I think you are on to something here. There is no doubt that the actions in Iraq, while perhaps encouraging more terrorists on the local level (i.e. a few more Saudi citizens get involved) also greatly discourage the support of middle eastern governments. Witness for example Lybia giving up its WMD program, or the events in Lebanon. And how about the invaluable help Pakistan provides?
Pakistan got on board with our action in Afghanistan. If anything, Iraq has alienated the population of Pakistan (which never really liked us anyway) even more so. Musharaff may support us, but sooner or later he’ll be gone. I’ll bet you when he’s replaced, his successor won’t be so accomodating. And how much are Syria and Iran influencing events over in Iraq? It’s in both countries best interests to see us slowly bleed ourselves in Iraq.
A few additional terrorists for AQ doesn’t change the equation much - there is really nothing these individuals can add to AQ’s arsenal. However governmental bodies could potentially give AQ greatly helpful things:
- A safe base of operations for training, planning, etc. For example, Afganistan prior to 911. This is invaluable to AQ and cannot be overstated for many reasons both obvious and not so obvious.
According to the CIA, Iraq is turning into a training ground for terrorists. They come over, join the insurgency, and learn all the in’s and out’s. Instead of multiple training camps in Afghanistan, we’ve turned Iraq into one large training camp. I can’t really see this as a benefit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7460-2005Jan13?language=printer
"Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank.
Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,” said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.”
Lastly, Iraq never financed Al Queda (or if they did, they covered their tracks pretty well). Saddam was a threat to Israel, but seemed to have ignored groups like Al Queda. Before the invasion, there was an NIE report that stated “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.”
http://www.cia.gov/nic/special_keyjudgements.html
It seems very odd to invade a country that the CIA figured was probably too afraid of us to actually attack us. I would think, as a rule of thumb, you should only preemptively attack someone whom you BELIEVE will eventually attack you.
I could continue, but to be brief I’ll go to my last point. A sucessful Iraq will show ordinary people in the middle east that it is posible for them to fight against terrorists. Too many are basically held hostage out of fear of reprisal. This should not be so – or would anyone rather we were all giving kickbacks and favors to the local mob boss? An unsuccessful Iraq doesn’t change the current status.
I would agree with you here, but even if we cobble together some type of represntative govt. (which is still going to defer to Islam as the supreme law of the land), I think having 130,000 troops in Iraq might be a necessary condition for its survival for many years. How long can we keep that up?
Mary’s posts resonate with a lot of the pre-WWII rhetoric in support of PM Neville Chamberlain.
You know, the one who loved and trusted Germans so much that, he strangled military spending to the point where Hitler had a 3:1 air advantage vs GBR by the time Poland was sacked. Churchill was able to win the PM from the fascist sympathisers after the failed Norway campaign. Much could have been done to limit the suffering of Czechs, and German speaking Jews during Neville’s term of office.
This would have been Churchill’s depiction of Neville:
“oh my, bombers and battleships cost too much!!! I want to spend those billions for my domesic programs! Hitler already shook hands with me about having only continental ambitions, so we’re all cool about that. Why build bombers in the first place? They are only to used in war and I just got our nation out of another one.”
Very true Linkon.
They could have been assassinated, waited out, and a billion other scenarios. This is terrible justification for invasion of a country.
I didn’t use it as a justification for war, it was an added benefit, “a dividend” of results of the war.
MAYBE Saddam would have been a good little boy if we never invaded, but then again his sons were equally as ruthless. With that family running the country they were going to be a problem for another 30-40 years at least.
provided by your friendly neighbourhood Canadians/French/German/Belgian etc. troops. Your welcome.
I never criticized the help of other nations in regards to Afghan. I never criticised nations that help us in Iraq. I’m weary of a few that were against the war (oil-for-food payoffs???), but NEVER criticised those that help and continue to help in Afghan.
Why was it that when Greece, Chile, etc. have “Elections” and the people choose a sociallist gov’t, the US gov’t feels that this was not appropriate and needs to instigate a bloody coup to undo the elections they supposedly promote? I really don’t buy this as being a reason. Not unless Iraqi’s elect a communist gov’t and the US supports it.
They don’t support the blowing up of civilians while they are going to church, school, or the market.
You want to elect a Socialist or Communist gov’t fine go ahead, I don’t care. But don’t threaten the US, call us the Infidels and start killing our civilians with suicide bombs or airplanes or truck bombs.
