I can countenance this opinion only by putting a set of blinders on and looking at solely the conventional military sense.
Other than that, all I can say is that you clearly haven’t paying attention to the big picture.

Yes, by and large the Arabs, (and I DO mean Arabs), don’t “get” warfare as we define it.

But the paradigm has, as paradigms will, changed, and it’s a new kind of warfare that’s afoot.

See, we don’t necessarily “get” THEIR definition of warfare either…we’d likely call it “camel-raiding”, or bush-whacking.

This is how we each ended up with Desert Storm, (literally), a “win-win”. Each side had, and satisfied, their own disparate definitions of victory.

And I’d also observe that formerly Christian, and Jewish lands that were conquered by Arabs have been secured by Islam…and we don’t even argue the point.
We have conceded North Africa and the Levant to Arab Islamic domination.

That’s very worrisome…that we accept the post facto as an immutable.

It isn’t, and we shouldn’t.

The Turks and the Persians are different breeds of cats, and ones that might also benefit mightily by throwing off the oppressive yoke of the alien Arab-imposed enslavement.

Thus proving that the original British solution in the early 20th century was quite brilliant. Nobody has ever really invaded Mesopotamia and succeeded before. Yeah the US was able to win a war but if we were to leave by dinnertime the entire fragile democracy thing would end before dessert. Iraq seems tamed. I doubt that it really is.

Re the Persians they haven’t been successful on the world stage since since Xerxes got his lunch money taken by the Greeks. They’re incapable of much beyond dropping what is likely to be a 3rd rate nuke on Tel Aviv (assuming the missile defense stuff fails.) In retaliation the Israelis would turn Persia into glass; Jimmy Carter would publicly decry it but secretly smile to himself.

Muslims haven’t been a factor since the Ottomans. I don’t much worry about the muslims in general; I don’t see them as capable of organising a campout, much less capable of being a threat to world security. (I *would* worry about the Turks though.) And frankly, if they weren’t parked atop a geographically unfortunate oil patch, I don’t think most folks would give them a thought. It’s the Dune scenario “he who has the power to destroy something is in control of it” that has everyone soiling themselves. And in that vein the war for oil accusations were at least sort of accurate if you squinted just right.

So, no, I didn’t agree with nation building; I figured keeping Saddam boxed up was the better option. As of today I’m just grateful that the Turks aren’t up in arms. For a while it looked like they were less than happy.

That’s rather another vastly sanguine view of the post-game, wouldn’t you admit?

Leaving the Iraqis to their own fate would have meant what, exactly? A Greater Iran? A failed state,(we know how tranquilly peacable THOSE can be, eh?), Partition and three failed or failing states?

It IS a seductive policy…go in on the sly and blow out the Big Kahuna’s wormy brain-matter, and then back to the barracks for Happy Hour and a barbecued steak.

But life, and the Middle East especially, just ain’t that simple.

And while I have a deep faith that democracy IS the best way for people of hodge-podge ethnicities and faiths to live together in some semblance of order, I’m not so sure we could have sold that to Iraqis WITHOUT resorting to the bayonet as a “facilitation tool”.

Thus, we arrive at BushHitlerDarthCheneyRoveHalliCo’s conundrum, don’t we?

And the answer is “nation-building”, as distasteful as that might be.

The best of a host of worse options.

Had we demurred, I suspect that Iran would have gladly moved in and set up THEIR version of the same thing.
Ditto Syria.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. Proof isn’t obscure news reports. Proof is like analysis papers and official positions and such.

Actually I don’t acknowledge anything re youtube; I don’t run activeX and can’t see youtube videos.

So. Proof that’s readable. Proof from an OFFICIAL source.

***

By the way — just so you’re not getting the wrong idea — I have reason to think there was a connection.

However.

Taking down the socialists has to be done carefully and with clear and utter PROOF. No half-assed news reports, no wild conjecture, no mere suggestion, nothing that can be twisted.

e.g. the British intel services *still* stand by their story re uranium purchase, the entire Valerie Plame nonsense that the socialists still hang their hats on that is a lie. That’s what I refer to as “proof” because it’s an official source.

So.

If you have incontrovertible proof, I’d like to see it.

Thanks.

So let me get this straight. You’re upset at Obama because he has not released the memos that show the results from torturing two people 266 times? He’s witholding the memos for political reasons?

Funny. I’m more upset that torture was done at all. Period.

The first ABC news story is the proof; the BBC report was just the icing on the cake and confirms the first story after the war.

1999: Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein forge an alliance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7n3ivH3pCQ

This news story is way before 9/11 and during the Clinton administration.
You didn’t acknowledge this one, because it DOES show a direct link Osama and Saddam.

Ummm… your proof is a BBC report on youtube?

So the answer is NO.

Thought so.

Yes I can!

Here’s the proof of the pudding! What more evidence do you need to prove an Al Qaeda-Saddam link?

1999: Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein forge an alliance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7n3ivH3pCQ

BBC reports on documents linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19SC60C2PzI