View Full Version : NIE Report: Victory in Iraq would curb spread of Jihadism
Divinus Arma
09-28-2006, 03:09
The mainstream media nd the Democrats are having a party with this:
The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.
But yet the Media is convienently ignoring this:
Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
Leaked NIE Report (http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_file_269172156)
Why is this important? And why a new thread? Because it is important to recognize that Iraq is an integral part of the War against Terrorism.
We in the West have chosen the battleground, rather than allowing the terrorists to choose the battleground.
And when we win in Iraq and bring stability and prosperity to the country, the Jihadists will face a great setback.
Does anybody remember this:
Pentagon: Bin Laden deputy complains about money, Iraq tactics
U.S. says it obtained intercepted letter
From Jamie McIntyre
CNN
Friday, October 7, 2005; Posted: 2:50 a.m. EDT (06:50 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An intercepted letter from Osama bin Laden's deputy to the al Qaeda leader in Iraq complains that the terrorist network is short of cash and faces defeat in Afghanistan, a Pentagon spokesman says.
The United States obtained a recent letter that appears to be from Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 figure, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, outlining both the strategy and concerns of the terrorist network, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.
In the letter, al-Zawahiri warns that some of the tactics currently employed by the insurgency, including the slaughtering of hostages and the suicide bombings of Muslim civilians, may risk alienating the "Muslim masses," Whitman said Thursday.
Reading from a summary of the letter, Whitman said al-Zawahiri concedes that al Qaeda has lost many key leaders, is resigned to defeat in Afghanistan, and that its lines of communication and funding sources have been seriously disrupted. Al-Zawahiri includes a plea for financial support, indicating he is strapped for money, Whitman said.
And this is interesting:
As War Over Leak Grips Washington, Al Qaeda Quails
By ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 27, 2006
WASHINGTON — On a day when much of the capital's attention was focused on leaked excerpts of an intelligence estimate report that suggested the Iraq war was creating more jihadists, the military quietly released an intercepted letter from Al Qaeda complaining that the terrorist organization was losing ground in Iraq.
The letter, found in the headquarters of Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, after he was killed on June 7, was sent to Zarqawi by a senior Al Qaeda leader who signs his name simply "Atiyah." He complains that Al Qaeda is weak both in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and in Iraq.
http://www.nysun.com/article/40461
It is clear that the NIE leak was a timed political hitjob by the Democratic leadership which failed to note the breadth of the report and the status of Iraq as integral to the War on Terror.
Clearly: victory in Iraq is absolutely essential to broader success in the Global War against Terrorism. This is something the Democrats deny, avoid, and refute whenever possible. Iraq is the central battelfield. And it is better that it occurs in Iraq and involving our military than here on Western soil involving our civilians. This is a war gentleman. We can not go back to sleep and pursue a law enforcement strategy against terrorists as the Democrats would do again.
Show courage and resolution. Do not make the error of leaders past with a policy of appeasement.
Papewaio
09-28-2006, 03:20
Now that we are there we have to finish the job.
But wouldn't it have been better to resolve Afghanistan before going into Iraq if at all. Shouldn't have Osama stayed as the number one priority rather then diverting resources to another conflict.
The intelligence community has shown that they don't have that much information.
911 and WMD in Iraq both show that the intelligence agencies educated guesses are more on the guess side of the divide.
So I say increase the feet on the ground in Iraq and the Ghan. And put Osama back on first priority. Don't bomb caves where you think he might be and hence he may be buried under half a mile of rubble. Go in and attempt to capture his skanky butt and put him in a tabloid wearing only his y-fronts like Iraqs strongman.
Divinus Arma
09-28-2006, 03:39
Now that we are there we have to finish the job.
Agreed. It is a shame that insane left elements like Sheehan have infected the Democratic party and made the party leadership blind to necessary course of action.
But wouldn't it have been better to resolve Afghanistan before going into Iraq if at all.
I agree with this statement for the most part. U.S. intelligence was flawed, but not manipulated. And these flaws led to premature action in Iraq. However, it would actually have been a stroke of genius to invade Iraq no matter what simply because it has become the focal point for the GWOT. So long as we continue and win. If we fail, then we will suffer Isalmofascism for a hundred years.
Shouldn't have Osama stayed as the number one priority rather then diverting resources to another conflict.
No. Al Qaeda is a global decentralized organization. Like the Hydra, it has many heads capable of violent bloodshed. If Osama were to die as a martyr, he may become greater in death than in life. His legend and myth will inspire others to follow his lead, just as the deaths of suicide bombers are applauded and followed as examples in Palestine. Osama must die a pathetic and unimportant death- sick and isolated as a sign of his powerlessness and his lack of favor in the eyes of Allah.
The intelligence community has shown that they don't have that much information.
About who or what? Can you clarify?
911 and WMD in Iraq both show that the intelligence agencies educated guesses are more on the guess side of the divide.