Israel pulled out of Gaza as a result of its allies invading Iraq? The US couldn’t have just said “please”? Well, i guess if they need the destruction of >1% of the civilian population of some other country to do the right thing, then i guess it was necessary
Yes, Israel can take comfort in the fact that Iraq will not be a threat to them. Thus a preceived sign of weakness (pulling out) will not be capitalized on by thug dictactor who uses it to say “hey keep bombing Israel they will continue to retreat”. Saddam funded Hamas and suicide bombers against Israel.
Having 100,000 US troops in the region is certainly comforting to Israel IMO.
how is this related?
It resonates with the people all across the region.
Imagine if you’re an Egyptian,
You see elections in Afghan and Iraq (held by muslims, run by muslims, with muslims winning as a result of the people)
How long before you say, “hey why can’t we have elections”?
I think the rest all fall under Iraq is part of the war on terror, not seperate from it.
You believe it could have been handled diplomatically (at least in Iraq)
I just don’t think we would have gotten anything more than lip service.
From the end of the First gulf war till 2003 Saddam played games, now Iran and NK are playing the same games.
I can’t understand why people would want to trust Saddam to “finally” live up to his end. I fail to see why all of a sudden his “I’ll let in unfettered inspections” is credible.
You can’t threaten “serious consequences” and not back it up, otherwise that makes things much much much worse in not only that country but several other countries. IE the US and UN become a paper tiger, all talk no action, etc.
Saddam had his chances.
He chose…poorly.
Mary’s posts resonate with a lot of the pre-WWII rhetoric in support of PM Neville Chamberlain.
You know, the one who loved and trusted Germans so much that, he strangled military spending to the point where Hitler had a 3:1 air advantage vs GBR by the time Poland was sacked. Churchill was able to win the PM from the fascist sympathisers after the failed Norway campaign. Much could have been done to limit the suffering of Czechs, and German speaking Jews during Neville’s term of office.
This would have been Churchill’s depiction of Neville:
“oh my, bombers and battleships cost too much!!! I want to spend those billions for my domesic programs! Hitler already shook hands with me about having only continental ambitions, so we’re all cool about that. Why build bombers in the first place? They are only to used in war and I just got our nation out of another one.”
You seem to be saying that unless we invaded Iraq, they would have eventually taken over the entire Middle East? Do you not understand Iraq was technologically backwards, crippled by sanctions, hemmed in by a ring of more powerful nations, and constantly monitored by the U.S.?
I wish you guys would understand that opposing the Iraq invasion does not = pacifism. I was supportive of the first Persian Gulf war. It was a very effective UN operation that cost us little, garnered us prestige, and stopped a greedy grab for land. Somehow, I doubt Chamberlain would have supported PG1. But go on, keep telling yourself that the majority of the public (which opposes Iraq) are a bunch of pacifists.
majority of the public (which opposes Iraq) are a bunch of pacifists!
Iraq was able to attack her neighbors and had the resources for limited offensive operations. She was stronger than all the nations arond her sake Saudi Arabia which has our boys defending since the last threat. The second invasion was not about any threats of invasion. It was about the continued ignorance of UN sanctions that were violated way too many times to even count. As a result we compile that Iraq was flexing her wings a bit too much and not following what she agreed and signedunder the UN security agreement for the region. This outward demonstration of defiance could not be accepted and History has proven with many examples that the “little conquests” only lead to more daring and COSTLY activities latter with our money and lives, because after all as an" Imperialist Bush state it is our duty under God to enforce the law, because we are the law."
“One nation ,One people, One president!”
George Bush at the his acceptance speech 2004.
(sources moveon.org and ideasthatcamefromberkely.org)
Your sig is very appropriate, IL.
Why can’t they elect a socialist government? Because we said so. That simple. Same is true with a islamic fundamentalist state.
The Nazis were socialist, and see where that got us?
After WW2 neither Germany nor Japan was ALLOWED to follow thier old political parties. In Germany it is STILL illegal to be a Nazi. We will not allow Iraq to become another Iran. Take all the democracy you want, but you are not ALLOWED by the United States of Amierca to elect people who are fundamentalist Islamic facist.
Socialism to the extreme right may work on some levels (economicaly), at the cost of human rights. Socialism to the extreme left does not work on ANY level.
