Iraq War has angered and increased Islamic terrorism. [Archive]

Pannonian

09-25-2006, 15:21

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep24/0,4670,USIraq,00.html

Interesting article. According to National Intelligence Estimate, Islamic terrorsim and anger has increased over the Iraq war. I just have this to say...

WELL, DUUUUUUUHHHHH

The mere fact that people in the Western World are still breathing causes Islamic anger and terrorism!!! You can't walk past a mosque and fart these days without having a jihadists having a fit. Cartoons anyone? I just find it funny that people think that if we were to play nice with the middle east that they would all the sudden be as playful as puppy dogs.

(ser disclaimer: I'm talking about radical Islam, so don't start menstrating, thanks)
Do you have any evidence showing that these things cause these fundies to tip over the edge into actual terrorism, as opposed to mere words? Of our own home grown terrorists, the common reason they've given for their turning against their hosts was Iraq and Britain's participation in it. Before Iraq, these nutjobs were of marginal importance and influence. After Iraq, their stories gained ready ears and their schemes ready followers.

If you read or watch the Feb 2003 Newsnight interview, you'll know that the studio audience warned Blair that Britain's participation in an invasion of Iraq would only increase our risk from terrorism.

Devastatin Dave

09-25-2006, 15:25

Spetulhu

09-25-2006, 15:31

So you're saying that before the Iraq war there wasn't any islamic terrorism. :laugh4:

No, he's saying exactly what the Republitards don't want to hear: invading Iraq was a blunder that only increased terrorism. :wall:

Pannonian

09-25-2006, 15:41

So you're saying that before the Iraq war there wasn't any islamic terrorism. :laugh4:
None against us, which is all that matters to me. There's the matter of 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, but that was a treaty matter, a response to an attack to an ally, and that didn't provoke any homegrown terrorism. Are you saying that Islamic fundamentalism in the UK had already moved into terrorism before Iraq? If so, can you provide cites?

Devastatin Dave

09-25-2006, 15:42

No, he's saying exactly what the Republitards don't want to hear: invading Iraq was a blunder that only increased terrorism. :wall:
Terrorism would increase towards the West regardless. These aggressions have increased decade by decade. We weren't in Iraq from the time terrorist (yes terrorist) Yassar Arafat began hijacking airplanes in the 70's, all the way up to 9/11. It would have increased regardless of the Iraqi invasion. Oh, I almost forgot my disclaimer....

(ser disclaimer: I'm talking about radical Islam, so don't start menstrating, thanks)

Seamus Fermanagh

09-25-2006, 15:52

The NIE also notes that terror forces are much less centralized now, albeit more numerous. This makes larger, coordinated attacks such as the 9-11-01 assault less likely, even though the increase in terror recruiting indicates that the overall threat of terror attacks has probably increased.

Had we never attacked Iraq, it is unlikely that Libya would have opted out (big plus for the WOT? debatable), but Al-Queda capabilities would still have been significantly degraded by the attack on Afghanistan. Recruiting would still have been up -- any involvement by the USA beyond what existed prior to the 9-11-01 attack would have generated an increase in recruiting, but probably not to the levels we see today. Iraq as a festering sore provides the USA with little advantage. Iraq as an emergent and semi-secular democracy provides huge long term advantages. Not having an effective plan -- and it seems clear now that we were relying on a "we're liberating France from the Nazis model (only we'll skip the bit about a government in exile ready to step in and minimize chaos) -- to begin the rebuilding is far and away the biggest malf-up of the whole process.

We now have a more difused threat with a greater number of opponents and even less of a central authority (C3I) component to target. International terror forces would have been a smaller -- albeit capable of more "marquee" operations -- opponent had we done nothing militarily in response to the 09-11-01 attacks. Psychologically, of course, a non-response was impossible. The USA could no more sit still and not counter-attack than could Israel ignore Hizbollah rockets.

Which brings us back to the age-old dilemma. If you do nothing, extremist terror forces "win," your goverment may fall, and you might even lose militarily. If you hammer the terrorists, innocents die along with them and you will be seen as an invader in almost all circumstances -- and become a target as numerous people seek to repel a foreign occupier. You can co-opt one terror faction against another -- war on the cheap -- but you will be tarred by the association and (unintended consequences) may create a worse threat in the long run [some Taliban forces (and subsequent AQ's) had CIA training back in the early 1980s]. Negotiation has all the moral drawbacks of legitimizing criminality -- which gets done with every successful rebellion of course, but still isn't fun -- and often carries the impact of creating a perception of weakness that prompts further attacks.

No neat answers, folks. Lessons to remember: Resolve matters. Intelligence (miilitary sense) is key -- and we don't have enough (yet).

sharrukin

09-25-2006, 15:54

Do you have any evidence showing that these things cause these fundies to tip over the edge into actual terrorism, as opposed to mere words? Of our own home grown terrorists, the common reason they've given for their turning against their hosts was Iraq and Britain's participation in it. Before Iraq, these nutjobs were of marginal importance and influence. After Iraq, their stories gained ready ears and their schemes ready followers.

If you read or watch the Feb 2003 Newsnight interview, you'll know that the studio audience warned Blair that Britain's participation in an invasion of Iraq would only increase our risk from terrorism.

You know that when the United States went to war with Japan, the citizens of Japanese ancestry remained loyal despite American actions towards them, that gave them far more cause for complaint.

Citizens of German, Italian, and French descent went to war against the nations of their origin, and showed themselves to be Americans first.

Perhaps the 'hosts' should tell the guests that its time to go home!

And since when haven't the Muslims been blowing up airplanes, cafes, etc. It started in the mid to late 1960's and hasn't stopped since. The reasons change slightly as events transpire, but the song remains the same.

So maybe if we are really nice to our killers they will murder less of our citizens than they did last year? We can hope!

rotorgun

09-25-2006, 16:09

This disatisfaction is not limited to Irag, but Afghanistan also. I watched a presentation by Sarah Chaye of her book, Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban, last night on CSPAN. She has lived in Kandahar for sometime now, and she has taken notice of how corrupt the newly installed government is. The reliance on the former warlords by the US, and inability of the new government to reign them in has led to vast corruption in the region. So bad is it, that many people are being driven back into the ranks of the Taliban. The governments inability to provide stability has led many to wish for a return of the Taliban because they did a better job of running the show.

Here is a short excerpt from the book review in the New York Times:

She contends that Gul Agha Shirzai, the warlord governor of Kandahar, has been able to convince the American military officers constantly rotating through the city that he is a loyal supporter of the new Afghanistan. But in fact, she writes, he and his relatives hid their own sweeping corruption, along with bitter complaints from other tribes. Today, Afghans who long for a modern and stable country express disappointment with Hamid Karzai and his American backers for creating a hugely corrupt Afghanistan. In rural areas, support for the Taliban is rising.

Chayes’s most explosive charge is that Pakistan — the United States’ supposed ally in the war against terrorism — is actively supporting the Taliban as a way to counter the spreading influence of its regional rival, India. To placate the Americans, Pakistan occasionally arrests a senior Qaeda operative. But at the same time, the resurgent Taliban fighting and killing American soldiers in the “new” Afghanistan were “maufactured and maintained, housed, trained and equipped by stubborn, shortsighted officials in that very Pakistani government,” she writes. “I was at a loss to understand why American decision makers could not see how suicidally contradictory their alliance with Pakistan was. To us on the ground, it was obvious.”

This is also similar to what is happening in Iraq in some ways. The level of corruption is very high in most provinces, and this has caused many Iraqis to have a lack of faith in the government to provide services and security.

If you care to read the whole review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/books/review/Rohde.t.html?ex=1159329600&en=e4eaa3d4d3fab9dd&ei=5070

"If you break it(Iraq), it's yours." (Colin Powell's advice to the President and his cabinet before the invasion of Iraq)

Pannonian

09-25-2006, 16:09

Had we never attacked Iraq, it is unlikely that Libya would have opted out (big plus for the WOT? debatable)

Gaddafi had been looking to reestablish normal international relations since the mid 1990s. Fortunately for him and us, Blair saw this and (helped by the atmosphere following 9/11) worked out a mutually acceptable solution based on compensating the relatives of the Lockerbie victims. The publicly acceptable solution could only be defined in terms of Lockerbie, but as a bonus we got the full cooperation of the Libyan intelligence services, who had opposed Islamic radicalism since their inception..

No neat answers, folks. Lessons to remember: Resolve matters. Intelligence (miilitary sense) is key -- and we don't have enough (yet).
It's been alleged that Syria offered full cooperation with the US over al-Qaeda - their intelligence service being second only to Libya's on the matter - but were turned down. The price was America's non-intervention in Israeli-Syrian relations. The CIA were happy at filling this big gap in their intelligence efforts for no material cost, and were less pleased when the White House ordered them to shut shop.

kataphraktoi

09-25-2006, 16:09

And what have these extremists done to increase terrorism? Everything under the sun....

caravel

09-25-2006, 16:11

You can't walk past a mosque and fart these days without having a jihadists having a fit.

You can fart, just so long as you haven't eaten any pork in the last 24 hours?

Apologies :bow:

Pannonian

09-25-2006, 16:18

You know that when the United States went to war with Japan, the citizens of Japanese ancestry remained loyal despite American actions towards them, that gave them far more cause for complaint.

Britain invaded Iraq without just cause. America did not invade Japan without just cause. When we took action against Afghanistan, it was almost universally recognised as the right response to an attack on our ally. Everyone supported that war. The invasion of Iraq was a different matter - Iraq had done nothing against us, nor had they done anything against our allies. We had no business there.

Citizens of German, Italian, and French descent went to war against the nations of their origin, and showed themselves to be Americans first.

Perhaps the 'hosts' should tell the guests that its time to go home!

