Qaeda hates the US. They are - shut up - they are enemies of the US. Of course they were working together against the US.

The US hated Saddam. Al-Qaeda hated Saddam. They were enemies of Saddam. Of course they were working together against Saddam. Shut up.

[Regnad Kcin]

You see, kids, the basic difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits...Yes, but is there a causal chain of events between the two?

[TragicMonkey]

If you're ever making a wager on the stupidity of the American public, you'd do well to err on the side of more stupid.

I guess I overestimated, though. I assumed the results of such a poll would return a majority result of "Durrrr, what is a saddam? Durrr." Provided, of course, that most of the sample didn't pass out from drunkenness before they could answer the question.

[Tricky]

Saddam may not have consciously chosen to facilitate the 9/11 attacks, but he was a major link in the causal chain of events that led to it. It would be accurate to say that he had a role in 9/11, and that the US was justified in retaliating for that role.
Ah. You must be one of the 47% who believe this in spite of the fact that no experts do.

Unless you are saying any link in the causal chain, however innocuous, justifies retaliation. In that case, we need to retaliate against the CIA.

[Art Vandelay]

Pardon me for being dense, but what role did Saddam have in 9/11 that would justify deposing him?What are the "reasons" al Qaeda carried out the attacks?
1. American troops in Saudi Arabia
2. Sanctions against Iraq.
3. "Oppression" of Palestinians.

All of them are things which Saddam, at least in part, caused. As to whether that justifies deposing him, that is not an issue that I addressed. But it does put lie to the claim that Saddam and al Qaeda are unrelated issues.

[peptoabysmal]

What's everyone so upset about? Saddam didn't have a problem with taking credit for 9/11.

http://www.jacques-itch.com/images/SaddamWTC_01.jpg

[Art Vandelay]

Ah. You must be one of the 47% who believe this in spite of the fact that no experts do.You must be one of those people that like to post absolutely ridiculous statements.

Unless you are saying any link in the causal chain, however innocuous, justifies retaliation. Interesting how you pretend your two strawmen are the only options. And when I say "interesting", I mean "total BS".

[Tricky]

2. Sanctions against Iraq.

All of them are things which Saddam, at least in part, caused. As to whether that justifies deposing him, that is not an issue that I addressed. But it does put lie to the claim that Saddam and al Qaeda are unrelated issues.
Even assuming you could bring evidence that sanctions against Iraq were a significant reason for the 9-11 attacks, you still would not have shown that Saddam is a link in the causal events. He did not ask for sanctions and I'm reasonably sure he didn't want them. Loonies deciding they will "fight for you" does not make you a cause of their lunacy.

[Art Vandelay]

Even assuming you could bring evidence that sanctions against Iraq were a significant reason for the 9-11 attacks, you still would not have shown that Saddam is a link in the causal events. Even if you could discredit one of my points, you would not disprove my position.

He did not ask for sanctions and I'm reasonably sure he didn't want them. It was his choices that caused the sanctions. Quit being willfully obtuse.

Loonies deciding they will "fight for you" does not make you a cause of their lunacy.Saddam deliberately used the sanctions to inflame opinion against the US. You're being incredibly disingenuous in pretending this isn't Saddam's fault. Just because, in general, loonies deciding they will fiht for does not always mean that you are responsible for them, does nothing to dispute the fact that in this case, Saddam absolutely is reponsible for the sanctions, and for anything those sanctions cause.

[Tricky]

You must be one of those people that like to post absolutely ridiculous statements.
Why ridiculous? You said there was a link, as did the 47%. It seems to be an obvious conclusion that you agree with them.
Interesting how you pretend your two strawmen are the only options. And when I say "interesting", I mean "total BS".
What two strawmen? I'm going strictly on what you said which was
It would be accurate to say that he had a role in 9/11, and that the US was justified in retaliating for that role.
It doesn't appear that Saddam encouraged supported or had any contact with the 9-11 terrorists. What exactly justifies retaliation? Just because he was someone else's inspiration? And how, exactly, would making a martyr of Saddam discourage the terrorists?

