Nation Building 101

[xoxoxoBruce]

No smoking gun in Vietnam. None in Iraq. Both wars started because a President and his administration outrightly lied. That alone is enough to make Iraq and VietNam equivalent.

Well, they did stage the Tonkin Gulf crap.

If people were welcoming Americans, then you should not have seen the pavement - just like citied liberated in WWII.

WW II had opposing armies and a front. The cities were behind enemy lines then they weren’t. When we went into a city, the enemy left. In Iraq there was no front, the war was everywhere in that no matter how quiet it was at the moment, the shit could hit the fan, instantly. When we went into Baghdad the enemy didn’t leave, they changed their clothes, and everyone knew it.

They refuse to first learn the lessons of history - which is why a lying American president can get away with more outright lies - what some will dismiss only as spin.

It appears to me that the Bush gang never made the transition from campaign mode, where everything is "spin", to administration mode, where they should be playing square with the American people.

[Happy Monkey]

"Hot Air" has a good arrow as well.

[Undertoad]

Riiiiiiight

There was no smoking gun in Afghanistan. We should have pressed the Taliban to give up bin Laden and organized some kind of $100M aid package that would convince them to give him up. Then we would have him without violating the soverignty of that country.

There was a quagmire on day 5 of the war. Some people called it a "supply pause" but tw knew better from his understanding of Vietnam.

I wager your accuracy rate of analysis is about the same as mine, which is to say they're both at about 50%. We don't have the information to make your kind of flying leaps because the media is more interested in covering official press conferences and wildly speculating about them, than in gathering and reporting information.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Riiiiiiight

There was no smoking gun in Afghanistan. We should have pressed the Taliban to give up bin Laden and organized some kind of $100M aid package that would convince them to give him up. Then we would have him without violating the soverignty of that country.

I believe tw said that there was a smoking gun in Afghanistan, which is what distinguishes it from Vietnam and Iraq.

[Undertoad]

But what gun was that?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Terrorist training camps.

[Undertoad]

They had those in Iraq. Including a full airframe IIRC.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Afgahan ones were for export. Weren't the Iraqie ones for internal matters, ie Saddams henchmen?

[Undertoad]

I do recall correctly

[Undertoad]

But then they didn't find it! Another defector report gone bad?

[Undertoad]

But this blooger points out that the UN inspections team saw the 707 at one point so... it DID exist at one time, although it doesn't now.

Zeinab's story has since been corroborated by Charles Duelfer, the former vice chairman of UNSCOM, the U.N. weapons inspection team, which actually visited the Salman Pak camp several times.

"He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors," the Observer reported. "The Iraqis, he said, told UNSCOM it was used by police for counterterrorist training."

Counterterrorist training? It is to laugh!

[xoxoxoBruce]

I wonder where Khodada was from '92 til '01 when he came here? How much of his story is speculation on his part. especially in hindsight? Saying the US is the ultimate target is SOP for all the despots to rally followers. The training he says he actually witnessed could probably be found at the CIA or in England, certainly in Israel. I don't doubt for a minute that Saddam would back such a facility, but to say that Saddam was better able to put 9-11 together than bin Laden, is pretty far out. Of course that doesn't mean Saddam wasn't involved with some of the training, we just don't know. The Afgahn training camps had no cover story like training police for counter terrorist action.

[tw]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
I believe tw said that there was a smoking gun in Afghanistan, which is what distinguishes it from Vietnam and Iraq.

Originally posted by Undertoad
But what gun was that?

World Trade Center and Pentagon. Why need I post the obvious. Those are clearly smoking guns that justify the war in Afghanistan just as Pearl Harbor justified WWII.

[Undertoad]

What evidence do you have of a connection between the Taliban and WTC?

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
What evidence do you have of a connection between the Taliban and WTC?

The context of your question, as defined by this thread, is, "why did the US have a smoking gun to justify attacking the Taliban?" That answer was clearly stated by the George Jr administration. We were at war with bin Laden's operation - a paramilitary organizaton called Al Qaeda. Taliban were asked by many nations (not just US) to surrender bin Laden. US made it quite clear that if Taliban did not hand over bin Laden, then Taliban would be considered allies of bin Landen - having provided comfort and safe haven to the enemy. Taliban stated their position as a bin Laden ally.

In reality, there was very little difference between Taliban and Al Qaeda anyway. Only thing missing was the political nicieties of a written document or UN resolution. But clearly, the war in Afghanistan was created and justified by a smoking gun - the WTC and Pentagon.

Where was this 'smoking gun' that justifies an attack on Iraq? Because bin Laden attacked WTC and Pentagon, then we have the right to attack Iraq? Where is the smoking gun in Iraq? Just like in VietNam - no smoking gun existed.

Where was the smoking gun to justify war on Germany and Italy? Germany and Italy did not attack Pearl Harbor? They were simply allies of Japan - as Taliban were the ally of bin Laden. In both cases, war was justified by a smoking gun.