Do you want to say the same to those WW2 veterans who opposed the Iraq war?

And since when haven't the Muslims been blowing up airplanes, cafes, etc. It started in the mid to late 1960's and hasn't stopped since. The reasons change slightly as events transpire, but the song remains the same.

So maybe if we are really nice to our killers they will murder less of our citizens than they did last year? We can hope!
Do you have any cites for Islamic terrorists targeting Britain before Iraq?

rotorgun

09-25-2006, 16:35

Devastatin Dave

09-25-2006, 16:42

None against us, which is all that matters to me.
You have a veeery short memory if you think that 911 was the first time we've been attacked. Your real name wouldn't happen to be Clinton would it?

Devastatin Dave

09-25-2006, 16:48

You have a veeery short memory if you think that 911 was the first time we've been attacked. Your real name wouldn't happen to be Clinton would it?
Sorry, i forgot , you're Brittish. But do you HONESTLY believe that Britain would NEVER be attacked by Islamic radicals if they did not assist the Americans in Iraq? You're a fool if you think so...

Scurvy

09-25-2006, 16:56

Of course there were islamic terrorist attacks before 9/11, but Iraq (and to a lesser extent Afganistan and probably now Lebannon) certainly increases the terrorism threat. This is because the terrorists get publicity, which then attracts more radical muslims them - palestine is a good examples - a (fundamentalist) muslim might see pictures of dieing kids in Gaza on bbc news - and be rightly angered, see reports of terrorist activites against those he percieves as responsible, and it all proceeds from there (- that was v badly structured, need to improve my writing skills :2thumbsup: )

Idaho

09-25-2006, 17:07

Sorry, i forgot , you're Brittish. But do you HONESTLY believe that Britain would NEVER be attacked by Islamic radicals if they did not assist the Americans in Iraq? You're a fool if you think so...
You are the fool for desperately hanging on to the idea that islamic terrorism would have increased without Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a nonsense argument that your limited world view needs to survive.

The war on terror has been misguided, misled, strategically fanciful at best, and has done nothing but increase the very problem they set out to conquer. And what's more millions of people told you so many years ago. Well Dave - this whole cock-up is your responsibility. Yours and the other unthinking buffoons who bought freedom fries, voted for George Bush and argued for the war in Iraq. History will judge you all harshly.

Devastatin Dave

09-25-2006, 17:21

You are the fool for desperately hanging on to the idea that islamic terrorism would have increased without Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a nonsense argument that your limited world view needs to survive.

The war on terror has been misguided, misled, strategically fanciful at best, and has done nothing but increase the very problem they set out to conquer. And what's more millions of people told you so many years ago. Well Dave - this whole cock-up is your responsibility. Yours and the other unthinking buffoons who bought freedom fries, voted for George Bush and argued for the war in Iraq. History will judge you all harshly.
So now you're saying that we should not have gone into Afganastan after 9/11? So your answer to Islamic terrorism is what?

Pannonian

09-25-2006, 17:22

Sorry, i forgot , you're Brittish. But do you HONESTLY believe that Britain would NEVER be attacked by Islamic radicals if they did not assist the Americans in Iraq? You're a fool if you think so...
So do you have any cites, references to where Britain was targeted before the Iraq fiasco? Not by states who happen to be Muslim (Libya), but Islamic fundamentalists proper. Call me a fool if you want, but provide references - we heard the same kind of dismissal before March 2003, and we weren't too impressed by it then either, preferring actual evidence or a ruddy good case to be made before going to war.

sharrukin

09-25-2006, 17:40

Britain invaded Iraq without just cause. America did not invade Japan without just cause. When we took action against Afghanistan, it was almost universally recognised as the right response to an attack on our ally. Everyone supported that war. The invasion of Iraq was a different matter - Iraq had done nothing against us, nor had they done anything against our allies. We had no business there.

I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. I think it was an idiotic mistake, that burned up a lot of goodwill around the world. That does not mean that Muslims do not owe their loyalty to the nation they claim to be citizens of.

Do you want to say the same to those WW2 veterans who opposed the Iraq war?
I would say to them that I agree with them completely.

Do you have any cites for Islamic terrorists targeting Britain before Iraq?

The Lockerbie Bombing.

Leila Khaled, the leader of the PFLP cell captured in Britain.

Two attempted attacks on planes in December, 1969. Stopped by police.

Another arrest in December, 1972 at London airport

Letter bombs sent to Jewish and Israeli addresses in Britain. May 1973

An explosion at a hotel resort near Athens injured 13, including six British citizens by Abu Nidal.

In 1978, Al Mukhabarat was behind the murder of Gen Abdul Razzaq al-Hayef, outside a hotel in London.

April 17, 1984, a Libyan embassy employee kills a british policewoman

In December,1970 Black September attempted the assassination of the Jordanian ambassador to Britain.

In February 1972, Black September destroyed a West German electrical plant and a Dutch gas plant. Tell me, what exactly did West Germany or the Netherlands do to them? You are fooling yourself if you think grovelling is a tactic that will work.

Pannonian

09-25-2006, 17:51

The Lockerbie Bombing.

Leila Khaled, the leader of the PFLP cell captured in Britain.

Two attempted attacks on planes in December, 1969. Stopped by police.

Another arrest in December, 1972 at London airport

Letter bombs sent to Jewish and Israeli addresses in Britain. May 1973

An explosion at a hotel resort near Athens injured 13, including six British citizens by Abu Nidal.

In 1978, Al Mukhabarat was behind the murder of Gen Abdul Razzaq al-Hayef, outside a hotel in London.

April 17, 1984, a Libyan embassy employee kills a british policewoman

In December,1970 Black September attempted the assassination of the Jordanian ambassador to Britain.

How many of those were by Islamic fundamentalists, and how many were nationalists or other purveyors of secular causes who happened to be Muslims? Most of the terrorism Britain has suffered in the past few decades was directed by people who happened to be Christian, but we didn't call them Christian terrorists because their cause was not dictated by Christianity.

In February 1972, Black September destroyed a West German electrical plant and a Dutch gas plant. Tell me, what exactly did West Germany or the Netherlands do to them? You are fooling yourself if you think grovelling is a tactic that will work.
Now where have I ever advocated grovelling? My consistent position on the threat of Islamic terrorism is that we should do what we should be doing in the first place, whether or not those terrorists existed. That means not lashing out at people and countries who have nothing to do with these terrorists, it means not doing what these terrorists want us to do simply because they tell us to. It means not giving in to these terrorists, but it also means not doing the opposite of what these terrorists say simply because they say it. It means completely ignoring them as a political factor.

Scurvy

09-25-2006, 18:07

Tribesman

09-25-2006, 18:13

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
We weren't in Iraq from the time terrorist (yes terrorist) Yassar Arafat began hijacking airplanes in the 70's, all the way up to 9/11. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Change your name to doublethink dave , all hail the party faithfull:help:
Why not just repeat Big Bubbas classic about Russia not invading Iraq but still getting attacked my Muslim terrorists :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

sharrukin

09-25-2006, 18:22

So do you have any cites, references to where Britain was targeted before the Iraq fiasco? Not by states who happen to be Muslim (Libya), but Islamic fundamentalists proper. Call me a fool if you want, but provide references - we heard the same kind of dismissal before March 2003, and we weren't too impressed by it then either, preferring actual evidence or a ruddy good case to be made before going to war.

I don't disagree with the foolishness of invading Iraq, but I do not think that Muslim terror groups need much in the way of an excuse to murder.

http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2001/jan/post1.htm

"And they describe how the British government, Hussein's closest Western ally, declined to come to his aid during Black September, suggesting that it believed the Hashemite throne might be toppled in the Palestinian-initiated civil war and that it should keep its options open in the event of a Palestinian triumph."

"Hussein's most urgent appeal to Britain and the US, including the request to London to ask Israel for assistance, was sent on September 19."

"Moreover, the Palestinians have also alleged that Israel secretly supplied Jordan with arms after agreeing with Hussein's assessment that a Syrian invasion of Jordan could spark a full-scale regional conflict."

"Among the documents just released is a copy of a letter written by Khaled to her mother from her police cell in west London, in which she reported that she was being treated "as if I were an official state guest."

One of your Arab allies doing the boogy-woogie with a British knife in the back and the funny part is that it was Israel doing more to help Jordan than their so-called ally, Britain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/uk_confidential/1089694.stm

The PFLP demanded Khaled's release - as well as the other Palestinian extremists. To emphasise the point, a few days later the group hijacked another plane, a BOAC (British Overseas Airways Corporation) - VC-10 on course from Bombay to Beirut.

The guerrillas now held over 300 hostages, 65 of them British. What should Britain do?

30 Sept: Leila Khaled released from UK

Speaking to UK Confidential, Leila Khaled, now a middle-aged housewife, admitted that the PFLP was encouraged by the UK's capitulation to its demands.

"It was a good step for us that we saw governments could be negotiated with. We could impose our demands.

"The success in the tactics of the hijacking and imposing our demands and succeeding in having our demands implemented gave us the courage and the confidence to go ahead with our struggle."

Your PM Heath thought he was being pragmatic about things, but that doesn't work with fanatics.

You are splitting hairs regarding Libyan, or other state sponsored terror operations, because in that case the IRA, who received Soviet backing wouldn't be included in your list of terror groups either.

The fact that generally Britain acted more as a base for Muslim terrorist activities against Israel and other European nations, rather than a target is not an indication that they mean you no harm. Other European states, as well as Canada took the same road and it served them no better. The US also hosted IRA fundraisers and recruiters, so no one comes out of this with clean hands, IMO.

The point is that we too often fool ourselves into thinking that our actions can be tailored to avoid angering terrorist fanatics, and thus avoid a murder spree. We are just neutralizing ourselves while they make advances elsewhere.

sharrukin

09-25-2006, 18:47

completely ignoring terrorsist isnt impossible the blow things up however i agree it is irrational to target the countries which the terrorists are based it - its an obvious problem though, how do you take out terrorist groups without having a "war" in a neutral country....

Well, I think we need to keep our own interests in mind. We should not be missionaries (crusaders) of (for) democracy (christendom), nor should we engage in "nation building". It didn't work for the Crusaders, it didn't work for the Imperialists, and it isn't going to work for us. If they want to run around and eat each other...let them! We are not gods, among men, nor are we a superior breed of mankind that all should emulate us.

We should target states that harbour terrorist organizations, and this does not mean that we need to send any soldiers to occupy the place, as our intent is to curb their actions, not dictate their lifestyles. That means we don't build schools for Muslim women, or help poor farmers with their crops. Poor farmers and Muslim women generally aren't the ones carrying out these terror raids. Rich pampered Saudi's and middle class educated Egyptians are the culprits. We need to target the states that allow this to go on, and too many of those are the nations we call "friend".

For small/weak states like Libya, direct military action will serve nicely to prevent them taking further aggressive actions against us. For larger states who sponsor terrorism, like Iran and Syria, a naval blockade, and harbour mining would probably be the quickest, least costly method to get them to cease backing terrorist groups. They have little to no interest in paying a high price for their actions. Terrorism is used by these states due to its cheap cost to further their aims, and their being at arms-length when it comes time to portion out the blame. If we make it very expensive for them to engage in this activity they are unlikely to continue.

Redleg

09-25-2006, 19:03

The point is that we too often fool ourselves into thinking that our actions can be tailored to avoid angering terrorist fanatics, and thus avoid a murder spree. We are just neutralizing ourselves while they make advances elsewhere.

This is by far the most observant of all the comments in this thread.

Now for Idaho's comment of You are the fool for desperately hanging on to the idea that islamic terrorism would have increased without Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a nonsense argument that your limited world view needs to survive.

Care to provide evidence that shows Islamic based terrorism was actually on the decrease prior to 9/11?

An interesting article I found while trying to find an easy listing on the web of when attacks happened and where.

http://www.boroumand.com/files/politics/pol_1002.htm

A taste of the article

"Why?" That is the question that people in the West have been asking ever since the terrible events of September 11. What are the attitudes, beliefs, and motives of the terrorists and the movement from which they sprang? What makes young men from Muslim countries willing, even eager, to turn themselves into suicide bombers? How did these men come to harbor such violent hatred of the West, and especially of the United States? What are the roots-moral, intellectual, political, and spiritual-of the murderous fanaticism we witnessed that day?

As Western experts and commentators have wrestled with these questions, their intellectual disarray and bafflement in the face of radical Islamist (notice we do not say "Islamic") terrorism have become painfully clear. This is worrisome, for however necessary an armed response might seem in the near term, it is undeniable that a successful long-term strategy for battling Islamism and its terrorists will require a clearer understanding of who these foes are, what they think, and how they understand their own motives. For terrorism is first and foremost an ideological and moral challenge to liberal democracy. The sooner the defenders of democracy realize this and grasp its implications, the sooner democracy can prepare itself to win the long-simmering war of ideas and values that exploded into full fury last September 11. The puzzlement of liberal democracies in the face of Islamist terrorism seems odd. After all, since 1793, when the word "terror" first came into use in its modern political sense with the so-called Terror of the French Revolution, nearly every country in the West has had some experience with a terrorist movement or regime. Why then does such a phenomenon, which no less than liberal democracy itself is a product of the modern age, appear in this instance so opaque to Western analysts?

Islamist terror first burst onto the world scene with the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in November of that year. Since then, Islamism has spread, and the ideological and political tools that have helped to curb terrorism throughout much of the West have proven mostly ineffective at stopping it. Its presence is global, and its influence is felt not only in the lands of the vast Islamic crescent that extends from Morocco and Nigeria in the west to Malaysia and Mindanao in the east but also in many corners of Europe, India, the former Soviet world, the Americas, and even parts of western China.

Ah here was what I was actually looking for - a timeline listing, an interesting read - its a PDF file though.

http://www.acfei.com/images/PDF/Final%20Timline%20of%20T.%20color.pdf

Now which world view is actually correct Idaho?

Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)

09-25-2006, 19:16

You americans want everything.You are selfish.The terrorism has grown because of your invasion.You are blind,because you don't see that more and more people hate you.A lot of countries turn against you.Your politics are very aggressive and not friendly.If you will invade Iran ,I don't think you will get out from there with your army in one piece.The terrorism in Iran is because of you.They associate you with the Europe, so they want to kill europeans too.If you go in Iran ,it will be like in Vietnam.So you can not have the world for you.In the end you will fall like the roman empire.

Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)

09-25-2006, 19:23

In Iraq you went because of oil.You are invading their country ,and you say that you bring peace,instead you bring war and you kill people.Your soldiers are killing women and children.Innocent people.But a new empire is rising:European Union.Even the European money is powerful than yours.

Samurai Waki

09-25-2006, 19:24

My Proposal is too not invade Iran, just to deny the Iranians any Food or General Health Services until they surrender.

Tribesman

09-25-2006, 19:31

As has already been stated, having a democratic and friendly Iraq would be a huge plus for the USA, especially as Iran doesn't seem like it will settle itself any time soon.

which is another reason why the invasion is a complete balls up:oops:

The Middle-East is quite possibly one of the most vital strategic areas in the globe. We want it. We should be able to have it.
why ?
Actually it is quite scary that someone with that mindset is joining up and may get sent over there .

Pannonian

09-25-2006, 19:33

Well, I think we need to keep our own interests in mind. We should not be missionaries (crusaders) of (for) democracy (christendom), nor should we engage in "nation building". It didn't work for the Crusaders, it didn't work for the Imperialists, and it isn't going to work for us. If they want to run around and eat each other...let them! We are not gods, among men, nor are we a superior breed of mankind that all should emulate us.

Most of all, our governments should remember they are beholden to us, their electorates. We pay the taxes that allow them to engage in whatever schemes they wish to play, they should make good use of that tax money, and not fritter it away on things that are counterproductive to their stated aims. If they wish to play at war, that most expensive of activities, they should make a good case for it beforehand, or else they should look to other solutions.

We should target states that harbour terrorist organizations, and this does not mean that we need to send any soldiers to occupy the place, as our intent is to curb their actions, not dictate their lifestyles. That means we don't build schools for Muslim women, or help poor farmers with their crops. Poor farmers and Muslim women generally aren't the ones carrying out these terror raids. Rich pampered Saudi's and middle class educated Egyptians are the culprits. We need to target the states that allow this to go on, and too many of those are the nations we call "friend".

Apparently the Commonwealth was preparing a massive boycott of everything Pakistani before 9/11. The need to have easy access to Afghanistan stopped that idea.

For small/weak states like Libya, direct military action will serve nicely to prevent them taking further aggressive actions against us. For larger states who sponsor terrorism, like Iran and Syria, a naval blockade, and harbour mining would probably be the quickest, least costly method to get them to cease backing terrorist groups. They have little to no interest in paying a high price for their actions. Terrorism is used by these states due to its cheap cost to further their aims, and their being at arms-length when it comes time to portion out the blame. If we make it very expensive for them to engage in this activity they are unlikely to continue.
So what should be done about stateless organisations and franchises like al-Qaeda? As intelligence agencies all over the world have recognised, the heart of al-Qaeda is not harboured in any specific state, it is wherever Muslims sympathise sufficiently with their cause to take violent action.

Personally, I think we should give in completely to their demands. They want western influence out of the middle east, we should withdraw completely from the middle east. More completely than they ever envisaged, by reducing dependency on middle east oil and not giving them a single penny. Let them rot in their cultural, social and economic poverty.

Conradus

09-25-2006, 19:36

Come on, Iraq was never a threat, at most it was a nuisance. But it was one of the most stable regimes in the regio, Saddam was a dictator sure, but there was a fair degree of "liberty" and before the embargo it was fairly wealthy.
Terrorism was never a reason for an invasion, nor was WMD, there weren't any. Leaves only oil and a foothold for further control of the ME (and actions into Iran if necessary)

Europe could unite oneday but at the moment it's the only continent with such different traditions/religions/culture/history in every single country. Sure there's a lot of us-bashing in Europe, but besides that the lesser always has something to say about the stronger, the Us hasn't had the most friendly foreign policies ever and Europe has know terrorism because some leaders went to Iraq against the will of their own people.

Tribesman

09-25-2006, 19:46

Thats hilarious GC , don't you even realise that you shot yourself in the foot when you invaded .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You say we went for Oil? Show me the oil. What about wealth, then?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: another example fo the invasion going balls up .

As for why? Tell me: Why not?

Why not ???????why not ???? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Because anyone with even the slightest flicker of brain activity could see what was going to be the result . :idea2:
Thats why not GC .
Which leaves the question , did you not see what was going to happen ?:2thumbsup:

rory_20_uk

09-25-2006, 19:54

Oil: A win win situation. Either you secure masses more, and American multinationals can go and hog it, or the instability causes the price to skyrocket, making oil companies richer.

Else how come other countries, equally in a mess for a lot longer have been ignored? Somalia, Sudan etc etc? They are dying too. And of course, it's merely peace and love, right?

~:smoking:

Kanamori

09-25-2006, 19:56

On the whole, Iraq was probably a mistake. (I won't bother continuing that train of thought into the realm of partisan battles; boring.) Terrorism is less organised now, but that has little to do w/ actions taken in Iraq. The post-war effort to build a stable government is probably going to be a failure, unless things have changed very significantly, which I have heard nothing about. It is seeming to me that in order for a good government, one that is stable, popular, and not corrupt, to be built out of the abolition of another government, there must be both popular support from within the country and generally similar sentiments among the populace. Both of these were not found in Iraq.

Although terrorism may continue regardless, I do not see the advantage of having invaded Iraq. If it causes more terrorism, we are not only losing by going there, but also harming the Iraqis with a less stable government, more violence, fewer commodities and necessities (although this part has been corrected to a degree), less safety, and generally more uncertainty through daily life.

The best possible solution that I can think of to curb terrorism is by increasing international relations, working cooperatively with governments to get intelligence on terrorist groups, and by making it a much larger priority than it has been. If there is no cooperation to fight terrorism from the nation harboring the terrorists, then war seems to be a spectre that cannot be avoided.

Scurvy

09-25-2006, 19:57

messed up post :P

Pannonian

09-25-2006, 20:10

You poor soul. You're buying into the general anti-Americanism that seems to permeate the continent of Europe.

You say we went for Oil? Show me the oil. What about wealth, then? Show me the wealth.

The point about the oil is not to secure US access to it, but to deny it to others, principally China (also Russia and the EU if need be). Oil continues to be traded in dollars, meaning the US dollar will be subsidised as long as the oil market continues in this mode.

We invaded Iraq because it was a genuine threat to our interests. The USA is a large country, with global concerns. Because of that, we have to take global actions.

I'm sorry the smaller and less powerful countries of Europe have to be so bitter about that.

Precisely. So stop the BS about doing this for the good of the Iraqi people and admit that this is good old colonial era imperialism, and we'll be happier about your honesty.

As for the EU? I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think Europe could ever unite except in the face of a very imminent military threat: i.e. War with Russia or the USA.
The EU unites quite effectively against a common economic threat. Think steel. If the Dubya tendency spreads, even the traditionally yankophile British may tend more and more towards the continent rather than across the Atlantic, as they find the Americans increasingly alien and the Europeans increasingly familiar.

Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)

09-25-2006, 20:11

Why i can't tell US what to do?
I can't but because i am a citizen of Europe, i can act,we Europeans can act.I don't think the russians can make the mistake to attack european countries.They are the real power in the world.They stay low and they don't attract the attention of the world.They don't involve in wars where they lose a lot of me.The could destroy america ,they have a lot of nuclear weapons and submarines and everything.Although i hate the russians i must admit that they are not fools.You involved in the war in Iraq because your price for oil was a very VERY VERY VERY big.Your economy falls with the oil.US-OIL=Nothing.So you depend on oil.I don't think EU depends on it.My friend anti-Americanism is all over the world.There are more people that hate america than US's populations.
Europe can unite under one sign of threat,and in the face of europe nothing stands,so Europe RULEZ.In 2007 even Romania and Bulgaria enters in our big community Europe.Show me an empire that still exist.Your country has no history.So this are the words of a smart man that knew something.

"A country without history is a country without future"(like you USA)

Don't stand against Europe because you will fall

rory_20_uk

09-25-2006, 20:16

OK... The EU can not organise what language to speak. They've just managed to sort it out for battlefields (finally). Most people when asked don't want the EU. The government is unrepresentative, pretty undemocratic, unaccountable and unloved. It's OK as a trade bloc (a la the EEC with more bullshit)

Russia can cut off the gas / oil, tehn we'd collectively be buggered.

~:smoking:

yesdachi

09-25-2006, 20:21

bla bla bla
"A country without history is a country without future"(like you USA)

Don't stand against Europe because you will fall
Oh brother.~:rolleyes: Let me guess, paint chips were a regular part of your childhood diet?:freak:

Pannonian

09-25-2006, 20:23

OK... The EU can not organise what language to speak. They've just managed to sort it out for battlefields (finally).

English?

Most people when asked don't want the EU. The government is unrepresentative, pretty undemocratic, unaccountable and unloved. It's OK as a trade bloc (a la the EEC with more bullshit)

Russia can cut off the gas / oil, tehn we'd collectively be buggered.

~:smoking:
The primary driver of the EU is trade. If the US wants to keep the EU helpless politically, they would be well advised to keep it thus, and not give us cause to find other common links. Humiliating the traditionally pro-American countries as this government seems prone to doing is politically dumb.

Scurvy

09-25-2006, 20:28

Xiahou

09-25-2006, 20:32

Else how come other countries, equally in a mess for a lot longer have been ignored? Somalia, Sudan etc etc? They are dying too. And of course, it's merely peace and love, right?

~:smoking:It's not the US that's obstructing action in the Sudan- better look elsewhere for that.

Scurvy

09-25-2006, 20:34

It's not the US that's obstructing action in the Sudan- better look elsewhere for that.

the US isnt trying to act in Sudan though, if the US was to intervene things would move a lot quicker (for good, or bad)

drone

09-25-2006, 21:03

the US isnt trying to act in Sudan though, if the US was to intervene things would move a lot quicker (for good, or bad)
So we should get involved in another civil war involving Muslims? Sorry, our WorldPolice(TM) are currently occupied elsewhere (granted, in a mess of our own creation). If we act, we are damned, if we don't act, we are damned. :rolleyes:

On a side note, it's nice to see that Vlad Tepes has found the Backroom. This should be entertaining. :2thumbsup:

Scurvy

09-25-2006, 21:12

So we should get involved in another civil war involving Muslims? Sorry, our WorldPolice(TM) are currently occupied elsewhere (granted, in a mess of our own creation). If we act, we are damned, if we don't act, we are damned. :rolleyes:

On a side note, it's nice to see that Vlad Tepes has found the Backroom. This should be entertaining. :2thumbsup:

Get involved without using the army - the US have political power as well as military etc. Im sure a few pointers to the UN behind the scenes would work wonders - maybe a bit of finance too :2thumbsup:

Dont be mean to Vlad - i quite like his unbelievably anti-american posts

Devastatin Dave

09-25-2006, 21:24

Dont be mean to Vlad - i quite like his unbelievably anti-american posts
Me too, I went wee-wee laughing till the dew shook off my lily!!!:laugh4:

drone

09-25-2006, 21:25

Get involved without using the army - the US have political power as well as military etc. Im sure a few pointers to the UN behind the scenes would work wonders - maybe a bit of finance too :2thumbsup:I was under the distinct impression that our political power in the international arena was somewhat diminished, especially at the UN. Recently, it's very chic to spout anti-American diatribes in front of the esteemed representitives gathered there, where they receive rave reviews.

Dont be mean to Vlad - i quite like his unbelievably anti-american postsI'm not being mean, I am genuinely looking forward to this. :2thumbsup:

Scurvy

09-25-2006, 21:27

I was under the distinct impression that our political power in the international arena was somewhat diminished, especially at the UN. Recently, it's very chic to spout anti-American diatribes in front of the esteemed representitives gathered there, where they receive rave reviews.

I suspect the US still has a lot of power, just slightly more subtle, you cant be that big a country and not have some political clout

I'm not being mean, I am genuinely looking forward to this. :2thumbsup:

thats what im worried about :laugh4:

drone

09-25-2006, 21:37

I suspect the US still has a lot of power, just slightly more subtle, you cant be that big a country and not have some political clout
The problem there is that the current administration does not seem to understand the word "subtle". :inquisitive:

caravel

09-25-2006, 21:39

You poor soul. You're buying into the general anti-Americanism that seems to permeate the continent of Europe.

With comments like the one below I can understand many having anti american sentiment, if the only americans they were to come into contact with shared similar views to your's.

The Middle-East is quite possibly one of the most vital strategic areas in the globe. We want it. We should be able to have it.

And the native populous? They don't have a say in this I suppose? If you want a piece of territory you believe that you can just go out and take it? The middle east is a "vital strategic area", so lets go and bomb it into submission, take it off them and invent a pretext for going in there, because we can. Sorry but that's how the US foreign policy often comes across, and if you couldn't care less about foreign policy and have no sense of cultural awareness, then maybe you shouldn't leave your own country, in either a military capacity or otherwise.

Scurvy

09-25-2006, 21:40

Let's face it, nobody gives a damn about Africa when you compare it to the Middle-East. It's just not as important. In the future, if they ever stop killing eachother and decide to join the civilized world, Africa has the potential to be important.

surely the amount of killing that goes on in Africa makes it important --> the "civilised world" can actually do something useful by helping it

yesdachi

09-25-2006, 21:59

The middle east is a "vital strategic area", so lets go and bomb it into submission, take it off them and invent a pretext for going in there, because we can.
Seems we had a relatively decent relationship/understanding with many of the countries we are now fighting in until we were invited by terrorists to come and fight them in the countries they were hiding in. Had the countries harboring terrorists taken care of them, contained them or at least told them not to piss off the US too bad, everything would have been relatively the same. Instead they couldn’t control what was happening within their own boarders (or were encouraging it, $25,000 bonus to the family of a suicide bomber) thereby inviting the most hated country in the world to come over and make a stinking mess out of everything. Don’t want the US to stomp around your country, screwing everything up; don’t give us a reason to notice you.

Tribesman

09-25-2006, 22:16

That's nothing but pointless insults, T. No substance, and thus nothing to reply to.

No GC , that is the fullest and most correct reply you could possibly get to your question "why not"
Would you like the shorter simpler version so you can understand it ?
......think before you act......
understand yet ?
I doubt it since you had to ask the question "why not?" in the first place .:juggle2:

If so, pulling out is not the answer--re-working our occupation to better favor us is the answer.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
yes , reinforcing failure is the answer , or do you have some bright idea that will take a hostile population , an "enemy" backed government and rework it in your favour ?

I don't know about outright annexation (that can get real messy)
And the prize for understatement goes to ......:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

but toppling hostile regimes and replacing them with complacent ones is certainly just fine.

Yes its fine , it also takes a very long time , a hell of a lot of money and most importantly a friendly population who are going to support both you and your imposed regime .
Sooooooooo, can you think of many countries that fit the bill ? Or more to the point , can you think of any country in that region that you want because ...well because you want it, that even remotely fits the bill ?

Let's face it, nobody gives a damn about Africa when you compare it to the Middle-East. It's just not as important. In the future, if they ever stop killing eachother and decide to join the civilized world, Africa has the potential to be important.

Clueless , absolutely clueless . :dizzy2:
OK GC , lets see if there is the faintest glimmer of cognative function there .
If you forget the complexities of the decades or even centuries of involvement in Africa for its unimportant resources . Can you explain the causes of the current conflict in Darfur ?
You know simple stuff like what do the rebels want and why do they think that rebellion will get it for them ?

Seamus Fermanagh

09-25-2006, 22:47

No GC , that is the fullest and most correct reply you could possibly get to your question "why not"
Would you like the shorter simpler version so you can understand it ?
......think before you act......
understand yet ?
I doubt it since you had to ask the question "why not?" in the first place .:juggle2:

No political decision can be made in full knowledge of both the intended and unintended consequences. It is impossible to "game" all outcomes in advance. You imply a standard of prior evaluation that would tend toward inactivity in all things.

Were there opponents during the run-up to the invasion and conquest of Iraq who predicted a much greater degree of difficulty after the overthrow of Saddam than the Bush administration planned on? Absolutely. Yet there were just as many critics who argued that we:

Had no right to attack Iraq (despite UN resolutions and Saddam's failure to live up to the armistice agreement)

Would lose to Iraq because: we'd quit if Saddam's forces could cause massive casualties in a door-to-door attack on Baghdad

Would lose to Iraq because: we couldn't handle the local weather/climate conditions

and the list goes on.

None of these concerns proved correct. It's easy to "Monday-morning quarterback" and say we should have known. Hindsight is always so clear.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
yes , reinforcing failure is the answer , or do you have some bright idea that will take a hostile population , an "enemy" backed government and rework it in your favour ?

Ah, its so clear now. Perhaps, since you have determined that we've already lost and that no possibility exists for victory, it would be expedient of us to simply coordinate our withdrawals so that Iranian forces could take over the kasernes quickly. Since no matter what time or effort we put in, a civil war resulting in an Iranian puppet state is the only possible outcome. Do you "moonlight" as the oracle at Siwa or something?

And the prize for understatement goes to ......:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Yes its fine , it also takes a very long time , a hell of a lot of money and most importantly a friendly population who are going to support both you and your imposed regime .
Sooooooooo, can you think of many countries that fit the bill ? Or more to the point , can you think of any country in that region that you want because ...well because you want it, that even remotely fits the bill ?

I don't believe that the Iraqi population carries the degree of animus you assume. Numerous stories brought home by those serving in Iraq suggest that, for the most part, they'd like more personal security and better infrastructure and for everyone to get out of the way of them living their lives. Given time, that's plenty friendly enough. And the regime will no longer be an imposition if it serves their needs.

Clueless , absolutely clueless . :dizzy2:
OK GC , lets see if there is the faintest glimmer of cognative function there .
If you forget the complexities of the decades or even centuries of involvement in Africa for its unimportant resources . Can you explain the causes of the current conflict in Darfur ?
You know simple stuff like what do the rebels want and why do they think that rebellion will get it for them ?

You could have avoided the personal attack and still made your point here Tribesy -- bad form.

By-the-by, GelCube is much more of an isolationist than many yanks. His initial response tends to be -- let them deal with it themselves. His second thought tends to be -- what best serves the interests of the USA.

So you disagree with the USA pursuing its strategic interests but want us to spend money and blood being Paladins in an area of nearly endemic warfare?

Ah, but then you revel in labeling someone ignorant. I trust that you do so only to further the growth of knowledge and that you never take any pleasure in belittling someone else.

Shaun

09-25-2006, 22:52

I don't know about outright annexation (that can get real messy), but toppling hostile regimes and replacing them with complacent ones is certainly just fine.

The thing is that America cares little about doing the utilitarian thing by actually quitely toppling sich a government if there is no oil in the country. Or if Bush hasnt made up false terror links or WMD's. As long as false stories are made up its OK for America to beat the shit out of the people.

Why? We've been pumping money and aid into Africa for decades, to no avail. Time to leave them to their own devices.

So do you propose that America intervene in such situations? How much oil is there, and by how much will it make the oil companies richer?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

09-25-2006, 23:10

WELL, DUUUUUUUHHHHH

Please, all this means is that Fox News is going Liberal. The Iraq War has, of course, decreased terrorism in all its forms and is completely justified.

The above is complete sarcasm.

AntiochusIII

09-25-2006, 23:30

Please, all this means is that Fox News is going Liberal. The Iraq War has, of course, decreased terrorism in all its forms and is completely justified.You, sir, sadly forget that the Iraq War is not only completely justified, but completely effective, and morally righteous; and anyone who dares speak against the excellent results of the war is a mere traitor of the USA, of which capital punishment against them is leniency.

FOX News have shamed America by surrendering to the pressure of the Liberal Elite.

A funny note: I've just finished a wonderful 50-episodes anime series yesterday; in one episode, the characters went to save a certain "Vodarek priest" who was captured on a false charge, and was held captive in a political prison. Guess what's the prison's name in the story? Dabu Ghraib. Right from Japan for ya. Talk about losing goodwill. ~:)

Pannonian

09-25-2006, 23:59

No political decision can be made in full knowledge of both the intended and unintended consequences. It is impossible to "game" all outcomes in advance. You imply a standard of prior evaluation that would tend toward inactivity in all things.

Were there opponents during the run-up to the invasion and conquest of Iraq who predicted a much greater degree of difficulty after the overthrow of Saddam than the Bush administration planned on? Absolutely. Yet there were just as many critics who argued that we:

Had no right to attack Iraq (despite UN resolutions and Saddam's failure to live up to the armistice agreement)

Would lose to Iraq because: we'd quit if Saddam's forces could cause massive casualties in a door-to-door attack on Baghdad

Would lose to Iraq because: we couldn't handle the local weather/climate conditions

and the list goes on.

None of these concerns proved correct. It's easy to "Monday-morning quarterback" and say we should have known. Hindsight is always so clear.

Have you read the interview Blair gave to Newsnight on the eve of the Iraq war in February 2003? Just about every worry voiced by the studio audience (general public, not professional analysts) has been proven true. Hindsight is always clear, but foresight can sometimes be equally obvious. Blair is hated not because he made a mistake (goodness knows we've forgiven him before), but because we had warned him, repeatedly, that this would be a mistake, even before the event, and he ignored us and mired us in this debacle.

Blair Iraq interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm)

Tribesman

09-25-2006, 23:59

First off, thank you Seamus. You're better at this than I. Tribesy: See Seamus' post.

Yep I will , in the meantime you can see about the recent history in Sudan .

No political decision can be made in full knowledge of both the intended and unintended consequences.

But in this case either no thought was put into looking at or even planning for the consequences and knowledge that was available was blindly ignored .

Ah, its so clear now. Perhaps, since you have determined that we've already lost and that no possibility exists for victory
There never was a possibility of victory , not a victory under the objectives that Bush claimed were the objectives .

it would be expedient of us to simply coordinate our withdrawals so that Iranian forces could take over the kasernes quickly.
You are handing over to the Iranian forces , and claiming it as progress .

Since no matter what time or effort we put in, a civil war resulting in an Iranian puppet state is the only possible outcome.
Time and effort are too late now , thats what happens when you rush in without thought , the Iranian puppet state in the South is being properly formed from last week with the vote on federalisation (and of course re writting the constitution) , the formation of the Iranian puppet state in the north depends on how the resumption of hostilities between the Israeli backed and Iranian backed factions turns out or how widely it spreads .

I don't believe that the Iraqi population carries the degree of animus you assume.
Support for attacks on coilition forces has increased to 78% from 16% in 2003

for the most part, they'd like more personal security and better infrastructure and for everyone to get out of the way of them living their lives.
Yep and that is where the invasion failed , big time .

Ah, but then you revel in labeling someone ignorant. I trust that you do so only to further the growth of knowledge and that you never take any pleasure in belittling someone else.
Well , sometimes a good kick in the posterior is a good way to get someone to remove their head from it and actually have a look around , though of course sometimes it only serves to make them ram it up there even further .
The conflict in Sudan (or should that be conflicts) is a very good case to show why GC is so wrong and how other countries are impeding any progress because there is something there they want and they don't see why they cannot have it .Though at least thay only abstained instead of calling uncle veto at the last vote .

Anyhow , back to Iraq Seamus , the military announced that they lost sadr-city ....again .
Could you send a memo to the Pentagon , suggest looking down the back of the sofa , its amazing what you can lose down there .

Pannonian

09-26-2006, 00:01

We shouldn't involve ourselves with the rest of the world unless it will enrich the nation somehow--economically, militarily, strategically, whatever. That said, done right, there are ample opportunities for intervensionism which will lead to exactly that.

Do you think your relationship with Israel enriches the US? Or is Israel the exception that proves the rule?

Louis VI the Fat

09-26-2006, 00:11

Seamus Fermanagh

09-26-2006, 02:49

Have you read the interview Blair gave to Newsnight on the eve of the Iraq war in February 2003? Just about every worry voiced by the studio audience (general public, not professional analysts) has been proven true. Hindsight is always clear, but foresight can sometimes be equally obvious. Blair is hated not because he made a mistake (goodness knows we've forgiven him before), but because we had warned him, repeatedly, that this would be a mistake, even before the event, and he ignored us and mired us in this debacle.