[Art Vandelay]

Why ridiculous? You said there was a link, as did the 47%. It seems to be an obvious conclusion that you agree with them. You are a human, Hitler was a human, therefore it seems to be an obvious conclusion that you agree with him. Can't we dispense with these childish parodies of logic?

What two strawmen? I'm going strictly on what you said which wasI notice that "any link in the causal chain, however innocuous, justifies retaliation" appears nowhere in what you quoted, because that is simply bullsh*t that you made up.

What exactly justifies retaliation? What part of "he performed acts of great evil that led to 3000 Americans dying" do you not understand?

Just because he was someone else's inspiration?Not "inspiration". Cause.

And how, exactly, would making a martyr of Saddam discourage the terrorists?How, exactly, do you keep coming up with all these strawmen? Laws against murder are meant to discourage murderers, not rapists. Do you understand that, or should I see if I can put into words of only one syllable?

[epepke]

Even assuming you could bring evidence that sanctions against Iraq were a significant reason for the 9-11 attacks, you still would not have shown that Saddam is a link in the causal events. He did not ask for sanctions and I'm reasonably sure he didn't want them. Loonies deciding they will "fight for you" does not make you a cause of their lunacy.

And, there is, of course, no link between human activities and global warming, because people didn't want to warm the Earth when they burned fossil fuels.

Pheeuw!

[Tricky]

Unbelievable. Okay Art. As you like it. Let no evidence stand in your way.

[a_unique_person]

What part of "he performed acts of great evil that led to 3000 Americans dying" do you not understand?


He performed great acts of evil, true. That led to the deaths of 3000 Americans, false.

[a_unique_person]

And, there is, of course, no link between human activities and global warming, because people didn't want to warm the Earth when they burned fossil fuels.

Pheeuw!
That just does not compute.

[epepke]

That just does not compute.

Of course not.

Neither did what Tricky said.

[Art Vandelay]

He performed great acts of evil, true. That led to the deaths of 3000 Americans, false.So do you deny that the invasion of Kuwait led to Americans being stationed in SA? Or do you deny that Americans being stationed in SA led to al Qaeda targetting the US?

[a_unique_person]

I assumed you were referring to 9/11. That is the act in question, not the other events.

[The Fool]

Saddam Osama Saddam Osama Saddam Osama.....

See the harmony...how it rolls off the tongue. Whenever I am riding in a train the clickety clack clickety clack leads me to think of two people...Saddam Osama saddam Osama Saddam Osama.

Tenuous link you say? Pah....you are obviously all in denial.

[The Fool]

So do you deny that the invasion of Kuwait led to Americans being stationed in SA? Or do you deny that Americans being stationed in SA led to al Qaeda targetting the US?
And if old man Hussein and his wife had not shagged...Saddam would not be born. He would not have invaded Kuwait, Americans not stationed in SA...no Ossama attack..... I don't think you are going back far enough Art. Saddams parents are clearly responsible!

[epepke]

I assumed you were referring to 9/11. That is the act in question, not the other events.

Look, I doubt that you will understand this, but I'll try anyway.

If Saddam Hussein had not invaded Kuwait, then by a chain of events (made up of links), 9/11 would not have happened. The US wouldn't have had a large number of troops in Saudi Arabia (which bin Laden mentioned). There would have been no sanctions (which bin Laden mentioned).

Now, does this mean that Saddam Hussein was in any material way responsible for 9/11? No; of course not. It's way too indirect. As far as I can tell, the closest Saddam Hussein got to the WTC was offering sanctuary to one of the leaders of the 1993 bombing. Is it justification for invading Iraq? Of course not. I was against the invasion before it happened.

But if someone asked me if I thought that there were links between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, I would have to say yes. Because it's true. If someone asked me if there were links between flight schools in Florida and 9/11, then I would also have to say yes. And I live in Florida and so, politically, might be expected to be predisposed to deny any links. But them's the facts. Florida flight schools helped destroy the WTC. Not deliberately, but they did help, and the link exists. It bloody exists.

Also, I have to remind you (though I'm probably being masochistic by doing it) that we don't have the foggiest clue what the actual questions in the poll were.

