Great posts Gunbei, humour (cluster fuck, ROLOL!) and some very thought provoking info.
Watching the news up here in the "great white north" yesterday evening, our national, publicly-funded broadcaster showed file-photo footage of a broadly smiling Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the early '80s. The now-Defence Secretary was selling chemicals or something at the time of his meeting with SM.
One of the people interviewed by the CBC last night is a professor at Georgetown University who suggested that, although Saddam may have indeed been directing some of the insurgency up until some unspecifed time, there may be a number of groups that are likely acting independently of one another. He referred to two main groups: 1. Baathists loyal to Saddam and 2. Iraqi nationalists opposed to Saddam AND the US-led invasion. There was another analyst speaking of the three large ethnic divisions and their respective territories in Iraq: the Sunnis (Baghdad and Northeast), the Shiites (pretty much everything South of Baghdad) and the Kurds (North and Northwest). What a mess!
I wonder though, instead of invading Iraq and going after Saddam, if there had been as much effort and money put into the expedition to Afghanistan and getting bin Laden, would the latter now still be at large??? Should the US and its allies have finished the job there and, in the meantime, gather more concrete evidence of WMDs in Iraq before invading? One would think that the Allies were in control of a large part of Afghanistan at the time and with the patience/tenacity shown in Iraq could conceivably have captured ObL.
Don't get me wrong, I think the capture of Hussein is a good thing, but the rationale for the invasion was never what one could call rock solid. As for being a supporter of terrorism, one could argue that Saddam encouraged it with huge payments made to the families of Palestinian suicide-bombers, but that doesn't prove a link with Osama.
Slipknot and Bmwhaus, your skepticism is understandable. There are too many coincidences, including profits for those close to the White House, for there not to be serious questions. Whether are any real answers are given, or just the same stonewalling platitudes, is another matter. I won't hold my breath though.
Just my 2 cents (Cdn), 1.4 (US). :-)
Oh yeah, music to celebrate... I think I'd rather spend time remembering those who have lost their lives during the events of the past couple of years and teach my children about what it means to me to be a good person. Tolerance, love your fellow (wo)man, etc.
Peace, everyone.
Watching the news up here in the "great white north" yesterday evening, our national, publicly-funded broadcaster showed file-photo footage of a broadly smiling Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the early '80s. The now-Defence Secretary was selling chemicals or something at the time of his meeting with SM.
One of the people interviewed by the CBC last night is a professor at Georgetown University who suggested that, although Saddam may have indeed been directing some of the insurgency up until some unspecifed time, there may be a number of groups that are likely acting independently of one another. He referred to two main groups: 1. Baathists loyal to Saddam and 2. Iraqi nationalists opposed to Saddam AND the US-led invasion. There was another analyst speaking of the three large ethnic divisions and their respective territories in Iraq: the Sunnis (Baghdad and Northeast), the Shiites (pretty much everything South of Baghdad) and the Kurds (North and Northwest). What a mess!
I wonder though, instead of invading Iraq and going after Saddam, if there had been as much effort and money put into the expedition to Afghanistan and getting bin Laden, would the latter now still be at large??? Should the US and its allies have finished the job there and, in the meantime, gather more concrete evidence of WMDs in Iraq before invading? One would think that the Allies were in control of a large part of Afghanistan at the time and with the patience/tenacity shown in Iraq could conceivably have captured ObL.
Don't get me wrong, I think the capture of Hussein is a good thing, but the rationale for the invasion was never what one could call rock solid. As for being a supporter of terrorism, one could argue that Saddam encouraged it with huge payments made to the families of Palestinian suicide-bombers, but that doesn't prove a link with Osama.
Slipknot and Bmwhaus, your skepticism is understandable. There are too many coincidences, including profits for those close to the White House, for there not to be serious questions. Whether are any real answers are given, or just the same stonewalling platitudes, is another matter. I won't hold my breath though.
Just my 2 cents (Cdn), 1.4 (US). :-)
Oh yeah, music to celebrate... I think I'd rather spend time remembering those who have lost their lives during the events of the past couple of years and teach my children about what it means to me to be a good person. Tolerance, love your fellow (wo)man, etc.
Peace, everyone.