And, as earlier posts I have made will confirm, I am far from satisfied with the planning efforts before Iraq. When we took out Germany and Japan in 1945, we had people tasked -- for years -- with developing occupation plans, assessing possible resistance, etc. We clearly did nothing along these lines before March of 2003, and are paying the price for it.

If the interviewer and his audience were a representative example of British opinion (and I know nothing of this program or its reputation), Blair did not have sufficient support for war, and should have been pushing Bush hard on that point. No dog in that fight for me, I'm a yank with an outsider's understanding of UK politics, so take my comment with a grain of salt.

Spetulhu

09-26-2006, 08:53

I was under the distinct impression that our political power in the international arena was somewhat diminished, especially at the UN. Recently, it's very chic to spout anti-American diatribes in front of the esteemed representitives gathered there, where they receive rave reviews.

So? Just go in there and say we should under no circumstances help Sudan. Perhaps a few of those anti-US representatives will get motivated to do something besides talk.

Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)

09-26-2006, 13:23

You are a super power.But you can be a super power just when you have the permission.One country cannot stand against the all others(with the all others i want to say the old continent,for those who didn't know the old continent is Europe,the most powerful continent).America without oil is like a fish on the land,which slowly dies.You depend on the oil from Russia and other countries.

Devastatin Dave

09-26-2006, 14:20

(with the all others i want to say the old continent,for those who didn't know the old continent is Europe,the most powerful continent).
The American Girl Scouts of the United States could whoop Europe's collective ass armed only with girl scout cookies and feminist pamplets.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-26-2006, 14:23

drone

09-26-2006, 15:17

The American Girl Scouts of the United States could whoop Europe's collective ass armed only with girl scout cookies and feminist pamplets.
Thin-Mints FTW! :2thumbsup:

Spetulhu

09-26-2006, 15:18

The American Girl Scouts of the United States could whoop Europe's collective ass armed only with girl scout cookies and feminist pamplets.

....both weapon classes that have been specifically banned by the Geneva conventions as cruel and inhuman.

Well, that depends om how you define your enemies, doesn't it? I've heard a lot of the "they're neither US citizens nor lawful combatants so we don't have to treat them nice" lately. :inquisitive:

Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)

09-26-2006, 18:13

drone

09-26-2006, 19:44

Someone seems to have missed the joke.

Girl Scouts of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Scouts_of_the_USA) and for grins, Girl Scout cookies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Scout_cookies)

I'll not link to feminist pamphlets, but I'm sure you can find some through Google.

Take a deep breath, and :laugh4:

Devastatin Dave

09-26-2006, 20:16

Someone seems to have missed the joke.

:
What joke? Those thin mints in the right hands make Ricin look like mouth wash. :laugh4:

drone

09-26-2006, 20:19

What joke? Those thin mints in the right hands make Ricin look like mouth wash. :laugh4:
The trans-fat is usually fatal by the fourth bag. :skull:

Xiahou

09-26-2006, 21:23

In response to this story, Bush says he's going to declassify the April NIE so people can get the whole story...

This (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/26/must-see-video-karzai-responds-to-reporters-question-about-terrorism/) page has some video highlights from the press interview with Bush and Karzai where he announces it.

Spetulhu

09-26-2006, 22:22

In response to this story, Bush says he's going to declassify the April NIE so people can get the whole story...

What, by declassifying only selected parts of it? :inquisitive:

Mooks

09-26-2006, 22:45

The homefront demands #1 attention with ANY country.

Iraq was not worth 1 soldiers life. End of discussion.

Tribesman

09-26-2006, 23:15

What, by declassifying only selected parts of it?
Damn , you beat me to it .:laugh4:

Strike For The South

09-26-2006, 23:21

Xiahou

09-26-2006, 23:23

What, by declassifying only selected parts of it? :inquisitive:
Seems fair- that's what the leaker did. :wink:
Anyone think we'll see any investigations on who's behind this latest politically motivated leak?

Pannonian

09-26-2006, 23:39

Seems fair- that's what the leaker did. :wink:
Anyone think we'll see any investigations on who's behind this latest politically motivated leak?
It's not much of a leak - we knew this would happen even before the war. Iraq would want to split up, but the neighbouring countries won't allow Kurdish independence, the Shia majority will mean increasing Iranian influence in the region, the occupiers wanting neither civil war nor Iranian influence and thus will be forced to remain there at ruinous cost, nascent American imperialism confirmed by the invasion and occupation leading to increasing terrorism at home, etc. All of that was predicted before the war, summed up in the phrase "grabbing the tiger by the tail" - holding on annoys the tiger ever more, while letting go results in a savaging by the tiger. No good choices now, but all this avoidable if we hadn't grabbed the tiger by the tail in the first place.

Have you read the Blair Iraq interview I linked to on page 2? Note the points raised by the interviewer and the audience, and note the date. Edit: It's actually on this page.

Pannonian

09-26-2006, 23:43

Seems we had a relatively decent relationship/understanding with many of the countries we are now fighting in until we were invited by terrorists to come and fight them in the countries they were hiding in. Had the countries harboring terrorists taken care of them, contained them or at least told them not to piss off the US too bad, everything would have been relatively the same. Instead they couldn’t control what was happening within their own boarders (or were encouraging it, $25,000 bonus to the family of a suicide bomber) thereby inviting the most hated country in the world to come over and make a stinking mess out of everything. Don’t want the US to stomp around your country, screwing everything up; don’t give us a reason to notice you.
Do you have cites for Iraq offering $25,000 to the family of a suicide bomber who had attacked the US?

yesdachi

09-27-2006, 00:43

Do you have cites for Iraq offering $25,000 to the family of a suicide bomber who had attacked the US?
Not the US, but our allies. Wanna guess which one? :smile:
Here is a link to a BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm) article.

edit: the 911 report has some great info on Iraqi terrorist support.

Xiahou

09-27-2006, 00:54

Here's (http://dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf) the link for the declassified key judgements from the NIE.

Im not sure where Democrats were trying to go with this... it's pretty clear about the fact the withdrawing from Iraq would be a catastrophe and the importance of winning.

Louis VI the Fat

09-27-2006, 00:58

The American Girl Scouts of the United States could whoop Europe's collective ass armed only with girl scout cookies and feminist pamplets.Do send them over. I'll surrender my arse to your girl scouts... :wink3:

Pannonian

09-27-2006, 01:15

Not the US, but our allies. Wanna guess which one? :smile:
Here is a link to a BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm) article.

edit: the 911 report has some great info on Iraqi terrorist support.
Do you provide this defence service for all your allies? Pakistan has provided the radicalism for the London bombers, and they've recently come to an agreement with the Taliban not to pursue them. Since we are commonly described as your closest allies, could you do us a service and invade Pakistan as you've invaded Iraq? As Israel could not provide troops to help you invade Iraq, we regretfully will not be able to provide troops for an invasion of Pakistan either.

So will you invade Pakistan for us, your bestest and closest friends? Or does Israel hold a special place in the hearts of the Americans, that you are willing to spend half a trillion dollars to help punish one of their enemies? Imagine the tax cuts you could have had had you not invaded Iraq.

Kralizec

09-27-2006, 01:24

Do send them over. I'll surrender my arse to your girl scouts... :wink3:

How old are you Louis :inquisitive:

Slyspy

09-27-2006, 01:45

Do you provide this defence service for all your allies? Pakistan has provided the radicalism for the London bombers, and they've recently come to an agreement with the Taliban not to pursue them. Since we are commonly described as your closest allies, could you do us a service and invade Pakistan as you've invaded Iraq? As Israel could not provide troops to help you invade Iraq, we regretfully will not be able to provide troops for an invasion of Pakistan either.

So will you invade Pakistan for us, your bestest and closest friends? Or does Israel hold a special place in the hearts of the Americans, that you are willing to spend half a trillion dollars to help punish one of their enemies? Imagine the tax cuts you could have had had you not invaded Iraq.

Very true. All the while countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are allies of America the "War on Terror" is doomed to failure. Hey, Pakistan ticks all the right boxes on the who to invade list:
a) Military regime after overthrow of democratic govt. Check.
b) Known to possess WMDs. Check.
c) Known to harbour terrorists, with or without official sanction. Check.
d) Identified as a source of direct threats to the West and/or regional stability. Check.

Devastatin Dave

09-27-2006, 02:37

Do send them over. I'll surrender my arse to your girl scouts... :wink3:
Naughty, naughty.... I'm sure he means the Den mothers.:laugh4:

Papewaio

09-27-2006, 02:37

Very true. All the while countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are allies of America the "War on Terror" is doomed to failure. Hey, Pakistan ticks all the right boxes on the who to invade list:
a) Military regime after overthrow of democratic govt. Check.
b) Known to possess WMDs. Check.
c) Known to harbour terrorists, with or without official sanction. Check.
d) Identified as a source of direct threats to the West and/or regional stability. Check.

But Pakistan plays Cricket therefore unchecked (and this over-rules all other options). :laugh4:

yesdachi

09-27-2006, 04:30

Do you provide this defence service for all your allies? Pakistan has provided the radicalism for the London bombers, and they've recently come to an agreement with the Taliban not to pursue them. Since we are commonly described as your closest allies, could you do us a service and invade Pakistan as you've invaded Iraq? As Israel could not provide troops to help you invade Iraq, we regretfully will not be able to provide troops for an invasion of Pakistan either.

So will you invade Pakistan for us, your bestest and closest friends? Or does Israel hold a special place in the hearts of the Americans, that you are willing to spend half a trillion dollars to help punish one of their enemies? Imagine the tax cuts you could have had had you not invaded Iraq.
Pakistan is not our enemy?!? Their president, Pervez Musharraf, is meeting with W and Afganistan’s leader, Karzai Wednesday and I think we are doing the right thing by talking with them, isn’t that what everyone wants the US to do, talk before we take big footed action?

