Lessons for Bin Laden?

This question was posed to me in the comments. It required a rather lengthy answer, so... it deserves a post of its own.

... Dear Citizen Phil, Exactly what lesson is Usama Bin Laden supposed to learn when we retaliate for 9-11 by eliminating Usama's enemy Saddam? ...

Dear Tom:

To declare categorically that Saddam was Bin Laden's enemy is a bit of a stretch. A more accurate description would be nervous bedfellows.

Al-Qaeda operatives enjoyed, at the very least, a tolerated presence in Saddam's Iraq. Perhaps they were not invited guests, but then Saddam was not about to hunt them down either.

To answer your question directly... there is no lesson for Bin Laden in the picture at all. Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on the United States. Saddam was responsible for disregarding the cease-fire agreements, which caused George H.W. Bush to withdraw from Iraq without demanding an unconditional surrender.

Saddam was purposefully provocative militarily, and evasive regarding his weapons programs. And yes, he did have weapons programs at various stages of development in violation of agreements.

The fact that we did not find stockpiles of suspected biological and/or chemical weapons does not provide him cover; rather, it only tells us that our intelligence was faulty regarding his progress. In any case, the responsibility for the action taken against Saddam's regime, rests fully on Saddam.

We disassembled Bin Laden's puppet Taliban regime, and we disassembled Saddam's ever-threatening military empire.

The issues are separate and distinct, yet Al-Qaeda has chosen to engage our forces (and innocent Iraqi civilians) in the Iraqi theater. That fact is what I see as the current advantage to our operations in Iraq... that Al-Qaeda's not-unlimited resources have been and continue to be depleted there, and their tactics of inspiring the religious to become suicide weapons has become more difficult.

This is the case, despite the oft-cited claims that we are spawning new suicide-prone terrorists. Many would-be applicants have since retreated and have become disillusioned with Al-Qaeda and their maniacal leader.

Despite claims that I have the intellect of a neo-con mushroom, I want people to examine the issues as they should be examined, by not purposefully wadded them together like a sticky ball of duct tape.

Thanks for writing,

Comments

[len]

I found the robot/abortion column tasteless; if we just changed it to our soldiers have their brains splattered after an IUD it would a perfect column for Code Pink.

The war stands on its own as good or bad; and so does abortion without appealing to the lowest common denominator

I assumed you would have done to the polish women as did the polish govt and 3 eye doctors. A year or two ago, a polish woman with 3 children and pregnant was told by 3 eye doctors that the pregnancy would very likely impair her vision very greatly. However, each of them refused to sign off on an abortion. Lo and behold, she had a retinal hemorrhage as predicted and lost 90% of her vision. It made headlines because she sued under the European Union of which Poland is a member and was awarded $33,000. She can only see 5ft in front of her and needs assistance now with 4 kids.
From your post, she is nothing but an object; you would like the govt to be in control of her body and leave the decision, even if there is discretion, to others.

After all losing your sight from being pregnant only applies to those who can be pregnant and what is the big deal according to you since 95% blindness is not as bad as an abortion. After all it is not death of a child to use your lingo.

It seems to the height of arrogance to attempt to influence such by an emotional appeal to ban abortion. I assume for you that there is no good reason to abort, or as put it, tear a fetus apart, hence, appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[Phil]

You are correct... It is tragic that the Polish Woman lost much of her vision, but I find it a pathetic arguement to wave as justification for slaughtering children in the womb.

You find that discussing the facts about abortion to be a low blow. I find that the facts about abortion, that cold hard surgical instruments are placed in the uterus, and grasp arms and legs, and baby heads... that they crush and rip the little bodies apart so the pieces can be extracted through the cervical opening to be....

distasteful

...and that such procedures are not rare, but occur thousands of times each and every day of the year, is reason enough to try and open the eyes of people so they know what is behind such sterile words as "abort" or "reproductive healthcare" or "choice".

Lowest common denominator... give me a break. I was hoping that this discussion would not be tasteless, but would leave a repulsive aftertaste for you to consider.

And by the way, my son also had a retinal hemorrhage. He was not pregnant, did not give birth, did not have an abortion, and did not sue anyone either. Thankfully, he was successfully treated for the condition and it has much improved.

.