Overlooked Fact About The WOT

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

It is silly to think we have more “terrorists” on our hands due to liberating Iraq. It is funny that the left likes to use the term “insurgent” in Iraq for general purposes.

The only time the left refers to the “insurgents” in Iraq as “terrorists” is when they make the claim that we have created more “terrorists”.

Which is it? Are they “terrorists” or “insurgents” in Iraq.

I seriously doubt Iraqis were the ones that attacked London.

The fact is the invasion of Iraq is part of a LONG campaign to reshape the Middle East. It took a long time to fuck up the condition of the Middle East and it will take a long time to fix it.

I see a lack of understanding from the “pro-appeasement” crowd. Do you truly not understand? Are you letting partisan politics cloud your view?

I could make a better case AGAINST the invasion of Iraq and our handling of the war on terror than 95% of the drivel I see posted here, yet I still see the current handling of the WOT as the best way given the current political climate.

22

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The invasion of Iraq was launched to remove Saddam, and for strategic/economic reasons in the Middle East…

We will not win this “war on ideals” by going to war against a single country–infact we will invite more terror. Saddam was not a terrorist–evil dictator yes, terrorist no. Nor did he fund terrorsts. I would like to know where you get this idea. I beleive Secretary Rumsfeld himself had come out and stated in 2004 there was no known connection between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorists. I can tell you this, Saudia Arabia I bet has some naughty skeletons it wouldn’t want us to know about–yet we turn a blind eye because we like to drive big fat SUVs.[/quote]

Saddam funded terrorists. He paid $ 30,000 each to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. He held televised ceremonies. Saddam plotted to assassinate GHW Bush in Kuwait. That is sponsoring terrorism.

Saddams connections to al-Qaeda were small but real. Saddam took care of al Zarqawi in a Baghdad hospital prior to our invasion of Iraq. Zarqawi was wounded fighting in Afghanistan. That is called harboring a terrorist.

Saddam did not plan 9/11 and I never have made any claim that he did. Do not try to strawman me.

Saudi Arabia is a difficult situation.
Osama bin Ladens goal is to get American forces out of Saudi Arabia so he can force out the Royal family and take over. That is a stepping stone for an Islamic empire. The ultimate goal as preposterous as it seems is to subjugate every man, woman and child to Islam.

It is too risky to let him have Saudi Arabia. Oil is too vital to the WORLDS economy. America with the help of a few good allies, once again is doing the heavy lifting for the world.

And for the record we are not at war AGAINST Iraq. We are allied with the free and democratically elected governmenmt of Iraq. We are rebuilding schools, roads, water treatment plants and other infrastructure. Does that sound like we are at war AGAINST Iraq?

Your points would be valid if your facts were in order. As your “facts” are incorrect your argument is invalid.

23

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is silly to think we have more “terrorists” on our hands due to liberating Iraq. It is funny that the left likes to use the term “insurgent” in Iraq for general purposes.

The only time the left refers to the “insurgents” in Iraq as “terrorists” is when they make the claim that we have created more “terrorists”.

Which is it? Are they “terrorists” or “insurgents” in Iraq.

I seriously doubt Iraqis were the ones that attacked London.

[/quote]
Zap,

Please don’t be so naive to ignore the facts–the terrorists I am referring to are the ones being recreuited out of Europe that use the “invasion” of Iraq as a reason to wage war against the US and her allies. No, I don’t beleive the “insurgents” in Iraq carried out these attacks in London. It is our actions and the actions of the rest of our Euoropean allies that the terrorists use to justify theirs–Spain and Britian both helped invade Iraq along with some other minor players. The message has been sent and recieved; have you not been listening or just ignoring it?

24

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Indeed, usually Americans don’t give a fuck what anybody else in the world thinks. I mentioned the unpopularity of the Iraq War to underline how it has actually hurt the war on terror by
turning many more previously moderate muslims against the US not to mention being a colossal waste of resources and, more importantly, US lives.
[/quote]
Three good points here:

  1. Americans are complacent about world affairs, which in the long run hurt us
  2. We ARE creating more extremists than we are stopping;
  3. We are wasting resources on the occupation of a country when we should be using them to protect our borders.
25

It doesn’t matter whether the war was right or wrong. We are there now. And we need to remain there and be committed to improving things. But properly arming and armoring our troops would be nice. So would ditching this stupid no-bid Haliburton contract and providing some incentives for other countries to aid in the rebuilding effort.

26

Also, there were legitimate issues with Iraq and invading and getting rid of Saddam (and yes, rebuilding) may yet prove to be a good thing. But Iraq was not the biggest threat to global and American securtiy. Iran is more worrisome for a host of reasons. We were off by one letter.

27

deanosumo:

Basically your theory breaks down to the Iraq war being strictly a political decision. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion on this issue I would like to see some proof to back up this allegation.

Furthermore, I think many of your compatriots would disagree with you. Many who disagree with the war in Iraq claim it is due to the fact that Bush was simply over aggressive in his stance.

Have you a shred of evidence that the Iraq war was launched simply to improve Bush’s political standing? I stick to my claim that this did not help him and when it was launched I don’t see how anyone could look into the future and make such an assessment that it could in fact help him. Actually, it almost cost him the election!

28

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Indeed, usually Americans don’t give a fuck what anybody else in the world thinks. I mentioned the unpopularity of the Iraq War to underline how it has actually hurt the war on terror by
turning many more previously moderate muslims against the US not to mention being a colossal waste of resources and, more importantly, US lives.

Three good points here:

  1. Americans are complacent about world affairs, which in the long run hurt us
  2. We ARE creating more extremists than we are stopping;
  3. We are wasting resources on the occupation of a country when we should be using them to protect our borders.[/quote]

  1. Should America make a decision based upon reported opinions of those who inhabit other nations?

  2. What then would you do in order to not create stop terrorism and make sure that our country is safe and secure? Keep in mind we have not had even one attack on our land since the invasion!

  3. We are not wasting resources or occupying another country. We spent dollars and lives in an effort to bring democracy to Iraq. A new government has been elected by the people of Iraq. Our efforts have been somewhat successful so far. If they are successful long term we will have brought democracy to a country in the Middle East, not an insignificant event! Think about what good can come from this.

29

Lifticus,

The European based Islamic terrorists are no more the result of our liberation of Iraq than the 9/11 terrorists were.

You can say that the terror attackis IN Iraq is a byproduct of our deposing Saddam, but to blame the many acts of terror in the rest of the world on the Iraqi liberation is false.
These attacks have been going on for years and years.

How you can say Americans are complacent about world affairs is beyond me. We are more involved in world affairs than any other country.

Many have made the argument that our over involvement is the cause of these problems. Complacent, we aint!

30

[quote]ZEB wrote:

  1. Should America make a decision based upon reported opinions of those who inhabit other nations?

  2. What then would you do in order to not create stop terrorism and make sure that our country is safe and secure? Keep in mind we have not had even one attack on our land since the invasion!

  3. We are not wasting resources or occupying another country. We spent dollars and lives in an effort to bring democracy to Iraq. A new government has been elected by the people of Iraq. Our efforts have been somewhat successful so far. If they are successful long term we will have brought democracy to a country in the Middle East, not an insignificant event! Think about what good can come from this.
    [/quote]

1: While I understand we should be able to exercise our sovereignty without the supplication to other nations when the safety of our country is at stake we are still complacent when it comes to world issues. The US as a whole needs to think further than it’s own back yard–especially since our actions have repercussions around the world. For instance not just the war in Iraq but our over consumption of the worlds resources is a good indicator of the American disposition. The US makes up only 5.5% of the world population yet uses more than half of its resources not to mention is one of the top 3 polluters of the planet (China with the largest population is starting to get up there).

2: The war on terrorism must be taken as a war on public opinion. When it comes to extremist philosophies this is, no doubt, not a small task. I don?t know how we can change public opinion–I do know where we can start and it isn?t by having my Lutheran grandmother-in-law sending them a goodie-basket with her whole made chocolate-chip cookies. We can change our actions–we need not spread democracy per se but encouragement to help develop these countries so that they can begin to sustain themselves. In order for this to happen they need the basics: Food, housing, health-care, basic education–if these needs are met then the infrastructure to support them will follow. Obviously, dictatorial regimes will stand in the way of its people?s progress–with nothing more than it own greediness and power-lust. Is it our job to fight all dictatorships?

The fact that terrorists have not attacked us since 2001 has nothing to do with the war we are fighting in Iraq. This is because we are paying attention to the threats more now. Something that could have been averted had the Bush administration been more diligent in the first place.

  1. When democracy is spread with bombs it isn?t really democracy–it must be fought for internally. The Iraqi people weren?t ready for democracy–they still have a problem seeing it as merely capitalism and profiteering. We still need to change their opinion on this–hell, I sometimes need my opinion changed on this. This war that we brought to these people was not ready to be fought by them. If they wanted democracy there would be no insurgency because the many Iraqis would be taking to the streets demanding a halt to it. No, this war was in vain.
31

[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
Those of us supporting the war are NOT warmongers. We don’t BEG for a war at the drop of a hat. But we also realize that in an imperfect world, sometimes war is inevitable or is the LAST AVAILABLE OPTION. This is one of those cases. Unfortunately, some of you are so warped by media BS that you’re no longer capable of making this distinction because it requires some critical thinking on your part.[/quote]

I agree that their can be a time when war is inevitable but this is certainly not the case. And it is you that happens to be warped by the U.S. corporate media propaganda. Take your own advise and learn to critically think.

32

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lifticus,

The European based Islamic terrorists are no more the result of our liberation of Iraq than the 9/11 terrorists were.

You can say that the terror attackis IN Iraq is a byproduct of our deposing Saddam, but to blame the many acts of terror in the rest of the world on the Iraqi liberation is false.
These attacks have been going on for years and years.

How you can say Americans are complacent about world affairs is beyond me. We are more involved in world affairs than any other country.

Many have made the argument that our over involvement is the cause of these problems. Complacent, we aint!
[/quote]
No we care alot about what the world will give us when we are through. Every action we take is viewed as an investment for the future of big business–not because we are so idealistic and care about democracy–otherwise we wouldn’t support authoritarian govenments around the world. Yes we are all over the globe–mostly digging ditches to lay oil pipes and building MacDonalds, etc. Why haven’t we intervened on behalf of the many African nations to stop genocide? We need to be consistant with our actions–if we say we care about world peace maybe we should try and help it along. If the US wants to remain the “world superpower” then terrorism is what we are going to have to deal with. But if we want to help influence other people’s opinions about our idiology then we need to use action other than “sending in the marines”.

If you had a dispute with a neighbor about his kids bullying yours would you teach your kids to be bullies or would you lead by example and have a talk with the neighbor about it? This is essentially the same thing–we send the example that it’s okay to use violence to solve our disputes. Defending our borders is one thing but “liberating” a country is a competely different monster. All we are doing is sending the message that our way of life is the only and best way.

The average (read, those who fall in the middle of a normalized distribution curve) of americans don’t give two flips about what is outside their own back yard–I mean even their own communities let alone their city, state, country, or the world. My proof: We have the lowest voter turn-out of any democracy on the planet. It’s a joke to me that we try and bring democracy to another country when we can’t even bring it to our own! As a nation complacent we are!

33

Lift, I am not going to respond to your whole rant, but you bring up Africa.

The US gives more money to Africa than anyone else in the world.

The US went to Somalia to end genocide. The starvation was intentional. We ended up in a battle with that thug Aidid because he was stealing the food. Not because he needed it, but because he was trying to starve people to death.

I suggest you get out of the lab and read some books. Your posts clearly show that you do not have a grasp on what is happening in the world.

Save your generalizations about Americans. They can be applied to everybody that has ever lived.

34

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:

  1. Should America make a decision based upon reported opinions of those who inhabit other nations?

  2. What then would you do in order to not create stop terrorism and make sure that our country is safe and secure? Keep in mind we have not had even one attack on our land since the invasion!

  3. We are not wasting resources or occupying another country. We spent dollars and lives in an effort to bring democracy to Iraq. A new government has been elected by the people of Iraq. Our efforts have been somewhat successful so far. If they are successful long term we will have brought democracy to a country in the Middle East, not an insignificant event! Think about what good can come from this.

1: While I understand we should be able to exercise our sovereignty without the supplication to other nations when the safety of our country is at stake we are still complacent when it comes to world issues. The US as a whole needs to think further than it’s own back yard–especially since our actions have repercussions around the world. For instance not just the war in Iraq but our over consumption of the worlds resources is a good indicator of the American disposition. The US makes up only 5.5% of the world population yet uses more than half of its resources not to mention is one of the top 3 polluters of the planet (China with the largest population is starting to get up there).[/quote]

We are a very large industrialized nation. I wouldn’t even begin to compare the US with China, or any other country for that matter.

I think some of your ideas are quite good. However, none of them stop terrorism right now! We need to meet terrorism with force in the short term. By the way I’ll take a couple dozen of your Grandmothers cookies :slight_smile:

[quote]The fact that terrorists have not attacked us since 2001 has nothing to do with the war we are fighting in Iraq. This is because we are paying attention to the threats more now. Something that could have been averted had the Bush administration been more diligent in the first place.[quote]

I think the war we are fighting in Iraq causes our enemy to send their terrorists to Iraq instead of the USA. Otherwise, why have we not experienced any violence on our shores since 9-11. As my Grandmother used to say: “The proof is in the pudding!” It either works or it doesn’t.

I think you are partially correct on this one. It was a bit premature, not the move I would have made had I been President. With that said, it was not a bad move either. There is currently and elected government which was voted on by the people, and Saddam is in jail. Those are two very good things.

Obviously the insurgents are causing problems. However, I don’t see that lasting as I think the people will eventually get fed up with them killing their own people. The sooner we can leave the better (but not prematurely)The key is to do two things:

  1. Recruit and train a strong Iraqi military and police force.

  2. Motivate them to wrap their arms around democracy and never let it go.

35

“I suggest you get out of the lab and read some books. Your posts clearly show that you do not have a grasp on what is happening in the world.”

Zap, have you been following this guy’s historical views? He doesn’t have anything straight about his own country, doesn’t understand the history of his country, his state, or his community, and he comes on and criticizes Americans for not knowing enough about other countries.

In the academic setting, this is called “a lack of perspective”.

In real life, one says: “Are you fucking kidding me with that horseshit?”

“Save your generalizations about Americans. They can be applied to everybody that has ever lived.”

But then who can we sneer at? Non, non, I cannot accept that!

36

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lift, I am not going to respond to your whole rant, but you bring up Africa.

The US gives more money to Africa than anyone else in the world.

The US went to Somalia to end genocide. The starvation was intentional. We ended up in a battle with that thug Aidid because he was stealing the food. Not because he needed it, but because he was trying to starve people to death.

I suggest you get out of the lab and read some books. Your posts clearly show that you do not have a grasp on what is happening in the world.

Save your generalizations about Americans. They can be applied to everybody that has ever lived.
[/quote]
Yes Zap I know about Somalia, I know about Ethiopia, just as I know about countless other countries like Togo, Tanzania, Rwanda, Sudan, etc that we have not stood up for. Feeding people should not be our only mission nor should it be monetary aid–but protecting them from their own govenments as well. The UN as a collective stood up and said no thanks to Rwanda when they needed help in 1994 and we listened to the Govenments of Belgium and France concerning the issue. Funny how we didn’t listen to them when it came to our own interests in Iraq.

As far as my generalization concerining the disposition of the common American it serves as agrument why we should not be so quick to instill democracy in other countries when we can’t convince people here that it is important. If “Rock the Vote” won’t work then what will–enforcing it?

37

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Obviously the insurgents are causing problems. However, I don’t see that lasting as I think the people will eventually get fed up with them killing their own people. The sooner we can leave the better (but not prematurely)The key is to do two things:

  1. Recruit and train a strong Iraqi military and police force.

  2. Motivate them to wrap their arms around democracy and never let it go.
    [/quote]
    I agree–now that are there it’s too late to turn back. This would deffinitely be irresponsible.

1: This is a no brainer and I think this is something we should be abel to do relatively well. If the USMC was successful training me then it should have no problem with training others as well.

2: This one is more difficult because I feel that democracy is completely against their basic idiology. One, the majority of Muslims don’t give a hoot about individual rights–most of them just want to live and be left alone and pray or whatever they do on a daily basis; obvioulsy this is a generalization but an important one.

Also how do we get them to quit seeing democracy as an evil American capitalist machine–this I beleive is our biggest hurdle. They think we want them to become like America and sell themsleves out to the American way of life. I tell you the minute we even think about sending a MacDonalds our efforts will be in vain.

38

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Lift, I am not going to respond to your whole rant, but you bring up Africa.

The US gives more money to Africa than anyone else in the world.

The US went to Somalia to end genocide. The starvation was intentional. We ended up in a battle with that thug Aidid because he was stealing the food. Not because he needed it, but because he was trying to starve people to death.

I suggest you get out of the lab and read some books. Your posts clearly show that you do not have a grasp on what is happening in the world.

Save your generalizations about Americans. They can be applied to everybody that has ever lived.

Yes Zap I know about Somalia, I know about Ethiopia, just as I know about countless other countries like Togo, Tanzania, Rwanda, Sudan, etc that we have not stood up for. Feeding people should not be our only mission nor should it be monetary aid–but protecting them from their own govenments as well. The UN as a collective stood up and said no thanks to Rwanda when they needed help in 1994 and we listened to the Govenments of Belgium and France concerning the issue. Funny how we didn’t listen to them when it came to our own interests in Iraq.

As far as my generalization concerining the disposition of the common American it serves as agrument why we should not be so quick to instill democracy in other countries when we can’t convince people here that it is important. If “Rock the Vote” won’t work then what will–enforcing it? [/quote]

Basically we should protect people from their own governments in all these places, EXCEPT Afghanistan and Iraq?

We had no business liberating those people? We have no business building schools, hospitals and water treatment plants?

I do not think you understand our militarys mission. We are not at war against the democratically elected governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. We are trying to help them defend themselves while we help them build their infrastructure that deteriorated so badly when they were ruled by tyrants.

Honestly I do not understand your logic. Do you truly believe we are still trying to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan into submission?

Just because we cannot aid all of the people in the world at the same time we are bad guys? Because we prioritize missions based on national security and protecting the global economy from disruptiuon we are in the wrong?

39

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Basically we should protect people from their own governments in all these places, EXCEPT Afghanistan and Iraq?

We had no business liberating those people? We have no business building schools, hospitals and water treatment plants?

I do not think you understand our militarys mission. We are not at war against the democratically elected governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. We are trying to help them defend themselves while we help them build their infrastructure that deteriorated so badly when they were ruled by tyrants.

Honestly I do not understand your logic. Do you truly believe we are still trying to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan into submission?

Just because we cannot aid all of the people in the world at the same time we are bad guys? Because we prioritize missions based on national security and protecting the global economy from disruptiuon we are in the wrong?
[/quote]

If we had gone into Afghanistan before 2001.09.11 do you think we would have had the trouble we did? We knew about the Taliban and al Quaida before 2001.09.11. In fact we only went into Afghainstan after we were attacked. We could have kept this thing small scale and used our special operations forces as we are now. This would have sent a better message.

Waging a full scale operation (still not considered a war by congress) against Iraq served no purpose because it was already in check with the no-fly zones and trade embargoes. Do not mistake my anti-Iraq war sentiment as weak and misguided. Places like Sudan will surely become places that harbour terrorists if we do not take action to thwart that sadistic government. Nowhere on any of my posts have I stated I am against the US protecting its interests. I merely suggest that our interests need to be questioned.

40

[quote]ZEB wrote:
deanosumo:

Basically your theory breaks down to the Iraq war being strictly a political decision. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion on this issue I would like to see some proof to back up this allegation.

Furthermore, I think many of your compatriots would disagree with you. Many who disagree with the war in Iraq claim it is due to the fact that Bush was simply over aggressive in his stance.

Have you a shred of evidence that the Iraq war was launched simply to improve Bush’s political standing? I stick to my claim that this did not help him and when it was launched I don’t see how anyone could look into the future and make such an assessment that it could in fact help him. Actually, it almost cost him the election!

[/quote]

Not just a political decision Zeb, (certainly a strategic one, arguably an economic one) but politics did come into it.

I believe Bush and his advisors thought the war would be more popular than in turned out to be. Indeed, public support for the war once hit 70%! Of course, it’s languishing in the 40’s now.