Why try and diminish the relationship the US has with Israel when all you really should want is to encourage the US to have a similar relationship with more countries. Your dislike of the Israel/US relationship is lost on me.
America treats Israel better than they treat me :cry:

Any money I would have gotten from tax cuts (probably none) if we stayed out of Iraq wouldn’t have been worth spit if we weren’t safe. Didn’t someone recently post the economic repercussions of the 9/11 attacks, I’d say half a trillion dollars is too much but in comparison, not all that bad.

Pannonian

09-27-2006, 11:02

Pakistan is not our enemy?!? Their president, Pervez Musharraf, is meeting with W and Afganistan’s leader, Karzai Wednesday and I think we are doing the right thing by talking with them, isn’t that what everyone wants the US to do, talk before we take big footed action?

I was applying your logic. If Iraq should be invaded because it paid 25,000 dollars for suicide bombers who attack Israel, shouldn't Pakistan be invaded because it's the training ground for terrorists who attack Britain? Or does Israel matter more than anyone else in the American estimation of things?

Why try and diminish the relationship the US has with Israel when all you really should want is to encourage the US to have a similar relationship with more countries. Your dislike of the Israel/US relationship is lost on me.
America treats Israel better than they treat me :cry:

I think it's bizarre how Americans seem to treat Israel with greater patriotism than they do their own country? Israel is inconvenienced or insulted? No expense or effort should be spared by Americans to bring these nasty people to justice. What does the US gain from the unconditional support they provide for Israel? Does Israel provide military and political support for the US elsewhere?

Any money I would have gotten from tax cuts (probably none) if we stayed out of Iraq wouldn’t have been worth spit if we weren’t safe. Didn’t someone recently post the economic repercussions of the 9/11 attacks, I’d say half a trillion dollars is too much but in comparison, not all that bad.
I thought the canard that Iraq was linked to 9/11 was well and truly discredited by now. Even Bush has admitted, when asked what the link between Iraq and 9/11 was, "Nothing". You've put your country another half a trillion into debt, not for your own security, but for another country's, and alienated yourself from all your other allies into the bargain. Perhaps you should ask Israel to provide troops and planes when you ultimately decide to deal with Iran - goodness knows you've paid enough for them. We have nothing left in reserve, no military, no money, no political clout, no political will, so you'll have to stop relying on Britain to provide the facade of respectability.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-27-2006, 13:16

I was applying your logic. If Iraq should be invaded because it paid 25,000 dollars for suicide bombers who attack Israel, shouldn't Pakistan be invaded because it's the training ground for terrorists who attack Britain? Or does Israel matter more than anyone else in the American estimation of things?

It woud be courteous of us to apply more leverage on Pakistan than we do. I suspect we're being "kinder/gentler" because we suspect an inherent fragility in his control and don't seek to create another mess by pushing too far. By-the-by, I never thought the 25k per bomber was anything but marketing when it came to the decision to invade Iraq.

I think it's bizarre how Americans seem to treat Israel with greater patriotism than they do their own country? Israel is inconvenienced or insulted? No expense or effort should be spared by Americans to bring these nasty people to justice. What does the US gain from the unconditional support they provide for Israel? Does Israel provide military and political support for the US elsewhere?

You're exaggerating a bit here, of course, but there is a substantial portion of truth in what you bring up. We do have elements in this country who take an almost "blank check -- here you go" attitude to their support of Israel. Israel has been an ally for decades, but hardly a perfect one.

I thought the canard that Iraq was linked to 9/11 was well and truly discredited by now. Even Bush has admitted, when asked what the link between Iraq and 9/11 was, "Nothing".

Though his detractors tried to demand such a link to justify any attack on Iraq, I don't recall Bush ever making that link -- though he clearly put in effort to link Iraq and AQ (and there was such a link, but calling Iraq a key supporter of the AQ network would have been and was stretching things).

You've put your country another half a trillion into debt, not for your own security, but for another country's, and alienated yourself from all your other allies into the bargain. Perhaps you should ask Israel to provide troops and planes when you ultimately decide to deal with Iran - goodness knows you've paid enough for them. We have nothing left in reserve, no military, no money, no political clout, no political will, so you'll have to stop relying on Britain to provide the facade of respectability.

Pan-man, you better than most are aware of how silly the use of Israeli troops would be (though I HEARTILY agree with you that they owe us that much and more) for a host of political reasons. You are not merely our fig leaf of respectability. There are many here in the USA, myself included, who are angered at the half-arsed way this war against international terror is being fought. Iraq is consuming many resources and the brain trust who should have been ready for a post-Saddam Iraq was blithely faithful in a "we're liberating France again" model -- without even a government in exile to help stave off chaos -- and therefore screwed the pooch. We can and must do better.

As to our alliance with Britain:

We value you immensely -- but like many marriages tend to take you for granted when we should not.

We should not simply issue policy directives to you, at least not without giving you the opportunity to do the same from time to time, and expect you to come to heel -- and some of our leaders have.

Reagan should have bit the bullet, taken the hit in Latin America (where we needed and need to do a lot of fence mending anyway), supported you full-out and not merely done the reconsat stuff for Maggie down in the Falklands. Had I been President, your Harrier jocks would have been doing ground support -- because no Argie, however brave (and they were), would have gotten past the Tomcats. We should have, for past services rendered and for future services necessary -- that's the way the game is played.

yesdachi

09-27-2006, 13:52

I was applying your logic. If Iraq should be invaded because it paid 25,000 dollars for suicide bombers who attack Israel, shouldn't Pakistan be invaded because it's the training ground for terrorists who attack Britain? Or does Israel matter more than anyone else in the American estimation of things?

I think it's bizarre how Americans seem to treat Israel with greater patriotism than they do their own country? Israel is inconvenienced or insulted? No expense or effort should be spared by Americans to bring these nasty people to justice. What does the US gain from the unconditional support they provide for Israel? Does Israel provide military and political support for the US elsewhere?
You must be right, apparently Israel matters more. :rolleyes:
Maybe you don’t get this but the US didn’t like Iraq (still don’t) and really wanted a reason to give them the beatdown. Not just Bush but nearly the entire country, the same people that didn’t think it would be a big flaming paper sack of camel poo, we stomped on it and made a bigger mess then we thought we would. IMO (dispute it if you like) Iraq was a threat, did have WMD’s , and needed to be dealt with. Did it get dealt with in the best way? Um, no. I don’t think anyone in the world would say it was.

By continuously supporting Israel the US keeps an ally, do we have to support them as much as we do, probably not, we don’t support Britain with as much vigor and they are still our ally, but Israel has active enemies that the US wants to move against. Location and convenience are two key factors, if Israel was located on the southern tip of Madagascar and was under constant attack by the teetsy fly, I doubt we would be as supportive, but look at who they are fighting and where they are, I don’t think our support is bizarre at all. Stop being jealous, if you want a piece of American pie just ask for it (or go to war against someone we don’t like).

I thought the canard that Iraq was linked to 9/11 was well and truly discredited by now. Even Bush has admitted, when asked what the link between Iraq and 9/11 was, "Nothing". You've put your country another half a trillion into debt, not for your own security, but for another country's, and alienated yourself from all your other allies into the bargain. Perhaps you should ask Israel to provide troops and planes when you ultimately decide to deal with Iran - goodness knows you've paid enough for them. We have nothing left in reserve, no military, no money, no political clout, no political will, so you'll have to stop relying on Britain to provide the facade of respectability.

Not another countries security but their stability, which will hopefully give us (and the rest of the world, your welcome) security. As said before, this has cost way too much, but there is no cheep and reasonable exit plan. I’ve accepted that we will be in Iraq for a very long time (and set aside a little piece of my check each week to pay for it).

When we have to deal with Iran, I doubt we will need much support from anyone (like we would get it anyway) to push a button. I don’t expect there would ever be much of a ground war or invasion/occupation of Iran, more likely a strike against their weapons facilities. I figure that ought to be enough to make them hate us for several generations, gotta have an enemy you know.

yesdachi

09-27-2006, 14:05

Nice post BTW, your opinion about our alliance with Britain is shared by me but expressed better by you. :bow:

I would like to comment on this little part…

There are many here in the USA, myself included, who are angered at the half-arsed way this war against international terror is being fought.
It is half-arsed, in part, because the country is so divided about it and everything else. We fight with ourselves every chance we can and that only divides our attention from doing anything else… full-arsed. If we were to put ourselves 100% into dealing with the war against international terror we could probably sit back in utopia next year, but we are too divided and lack a strong unifying leader. :2cents:

Scurvy

09-27-2006, 16:06

I would like to comment on this little part…

It is half-arsed, in part, because the country is so divided about it and everything else. We fight with ourselves every chance we can and that only divides our attention from doing anything else… full-arsed. If we were to put ourselves 100% into dealing with the war against international terror we could probably sit back in utopia next year, but we are too divided and lack a strong unifying leader. :2cents:

It sounds odd, but another large terrorist attack on the US would actually benefit the war on terror --> its alot easier for a country to be unified by that kind of thing (look at afganistan)

While the US is such a visablly close ally of Israel many muslim countries won't dare to be seen as allies both because of the religious divide and also "peer pressure"... i also think that while Israel is close ally (and theres no reason they shouldnt be allowed to be) it will influence the US's treatment of muslim states.... ---> pretty much the seccond paragraph of yesdachi's post...

the war on terrorism can however not be won, because everytime there is antoher battle, the terrorists gain more members, and the US looses more allies (a combination of sometimes heavy handed tactics and heavy media coverage) - maybe a lull (visible) in US military/political activity in reguards to terror would actually benefit it, because the terrorists would have less to advertise

Tribesman

09-27-2006, 17:07

IMO (dispute it if you like) Iraq was a threat, did have WMD’s , and needed to be dealt with.
Well what is there to dispute , Iraq wasn't a threat , Iraq didn't have WMDs (but you clearly don't agree with either your governments or the arms insectors findings) and it is heavily disputable whether Iraq had to be dealt with .
But hey you ain't gonna listen to that are you , you bought a lemon and are really getting used to sucking on it .

