al-Qaida / Iraqi link?

There was no such link prior to 9/11, but after the US invaded and occupied Iraq, there may very well be a link.

The great and tragic legacy of Bush's Iraq war is that the invasion has successfully forged new relationships among Arab nations who basically stood alone before.

Iraq was largely viewed as a secular nation among fundementalist Islamic nations and Saddam was no friend of Allah.

Of course, all that has changed now.

So, in other words, because after the US invaded, and made Iraq a chaos-land theme park, some brain-donors are now going to shout "See, AQ is there?" What a group of bozos!

hobittroi:

I'll go you one better: the neocons needed al-Qaida in Iraq. Without al-Qaida in Iraq, it would become increasingly difficult, even impossible for Bush to justify keeping this war going.

I agree.

Problem - Reaction - Solution.

Without Al Qaeda in Iraq, there would be far fewer dead people, far more infrastructure rebuilt, and far more progress.

had the US not invaded, and done so with insufficienty troop strength, there would be no AQ in Iraq.

That's true, but not what federalist was attempting to claim with that heading and post.

That can't be proven. there is much speculation that says AlQaeda WAS already in Iraq, but that hasn't ben proven either.

That's exactly correct.

I read Usama bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein because he was a non-practicing Muslim.

Now, there are supposed to be al qaeda cells all over Iraq.

Further, without Al-Qaeda, there would still be resistance - bloody resistance - to the coalition. Al-Qaeda brings a higher level of experience and expertise.

Ironically, the fall of Saddam and the resulting chaos made it easier for Al-Qaeda to set up shop there.

Yes, but that's the way you guys wanted it.

You -- yes, you -- wanted al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"Flypaper", is what you called it. Draw all the terrorists to one place and kill 'em all. Disregard the fact that we're not playing a specified-bad-guy-count, zero-sum video game (what this means, for the morons, is that we're making enemies faster than we can kill them).

As Toby Keith would say, Have You Forgotten?

So what does the Berg murder tell us?

That the prison torture scandal led to the killing? Not even close.

Terrorists (and al-Zarqawi is undoubtedly one) don't need such excuses to do their dirty work.

The lesson is that not finishing the job in Afghanistan and invading Iraq with no good rationale gave al-Qaeda time to catch its breath, reorganize, and direct their efforts against a convenient target -- Iraq.

The neocon "flypaper" theory in all its glory.

And you got it. Congratulations.

And in the process, the killing of thousands of innocent men, women and children by errant American bombs, artillery shells, mortars, and bullets have swelled the recruiting offices of every militia and terrorist organization in the Mideast, in and out of Iraq.

Congratulations on that as well.

After all, you can't have "flypaper" if you don't have an enemy shooting at you.

So we energized our existing enemies and gave rise to new ones who don't agree with you that "collateral damage" is necessary and acceptable in war.

And the abuse of Iraqi prisoners -- as many as 90 percent of which could be innocent, according to the Red Cross -- only added fuel to the fire.

No, the prison abuse didn't cause Berg's horrific murder. Bush's War, in all its glory, did. The Neocon agenda, in all its folly, did. The war cheerleaders now trying to use this for propaganda purposes, in all their idiocy, did.

Congratulations. Your war spirals ever out of control.

Good luck trying to wash the blood off your hands.

Before the US invaded Iraq was a secular state rule by a military strongman, supported by the Baathist political party that had destroyed all secular political opposition/alternatives. The US destroyed the Baathist and we are now left with two options to rebuild Iraq politically, the tribal/clerical organizations or another military strong man. Replacing the secular non Baathist political infrastructure to support and sustain a secular democracy is going to take more years and money than the US can afford or tolerate. I predict we will leave Iraq in control of another military strong man, after which... the deluge.

This "90%" statistic is sure getting it's use.

Of course it's not 90% of those who were abused, just 90% of those arrested, and even those had cause to be arrested.

Now, I did not want anyone resembling a terrorist in Iraq. The idea was to get rid of Saddam and his WMD to free the Iraqi people from his tyranny. I was, and still am behind this idea.

*edited*

(edited to reflect the suddenly calmer tone)

absolutely correct. as well as it would be far fewer dead people without USA in Iraq, and one of neutral international polls in Iraq, with Iraqis says more then enough about how much "better" they live now considering progress, especially when it comes to bizarre things like eating. Poll was posted completely on a2k so I am sure you saw it, I don't have time to search it now.

Whose to say. Saddam and his 2 little monsters would have continued starving the population and murdering and torturing countless Iraqi's to fill his mass graves.

PD

I suspect that was as much hobit as McG...

So, let's not do the playground shouting thing.

I think the US is somewhat relieved that it can blame a proportion of the violent opposition to the American presence in Iraq on "foreign fighters and al Qaida".

It would be somewhat embarrassing if the newly "liberated" Iraqi people themselves where united in calling for their "liberators" to **** off.

In fact as McG said yesterday, fighting al Q is the only possible official justification for staying in Iraq. There never were any wmd, and Saddam has been removed from power, so why not just pull out...mission accomplished?