During the Clinton years, the Democratic leadership made the ill-fated decision to reduce human intelligence in the favor of technological intelligence gathering. Clinton had a large role to play in dismantling the cold war era human intel capabilities. The lessons of our subdued conflict with the Soviets would have served us well today, had we not abandoned them. Clinton should have continued reliance upon human intelligence and complimented this with the rapidly growing tecno-intel capability.
So I say increase the feet on the ground in Iraq and the Ghan.
Agree. We will be happy to have more fine Aussies by our side.
And put Osama back on first priority.
Disgaree. For reasons stated above.
Don't bomb caves where you think he might be and hence he may be buried under half a mile of rubble. Go in and attempt to capture his skanky butt and put him in a tabloid wearing only his y-fronts like Iraqs strongman.
That would certainly be ideal. However, it is better to let him fester and die a pig's death than to allow him the death of a heroic martyr. Capturing Osama would be tremendously important for propoganda reasons.
Papewaio
09-28-2006, 04:07
"The intelligence community has shown that they don't have that much information.
About who or what? Can you clarify?"
End results. They didn't have enough information to stop 911 and they were off the mark about the number of WMD (and I would say the ability to launch a missile to the UK in 30 minutes). These are two glaring cases. The international intelligence agency have also missed the likes of the London bombers while capturing non-terrorists.
It is unfortunate that a terrorist cell only needs to be successful once out of a hundred attempts while an intelligence organistation needs to be successful almost one hundred percent of the time.
Anyhow the point is that I would take any report by intelligence agencies with a grain of salt. Their track record indicates that they get it wrong to much. So another item to add would be more people to interpret data rather then just going 'Oh look we are getting more data traffic, it's either a terrorist cell or Janet Jackson had another bra malfunction."
Tribesman
09-28-2006, 07:26
We in the West have chosen the battleground, rather than allowing the terrorists to choose the battleground.
And when we win in Iraq and bring stability and prosperity to the country, the Jihadists will face a great setback.
Wow , the west had a choice, and it chose Iraq , what muppet chose that ?
Oh and change that second bit to "if" Divinus .
If we win in Iraq and bring stability and prosperity.......oh sorry , that should have been a very big IF .
Pannonian
09-28-2006, 08:28
Clearly: victory in Iraq is absolutely essential to broader success in the Global War against Terrorism.
There's a phrase that comes to mind.
If your auntie had balls, she'd be your uncle.
This is something the Democrats deny, avoid, and refute whenever possible. Iraq is the central battelfield. And it is better that it occurs in Iraq and involving our military than here on Western soil involving our civilians.
We've been hit here in London. The perpetrators explicitly said our involvement in Iraq was why they took the action they did. If you've read the Blair Iraq interview I've linked to on numerous occasions, you'll know we've warned about precisely this even before the war. Go and read it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm).
This is a war gentleman. We can not go back to sleep and pursue a law enforcement strategy against terrorists as the Democrats would do again.
Show courage and resolution. Do not make the error of leaders past with a policy of appeasement.
There's that WW2 rhetoric again. It doesn't work DA, because we know this ain't WW2. We don't agree with the aims of those terrorists. But neither do we want to invade other countries. If you want to fight the terrorists in Iraq, that's your chosen problem, not ours. We'll fight them in Afghanistan, where they originally were, and at home, where they've sprung up.
Ironside
09-28-2006, 10:20
I'm still curious how you DA is expecting to make the Republican party abandon Bush's strategy of:
"Were doing fine, stay on course". And "I can't hear you nananannananannanannanana, you traitorous freedom-hating political hack".
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and everything will be just fine. :wall:
Sir Moody
09-28-2006, 11:04
id like to know how they can produce this statment? its pure guess work of the worst kind we have no idea what victory (if attainable) in iraq will have on the Terrorists - i cant see it having any tbh
Spetulhu
09-28-2006, 13:28
I'm still curious how you DA is expecting to make the Republican party abandon Bush's strategy of:
"Were doing fine, stay on course". And "I can't hear you nananannananannanannanana, you traitorous freedom-hating political hack".
When the Bush administration mishandles the war and refuses to get in gear or give up it's not their fault. They don't need to abandon the stupid strategy as long as they can blame it on the Democrats. :juggle2:
I don't mean to be snooty but wheres that picture of the flying pigs I saw last week???
yesdachi
09-28-2006, 14:04
Two steps forward and one step back is still one step forward. I am disappointed with the way things are being done and have been done in Iraq, but I am encouraged by the progress that has been made, those that are not are just having a difficult time facing the truth that there is progress being made. Your glass can be half full too if you just wipe the “I hate Bush” film off your glasses.
i don't hate bush.
I just think victory in Iraq is a very vague concept. To win you need victory conditions, right? I would like to know what the victory conditions are. Then I measure progress more clearly. If I saw that progress (in relation to goals) was being made then I would have a optimistic glass as well ;-)
I disagree that we should have gone into Iraq at all. If we could have given half the resources we gave Iraq to Afganistan, the country would be in much better shape, and the whole idea that DA just explained could have been shown in Afganistan. I do agree it is a reasonable concept, but I just think it could have been achieved without invading Iraq. Not that I don't like Saddam Hussien, I just think the money, lives, and alliances saved could have been put to better use.
In reality though, we did invade Iraq, so our best strategy would be to stay and finish the job. I think we will win. We are superior in technology, finance, and man power. If the people of our country can stomach a few thousand more casualities of war, we will obtain victory.
Tribesman
09-28-2006, 18:34
Two steps forward and one step back is still one step forward.
Yep , Bush gave a nice speech the other week , detailing the steps forward being taken because of his global war on terror .
He cited a really good example , upcoming elections in Algeria :oops:
Did he forget who won the last election in Algeria , and who is predicted to win again this time ...what a muppet .
Unless of course he is thinking that if the military decide that they are going to reject the vote and start another round of a very very nasty war (actually it makes Afghanistan and Iraq combined look like a kiddies teaparty of a war) it will be a step forward .
Ironside
09-28-2006, 18:36
i don't hate bush.
I just think victory in Iraq is a very vague concept. To win you need victory conditions, right? I would like to know what the victory conditions are. Then I measure progress more clearly. If I saw that progress (in relation to goals) was being made then I would have a optimistic glass as well ;-)
It's something about the lines of one Iraq (no fractionation), that is stable with a democratic elected leader (that is an ally to the US).
In reality though, we did invade Iraq, so our best strategy would be to stay and finish the job. I think we will win. We are superior in technology, finance, and man power. If the people of our country can stomach a few thousand more casualities of war, we will obtain victory.
Obtain yeah, but maintain it within your stated goals? A US puppet ruling with an iron fist would be quite ironic, especially if it ends up with Barbara Bush starting Iraqi war III to remove him. :laugh4:
Pannonian
09-28-2006, 19:07
(Victory is) something about the lines of one Iraq (no fractionation), that is stable with a democratic elected leader (that is an ally to the US).
1. A stable Iraq.
2. A democratically elected government.
3. An Iraq friendly to the US.
Pick 2 out of 3.
Obtain yeah, but maintain it within your stated goals? A US puppet ruling with an iron fist would be quite ironic, especially if it ends up with Barbara Bush starting Iraqi war III to remove him. :laugh4:
Many of us were predicting either another pro-western puppet dictator or an anarchy before all this started.
It's something about the lines of one Iraq (no fractionation), that is stable with a democratic elected leader (that is an ally to the US).
Obtain yeah, but maintain it within your stated goals? A US puppet ruling with an iron fist would be quite ironic, especially if it ends up with Barbara Bush starting Iraqi war III to remove him. :laugh4:
Yes, it's possible. Like I said though, a lot more has to be done.
Major Robert Dump
09-28-2006, 19:25
While I certainly agree that vicotry would curb jihadism, and I certainly agree that we must win this war, there is one thing that upsets me about this "we're fighting them over there not over here" mentality:
The people of Iraq did not ask for this. We took their country from bad to worse with a poorly planned invasion and an incompetent rebuilding strategy. Every time an Iraqi dies, be it at the hands of the coalition, the insurgents or sectarian death squads, we run the risk of losing a few more fence sitters to the side of the badguys. Yet this pompous idea of "better to trash someone elses country than risk a hypothetical trashing of our own" is the LAST thing we need to be trumping to the country we are trying to save. It really does make me sick.
Aside from being one of the "reasons" for the war that didn't start regularly appearing until some of the other "reasons" weren't washing with the public, its a line of reasoning that makes me ashamed of my fellow citizens sometimes; what an incredible display of greed and detachment from humanity
I know, I know: countries don't have friends, they have interests, right? If we're on the top, better to stay there at all costs, right? America first, right?
The fact is, we have to win this war. With reasons for war like the one stated above, history would judge us very, very poorly were we to lose.
I agree that the job of rebuilding Iraq and making the country back into a safer place should be done before leaving. Now that no WMDs are found in Iraq, that leaves us with regime change. Leaving at this moment wouldn't be right after the mistake that has been done.
What surprises me is that there are very little news about terrorists getting caught. I know that the leaders have been caught, but I rarely see the people who work under them getting caught. There are many videos of hostages but the abductors never get caught. Imagine if this was in America or in Britain. I think terrorism (of a kind that didn't exist in Iraq before the war) wouldn't be as rampant as they are now if terrorists didn't feel that they could get away with what they are doing. After the bombings in America and Britain, investigators identified the terrorists quickly (albeit it would be nice if they could do that before the bombings, which is difficult to do). I don't know why we don't see any of this in Iraq.
Maybe there are investigators in Iraq, and the terrorists do get caught but don't appear in the news. I know that there are footages of car bombings, which could be used as clues to find anyone else involved in it. If there were more surveillance cameras in Iraq like there are in America or Britain, I think identifying the terrorists would be easier. Luckily, there are Iraqis who have reported possible terrorist hideouts in their area.
yesdachi
09-28-2006, 20:08
Cha, there is lots of things we should see but don’t from the mainstream media. Kind of disappointing but completely predictable.
Ironside
09-28-2006, 20:11
Yes, it's possible. Like I said though, a lot more has to be done.
The problem is that USA's policies so so horrendously locked. The Iraqi war has never been seen as a pure war on terror, but more as an extreme extension of US politics and that form day 1.
Bush for example has to either admit that he was wrong and try to make a severe re-direction or pray for a miracle. And he's currently prying (aka personal pride is bigger than victory).
And this extends to both parties too, most members there are more interested in the votes than to say mission acomplished and be right. And so are most of the public.
I don't think 'winning' in Iraq will alleviate any terrorist threat.
yesdachi
09-28-2006, 20:48
I don't think 'winning' in Iraq will alleviate any terrorist threat.
To who? It has already eliminated some terrorist threats.
Pannonian
09-28-2006, 21:44
To who? It has already eliminated some terrorist threats.
Pity your poor shafted allies who are at greatly increased risk thanks to our involvement in Iraq. We should pull an FDR and charge the US for our services in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Anyone see the report where the leader of al-qaeda in Iraq admits that over 4000 foreign fighters have been killed in Iraq? He then went on to call for more recruits, saying that American bases in Iraq would be a good place for scientists to further their knowledge by testing dirty bombs and biological weapons. :dizzy2:
Anyone see the report where the leader of al-qaeda in Iraq admits that over 4000 foreign fighters have been killed in Iraq? He then went on to call for more recruits, saying that American bases in Iraq would be a good place for scientists to further their knowledge by testing dirty bombs and biological weapons. :dizzy2:
Golly. His infinite concern for the well-being of the native Iraqis is truly heartening.
Pity your poor shafted allies who are at greatly increased risk thanks to our involvement in Iraq. We should pull an FDR and charge the US for our services in Afghanistan and Iraq.
You might want to look into that. You might just surprise yourself. Not to long ago to convince the British to buy a certain weapon system the United States agreed to buy a weapon system from the UK.
So its not as far fetched as you might think
Pannonian
09-29-2006, 00:57
You might want to look into that. You might just surprise yourself. Not to long ago to convince the British to buy a certain weapon system the United States agreed to buy a weapon system from the UK.
So its not as far fetched as you might think
Are you saying your government is paying us for committing our troops? Can you enlighten me further?
You might want to look into that. You might just surprise yourself. Not to long ago to convince the British to buy a certain weapon system the United States agreed to buy a weapon system from the UK.
So its not as far fetched as you might think
Its not far fetched but it is unlikely. Most of the allies contribute to few troops to make it worth it. Only the UK maybe the Ausie's have a large enough presence to make it an idea, a very unlikely to ever happen idea but its still there.
_______________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.
BigTex
Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb
Divinus Arma
09-29-2006, 04:57
Pity your poor shafted allies who are at greatly increased risk thanks to our involvement in Iraq. We should pull an FDR and charge the US for our services in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Reminds me of Monty Pthon and the Holy Grail.
"Run Away! Run Away!"
Are you saying your government is paying us for committing our troops? Can you enlighten me further?
The enlightenment must come from your own research. Nations are allies for reasons of mutual benefit.
Papewaio
09-29-2006, 06:16
For instance Australia went into Iraq to protect its wheat deal.
Pannonian
09-29-2006, 11:21
The enlightenment must come from your own research.
I was thinking that, since you made the suggestion, you may know more about the subject. Forgive me for presuming thus.
Nations are allies for reasons of mutual benefit.
I don't see much benefit in fighting a war the overwhelming majority of the British people was against, warning the PM that it would only increase the risk of terrorism. It seems some of our military are thinking the same way.
Take UK troops out of Iraq, senior military told ministers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1883784,00.html)
Iraq war was terrorism 'recruiting sergeant' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1882713,00.html)
I was thinking that, since you made the suggestion, you may know more about the subject. Forgive me for presuming thus.
Of course, to reach enlightenment one must be willing to learn.
I don't see much benefit in fighting a war the overwhelming majority of the British people was against, warning the PM that it would only increase the risk of terrorism. It seems some of our military are thinking the same way.
Take UK troops out of Iraq, senior military told ministers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1883784,00.html)
Iraq war was terrorism 'recruiting sergeant' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1882713,00.html)
Your stuck in a paradigm on the subject, and your asking yourself the wrong questions. Your looking at it from a personal viewpoint. You have to get out of your box - and look at how does your government benefit from the situation.
Sir Moody
09-29-2006, 14:44
Well good point red how DOES it benefit the biritsh people?
plain and simple - it doesnt we havent actually gained anything
Well good point red how DOES it benefit the biritsh people?
That is one you must ask your government.
plain and simple - it doesnt we havent actually gained anything
Are you so sure?
Pannonian
09-29-2006, 16:31
Of course, to reach enlightenment one must be willing to learn.
More gnomics?
Your stuck in a paradigm on the subject, and your asking yourself the wrong questions. Your looking at it from a personal viewpoint. You have to get out of your box - and look at how does your government benefit from the situation.
Some of us assumed that a deal had been struck, whereby we would help the Americans in Iraq and in return the Americans would force the Israelis to meet the Palestinians halfway, at the very least stopping settlement building while talks were held. That's the only bargain I and most other people could think of (including many Labour MPs who supported the war) that justified a major investment such as the Iraq war. If we were going to increase our risk to terrorism by taking part in something so obviously wrong, we had better solve the biggest existing drive for terrorism.
As events since 2003 have shown, there was either no such deal, or the deal was not kept, Israel continuing to enjoy unconditional support for everything they do. The events this summer confirmed this beyond further doubt.
So Red, what are these benefits you hint at? Any clues?
King Henry V
09-29-2006, 18:01
And when we win in Iraq and bring stability and prosperity to the country, the Jihadists will face a great setback.
No, no, no, this is not a question of "when" there will be victory, but "if". To argue that it is a question of when is to say that the situation is currently improving, giving one a chance to be optimistic. I don't think this is the case, and if anything, things are going to get worst.
More gnomics?
Only if your stuck in your a paradigm that you are unwilling to get out of.
Some of us assumed that a deal had been struck, whereby we would help the Americans in Iraq and in return the Americans would force the Israelis to meet the Palestinians halfway, at the very least stopping settlement building while talks were held.
Has not the United States "encouraged" Israel to reach some negotation settlements with the PA?
That's the only bargain I and most other people could think of (including many Labour MPs who supported the war) that justified a major investment such as the Iraq war. If we were going to increase our risk to terrorism by taking part in something so obviously wrong, we had better solve the biggest existing drive for terrorism.
Again Britian must look inward for some of the answers to this question. Why does Britian have a large disenfranchised immigrant community, even if most of the disenfranchisement is of their own making? Does not democracy and freedom of Speech under a fair and representive government decrease the risk of terrorism? That is the grand experiment that two governments believe is the correct course to reduce terrorism.
As events since 2003 have shown, there was either no such deal, or the deal was not kept, Israel continuing to enjoy unconditional support for everything they do. The events this summer confirmed this beyond further doubt.
Are you still stuck in the paradigm of anti-Israel thought that you have exhibited in this forum in the past? Are you refusing to acknowledge the news reports out of Israel about the dismantling of the illegal settlements?
So Red, what are these benefits you hint at? Any clues?
Again the path to enlightenment is up to you. Are you attempting to deny that Britian does not get benefits out of its allaince with the United States?
Major Robert Dump
09-29-2006, 18:13
Stop focusing on whats not working and focus on what works
Stop focusing on whats not working and focus on what works
Yes indeed the politicians in both the government and the military to need to focus on accomplishing the mission, versus the politics of saving thier image.
Pannonian
09-29-2006, 19:38
Only if your stuck in your a paradigm that you are unwilling to get out of.
Such as?
Has not the United States "encouraged" Israel to reach some negotation settlements with the PA?
This half-commitment is what we went into Iraq for? Goodness me, I thought we were worth more than that.
Again Britian must look inward for some of the answers to this question. Why does Britian have a large disenfranchised immigrant community, even if most of the disenfranchisement is of their own making? Does not democracy and freedom of Speech under a fair and representive government decrease the risk of terrorism? That is the grand experiment that two governments believe is the correct course to reduce terrorism.
Disenfranchisement does not equal terrorism. Before Iraq, we had poverty and ethnic-related problems, of the sort we had dealt with before (most notably the black problem in London). That was civil unrest. After Iraq, the unrest turned into actual terrorist action. Indeed, the London bombers explicitly cited Iraq as the primary reason for their actions, something we knew would happen even before the Iraq war. We can live with that. What we want is a fair exchange for our efforts. I can't see any such exchange, despite your nebulous hints that it's there.
Are you still stuck in the paradigm of anti-Israel thought that you have exhibited in this forum in the past? Are you refusing to acknowledge the news reports out of Israel about the dismantling of the illegal settlements?
The reports I've seen indicate that they are consolidating their hold on the West Bank, dismantling those outcrops where they are currently outside Israeli control and building where they can ensure security. This was Sharon's plan before Iraq, before even 9/11.
As for my anti-Israeli paradigm - can you elaborate on that? Do you know what my view of Israel is, regarding its status as a nation?
Again the path to enlightenment is up to you. Are you attempting to deny that Britian does not get benefits out of its allaince with the United States?
So what were they regarding Iraq? Because the terms of our alliance certainly does not require helping you invade a country that hasn't threatened you in any way.
Pannonian
09-29-2006, 19:41
Stop focusing on whats not working and focus on what works
That's why I favour pulling our troops out of Iraq immediately and sending them to Afghanistan where they might do some good.
Such as?
Such as the direction you went in this thread.
This half-commitment is what we went into Iraq for? Goodness me, I thought we were worth more than that.
That was your suggestion - it seems you are still in the same paradigm.
Disenfranchisement does not equal terrorism. Before Iraq, we had poverty and ethnic-related problems, of the sort we had dealt with before (most notably the black problem in London). That was civil unrest. After Iraq, the unrest turned into actual terrorist action. Indeed, the London bombers explicitly cited Iraq as the primary reason for their actions, something we knew would happen even before the Iraq war. We can live with that. What we want is a fair exchange for our efforts. I can't see any such exchange, despite your nebulous hints that it's there.
Disenfranchisement equates to people reaching for some way out. Violence is one of the surest indications of disenfranchisement. Iraq was just the excuse used for the violence the root lies within the disenfranchisement.
Rethorical Question - Why else would terrorism take hold in a free society?
The reports I've seen indicate that they are consolidating their hold on the West Bank, dismantling those outcrops where they are currently outside Israeli control and building where they can ensure security. This was Sharon's plan before Iraq, before even 9/11.
Again are you denying?
As for my anti-Israeli paradigm - can you elaborate on that? Do you know what my view of Israel is, regarding its status as a nation?
Ah you must discover that one for yourself. But I will give you a hint - who focused on Israel in this thread about Iraq?
So what were they regarding Iraq? Because the terms of our alliance certainly does not require helping you invade a country that hasn't threatened you in any way.
Again you must discover those for yourself. You seem to be stuck in the same paradigm as before. Explaining the benefits of the British-American alliance seems to be beyond you while your focusing soley on your paradigm.
Pannonian
09-29-2006, 21:54
Such as the direction you went in this thread.
That was your suggestion - it seems you are still in the same paradigm.
What? If what you're hinting at isn't what I've answered to, why not make your answer clear instead of talking about this paradigm and that, and saying that my government is getting kickbacks which I'm ignoring? What are you saying Britain has gained as a result of collaborating in the Iraq venture?
Disenfranchisement equates to people reaching for some way out. Violence is one of the surest indications of disenfranchisement. Iraq was just the excuse used for the violence the root lies within the disenfranchisement.
Are you equating civil unrest with terrorism? London experienced both under Thatcher, but we did not confuse one with the other. The two are different. One may turn into the other, but in the current situation there was a clear demarcation.
Rethorical Question - Why else would terrorism take hold in a free society?
When the terrorists feel terrorism is the only way of getting said free society to listen.
Again are you denying?
Are you saying we should be grateful that the Israelis did what they were going to do anyway, Iraq or no Iraq? If so, we should be grateful that Israel does what it does, and cut off all activity which is not strictly NATO-centred, since it doesn't make any difference anyway, and we might as well save us the money and effort.
Ah you must discover that one for yourself. But I will give you a hint - who focused on Israel in this thread about Iraq?
You've been hinting at things my government may have got in exchange for taking part in the Iraq invasion. I've simply told you the common opinion of what we thought the government got. The focus is on Israel because we knew Iraq was going to expose us to greater risk from terrorism, as has since proved. Since AFAIK (and probably as far as parliament knows) we haven't received any material reward for accepting this greater risk, any reward would have been political. The only reward commensurate with the risk is the settlement of the Palestinian problem, which was until Iraq the greatest recruiter for Muslim terrorists. If we were going to provide them with another cause, we should remove the main existing cause first.
That was the bargain most of us British thought had been struck, and that is the answer to your question what we thought we got for our part in Iraq. If you think it's Israel-centred in a thread about Iraq, perhaps you should give an Iraq-centred answer instead. Throughout this exchange you've not given any concrete answers at all, just mutterings of you don't understand, you'll never understand, etc. And once you've given an answer, perhaps I'll email it to those representatives who think we've been betrayed over this, who also thought an Israel/Palestine quid pro quo was what we had negotiated. Perhaps parliament can find the answer you're hinting at, once you've given them a direction to look in.
Again you must discover those for yourself. You seem to be stuck in the same paradigm as before. Explaining the benefits of the British-American alliance seems to be beyond you while your focusing soley on your paradigm.
You still haven't explained how Iraq works within our alliance. You've been criticising me throughout this exchange, why don't you explain yourself instead?
What? If what you're hinting at isn't what I've answered to, why not make your answer clear instead of talking about this paradigm and that, and saying that my government is getting kickbacks which I'm ignoring? What are you saying Britain has gained as a result of collaborating in the Iraq venture?
Why should I make it clear? You have not attempted to look into it for yourself. Do you require others to provide you information that you can easily find out for yourself?
Did I state kickbacks, I think not? I stated that in an alliance both sides gain benefit from their interactions and support of each other. Your refusal to step outside of your paradigm has lead you astray once again.
What does an ally gain for supporting an ally? It really is an easy question to answer.
Are you equating civil unrest with terrorism? London experienced both under Thatcher, but we did not confuse one with the other. The two are different. One may turn into the other, but in the current situation there was a clear demarcation.
Read what was written, not what you believed was written. If you remain in stuck in your paradigm, you will not see the words that are written, only what you think is being stated.
One of the common traits of terrorists that I have seen is that they are disenfranchise from the government in which they commit the acts against or in many cases the government they blame for their disenfranchisment in their own nation. Can you safely state that there is no disenfranchisment among the muslim immigrants within England that would not cause them to resort to violence against the state.?
Are you ignoring all other factors of the terrorist act committed in London because of the statement that they did it because of Iraq?
When the terrorists feel terrorism is the only way of getting said free society to listen.
One of the many meanings of disenfranchisment is clearly stated in your words here. That is why the rethoricial question was asked.
Are you saying we should be grateful that the Israelis did what they were going to do anyway, Iraq or no Iraq? If so, we should be grateful that Israel does what it does, and cut off all activity which is not strictly NATO-centred, since it doesn't make any difference anyway, and we might as well save us the money and effort.
Not saying that at all, just asking are you denying?
You've been hinting at things my government may have got in exchange for taking part in the Iraq invasion. I've simply told you the common opinion of what we thought the government got. The focus is on Israel because we knew Iraq was going to expose us to greater risk from terrorism, as has since proved. Since AFAIK (and probably as far as parliament knows) we haven't received any material reward for accepting this greater risk, any reward would have been political. The only reward commensurate with the risk is the settlement of the Palestinian problem, which was until Iraq the greatest recruiter for Muslim terrorists. If we were going to provide them with another cause, we should remove the main existing cause first.
Again who brought up Israel. That was a conclusion you made based upon your paradigm - the actuallity is something else entirely.
That was the bargain most of us British thought had been struck, and that is the answer to your question what we thought we got for our part in Iraq. If you think it's Israel-centred in a thread about Iraq, perhaps you should give an Iraq-centred answer instead. Throughout this exchange you've not given any concrete answers at all, just mutterings of you don't understand, you'll never understand, etc. And once you've given an answer, perhaps I'll email it to those representatives who think we've been betrayed over this, who also thought an Israel/Palestine quid pro quo was what we had negotiated. Perhaps parliament can find the answer you're hinting at, once you've given them a direction to look in.
Your still stuck in your paradigm - refusing to look at everything possible situation and answer. You want me to answer the question for you without discovering it for yourself. Interesting....
Here is another hint for you. What do nations get out of an alliance with each other?
You still haven't explained how Iraq works within our alliance. You've been criticising me throughout this exchange, why don't you explain yourself instead?
How did Iraq work with the alliance between the nations of The United States and the United Kingdom. The answer is available on the web for all to see. All one has to do is look for themselves and review the information without blinders on their eyes.
Try searching the Records of the Unied States Congress (Thomas) with the Key words United Kingdom. It just might enlighten you some.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c1095fr9Lp::
Its a small one but it gets you to the link. Try checking out why in the most recent BRAC round oversea bases were exempt from the review, there are other little tells all of a political-economic value to both nations. The International Fund for Ireland will also shed some light.
Again if you are unwiling to acknowledge that there are mutual and multiple benefits in the British-American allaince that has been in place both formally and informally for decades - its probably to difficult to to enlighten you on why the United Kingdom decided to assist completely their historical ally.
warning sarcasm fully on. Its just simply an evil plot by Tony Blair and George Bush to break Labor.
I thought this was good for a laugh- and it seemed an appropriate thread to post it in:https://img219.imageshack.us/img219/4356/6zz5.jpg
link (http://www.time.com/time/cartoons/20061001/6.html#):laugh4:
Tribesman
10-03-2006, 20:35
Pannonian , don't you get it , the benefit britain got out of its alliance with the US in Iraq was the supposed benefit of appearing to be a "major player" on the world stage again .
Unfortunately they chose to take to the stage for a very badly written barely rehearsed play , where even before the first show the critics were panning it very badly .
Now it at the point where not only the audience but the backstage crew and half of the cast are pelting the star with rotten fruit .
So the benefit Britain got out of this alliance is......bugger all really .
So the benefit Britain got out of this alliance is......bugger all really .
Money? We seem to benefit quite nicely from trade with the US, and also we get a very major power as a close ally (albeit a highly unpopular one)
Watchman
10-03-2006, 20:46
Since when did you need military alliances to trade ? :inquisitive: Far as I know businessmen over the millenia would cheerfully trade with people their realms were in open war with if they could get away with it...
Seamus Fermanagh
10-03-2006, 21:13
The Bush administration has always claimed the action in Iraq to be a component of the larger war on terror.
The benefits to all those who collude to defeat terrorists in this war are supposed to be self-evident: a significant diminshment in terrorism and the threats posed by same to our respective societies.
Thus, as conceived by those leading this effort, mutual self-interest was the predominant "payoff."
You are free to feel that Iraq isn't part of it, that terrorism isn't defeatable, and that the costs outweigh the payoff -- all arguable points, but the supposed payoff here was the same as in many strategic alliances: self interest.
Pannonian
10-03-2006, 21:56
The Bush administration has always claimed the action in Iraq to be a component of the larger war on terror.
The benefits to all those who collude to defeat terrorists in this war are supposed to be self-evident: a significant diminshment in terrorism and the threats posed by same to our respective societies.
Thus, as conceived by those leading this effort, mutual self-interest was the predominant "payoff."
You are free to feel that Iraq isn't part of it, that terrorism isn't defeatable, and that the costs outweigh the payoff -- all arguable points, but the supposed payoff here was the same as in many strategic alliances: self interest.
Everyone knew that Iraq had little or nothing to do with terrorism that threatened the west. The 3 factors that underpinned Al-Qaeda and their like were Israel/Palestine, the most obvious cause the Islamist nutters can find recruitment for, Saudi Arabia, whose royals fund fundamentalism among the masses to direct their attention outwards, and Pakistan, where the fundamentalism is nurtured. To deal with Islamism, these 3 factors had to be dealt with, and just about everyone knew it. Pakistan's government is relatively sane compared to what may replace it if toppled, so we did not expect much movement there. Few would grieve if, paraphrasing the London mayor, the House of Saud were hanging from lampposts, but we did not expect that to happen, and the US was already putting pressure on them, so there wasn't likely to be much movement there. So what else was there for us to hold out for?
The obvious answer was a solution of the Palestinian problem. That was what we assumed was the bargain Blair struck with Bush: we'll support your position on Iraq, you'll support our position on Israel. We'll accept the increased risk of terrorism that invading Iraq will cause (you've seen the Newsnight interview), but only if you eliminate one of the existing major factors. Hence we were surprised by the lack of movement in that area, and disgusted by the unconditional support for Israel in the recent troubles that showed nothing had changed, and we had not a whit of influence on the matter.
In reply to the inevitable accusations that will be aimed at me, may I point out that some Israeli analysts actually see bilateral talks as Israel's best chance of achieving lasting peace and security (and hence eliminate Palestine as one of the 3 factors), and that the Likud line perpetuates unrest and conflict. However, in the manner we have grown used to (and tired of), if we do not unreservedly support the neocon line we must therefore support the polar opposite, if we do not support the Israeli government's actions, we must therefore oppose the state of Israel and are anti-semites descended from Hitler.
Redleg has pointed ne to the Thomas website, but considering the search he advocates produces over 100 results, with no perceivable ordering, and few immediate details, I'll refrain from spending hours going through them. If he has concrete details as he hints at on what Britain received for its Iraq participation, may he post a direct link or state it in plain English.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-04-2006, 03:53
Everyone knew that Iraq had little or nothing to do with terrorism that threatened the west.
Many US citizens believed Iraq was a supporter of terror in the Middle East, and feared than an Iraq in possession of WMD's would have become an armory for the terrorists. Was this information based on shaky -- and sometimes dead wrong -- sources? Yes. However, your statement presumes a level of understanding that did not exist here among the larger body of the population.
Add to that a direct link between AQ and Iraq (which in retrospect appears much more tenuous) and an administration that was already predisposed towards Sadam's removal, and the failure to process intelligence properly is more easily understood.
Are the bulk of British citizens that up on international politics? Talking to far too many of my countrymen, I find myself forced to explain some things that are pretty basic...and it's not that they're unintelligent, they simply don't bother to pay attention. One of my pet peeves....
Redleg has pointed ne to the Thomas website, but considering the search he advocates produces over 100 results, with no perceivable ordering, and few immediate details, I'll refrain from spending hours going through them. If he has concrete details as he hints at on what Britain received for its Iraq participation, may he post a direct link or state it in plain English.
If you can not determine the political benefit that England has gained for its support of the United States by researching the Thomas website, you will not accept the answer that I would give you. Telling someone information that they are unwilling to accept does absolutely no good, you must discover it for yourself.
Did you happen to notice the increase by the United States to the International Fund for Ireland that got by congress by an overwhelming vote?
There are other tells if one bothers to do the research.
Tribesman
10-04-2006, 07:50
Did you happen to notice the increase by the United States to the International Fund for Ireland that got by congress by an overwhelming vote?
A rare time when our whore of a leader was actually honest , he said yes to the US because of the money .:no:
yesdachi
10-04-2006, 13:46
A rare time when our whore of a leader was actually honest , he said yes to the US because of the money .:no:
We left it on the nightstand.:laugh4:
yesdachi
10-04-2006, 19:57
Here is a quote from today for ya.
"You are mistaken if you assume that the Iranian nation will stop for even a moment from the path toward using nuclear energy due to your nagging," Ahmadinejad told supporters, drawing chants of "Death to America!" from a crowd in Hashtgerd, outside the Iranian capital, Tehran.
I think it would be a great idea to let them have a nuclear weapons program.
Papewaio
10-05-2006, 01:16
Wow and I thought the UN had the market cornered on nagging.
"Look if you in the don't stop killing each other we are going to get very upset, send you a letter (with an apology for sending you the letter), and then blame some other country for what you have done."
Tribesman
10-05-2006, 01:24
We left it on the nightstand
Nope , you are leaving it on the apron , still .
It helps Bertie with his split up of a centralised state body . As long as the WOT continues the main beneficairy doesn't have to worry about normal business , it can just leech its share thom the US government .
For some in Ireland the neverending WOT is a good thing , lots of money for no loss .
All they need to do now is hope you end up with another useless muppet in the US running the show
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.