Pannonian

09-27-2006, 18:03

Pan-man, you better than most are aware of how silly the use of Israeli troops would be (though I HEARTILY agree with you that they owe us that much and more) for a host of political reasons. You are not merely our fig leaf of respectability. There are many here in the USA, myself included, who are angered at the half-arsed way this war against international terror is being fought. Iraq is consuming many resources and the brain trust who should have been ready for a post-Saddam Iraq was blithely faithful in a "we're liberating France again" model -- without even a government in exile to help stave off chaos -- and therefore screwed the pooch. We can and must do better.

As to our alliance with Britain:

We value you immensely -- but like many marriages tend to take you for granted when we should not.

We should not simply issue policy directives to you, at least not without giving you the opportunity to do the same from time to time, and expect you to come to heel -- and some of our leaders have.

Reagan should have bit the bullet, taken the hit in Latin America (where we needed and need to do a lot of fence mending anyway), supported you full-out and not merely done the reconsat stuff for Maggie down in the Falklands. Had I been President, your Harrier jocks would have been doing ground support -- because no Argie, however brave (and they were), would have gotten past the Tomcats. We should have, for past services rendered and for future services necessary -- that's the way the game is played.
We still have some influence in the world thanks to our Commonwealth links, but Iraq and Lebanon has put paid to any arguments we might make about the western way being preferable to anything else. The British people are no longer so receptive to helping America for Amerca's sake either. If we wish to continue to help our American friends (for this goes beyond alliance), we'll have to lean on the Anglophilic sections of those Muslim countries, appealing to them to help Britain for Britain's sake, while covertly aligning ourselves with American interests. If you are wise, you will listen to our advice and rebuild your political capital instead of splurging it on yet more confrontation.

yesdachi

09-27-2006, 18:40

Well what is there to dispute , Iraq wasn't a threat , Iraq didn't have WMDs (but you clearly don't agree with either your governments or the arms insectors findings) and it is heavily disputable whether Iraq had to be dealt with .
But hey you ain't gonna listen to that are you , you bought a lemon and are really getting used to sucking on it .
Lemons taste like freedom. :pleased:

They were a threat (the degree could be argued), they did have WMD’s (we found some (old) and the rest went to Syria (not just my opinion), and they did need to be dealt with (again, the degree could be argued).

But you are correct; I’m not going to listen, because I already know I am right. :earmuffs:

BigTex

09-27-2006, 19:44

Ok.You want banned weapons.Then we will do that too.In Russia there are enough banned weapons to kill al the planets population.Europe has enough nuclear boms for all your towns.So ,no banned weapons.
BANNED WEAPONS=END OF THE WORLD

Alrighty enough talk, last I checked you still had the WWII debt to pay off. So back to work, and quit the talkin.

Everything these days will piss off a muslim extremist. Least of all an actual american soldier in Iraq. Last I checked even the pope said something (to which they called it a lie was latter proven 100% correct) that led to a killing spree. I mean come on to even remotely claim that terrorism was on the decline until the invasion of afghanistan simply deny's the fact that it was invaded in response to the largest islamic terrorist attack to date. 9/11 wasnt a sign that terrorism was going to decline, it was a sign that the festering wound was turning gangrenous.:oops:

Tribesman

09-27-2006, 19:53

they did have WMD’s (we found some (old) and the rest went to Syria (not just my opinion),:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So when your government goes public and says it was wrong , you still are of the opinion that they were "right" in the first place .
Still its good to know that you don't believe your government ..well you did believe your government but don't believe them now .
hmmmmmm tasty lemon , its a pinapple ,honestly , its got juices and everything .

yesdachi

09-27-2006, 19:57

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So when your government goes public and says it was wrong , you still are of the opinion that they were "right" in the first place .
Still its good to know that you don't believe your government ..well you did believe your government but don't believe them now .
hmmmmmm tasty lemon , its a pinapple ,honestly , its got juices and everything .
Everyone that believes everything the government says, say aye… crickets.

Papewaio

09-28-2006, 00:41

Everything these days will piss off a muslim extremist. Least of all an actual american soldier in Iraq. Last I checked even the pope said something (to which they called it a lie was latter proven 100% correct) that led to a killing spree. I mean come on to even remotely claim that terrorism was on the decline until the invasion of afghanistan simply deny's the fact that it was invaded in response to the largest islamic terrorist attack to date. 9/11 wasnt a sign that terrorism was going to decline, it was a sign that the festering wound was turning gangrenous.:oops:

Isn't it the consenus of the USA Intelligence agencies that the Iraq war (not the Afghan one) has increased the risk of terrorism?

Seamus Fermanagh

09-28-2006, 01:34

Isn't it the consenus of the USA Intelligence agencies that the Iraq war (not the Afghan one) has increased the risk of terrorism?

Some are now reporting that the NIE in question essentially says:

Iraq has increased terror opposition.

Failing in Iraq will increase it further.

Succeeding in Iraq will dampen it.

I do not know if this is coming from people who have had/gained access to the bulk of the estimate or whether its simply apologist spin.

Xiahou

09-28-2006, 02:08

Some are now reporting that the NIE in question essentially says:

Iraq has increased terror opposition.

Failing in Iraq will increase it further.

Succeeding in Iraq will dampen it.

I do not know if this is coming from people who have had/gained access to the bulk of the estimate or whether its simply apologist spin.
That's actually in the text of the key findings- see my earlier link. I think it's a no brainer that withdrawal from Iraq would be claimed as a terrorist victory and that a stable Iraq would be a blow to terrorists. There's no doubt that Iraq is a recruiting tool- but it's also concentrating them in Iraq as well.

Like I said, I don't see why the Democrats are trumpeting this leak- it only serves to make it more clear why we have to win.

Spetulhu

09-28-2006, 02:14

Like I said, I don't see why the Democrats are trumpeting this leak- it only serves to make it more clear why we have to win.

But there's no clear strategy for teh WIN. Just some half-assed deployment of insufficient troops in an area where sectarian and ethnic tensions are moving toward a boiling point. :oops:

Papewaio

09-28-2006, 02:15

Which means more on the ground troopers with better personal training, weapons and flak jackets.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-28-2006, 02:20

Which means more on the ground troopers with better personal training, weapons and flak jackets.

Yep. Lots more yanks and lots more Iraqis both.

Kralizec

09-28-2006, 02:55

Alrighty enough talk, last I checked you still had the WWII debt to pay off. So back to work, and quit the talkin.

Switzerland has a war debt?

rotorgun

09-28-2006, 03:14

Sheesh! Maybe we should call this thread Iraq War has angered just about everybody and La-Di-Da, and also increased Islamic Terroism. I'm certainly pissed off enough about it, but then again, what does that matter to my good freind George "Dubyah"?

I can soooow not wait for the November elections! I am definately thinking non-incumbant these days. Like my old Italian freind used to say, "Vote the old crooks out, and the new crooks in." :juggle2:

Laughingly :laugh4: yours,

Divinus Arma

09-28-2006, 03:22

Sheesh! Maybe we should call this thread Iraq War has angered just about everybody and La-Di-Da, and also increased Islamic Terroism. I'm certainly pissed off enough about it, but then again, what does that matter to my good freind George "Dubyah"?

The Islamofascists will use any excuse to recruit weak-minded Muslims: The Crusades, Iraq, Christian persectution of Muslims in Inquisition Spain, U.S. Bases on Saudi Soil, Mohammed bomber-head cartoons, globalization and social change. The list goes on.

Islamofascists wanted to kill Westerners before Iraq, and they continue to do so now. 9//1, WTC 1993, USS Cole, Embassys throughout the world, Beirut in 1983, the Iranian hostage Crisis. All of these events occurred prior to Iraq.

Iraq is a roach motel and has allowed the West to choose the location and time of the fight. Rather than wait for an attack and be reactive, and rather than guess at a location, the West has been Proactive and forced the Islamofascists to fight here and now.

This is our opportunity to bring their oppressive totalitarian ideals to an end. We start here and then continue with choice military action and parrallel social support of moderate Muslim values.

Papewaio

09-28-2006, 03:28

Rhetoric.

It ain't working that well as a roach motel compared with how good a recruitment driver it is being.

Put it this way Madrid, London, Bali (second bombing) have occured all after the Iraq invasion and some of them directly state that Iraq was the reason for the terrorist attacks.

AntiochusIII

09-28-2006, 03:41

Put it this way Madrid, London, Bali (second bombing) have occured all after the Iraq invasion and some of them directly state that Iraq was the reason for the terrorist attacks.None of them are in America; which, quite frankly, is what some people actually only care about.

Not that I do, and may be America will be hit next.

But oh well.

Lemur

09-28-2006, 03:48

May be America will be hit next.
That's not very neighborly.

Tribesman

09-28-2006, 07:49

Iraq is a roach motel and has allowed the West to choose the location and time of the fight. Rather than wait for an attack and be reactive, and rather than guess at a location, the West has been Proactive and forced the Islamofascists to fight here and now.

Slight problem with that Divinus , or is it a really major flaw in that empty rhetoric , the roaches after enjoying their stay and learning about how to do terrorism are leaving your designated sub-standard motel and are movig elsewhere and taking the memories of what they learned about terrorism with them .
Strange isn't it , methods and technology developed at your hospitable motel are now spreading .
So which muppet exactly was it that decided to set up an education facility specialising in how to do terrorism ?:wall: