Read this. It's vital.

Why Hitting Saddam Hit Al-Qaeda
By Jules Crittenden
Boston Herald | October 5, 2004

Beneath all the public reasons for invading Iraq lies a secret war
agenda that has paid off in the war on al-Qaeda, according to a leading
intelligence analyst. ``The Bush administration has been represented as
strategically stupid but adept at political manipulation. The opposite
is true,'' said George Friedman, president of Stratfor, a firm that
delivers global strategic forecasting and open-source intelligence
analysis to corporate clients.

Friedman's book, ``America's Secret War: Inside the Hidden Worldwide
Struggle Between America and its Enemies,'' which goes on sale Tuesday,
argues that midway through the war on terrorism, America has made major
gains while al-Qaeda has failed in most of its goals and is on the
defensive. Iraq, he argues, is a keystone of American strategy against
al-Qaeda.

In the decision to invade Iraq, he argues, disarming a dangerous
dictator and bringing democracy to the Middle East were secondary war
goals. The factor that tipped the balance in internal Bush
administration debates in mid-2002 was Saudi Arabia's recalcitrance in
the war on al-Qaeda, he says.

America's invasion of Iraq put pressure on the Saudis that forced them
to act against al-Qaeda sympathizers within Saudi Arabia in ways the
Saudis had been unwilling to do, Friedman said.

In the past year, Friedman argues, it has worked. The Saudis, shaken by
America's action, has engaged in a ``civil war'' against al-Qaeda,
killing operatives, busting up cells and cracking down on the group's
financial network.

``The problem is that the administration can't explain that this is
blackmail on the Saudis. So it turns to WMD,'' Friedman said about the
reasons given for the Iraq war. He argued that America was compelled to
continue strong action after the Afghan campaign.

``Doing nothing would have been disastrous,'' Friedman said.

Gains against al-Qaeda so far, he said, include: action to isolate
nukes, include undercover special operations agents monitoring
Pakistan's nuclear weapons facility; significant damage to al-Qaeda's
fund-raising apparatus; and better cooperation from intelligence
agencies in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

But the high-stakes game of brute-force foreign policy has been poorly
executed, creating a new series of problems, Friedman argues. He
criticizes the administration for failing to build up U.S. military
strength and commit enough forces to Iraq. The administration also
failed to recognize that Saddam had planned a guerrilla war after his
predictable fall and that Iran had heavily infiltrated the Iraqi
Shiites.

A Shiite-dominated Iraq was meant to divide the Muslim world and further
weaken al-Qaeda, Friedman said. But efforts to rein in the Shiites and
cut deals with the Sunni minority in Iraq angered Iran, which is now
making trouble by posturing itself as a soon-to-be nuclear power -
although, he says, the mullahs know the U.S. and Israel will never let
them complete have a deliverable nuke.

Meh. I don't buy it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dpete:
Meh. I don't buy it.

---

I can see that you have an open mind about things.

If you don't believe it, read the book when it comes out. If you still don't "buy it" then whatever.

Why is this vital?

It is vital because if it can be proven that Bush went into Iraq with a linkage to Al Qaeda, it means he just won the election.

While reading this, I couldn't help but get mad. I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR A LONG TIME!

Unfortunately, someone wrote a book about it while I was writing a movie.
Should have wrote the book.

Bush is a smarter man then most people give him credit for. If you were put in his shoes you wouldn't last half as long as he has, and you know it.

Iraq is a vital key in the war on terror. I've posted this before an I'll post it again!

And anyways watch the strategy behind Iraq:


Look who we are right next door to now: That's right Iran. Everyone know what's going on with Iran? If you don't update yourself. I reccomend Google news at www.google.com. It pulls its reports from every where on the web, providing you with many different sources.

Who else did that put us next door to? Syria. And now Syria is getting its ass in line and cooperating with everyone instead of fighting and denying the rules of the world.

Now, Iraq is a much easier target then somewhere like Iran. Iran has guaranteed Nukes. They said it themselves. Aslo Iraq's army is much smaller.

We have Iraq. Terrorists and extreme cults do not want the US or any other western civilization in the Middle East. So we go there and they want to fight us off.
So the Iraq war IS about terrorism. Iraq is the battle field for the war on terrorism. Terrorists are pooring into Iraq, wanting to get us out of there. But we're staying picking off major leaders and disarming the terrorist army.

Iraq has everything to do with terrorism, Iran, and Syria. All 3 major threats to the world.

Okay, tell me why it's so friggin' bad when N. Korea has nukes now? The middle east is not our only enemy and "terrorists" or not, it's not a place we should focus any more or less attention to.

-Elliott

So innocent Americans and Iraqis are being killed in bunches so we can put a little pressure on Saudi Arabia? I don't think it's true, but even if it was it's still dishonest and a stupid idea. So nothing in my mind has changed a bit. Besides, if they wanted to put some pressue on Saudi Arabia, one of the Bush's could just hit speed dial and talk to their buddies and buisness partners in the Saudi government.

And as far as Sadaam being such an evil dictator. Sure he ain't the nicest guy on earth but the people of Iraq seem to have prefered him to us and the last FBI list before the war had Sadaam as the 17th worst dictator in the world. Funny, we seem to be in no hurry to free the Somalian's from their ruthless dictator.


Cammo

This is obviously more propaganda for the Bush administration. We'll be getting a lot of this trite from both administrations before the election. Either way, my absentee vote has already been sent in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cammo407:
And as far as Sadaam being such an evil dictator. Sure he ain't the nicest guy on earth but the people of Iraq seem to have prefered him to us

---

There's no way you can be serious. Come on now. Responses like this really make me not want to take your whole argument seriously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Durden:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dpete:
Meh. I don't buy it.

---

I can see that you have an open mind about things.

---

This is not a case of being open minded. It's a case of being realistic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Durden:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cammo407:
And as far as Sadaam being such an evil dictator. Sure he ain't the nicest guy on earth but the people of Iraq seem to have prefered him to us

---

There's no way you can be serious. Come on now. Responses like this really make me not want to take your whole argument seriously.

---

I don't know. I think I would much rather have an oppressive leader than have someone else literally destroy my entire country for oil.

Saddam was not the nicest guy on earth???

No, the guy who cuts in front of you in line is "not the nicest guy on earth."

A man who personally oversaw the wholesale butchering of women and children, (there was a mass grave unearthed recently. some of the children were still clutching their dolls.) the institutionalized rape and murder of any woman a member of the Ba'ath party wanted, beatings, amputations, and public executions of any dissenters is A VERY ****ING EVIL MAN.

Beyond the obvious strategic plusses of going into Iraq, as a human being, you cannot actually suggest that it would be better that this was still going on?

Oh, and as for the Iraqis wanting Hussein back, that's just not true. They might say they don't like us, but they sure as hell hate Saddam.

I hate moral relativism. I really do.

i don't have much to say here... just this comment caught my eye

Bush is a smarter man then most people give him credit for. If you were put in his shoes you wouldn't last half as long as he has, and you know it.

of course I wouldn't last as long as Bush. but to argue that he is doing better than you or I would is not a valid argument. the question is: Is he doing as good as he SHOULD be doing? we all get mad when someone here, in response to a critique of a hollywood movie says, "come on guys. you could never do as good as Peter Jackson so how dare you criticize him." It's the same sort of thing, you know?

That's not the point TD.

I'm not saying don't criticize him, that would be un american to do so. If we let every president off the hook without criticism (cough-Clinton-cough) America would be a greater stink pot. I'm saying put everything in perspective. I believe Iraq was a strategic war. It was used to indirectly fight terrorism. and its working. Has there been one more attack on American soil? Nope.

JW- Maybe you would rather have an oppressive leader, but the Iraquis sure don't.
I don't know where you guys get the idea that the Iraqi people hate us. Sure they don't LOVE us. But every soldier I talk to say the people are glad that somebody finally did something.

And we are working on N. Korea! Their economy is in a spiraling downward fall! Do you know why? Because the pressure we have put down. Pretty soon they will have to give in. We are out economizing them right now. We are refusing to help them economize until they get rid of the nukes!

And since some people are throwing out the oil card let me say this: Iraq was not even in the top 10 for oil imports.
Canada is numero uno for imports. I believe Mexico is 2 and south American countries make up most of the remaining 8.

If the war was really about oil, we would be taking over Canada.

And most of you probably haven't heard about this:
http://www.wsav.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSAV/MGArticle/SAV_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031778597774&path=!frontpage

you think Bush and CONGRESS went into Iraq without knowing something about that situation. Now with a somewhat of a public declaration, if we can prove it with concrete evidence, we have every justification for going to Iraq.

The war on terror can not be fought like any previous war. We are not fighting a country, we are fighting radicals spread out all over the world. Therefore, in order to win against these radicals, we need to hit them where it counts. The pocket book.

Unfortunately, they also realize thats our greatest weakness. Why do you think, out of all targets, they hit the World Trade Center first and hardest?

The only way to hit them in the pocket book is to take out countries that support them (Iraq) and apply pressure to those that also support them (Saudi Arabia, Iran).
Iraq was a scare tactic. Its saying, if you don't give up your terrorists, Al Qaeda related or not, your getting a whoopin'.

This is a war on TERROR people, not a war on Al Qaeda.

Forsaken, I completely agree with you man. You have some really good points there. But I have to correct you. The United States is actually number 2 on the oil list. That's right. Half of our oil comes from ourselves. We don't want to use ALL of the oil we have (which is stored in various places, such as alaska) because 1. if we use it all now, there will be nothing left when the rest of the oil is used, and 2. Breaking into the oil reserves would hurt the environmental habitat of the region where that oil is stored.

We would actually be more inclined to use those oil reserves than to attack a country for IT'S oil reserves.

I hate when people throw out that oil cry, because it just tells me that they don't know what they are talking about. It's something they heard someone else say, and they figure "hey, that sounds like a good excuse to use."

People seem to have this idea that oil is running out and that we are desperate for oil. And people tend to believe that's why oil prices are so high. Then they blame Bush for the gas prices being so high. But that has nothing to do with it. We have enough oil.

Oil prices have gone up because the oil companies are having to speed up their production because China is beginning to use a lot more oil now as well. Speeding up their production forces them to raise costs so they can produce more oil in a short amount of time.

Bottom line - We didn't go into Iraq to get oil. We get most of our oil from Saudi Arabia anyway. If we were going to invade a country for its oil, it would have been Saudi Arabia.

So please, dont start with the whole oil thing unless you actually know what you are talking about.

And another thing to add...

Not even John Kerry has used the whole "oil excuse" on Bush. Why do you think that is?

Maybe it's because he knows that oil was not why we went to war.

Look up the statistics for how much oil we've gotten from Iraq after invading. If you don't want to do that, I'll just tell you that you won't find much.

Originally posted by cammo407:
And as far as Sadaam being such an evil dictator. Sure he ain't the nicest guy on earth but the people of Iraq seem to have prefered him to us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by: Durden
There's no way you can be serious. Come on now. Responses like this really make me not want to take your whole argument seriously.


What isn't to believe?? Is Sadaam a good guy?? Of course not...Is that a reason to go to war?? No. There are plenty worse dictators out there than he was and we don't seem to be bothering them. Instead of memorizing a few key facts about Iraq try reading up on the rest of the world. There are plenty of much worse dictators in Africa than in Iraq. And there are plenty of countries in the middle east harboring more terrorists than Iraq. So explain to me why it was right to attack them again? Your logic is flawed, but then again it isn't your logic, your just regergitating someone elses.


Cammo

Cammo, settle down dude. No reason to get hostile. We're just having conversations. I really don't appreciate you saying that I don't know what I'm talking about and that I was regurgitating what someone else said. That's not a healthy argument and it's not something that we condone on studentfilms.com.

So let's just talk and try not to insult each other. Okay? Otherwise, the topic will eventually need to be closed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Durden:
I really don't appreciate you saying that I don't know what I'm talking about and that I was regurgitating what someone else said.

---

I hate to point this out, but you basically did that to me in response to the oil thing.

Let me refresh your memory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Durden:
I hate when people throw out that oil cry, because it just tells me that they don't know what they are talking about. It's something they heard someone else say, and they figure "hey, that sounds like a good excuse to use."

---

Where I come from, we call that hypocrisy. Try practicing what you preach, Durden.

Hey JW, I included myself in that whole thing. It was in the next paragraph down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Durden:
So let's just talk and try not to insult each other.

---

I realized that I was being a little insulting as well. No need to get on me about it. I knew.

The whole topic is based on the writing of someone else. That is what I meant by regurgitating information. I wasn't implying that you couldn't think for yourself in general. This is the problems that arise when people start argueing about politics, which is why I think we shouldn't have topics like these on here. Especially when you are being bombarded by political stuff everywhere else.

That said, I'm willing to agree to disagree.


Cammo