My definition of socialism…
The equal and fair redistribution of misery.
How about a theocracy?
“BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Framers of Iraq’s constitution will designate Islam as the main source of legislation - a departure from the model set down by U.S. authorities during the occupation - according to a draft published Tuesday.”
http://www.adn.com/24hour/iraq/story/2579335p-11017020c.html
@Imperious:
majority of the public (which opposes Iraq) are a bunch of pacifists!
“Who lives by the sword, will die by the sword”
Iraq was able to attack her neighbors and had the resources for limited offensive operations. She was stronger than all the nations arond her sake Saudi Arabia which has our boys defending since the last threat.
It was able to attack its neighbors …up to the last threat. So, you are changing your times you are relating to.
“Since the last threat” Iraq had no resources for offensive action and surely was not stronger than TURKEY or Iran or probably even Syria.
Even before the last trheat it was not stronger than Turkey (and thus the NATO).
The second invasion was not about any threats of invasion.
What else? I thought Iraq was somehow threatening the US?
It was about the continued ignorance of UN sanctions that were violated way too many times to even count.
This stopped once your army was assembled and ready to invade.
“One nation ,One people, One president!”
George Bush at the his acceptance speech 2004.
“One people, one nation, one leader”
translated Nazi slogan, 1933-1945
Why can’t they elect a socialist government? Because we said so. That simple. Same is true with a islamic fundamentalist state.
So much for the freedom and democracy you claim to bring.
The Nazis were socialist, and see where that got us?
The Nazis stopped being socialist in 1934 after the Night of the Long Knifes.
Take all the democracy you want, but you are not ALLOWED by the United States of Amierca to elect people who are fundamentalist Islamic facist.
What if they chose a fundamentalist christian fascist gov’t ?
My definition of socialism…
Want to hear my definition of neo-con or born-again christian?
According to the CIA, Iraq is turning into a training ground for terrorists. They come over, join the insurgency, and learn all the in’s and out’s.
True, but you cannot say Iraq is now a better training ground for AQ than Afghanistan was under the taliban. The Afghan training was unimpeded, while in Iraq the AQ terrorists are under direct counter attack whenever their presence is identified. And AQ, like the US, UK, cannot trust that the Iraqi people are always on their side. Many AQ terrorists have been identified and destroyed because local Iraqis provided the information necessary to do thies to the US, UK, Iraqi forces.
“Who lives by the sword, will die by the sword”
“He who praises peace to bloodthirsty warmongers gets torture,rape, followed by death in public.”
( the silent millions tortured and murdered by Sadamm for 30 years).
“He who praises peace to bloodthirsty warmongers gets torture,rape, followed by death in public.”
(the millions of people under the supervision and who are dying under the false pretenses of George W. Bush) :wink:
@221B:
According to the CIA, Iraq is turning into a training ground for terrorists. They come over, join the insurgency, and learn all the in’s and out’s.
True, but you cannot say Iraq is now a better training ground for AQ than Afghanistan was under the taliban. The Afghan training was unimpeded, while in Iraq the AQ terrorists are under direct counter attack whenever their presence is identified. And AQ, like the US, UK, cannot trust that the Iraqi people are always on their side. Many AQ terrorists have been identified and destroyed because local Iraqis provided the information necessary to do thies to the US, UK, Iraqi forces.
True, but it cuts both ways: the experience in Iraq is against an actual army, hell-bent on destroying them. Those that survive the “training” in Iraq are probably much more dangerous than those that came out of Afghanastan. Isn’t that general rule with soldiers? You can train them all you want, but nothing prepares you for combat like the real thing.
True, but it cuts both ways
I agree.
Any way you slice it, I think the West (and to a lesser extent India, Russia, Indonesia/Bali, Phillipines, and much of the rest of the world) will be forced to deal with Islamic fanatics willing and eager to kill innocent civilians for a long time to come. This terrorism problem with AQ and similar organizations is going to take a long, long time to resolve regardless of how it is addressed by the West. The trick will be to find the best manner to do so. I’m not convinced GWB’s approach is the best, but neither (IMO) was the minimalist approach taken by Clinton. I really have no idea what the best approach might be.
This is a really stupid question. Of course well suceed, we already are winning, though the media misconstrues it into a disaster. If Marines are being killed in Iraq, then yes, its definantly worth it, Marines die for a reason.
@marine36:
This is a really stupid question. Of course well suceed, we already are winning, though the media misconstrues it into a disaster. If Marines are being killed in Iraq, then yes, its definantly worth it, Marines die for a reason.
Is that the rule then? Whenever a marine dies its “worth it”?
Mary’s posts resonate with a lot of the pre-WWII rhetoric in support of PM Neville Chamberlain.
You know, the one who loved and trusted Germans so much that, he strangled military spending to the point where Hitler had a 3:1 air advantage vs GBR by the time Poland was sacked. Churchill was able to win the PM from the fascist sympathisers after the failed Norway campaign. Much could have been done to limit the suffering of Czechs, and German speaking Jews during Neville’s term of office.
This would have been Churchill’s depiction of Neville:
“oh my, bombers and battleships cost too much!!! I want to spend those billions for my domesic programs! Hitler already shook hands with me about having only continental ambitions, so we’re all cool about that. Why build bombers in the first place? They are only to used in war and I just got our nation out of another one.”You seem to be saying that unless we invaded Iraq, they would have eventually taken over the entire Middle East? Do you not understand Iraq was technologically backwards, crippled by sanctions, hemmed in by a ring of more powerful nations, and constantly monitored by the U.S.?
I wish you guys would understand that opposing the Iraq invasion does not = pacifism. I was supportive of the first Persian Gulf war. It was a very effective UN operation that cost us little, garnered us prestige, and stopped a greedy grab for land. Somehow, I doubt Chamberlain would have supported PG1. But go on, keep telling yourself that the majority of the public (which opposes Iraq) are a bunch of pacifists.
What I am saying is that SH would have eventually given germ warfare technology to nearly untraceable terrorist agents for operations against the US. Particularly in Texas, where GHW & Barbera Bush live. That would be just a short SW Air flight to your state.
SH would have also kept funding the suicide bombers against Israel. Taking him out removes an obstacle to Mid-east peace.
I am sure you have great domestic spending plans, but it can all be ruined by another terrorist attack. I would rather have Iraq as their base than some mosque by the local flight school. I do not want another 911 on our soil. Given the Spanish elections after 311, I doubt if AQ will care about their losses in Iraq.
The raids along the Syrian border are inflicting significant losses on the Baathists. The troops are just a few raids away from getting the rest of the replacement leadership. Iraqis are now looking for stable leadership. Keeping the insurgents on the run prevents them from establishing legitamate stability. It does not take away their ability to disrupt the stability that we recently set up there. They did get a decent turn out on the latest election. Things are more stable. Soon, they will be able to fight for it themselves. As in A&A, if you just sit on an advantage, the opponent will eventually build a counter. Minor advantages are not always permanent. You must exploit them and widen your edge in order to gain victory.
@221B:
According to the CIA, Iraq is turning into a training ground for terrorists. They come over, join the insurgency, and learn all the in’s and out’s.
True, but you cannot say Iraq is now a better training ground for AQ than Afghanistan was under the taliban. The Afghan training was unimpeded, while in Iraq the AQ terrorists are under direct counter attack whenever their presence is identified. And AQ, like the US, UK, cannot trust that the Iraqi people are always on their side. Many AQ terrorists have been identified and destroyed because local Iraqis provided the information necessary to do thies to the US, UK, Iraqi forces.
True, but it cuts both ways: the experience in Iraq is against an actual army, hell-bent on destroying them. Those that survive the “training” in Iraq are probably much more dangerous than those that came out of Afghanastan. Isn’t that general rule with soldiers? You can train them all you want, but nothing prepares you for combat like the real thing.
It then becomes a question of who will welcome these terrorists. If all exits in Iraq get bottled up, then they are trapped there and will eventually get hunted down.
@F_alk:
@Imperious:
majority of the public (which opposes Iraq) are a bunch of pacifists!
“Who lives by the sword, will die by the sword”
Think of it as surgery to remove a malignant cancerous tumor before trouble spreads.
Scalpel blades are often sharper than swords.
You seem to be saying that unless we invaded Iraq, they would have eventually taken over the entire Middle East? Do you not understand Iraq was technologically backwards, crippled by sanctions, hemmed in by a ring of more powerful nations, and constantly monitored by the U.S.?
Let’s not forget that nerve gas has been around a while. Old technology that SH would easily have given to someone bent on killing Iraelis and Americans in mass slaughter.