[Art Vandelay]

Different causes impose different levels of blame. There's a difference betweeen doing something bad that leads to more bad thing, and doing something that isn't bad, but leads to completely unforseeable bad things.

[a_unique_person]

Look, I doubt that you will understand this, but I'll try anyway.

If Saddam Hussein had not invaded Kuwait, then by a chain of events (made up of links), 9/11 would not have happened. The US wouldn't have had a large number of troops in Saudi Arabia (which bin Laden mentioned). There would have been no sanctions (which bin Laden mentioned).

Now, does this mean that Saddam Hussein was in any material way responsible for 9/11? No; of course not. It's way too indirect. As far as I can tell, the closest Saddam Hussein got to the WTC was offering sanctuary to one of the leaders of the 1993 bombing. Is it justification for invading Iraq? Of course not. I was against the invasion before it happened.

But if someone asked me if I thought that there were links between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, I would have to say yes. Because it's true. If someone asked me if there were links between flight schools in Florida and 9/11, then I would also have to say yes. And I live in Florida and so, politically, might be expected to be predisposed to deny any links. But them's the facts. Florida flight schools helped destroy the WTC. Not deliberately, but they did help, and the link exists. It bloody exists.

Also, I have to remind you (though I'm probably being masochistic by doing it) that we don't have the foggiest clue what the actual questions in the poll were.

I think you have just invented a new logical fallacy.

[Ladewig]

Different causes impose different levels of blame. There's a difference betweeen doing something bad that leads to more bad thing, and doing something that isn't bad, but leads to completely unforseeable bad things.


I'll agree to that difference, but is there a difference between doing something bad that leads to more bad things and doing something bad that leads to completely unforseeable bad things?

[Kerberos]

Different causes impose different levels of blame. There's a difference betweeen doing something bad that leads to more bad thing, and doing something that isn't bad, but leads to completely unforseeable bad things.
Yes, there is, the difference is that a person who does bad things that lead different by unforseeable bad things can reasonably be blamed for the initial bad thing, whiel a person who does a non-bad thing that leads to bad things can't be blamed at all. To blame people for consequences of their actions they did not and could not possibly have forseen is ridicilous. Following you "logic" you could have invaded Britain, because their caving up of the Midlle East ultimatly lead to Gulf war. Hel we could probably blame the Roman Empire. Could Saddam Hussein reasonably be included in an explanation of 9/11? yes. Does this in any shape or form provide a reasonable cause for the invasion? No.

[Tricky]

Let me ask this question of anyone who feels that we were justified in invading Iraq because of 9-11. If we had invaded Iraq before 9-11, would that have prevented 9-11? If so, please explain how.

[Mephisto]

"Most Americans"? Got any evidence for that? (AUP's statement is just about soldiers in Iraq, not the whole US population.)

I think such a belief is actually somewhere in the area of 10%. Pretty sure it is not "most".

Not so fast there Freakshow! I remember a poll taken after 9/11 that showed many Americans believed the link between Saddam and 9/11. I think it was an unfortunate mix of Rove's expert misinformation and the tendency of Americans NOT to be more skeptical..

Here it is - I found a couple of links that prove Charlie's assertion:

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
___________

Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds
By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01


Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5

[Mephisto]

What are the "reasons" al Qaeda carried out the attacks?
1. American troops in Saudi Arabia
2. Sanctions against Iraq.
3. "Oppression" of Palestinians.

All of them are things which Saddam, at least in part, caused. As to whether that justifies deposing him, that is not an issue that I addressed. But it does put lie to the claim that Saddam and al Qaeda are unrelated issues.

Using this logic, Bush is just as tied to the attacks on 9/11 as Hussein.

1. He's the Commander in Chief & the reason there are troops in Saudi
2. He was supportive of the ULTIMATE sanctions against Iraq.
3. He supports the "oppression" of Palestinians.

Hussein reportedly likes Doritos corn chips, and so do I - I suppose that indirectly links me to Iraq, 9/11 AND Al Qaeda.

[Melendwyr]

Saddam deliberately used the sanctions to inflame opinion against the US. You're being incredibly disingenuous in pretending this isn't Saddam's fault. The Devil made us do it! The Devil made us do it!

