Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 18, 2008 13:45:05 GMT -4
Not with me right now Jason. I'm reading "Bad Astronomy" and a few moon books. But I have no doubt that you support all the previous actions of your government. Lets leave it at that for now. Well you would be wrong, but let's defer that debate to another day.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 18, 2008 13:54:09 GMT -4
You are unimaginative about alternatives. Invading a country is not one of only two alternatives. Possibly trying another alternative before invading would be preferable.
How many future attacks could have been prevented by concentrating our effort on those who actually did attack us? Gosh, we don't know the answer to that one, either.
Almost without doubt, more Iraqis are dead now than would have died under Saddam. I'm not saying he was a good guy, but don't you dare discount all the civilian deaths that have happened since the invasion.
Unknown. Certainly not the dead ones.
I think our war on terror should be a war on terror. We shouldn't have to make up other reasons for prosecuting the war on terror. Some imagined happy Iraqi future isn't exactly a prime objective of the war on terror.
And perhaps you are thinking conventional war is the only way to deal with an enemy?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 18, 2008 14:36:20 GMT -4
Here's a little tidbit from the "Mission Accomplished" speech.
President George W. Bush:
The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.
Iraq = 9/11. You can't have it both ways. The president has always played the 9/11 card with Iraq.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 18, 2008 15:37:42 GMT -4
Like I said, 9/11 showed the damage terrorists can do. Iraq was invaded to prevent their support of terrorists. That's the link. Anyone who thinks the President was trying to link Saddam and Al Qaeda is hearing what they want to hear, not what he said.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 18, 2008 15:45:55 GMT -4
You are unimaginative about alternatives. Invading a country is not one of only two alternatives. Possibly trying another alternative before invading would be preferable. What alternative would that be? We had given Saddam the last ten years to clean up his act and he never did. With 9/11 the U.S. finally had a reason to clean up the mess we'd left after the first Gulf War, and I'm glad we took it. So are you saying it's a worthless contribution, since we can't know? I think that can be disputed. Saddam caused plenty of death on his own, and if he had been left to his own devices he could have easily equalled and exceeded the number who have died. Where are the terrorists coming from? The Middle East. Why is the Middle East the source of these terrorists? Because it is an area full of strong-arm dictators who take all the income they get from oil, the only resource of consequence they have, and use it for their own ends rather than benefiting their countries. Their people are oppressed, see no opportunity in this life, and begin to look more towards the next. They view the complascence and sometimes outright supoprt of the West of their corrupt governments as their true enemy and decide to strike against it. So how does changing a dictatorship into a democracy help fight terrorism? It gives the US a presence in the middle of our enemies and threatens the dictators with a working example of a different form of life. They will be forced to tone down their rhetoric and pay more attention to the needs of their people when they see the Iraqis benefiting from good government next door. Perhaps real change and reform can finally find a foothold in the Middle East. Plus defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq is a win in the war on Terror. Losing to them would be a disaster. You're the one who said we were distracted by Iraq. If you don't think the conventional forces are more needed somewhere else then they might as well stay where they have important work to do.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 18, 2008 16:34:11 GMT -4
Like I said, 9/11 showed the damage terrorists can do. Iraq was invaded to prevent their support of terrorists. That's the link. Totally unsupported by evidence. As that liberal media bastion, the Christian Science Monitor did? Uhm... are you connecting Iraq and 9/11 again? How is it that 9/11 gave us a chance to do something in Iraq? According to you, we already had everything we needed. I'm saying we have done nothing to prevent Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda from attacking us in the future. So the current policy, in addition to the 4,000 lives lost in Iraq, may contribute to additional U.S. losses due to our lack of attention on the actual perpetrator of 9/11. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we started the war there.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 18, 2008 16:39:29 GMT -4
There are better, smarter and more effective ways to deal with terrorists. Invading a country that had nothing to do with terrorist acts on U.S. soil was not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 18, 2008 16:47:10 GMT -4
From the Rand Corporation: Taking the fight to terrorists abroad — as America did by invading Afghanistan and by continuing efforts against terrorists worldwide — makes sense. But Iraq is a separate and special case, because many of the combatants killed or captured by American and allied forces in Iraq are insurgents created by opposition to the U.S. invasion itself. They have little to do with the jihadists that the United States has been actively hunting since 9/11, although some have been converted to al-Qaida's ideology since joining the resistance.www.rand.org/commentary/013005PPG.html
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 18, 2008 16:49:21 GMT -4
Totally unsupported by evidence. What is unsupported? That this is what President Bush was trying to communicate? That's what I always understood from his comments. Yep. You don't have to be liberal to get things wrong. Everything except the motivation. Before 9/11 terrorists were generally viewed as a law enforcement problem. The '93 WTC bombing was the most successful foreign terrorists had ever been in the US. 9/11 showed that terrorists really could do serious damage to the U.S. That provided the motivation to finally take some real action in fighting its sources. You really think nothing has been done to prevent further attacks? Al Qaeda may have not had a sizeable presence before the war, but they are certainly there now. If we lose the war now, they will be the ones who claim a victory.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 18, 2008 16:55:15 GMT -4
But Iraq is a separate and special case, because many of the combatants killed or captured by American and allied forces in Iraq are insurgents created by opposition to the U.S. invasion itself. And I suppose these guys would have been sitting home growing flowers in Syria or Saudi Arabia, not harming a fly on the wall, if the U.S. hadn't invaded? Keep in mind that the majority of casualties in Iraq have been Arabs killing Arabs, not Arabs killing Americans or vice versa. And many were terrorists who weren't necessarily part of Al Qaeda long before they journeyed to Iraq to fight the Americans.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 18, 2008 17:08:45 GMT -4
Al Qaeda may have not had a sizeable presence before the war, but they are certainly there now. If we lose the war now, they will be the ones who claim a victory. This is just an acknowledgement that the whole thing was a colossal mistake from day 1.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 18, 2008 17:12:48 GMT -4
Al Qaeda may have not had a sizeable presence before the war, but they are certainly there now. If we lose the war now, they will be the ones who claim a victory. This is just an acknowledgement that the whole thing was a colossal mistake from day 1. Well I don't think it was a colossal mistake from the beginning, though mistakes were definitely made, but the facts of the matter are that not winning now would be a colossal mistake.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 18, 2008 17:22:55 GMT -4
Wishful thinking. They had no presence in Iraq. Iraqi kids were not killing Americans before we invaded. As to the Bush Administration linking Iraq and 9/11, here are some winners: George Bush: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,"www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/VP Dick Cheney said victory in Iraq "will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/10/as_war_toll_climbs_bush_still_deceives/... George W. Bush (from Mission Accomplished speech): "We have removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding."www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/sprj.irq.bush.speech/index.htmlVP Dick Cheney: Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5215019/... George W. Bush 2/2003 radio address: "Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad." Give it up, Jason.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 18, 2008 17:38:21 GMT -4
Not with me right now Jason. I'm reading "Bad Astronomy" and a few moon books. But I have no doubt that you support all the previous actions of your government. Lets leave it at that for now. I've been ignoring his posts for weeks now, because it's better for my mental health, but I can assure you that Jason does not support all the previous actions of his government. Anything Clinton did, for example, was wrong.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 18, 2008 17:40:41 GMT -4
Give up? Never! I see I should have been somewhat more precise in my language. The original claim made by the Christian Science Monitor Piece was that President Bush was trying to link 9/11 to Iraq. Linking 9/11 to Iraq and linking Al Qaeda to Iraq are two different things. While I believe Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, I do believe that Iraq did have dealings with Al Qaeda before the invasion. So I agree that President Bush and Vice President Cheney's statements here are correct. In earlier posts here I should have made it more clear that I meant that President Bush was never trying to link the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, not Al Qaeda. Mea culpa.
|
|