Iraq War has angered and increased Islamic terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

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…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

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

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)

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:

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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

---

Yep. Lots more yanks and lots more Iraqis both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

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?

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,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

May be America will be hit next.

---

That's not very neighborly.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That's not very neighborly.

---

I certainly don't want that to happen, by the way. It's just a possibility.

Apart from the usual humanitarian ideals -- nobody deserves to die, ever -- I have everything to lose with another economic recession and political upheaval (towards a more totalitarian state) in the United States. The brouhaha about Democrats laughing with joy at every step backwards in Iraq is just a partisan myth.