[Mephisto]

Do you understand that, or should I see if I can put into words of only one syllable?

Look, I doubt that you will understand this, but I'll try anyway.

Don't you just love talking to people who resort to insulting your intelligence when their argument is weak? What is it about Conservatives that makes them feel so superior?

[Melendwyr]

What is it about Conservatives that makes them feel so superior? Arrogant people are less likely to believe that they're superior, and more likely to pretend to superiority in order to compensate for inferiority.

Why do you think it is that self-identified Conservatives so loudly proclaim that they're right?

[Tricky]

Don't you just love talking to people who resort to insulting your intelligence when their argument is weak? What is it about Conservatives that makes them feel so superior?
I wouldn't say it is just Conservatives. I'd more say it's politics. I hardly post here anymore because people cannot seem to discuss politics without getting vituperative. I love a good battle of insults, but I prefer it to be light-hearted. I hate wading through spittle.

[Mephisto]

I wouldn't say it is just Conservatives. I'd more say it's politics. I hardly post here anymore because people cannot seem to discuss politics without getting vituperative. I love a good battle of insults, but I prefer it to be light-hearted. I hate wading through spittle.

I know it was a generalization, but I've seen it happen here more than anywhere else, and I've most often seen Conservatives employ the "technique."

It really does nothing to strengthen an argument and unless you're having a battle of wits with an unarmed person, it doesn't really work. It would be nice if we could afford each other a little more respect and empathy here, even toward those who don't hold our opinion.

[Tricky]

I know it was a generalization, but I've seen it happen here more than anywhere else, and I've most often seen Conservatives employ the "technique."
It seems that way to me too, but I admit I am biased.

It really does nothing to strengthen an argument and unless you're having a battle of wits with an unarmed person, it doesn't really work. It would be nice if we could afford each other a little more respect and empathy here, even toward those who don't hold our opinion.
In a large board like this, you are going to get all extremes. I have no problem with conservatives like RandFan, and even PeptoAbysmal and I have yukked it up together from time to time. I've seen it much worse here. You probably don't remember Nie Trink Wassar. American has been a lot less active too.

[a_unique_person]

It seems that way to me too, but I admit I am biased.


In a large board like this, you are going to get all extremes. I have no problem with conservatives like RandFan, and even PeptoAbysmal and I have yukked it up together from time to time. I've seen it much worse here. You probably don't remember Nie Trink Wassar. American has been a lot less active too.

If someone kicks me in the ****, I kick back.

[Art Vandelay]

I'll agree to that difference, but is there a difference between doing something bad that leads to more bad things and doing something bad that leads to completely unforseeable bad things?There is a difference in degree. But if someone robs a bank, and someone dies during the crime, the bank robber will be charged with murder, even if he honestly believed that no one would die.

To blame people for consequences of their actions they did not and could not possibly have forseen is ridicilous. It's a matter of degree. If someone shoots a gun into a crowd, one could say that they can't be charged with murder, because if any particular person dies, that is completely unforseeable. What, exactly, the consequences of invading Kuwait would be was beyond Saddam's reckoning. But it was obvious that some bad things would follow. "I didn't know which bad things would happen" is no more a defense as "I didn't know which person my bullet will kill".

Following you "logic" you could have invaded Britain, because their caving up of the Midlle East ultimatly lead to Gulf war. First of all, I specifically pointed out that I said nothing about invasion. If you're going to tell other people what their logic is, you should actually read their posts first. Secondly, it wasn't foreseeable that it would lead to bad things. Other actions quite possibly would have led to other wars. Thirdly, Tony Blair had nothing to do with the partition of the middle east. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it would have little deterrence value. That's what retaliation is about. It's about "I act this way because other people knowing I act this way makes them not do things that hurt me". If we invade countries that cause thousands of Americans to die, other countries will try really, really hard to make sure that thousands of Americans don't die. Now, you can say that the exact manner in which thousands of Americans died was unforseeable, but can you honestly say that thousands of Americans dying was something that Saddam "could not possibly have forseen"?

Your logic is like saying "Well, this guy shot at Bob, but he killed Alice instead, and that was completely unforseeable. We can't charge him with the murder of Bob, because Bob's not dead, and we can't charge him with the murder of Alice, because he didn't intend to kill Alice. So I guess we'll just let him walk". That's BS.

Not so fast there Freakshow! I remember a poll taken after 9/11 that showed many Americans believed the link between Saddam and 9/11. You remember a lie.

Here it is - I found a couple of links that prove Charlie's assertion:You clearly don't understand the difference between "prove" and "agree with".

1. He's the Commander in Chief & the reason there are troops in SaudiNo, the reason there were troops in SA was because Saddam posed a threat. You are playing semantic games with the word "reason". If I point a gun at a cop, it's disingenuous to claim that the "reason" I got shot was because the cop "chose" to shoot me.

2. He was supportive of the ULTIMATE sanctions against Iraq.Again, it was Iraq that chose to have the sanctions applied against them. According to your logic, a judge has just as much blame for a convict being in prison as the convict.

3. He supports the "oppression" of Palestinians.The difference, which you either are unable to comprehend or are deliberately ignoring, is that Saddam's involvement is due to his evil nature. Saddam's involvement in the Palestinian issue was blameworthy in a way that Bush's is not. Bush may have made mistakes, but he hasn't deliberately murdered anyone.

Hussein reportedly likes Doritos corn chips, and so do I - I suppose that indirectly links me to Iraq, 9/11 AND Al Qaeda.You can't be a jackass and expect people to take your whining about their "insulting your intelligence" seriously.

Don't you just love talking to people who resort to insulting your intelligence when their argument is weak? What is it about Conservatives that makes them feel so superior?Tricky insulted his own intelligence by posting idiotic "arguments". He has shown over and over again that he either doesn't understand what my position is, or he is intentionally misrepresenting it. Now, why don't you actually show where my argument is weak, rather than just asserting it?

[Kerberos]

It's a matter of degree. If someone shoots a gun into a crowd, one could say that they can't be charged with murder, because if any particular person dies, that is completely unforseeable. What, exactly, the consequences of invading Kuwait would be was beyond Saddam's reckoning. But it was obvious that some bad things would follow. "I didn't know which bad things would happen" is no more a defense as "I didn't know which person my bullet will kill".
Ah yes, the wonders of false analogies. The people who were killed during the invasion of Kuwait could reasonably be held analogous to people killed by random shots into a crowd. The people killed in 9/11 would be analogous to somebody taking offence at the police's reaction to the shootings and killing somebody because of that. An action that the original shooter could not be held responsible for under any legal system I'm familiar with.

First of all, I specifically pointed out that I said nothing about invasion. If you're going to tell other people what their logic is, you should actually read their posts first.
Except you also said "It would be accurate to say that he had a role in 9/11, and that the US was justified in retaliating for that role." What on Earth do you think it means to say it would be accurate to say the US was justified in retaliating, in the context of the retaliation being an invasion if not that this is a meaningful excuse?
Secondly, it wasn't foreseeable that it would lead to bad things. Other actions quite possibly would have led to other wars. Thirdly, Tony Blair had nothing to do with the partition of the middle east. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it would have little deterrence value. That's what retaliation is about. It's about "I act this way because other people knowing I act this way makes them not do things that hurt me". If we invade countries that cause thousands of Americans to die, other countries will try really, really hard to make sure that thousands of Americans don't die. Now, you can say that the exact manner in which thousands of Americans died was unforseeable, but can you honestly say that thousands of Americans dying was something that Saddam "could not possibly have forseen"?
The only predictable way I can see for Americans to die as a result of the invasion was in the subsequent counter invasion and even that was unforseen/unforseeable, if it's true that Saddam believed he had US permission. Unless you're planning to deter people form doing "bad things" in general, and trust me, you don't have that many troops, invading Iraq as retaliation to 9/11 makes no more sense than invading Britain.

Your logic is like saying "Well, this guy shot at Bob, but he killed Alice instead, and that was completely unforseeable. We can't charge him with the murder of Bob, because Bob's not dead, and we can't charge him with the murder of Alice, because he didn't intend to kill Alice. So I guess we'll just let him walk". That's BS.
Yes that is indeed a big steaming pile of BS. A valid analogy would be that Benny shot at Bob and the police as a reaction steeped up patrolling in Benny and Bob's neighbourhood. If this in turn offended somebody unrelated to Benny who reacts by killing somebody from the neighbourhood with the police station, punishing Benny is meaningless. Logic and valid analogies aren't your strong points are they? Neither is law Apparently. Last time I checked attepted murder was a crime too, just FYI.

[epepke]

Don't you just love talking to people who resort to insulting your intelligence when their argument is weak? What is it about Conservatives that makes them feel so superior?

I'm not a conservative. I have been consistently against the invasion of Iraq. I voted against Reagan.

But I don't even have to argue. There's just something wrong with people like you and AUP if you think that anyone who doesn't drink the Flavor-Ade must be a conservative in order to make your worldviews make sense, and that you (demonstrably) have to put a lot of stock in binary straw men.

[a_unique_person]

I didn't call you a conservative. But there were a lot of people the Dubya MD had access to who could have told him that what he was trying to do was going to be a lot harder than he thought it would be. And what he has done is nothing to do with what he claimed it was going to be.

Starting a war is a major act by any political leader. I would expect it to be an open, honest and true appraisal of the situation. Any leader who failed at that task is a failure, full stop. Bush should simply resign.

[mumblethrax]

I think you have just invented a new logical fallacy.
Or an exemplar of an old one: the historian's fallacy.

It makes no sense to hold Saddam responsible for events he could not possibly have predicted.

Anyhoo, the idea that retribution is ever justifiable is irrational even if we let that slip.

[Dcdrac]

Bin Madman (Laden) had declared Hussein an apostate so they were hardly bossom buddies.

[Dcdrac]

Oh on the casuality chain, Kermit Esienhower should be held responsible for the current regieme in Iran then as he was the team leader of the CIA operation that got the Shah in power, he should have forseen the consequences....

[CapelDodger]

Oh on the casuality chain, Kermit Esienhower should be held responsible for the current regieme in Iran then as he was the team leader of the CIA operation that got the Shah in power, he should have forseen the consequences....No, it was the Russians. Their invasion of Afghanistan popularised militant Sunni Islamism, which produced Al-Qaeda. Russian actions in Chechnya furthered encouraged Sunni Islamism. Seems to me Russia's due a good slapping for 9/11.

[TragicMonkey]

I blame the Wright brothers. They bear the ultimate responsibility for 9/11, really.

[Kerberos]

I blame the Wright brothers. They bear the ultimate responsibility for 9/11, really.
I'm way ahead of you, I've already blamed the Roman Empire.

[TragicMonkey]

I'm way ahead of you, I've already blamed the Roman Empire.

Well, let's agree that the ultimate blame rests with the neolithic people who developed agriculture. Without that, nobody would have had time to invent a) planes, b) skyscrapers, and c) nations.

Although, actually, maybe we should blame whichever ancestor decided to come down out of the trees. Bad monkey! Bad! Monkey stay in tree!! That would have saved a lot of fuss and bother.

[Kerberos]

Well, let's agree that the ultimate blame rests with the neolithic people who developed agriculture. Without that, nobody would have had time to invent a) planes, b) skyscrapers, and c) nations.

Although, actually, maybe we should blame whichever ancestor decided to come down out of the trees. Bad monkey! Bad! Monkey stay in tree!! That would have saved a lot of fuss and bother.
Or we could just go right to the souce and blame the Big Bang. After all...














...None of this would have happened if OBL's father had kept it zipped.

[CapelDodger]

Although, actually, maybe we should blame whichever ancestor decided to come down out of the trees. Bad monkey! Bad! Monkey stay in tree!! That would have saved a lot of fuss and bother.It's Darwin's fault. I knew it.

[CapelDodger]

...None of this would have happened if OBL's father had kept it zipped.They wear frocks over there, silly. No zips. Wanton, they are. Naked under their clothes. :eek: