War On Terror

[honeybee]

This year, rather the past month or so, there have been some important developments in the ongoing war on terror by the USA and her allies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

1. The US forces have almost completely pulled out of Iraq.
2. The US forces are scheduled to pull out of Afghanistan by next year end.
3. The seeds of democracy may have been sown in Iraq, however the government is still very fragile. As of now I doubt if there's a government at all (technically).
4. A similar political situation exists in Afghanistan, where the Karzai government does not seem to wield any influence outside the sphere of the NATO forces.
5. Pakistan has experienced some of the worst natural disasters by way of the devastating floods.

Considering these developments I think this year and the next are going to be defining periods not only for the Asian subcontinent but also for the world. Of late, Iraq and Afghanistan have been the focus of intense military, political and social battle. With the US forces leaving these countries, the military vaccuum and the resulting political fragility are, IMO, a recipe for disaster. The chances of Al Qaeda and Taleban regrouping and re-staking claim to power in both these countries is very real now.

Pakistan has already been devastated by the floods. With all the resources focussed on mitigating the damage done by the floods, if the Taleban mount an aggressive insurgency, I doubt if the military or the political establishment will have enough reserves/strength left to challenge them. The floods is a good opportunity for the extremists to capture power. If that happens, the nuclear arsenal will fall in the hands of the extremists.

I would like to know other views of this situation.

.

[MarMan]

Pulling all forces out of Iraq may be OK now, but not Afghanistan. The bad guys need someone to fight. With no easy to find Americans nearby (the Army) they will have to come to the states to kill us (civilians). Care to speculate on what the next 9/11 will be?

[FunkyDexter]

Care to speculate on what the next 9/11 will be?

Saturday. I'm going camping.

While having the US army abroad may attract fire away from the civilian population, it doesn't provide a long term solution to the problem. In fact it exacebates it, breeding further hostility to the US, creating more terrorists. It's a vicious circle. Sooner or later you have to pull the troops back or accept a permanent state of war and an ongoing trickle of military deaths (nb, I don't mean to belittle the deaths with the word 'trickle' and I use it as a comparison to the single big event of 9/11). What the solution to that dilema is I really don't know but my hunch is that we need to accept that terrorism is a domestic rather than a military problem. That's not palatable as implicit in that acceptance is a further acceptance that some terrorist acts are going to occur on US soil and US civilians are going to be killed but I'd argue that a greater investment in homeland security rather than the military will ultimately end in less American deaths than an ongoing occupation of foreign territory. Not a pleasant thought.

HB, I think you're right. The next couple of years are going to be as defining as it gets and I'm not optimistic. I think Iraq might turn out OK (though that's far from certain) but I don't hold out much hope for Afghanistan unless some serious prorss is made soon. And I'm afraid the lack of Western response to the floods in Pakistan has probably sent an unfortunate message to the Muslim world about our willingness to invade vs our willingness to help out. Thankfully the response from the public has far outstripped the response from Governments.

[System_Error]

I'd argue that a greater investment in homeland security rather than the military will ultimately end in less American deaths than an ongoing occupation of foreign territory.

Agreed.

I would like to know other views of this situation.

The problem with the war(s) on terror is that we can win the military battles, but in the end the situation ultimately rests with the locals. If they don't want what we want, then our work is in vain. All we can do is sit back, wait, and hope things work out in our favor.

[honeybee]

I think Iraq might turn out OK (though that's far from certain) but I don't hold out much hope for Afghanistan unless some serious prorss is made soon.

I am much more worried about Pakistan falling into the hands of the extremists. The democracy situation there, IMO, had been improving a bit of late. The major reason I am worried about Pakistan is the nukes. Afghanistan doesn't have them, and Iraq doesn't have them. The conflicts in those two countries could probably be contained within the geographical limits. However Pakistan has now become some sort of a wall street bank that cannot be allowed to fail. Because it has nukes (and even the non-nuclear arsenal should be massive compared to Iraq/Afghanistan), and they will be targetted at India the moment they fall into the wrong hands. Not because they hate India, but because that's the easiest way to provoke a violent reaction.

.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

The problem with the war(s) on terror is that we can win the military battles, but in the end the situation ultimately rests with the locals. If they don't want what we want, then our work is in vain. All we can do is sit back, wait, and hope things work out in our favor.

If only the last President could have figured this out before the War, he could have saved America a few Billion, and you could have just gone straight to the - sit back, wait, and hope things work out in our favour bit !

[Nightwalker83]

If only the last President could have figured this out before the War, he could have saved America a few Billion, and you could have just gone straight to the - sit back, wait, and hope things work out in our favour bit !

The last president! Who was that?

I think that nut job Terry Jones (or whatever his name is) likes starting wars. Maybe next 9/11 the US could lock people who like putting fuel on the fire up.

[System_Error]

If only the last President could have figured this out before the War, he could have saved America a few Billion, and you could have just gone straight to the - sit back, wait, and hope things work out in our favour bit !

No, if it never happened then we could sit back and worry about our own well being and not care about Iraq.

The last president! Who was that?

I think that nut job Terry Jones (or whatever his name is) likes starting wars. Maybe next 9/11 the US could lock people who like putting fuel on the fire up.

People can burn flags without much reaction.
Muslim's can intentionally incite anger and then play victim.
But a guy cannot burn quran's because he's taken so much heat from the government and citizens.

[Nightwalker83]

People can burn flags without much reaction.
Muslim's can intentionally incite anger and then play victim.
But a guy cannot burn quran's because he's taken so much heat from the government and citizens.

Don't forget that most Muslims are good people the same going with people from other religions. Burning the Quran would attack the whole population even if they have nothing to do with the right-wring nut jobs such as Bin-laden, etc.

[honeybee]

People can burn flags without much reaction.
Muslim's can intentionally incite anger and then play victim.
But a guy cannot burn quran's because he's taken so much heat from the government and citizens.

Are you trying to say the act/call to burn Qoran is justified?

A sign of maturity is that whenever you face an obstacle, you analyse the reasons behind it and how best to overcome it. A sign of immaturity is a knee-jerk reaction to every adverse thing.

If your girlfriend/wife is mad at you, she would likely resort to verbal volleys and probably get physical, such as slapping you. A knee jerk reaction would be to give it all back to her. A mature reaction would be to probably take all that abuse and sit through it all till her anger subsides and then try and reason with her. I definitely know the approach of giving it back to her would certainly cause the conflict to get worse.

Similarly in a society, specially one that's made up of diverse cultures, people must learn to exercise the same amount of restraint, individually and also collectively. Burning the Qoran or launching a mass appeal for the people to do it will only make matters worse. And the question whether the Muslims do it and get away with it becomes irrelevant then.

.

[honeybee]

If only the last President could have figured this out before the War, he could have saved America a few Billion, and you could have just gone straight to the - sit back, wait, and hope things work out in our favour bit !

I paused to think over this comment after my last post. Something else that struck me after reading this is that George Bush Jr took a decision and stood by it even when the lies behind the decision had been exposed. While Obama has decided to pull out the troops before the mission has been accomplished, more out of political and economic reasons than anything else. I see conviction in GWB's decision to invade, while I smell political correctness in Obama's decision to pull out. But then perhaps a promise made to the American people is more important than a promise made to the Iraqi / Afghani people.

Another question: Is the US really in a position to initiate and sustain such military campaigns abroad? On the economic front, though it may not be publicly admitted, I suspect the overall conditions are making it unsustainable for the US to continue both the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then on the political front, the government (and so the people) are unwilling to take any losses of life in battle. One of the reasons of fighting the war away from the homeland is people will soon start losing the focus. If you asked the general population after the 9/11 attacks if they were ready to invade Iraq/Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda and the WMDs, a whopping majority would have said Yes. Today if you ask the same population, you may not find as many backers who will vote for the campaigns to continue till they have reached their logical ends. The losses are too great now to justify the campaigns.

Which military leader would announce his plans for the next year in advance? That's another interesting question I have.

.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I see conviction in GWB's decision to invade, while I smell political correctness in Obama's decision to pull out.

What !!!!????

So you see conviction in a President who used false evidence to Invade Iraq who had no part in 9/11, and America and the UK had no business going to War with, and you admire his conviction for a false cause ? You admire his conviction when basically telling lies ? that seems to be a bizarre thing to admire.

But also you "smell political correctness" from Obama, who is a president who has inherited a War, would rather not have been in Iraq in the first place, knows his economy is in trouble, knows that the war effort has cost billions already and is trying to get out as fast as he reasonably can.

Even America can ill afford to be in 2 wars of this size at the same time, and in the current economy can you really blame him for not wanting to spend money on these Wars ?

That seems a bit of a warped judgement to me !

But then perhaps a promise made to the American people is more important than a promise made to the Iraqi / Afghani people.

Well Yes is the short Answer, he is the President of America, not Iraq or Afghanistan. I suspect if you ask any American they would expect there President to to Look after the American People first above anyone else.

Also if you look at that statement closely would the Iraqi or Afghan people expect there leaders to honour any promises to America or any other country ahead of there own people ?

[honeybee]

Yes, I admire GWB for his conviction (though I hate him for the very decision) because he stuck to the purpose (whether it was really WMD or it was the Iraqi oil). He probably would have seen it through till the end. Obama sadly doesn't share the same conviction. Even if it were a mistake to invade Iraq on false pretexts, the time for deciding whether it was the right decision or not is long past. The only option was to stay put and erradicate the militants completely. If I remember correctly this was what was discussed on a thread right after the Iraq invasion was announced, that the US would have to see this through till the end for it to achieve any results.

It seems to be turning out to be another American whim or joke that was played at the cost of the lives of thousands of Iraqis.

Being politically correct is good for people who simply want to suck up to their superiors or make themselves popular. Leaders, on the other hand, must have conviction.

.

[MarMan]

If you asked the general population after the 9/11 attacks if they were ready to invade Iraq/Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda and the WMDs, a whopping majority would have said Yes. Today if you ask the same population, you may not find as many backers who will vote for the campaigns to continue till they have reached their logical ends..

I agree. Most people make decisions based on emotions, not wise thinking.

Terrorists attacked NY. Let's get them.

Then we fight back, some of our guys get killed, then they say...

Americans are getting killed, pull out.

If we followed the voice of the American people, we would be in poor shape because almost none of them have any clue as to national security, military strategy, or economic success. They just say what they feel, as they should. But it is a mistake to act on how you feel without careful thought.

Example: If left up to thier own, some people wouldn't install smoke detectors until a family member died. That's why building codes require them, for thier own safety. People don't backup thier computer data until they lose something important. Our very nature of survival causes us to be wired in such a way we defend against what is immediately threatening us. this is why sleeper cells are so effective.

Then the question becomes what to do? Sit back and let innocent people get killed? Some people prefer that approach. Be pro-active? Some people prefer that one. The question basically boils down to who gets killed, military people or civilians. Do sit back and let them slaughter tourists? Civilians n other countries? Tell Americans traveling abroad good luck and watch your back?

There were two attacks on NY before we became proactive. None since. People don't notice none, then just focus on the loss of the war. Politicians want votes. Obama is bring troops home to get votes, not do the right thing. People will like him for the saving of troops' lives and no one will notice the result until we get hit at home again.

But hey, that's life.

[FunkyDexter]

I understand the point that, if you separate the morality of going to war from the motivation for staying or pulling out, then Gerorge Bush's 'conviction' for staying could be seen as more admirable (or less cynical). I think, though, that Bush's stance was just as equally politically motivated. Once he'd taken the decision to go to war, whether that was right or wrong, it was politically impossible for him to pull out until the decision was exonerated. He needed either WMD to be found or a full blown, whiter than white democracy to emerge. Neither of those happened so he couldn't pull out without acknowledging a defeat and that would be political suicide.

Obama pulling out can also be seen as politically motivated. It gives him a point of difference from the one the Republicans were irrevocably locked into by the original decision to go to war.

I suspect the truth is that both men are partly motivated by politics and partly motivated by their moral compasses. The left has a history of being doves, the right has a history of being hawkish. It's unsurprising to find that the leaders of those political camps exhibit those tendancies. They will have been drawn to a like minded organisation from the moment they entered politics.

[MarMan]

Well said!

[Shaggy Hiker]

There were two attacks on NY before we became proactive. None since.

Ok, let's look at that statement. Is it true? Yes, but only because you mentioned NY. There were three more terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11, and a fourth that is being called a terrorist attack. There may have been others stopped by law enforcement rather than military action. The two that were stopped only by the citizens were the shoe bomber and underwear bomber. The third one, which was not stopped, was Mr. Anthrax. Of course, the word terrorism is coming to mean only Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism, which would exclude the anthrax attack, which would otherwise be terrorism under ANY definition. Lots of people also count the Ft. Hood shooting, but I see that as just another case of workplace violence. Everybody who goes on a random shooting spree at work has some justification that they assert, and religious beliefs are one of the more common reasons. There have also been other arrests of groups with various plans for various terrorist attacks which have been thwarted by police (or the terrorists own incompetence). Oh yeah, I guess I forgot the more recent incompetent attempt to detonate a bomb in NY, so your statement is false in every way.

Of course, you might say that there have been no further attacks of the magnitude of 911, but there haven't been attacks of that magnitude in the history of the US, so no new attacks in the next 200 years would maintain the same rough average.

You are right that it is all based on emotion. Only the Iraq war was based on reason. Misguided reason, but reason none the less. The attacks on 911 keep getting run out as the justification for whatever militant act we choose to take, and will probably be used as such until nobody is left alive who remembers what the WTC even looked like. What people are overlooking is that:

1) Most terrorists are incompetent nitwits.
2) There have been MANY attacks on the US, and there continue to be.
3) Half of them are performed by christian fundamentalists (the second largest terrorist attack is still OK City).
4) Fear is one of the most powerful tools a leader can use to incite their followers to blind obedience even unto death.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The left has a history of being doves, the right has a history of being hawkish.

Actually, they just have reputations that way. Both sides tend to act in the opposite fashion. Since the right has a reputation for being hawkish, they tend to propose more military cuts because they won't take a beating for doing so. Since the left has a reputation for being dove-ish, they tend to build up the military and get no credit for doing so.

In the case of the US:

WWI: President Wilson-liberal, democrat.
WWII: President Roosevelt-liberal, democrat.
Korean War: President Truman-liberal, democrat.
Vietnam War: President Kennedy, then Johnson-both liberal democrats.

You can even go back to the Civil War, which was started under Lincoln, a liberal republican (the two parties switched positions on most points between then and the 60s).

I'm not surprised that the conservatives proved to be so bad when they finally got to start a war. After all, they lacked experience.

[Nightwalker83]

A couple of days ago an Australian (Queenslander) posted video of himself burning a page of both the Quran and bible on Youtube.

[honeybee]

... What people are overlooking is that:

1) Most terrorists are incompetent nitwits.

The twin towers, or the recent Mumbai attacks are definitely not an example of incompetent nitwits. While our police forces (who have virtually no experience of dealing with terrorism per se, other than investigating bomb blasts) were put to shame by about ten men, probably a lesser number managed to hoodwink the (then) existing security checks and procedures in the US to take flying lessons, organize the attacks and then carry them out. It was sheer luck (or some 'irrational' decision making) which averted more major disasters (the flight headed for pentagon or the terrorist caught alive by the Mumbai police). I have to admit that when it comes to planning and execution, the terrorist groups have so far scored much better than any armed forces. Even the suicide bombings are testimony to the power of execution of the terrorists.

Re FunkyDexter, that's exactly the point I have been trying to make. Whether right or wrong, once the decision to invade Iraq was made, Bush had the capability to see it through. If he had had his way it would only have been a matter of time before the insurgency in Iraq was stamped out. He would at least have left behind a country where people don't have to worry about being blown up night and day. His obsession would actually have become a virtue in case of a conflict.

I would conclude that in both these conflicts, the US has been the first to blink. That is surely going to encourage the militants. In their zeal, the attacks on the ground will be renewed with more vigour. This is the problem where the US will actually allow Al Qaeda and other similar terrorist outfits to foster in Iraq, something that Saddam had managed to avoid.

Sure, Obama may score a few rating points by pulling out the troops. But he sure has squandered away any opportunity of actually winning this conflict and really emerge as the world leader.

.

[Pradeep1210]

I still wonder whether 9/11 was really a terrorist attack or a controlled demolition? The way we saw it on TV, it was falling straight down and so smoothly. I would have expected it to tilt to either sides by a degree or two at-least if not more, and damaged the nearby buildings. Did the twin towers know that they don't have to damage the nearby buildings when falling down?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Re FunkyDexter, that's exactly the point I have been trying to make. Whether right or wrong, once the decision to invade Iraq was made, Bush had the capability to see it through. If he had had his way it would only have been a matter of time before the insurgency in Iraq was stamped out. He would at least have left behind a country where people don't have to worry about being blown up night and day. His obsession would actually have become a virtue in case of a conflict.

Load of nonsense, Honeybee you seem to have this misguided idea that anything bush did was for the good of Iraq, Bush's only consideration was in removing Saddam Hussain, at the time he had no plan other than that. It was only afterwards once his commanders realised the mess they would leave behind that policy changed. He would have quite happily left immediately if he could have got away with it politically.

Bush would have seen the war through as long as it was politically helpful to him, if he was in a similar position to Obama now, then he would probably be looking to get the troops out as well. There is less support from American Public now as well to stay in Iraq regardless of who is in charge, it has been a long time.

I have to say i do not understand this admiration you have for Bush's 'conviction' , do you have similar admiration for Mugabe or Ahmadinejad, both men of conviction ?

[honeybee]

Well, I never said I believed Bush invaded Iraq for the good of Iraq. I thought I had mentioned that enough number of times here.

The sole reason I believe Bush might have been better handling this conflict than Obama is that he stood firm even when his lies were exposed. I guess my stand about this is also clearly outlined in the previous posts.

As for Mugabe or Ahmedinejad, they don't receive the same exposure as GWB received, so I cannot comment on my opinion on their convictions.

Pradeep, the twin towers are gone. There's little point debating now if it really was a terrorist attack or a staged demolition. Just as Iraq has been invaded and there's little point discussing if it was the right thing to do or not. We should be focussing now on whether the pullout decision is the right thing to do now or not.

NeedSomeAnswers, I don't prefer GWB over Obama or the other way round. Personally I wish every politician were sent off to moon with just enough fuel to reach halfway there, so we could continue our lives peacefully. So please don't think I am trying to favour one over another.

Just like in case of the wall street biggies who could not "be allowed to fail", the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a conflict that cannot be allowed to fail.

.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Personally I wish every politician were sent off to moon with just enough fuel to reach halfway there, so we could continue our lives peacefully

Well that is a sentiment that i can agree with !

I still wonder whether 9/11 was really a terrorist attack or a controlled demolition? The way we saw it on TV, it was falling straight down and so smoothly. I would have expected it to tilt to either sides by a degree or two at-least if not more, and damaged the nearby buildings. Did the twin towers know that they don't have to damage the nearby buildings when falling down?

There has been so much information debunking the controlled explosion conspiracy theory that it is untrue. It is fun sometime seeing what the latest crazy conspiracies that people come up with concerning the twin towers, but that is all they are - conspiracies.

Just like in case of the wall street biggies who could not "be allowed to fail", the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a conflict that cannot be allowed to fail.

Ahh given the choice over which was more important to protect, Major banks failing or Iraq, then i would bet a large sum of money most western leaders would choose the banks right now sadly.

America and the UK want to get out of Iraq, it is believed to be the more stable of the 2 countries (Iraq & Afghanistan) neither country wants the cost in money or life to stay any longer than they have to.

Afghanistan is slightly different, there is the Taliban which is a more solid enemy, something to focus on and Afghanistan is no way near ready to look after itself.

The full pull out will happen in Iraq first, probably within the next couple of years then they can focus more clearly in Afghanistan. We will see then if Iraq is ready to rule itself.

[MarMan]

Sorry you misunderstood my statement:

Oh yeah, I guess I forgot the more recent incompetent attempt to detonate a bomb in NY, so your statement is false in every way.

I have way too information then would be feasible to post in a forum such as this, so often times I leave stuff out in order to be readable. It seems here the conclusion that seems obvious to me was lost on the readers, so I will expand.

The "War on terror" is really a "War on al qaeda". That is who we target with bombs and missles, no others. The reason I mentioned NY was that was a favorite target of al qaeda. And since they have been receiving out full attention, there have been absolutely no large planned attacks by al qaeda because they are too busy hiding in caves. Of course you will always have the motivated individual who takes the initiative, and also numerous other groups. But the biggest threat has been deterred, saving how many American lives? No one knows, nor do many people even conceive that possibility.

My point being; every US service person who died in the (misnamed) "War on terror" died saving American lives. Lives that would've been lost had we not taken action. That is a FACT. (There just isn't any hard proof, but anyone with any wits about them concerning human nature, world events and common sense would see it)

I still wonder whether 9/11 was really a terrorist attack or a controlled demolition? The way we saw it on TV, it was falling straight down and so smoothly. I would have expected it to tilt to either sides by a degree or two at-least if not more, and damaged the nearby buildings. Did the twin towers know that they don't have to damage the nearby buildings when falling down?

The twin towers destroyed all near by buildings. When engineers design buildings they take into account failures, attempting to minimize damage to the building and surrounding areas (as long as it doesn't affect cost too much). The reason the towers fell straight down is twofold. One because that is part of thier design. Two because of the nature of thier failure. (Only one floor failed which caused too much weight to land on the floor beneath it. Then that floor failed, ect)

[Xanith]

3) Half of them are performed by christian fundamentalists (the second largest terrorist attack is still OK City).

I don’t recall Timothy McVey ever saying he carried out the bombing in Oklahoma City in the name of Christendom. His problem was with the government, not that he wanted to kill people in the name of a religion. Therefore I find your statement linking terrorist attacks and so called “Christian fundamentalists” to be wholly and completely inaccurate.

It’s kind of like blaming the Holocaust on Christianity because after all Hitler was born a Christian. It’s just absurd and complete nonsense and should be beneath anyone who has a trace of any intellectual honesty.

X

[Shaggy Hiker]

As for the planes knocking over the towers. Those planes weighed a few tens of thousands of pounds. The towers weighed a few tens of thousands of tons (or something like that, look it up for the actual amount). It was like an ant hitting the side of a tank. Without all that feul on board, the towers might still be standing. After all, this was not the first time. A bomber ran into the Empire State Building back in the 30s or 40s, so we do have some experience with what happens to buildings when hit by planes: They don't fall over.

@HB: A few competent terrorists don't entirely offset the fact that the vast majority have proven to be utterly incompetent. We are fortunate in that, since it is very hard to disrupt a person who is eager to die.

@MarMan: I agree that there have been no further attacks on the WTC following 9/11. Aside from the obvious fact that they no longer exist, the previous attack was nine years earlier. Therefore, the periodicity of attacks is such that there shouldn't have been another one, yet. Therefore, the assumption the wars have protected Americans from attack by terrorists, or even that particular group, is completely unfounded. The two clothing bombers were both affiliated with that group (the members of that group don't carry ID cards, so affiliation is all you ever get), and had either succeeded, there would have been a huge loss of life. They didn't fail because of troops overseas, they failed by a combination of their incompetence, and the alert and aggressive actions of fellow civilian passengers on the planes.

As for Al Queada (how DO you spell that name?), instead of hiding in caves, they were highly active in attacking the most convenient Americans they could find: The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you figure that the purpose of the troops is to be no more than an ablative meat shield, they have been somewhat effective in that role, but that certainly isn't what we ask of them, nor has it stopped attempted attacks on the US, as noted previously. Furthermore, the threat assesment out of the intelligence services for the last several years, for what it is worth, states that A. Q. is actually stronger now than they were following 9/11. If that is true, then we have gained exactly: Nothing. We haven't stopped attacks against the US. We haven't destroyed A.Q. We haven't won any measurable improvements out of either war. We haven't increased our prestige oversea. We haven't reduced the causes that turn young men to terrorism.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don’t recall Timothy McVey ever saying he carried out the bombing in Oklahoma City in the name of Christendom. His problem was with the government, not that he wanted to kill people in the name of a religion. Therefore I find your statement linking terrorist attacks and so called “Christian fundamentalists” to be wholly and completely inaccurate.

It’s kind of like blaming the Holocaust on Christianity because after all Hitler was born a Christian. It’s just absurd and complete nonsense and should be beneath anyone who has a trace of any intellectual honesty.

X

His views were well known. They were certainly not mainstream christian, but they were in that group of beliefs...whoes name escapes me at the moment. The ones that are based on the idea that Christ was white and all others were inferior. That group is anti-government, which was why he was anti-government.

Another member of that group (not one group, actually, but a collection of similar beliefs) was Eric Rudolph, who bombed the Atlanta Olympics, among other places.

They were in the chritian fundamentalist groups, and acted on the beliefs that they had which were consistent with the groups that they were affiliated with.

[shauninstein]

By pulling the war on the Iraq is fine.But pulling the war from afghanistan is not good, they are bad and they need to be treated.

The "war on terror" is otherwise known as the "war on alqaeda".Every us person died in the war is saving the american lives.

The Taliban in Afghanistan is too dangerous and they are the solid enemy to the american.

[FunkyDexter]

I'm glad this thread got resurrected but only because it meant I spotted this rather quotable couplet:-

That is a FACT. (There just isn't any hard proof

God bless you MarMan. That brought a tear to my eye. I just haven't worked out whether it was caused by pain or pity yet.

[honeybee]

I'm glad this thread got resurrected but only because it meant I spotted this rather quotable couplet:-

God bless you MarMan. That brought a tear to my eye. I just haven't worked out whether it was caused by pain or pity yet.

Laughter is also known to bring a tear or two to the eye.

@shauninstein, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. It emerged post invasion that Saddam Hussein had actually effectively prevented Al Qaeda from spreading its roots in Iraq. Iraq was invaded first under the pretext of the WMD and then, when it turned out to be false, under the pretext of Al Qaeda. We have had many a passionate debate on this during the days leading to the invasion.

So in effect I don't see how invading Iraq has made America any safer.

.

[Pradeep1210]

No WMD and no Al-Qaida; so what were the other reasons?

[MarMan]

It is difficult to see, and the effects are small. Most people only are capable of following things a level or two deep, so they can not comprehend the connections they see. Which is great, unless you are directly involved in military planning or national security.

Al qaeda and taliban fighters were being treated in Iraq hospitals, so there was al-qaeda in Iraq before the invasion, just not what you would think of as cells. Nor were they planning attacks from there. But they were being treated there.

Also Saddam was a bad man. His actions destabalized the region. Let's forget about whether the things we stick our nose in are right or wrong just for this paragraph. If Saddam started things going in the region like he wanted to (not like he did, because he did not expect it to play out as it did), we would've been there, on his terms, not ours.

And it reduced the number of suicide bombers killing innocent people in Isreal. I'm all for reducing innocent deaths. I was in the Army, and I wouldn't mind going to a foriegn country and trying to stop innocent people from getting killed. If I would've died, oh well. If you're afraid of getting shot at then DON'T JOIN THE ARMY.

I just don't like bad people, sorry for the rant.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Also Saddam was a bad man. His actions destabalized the region

The initial reasons for going to war in Iraq have been showed to be false, and the reason we then came up with was Saddam Hussein is a bad man !!???

There are lots of 'Bad men' out in the world that we have no interest in removing from power, it ridiculous to suggest that that is a valid reason. What about Myanmar ? or Zimbabwe for instance ? if that was really the reason then we are pretty selective of which 'Bad Men' we go after !

North Korea and Iran are more of a threat now then Iraq was when we went to war with them, but i dont see us invading either of those 2 countries.

I still say the Iraq war was the most ill conceived and unnecessary war that has been waged in recent times and has completely compromised the war in Afghanistan which at least has legitimacy. If we had used all our resources in Afghanistan instead of splitting them between 2 wars then we may not be where we are now.

Also ask any security consultant now about the threat level to America & Europe and it is actually higher then before we began.

Quote:
That is a FACT. (There just isn't any hard proof

God bless you MarMan. That brought a tear to my eye. I just haven't worked out whether it was caused by pain or pity yet.

[MarMan]

The initial reasons for going to war in Iraq have been showed to be false, and the reason we then came up with was Saddam Hussein is a bad man !!???

I could care less about any reasons, real or perceived. You can listen to anyone's reasons you wish to. Don't forget, every reason you hear you will have to be either:

1. Blindly accept it, OR
2. Investigated for the truthfullness of it

Two things I will not waste my time doing. And what's this:

the reason we then came up

What's this "we" stuff? I was stating a fact. Why you would twist it around is beyond me. That just proves you are not thinking clearly about what you are saying and just trying to push your opinion.

I still say the Iraq war was the most ill conceived and unnecessary war that has been waged in recent times

Thank you for your opinion. Me and all the people tortured by Saddam disagree with you. All the people he needlessly killed can't disagree with you because they are dead.

North Korea and Iran are more of a threat now then Iraq was when we went to war with them, but i dont see us invading either of those 2 countries.

My main concern is the loss of innocent human life and stopping it. Iran may come around, I see no reason to mess with them. That Korean guy does need a smack. He likes to build missles while his people starve. I wouldn't mind smashing his but. They have plenty of missles aimed at the DMZ, feed your people for Pete's sake.

[honeybee]

It is difficult to see, and the effects are small. Most people only are capable of following things a level or two deep, so they can not comprehend the connections they see. Which is great, unless you are directly involved in military planning or national security.

Al qaeda and taliban fighters were being treated in Iraq hospitals, so there was al-qaeda in Iraq before the invasion, just not what you would think of as cells. Nor were they planning attacks from there. But they were being treated there.

Also Saddam was a bad man. His actions destabalized the region. Let's forget about whether the things we stick our nose in are right or wrong just for this paragraph. If Saddam started things going in the region like he wanted to (not like he did, because he did not expect it to play out as it did), we would've been there, on his terms, not ours.

And it reduced the number of suicide bombers killing innocent people in Isreal. I'm all for reducing innocent deaths. I was in the Army, and I wouldn't mind going to a foriegn country and trying to stop innocent people from getting killed. If I would've died, oh well. If you're afraid of getting shot at then DON'T JOIN THE ARMY.

I just don't like bad people, sorry for the rant.

I presume all those claims are facts but without any hard evidence to back 'em up?

I don't want to believe that you are seriously posting all that junk. Please tell me you are kidding. Invading Iraq has reduced suicide bomb attacks in Israel? Pray tell me were there any Iraqis exploding themselves in Israel? That's a first I have heard justifying the Iraq invasion. Now that you are talking suicide bomb attacks, do you know how many suicide bomb attacks took place in Iraq when Saddam ruled? And how many took place since the Iraq invasion till date? Any idea how many 'innocent people' died in the suicide attacks in Iraq?

With your president and the defense secretary lying through their teeth to the UN about the WMDs, we saw how many levels deep they could think.

I guess your train of thoughts that derailed once has yet to get back on any kinda track.

@Pradeep, is it so difficult to guess the real reasons behind the Iraq invasion? Look at North Korea, look at Iran, look at Myanmar. Military rule, oppressive regimes, pathetic human rights record. What is the US of A doing about these regimes? There's no talk of a regime change. Precisely because these countries have nothing for the US of A. But suppose North Korea suddenly threw up some plutonium resources!

.

[FunkyDexter]

I could care less about any reasons, real or perceived.

Oh MarMan, you continue to entertain. Do keep it up.

I had to read your last post several times, because I didn't believe anyone would be so pompous as to declare that investigating the truthfulness of cause to go to war was a waste of time but, yep, that is what you posted.

Also Saddam was a bad man.

While I don't believe this is a fact (I really suggest you look up the definition of that word) and is actually an opinion, it is an opinion I think we probably all agree with. However, being a 'Bad Man' has not, I believe, ever been considered a valid casus belli for war between nations in the whole of human history.

[MarMan]

Glad you find it entertaining Dexter. I will continue to entertain. I am looking at the big picture (as how I see it) and it is difficult to explain, but I will try.

All politicians lie. That is another fact. Expecting to Believe them is foolish. So why anyone would be surprised that lie surprises me.

Often times on this planet we can not choose something good. We must choose the lesser of two evils. I would much rather choose a leader who makes a decisiion based on poor intelligence and kills a man who just kills whoever he sees fit then choose a leader who cuts your tongue out for speaking bad about him.

I also believe if people spent as much time and energy making the world a better place than nit-picking what was done poorly (they seem to forget that hind-sight is 20/20 and quite probably everyone would behave differently [mabye the Iraq war would never has started if they knew thier intelligence was incorrect, who's to say?] if they could go back in time) and focus on what needs to be done now. Most of the people who complain about what was not done right put not a single drop of effort into improving anything, they live in the past. Well if thats what floats your boat,have fun. I try to educate people, but there is a flaw to my approach, you need to be receptive to learn, which a large part are not.

While I agree with you Dexter that a bad man is not a good reason to go to war, again I would need volumes to properly explain myself. A bad man who kills thousands of innocent people and continues to do is (at least in my mind) a good reason and always will be. Even if more people die in the war, it is the only way to improve the planet in that particular aspect.

I am much more pragmatic than most, so they miss most of my points because like I said before, I am focused on the big picture, most don't care more than a few events.

And while I don't feel the need to offer "hard proof" I will offer a little guidence. First read this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml
now imagine the man dead, funds dry up. All you need is one person who would've blown himself up to get his family money now change his mind, and then that convinces me the number declined. Add a little common sense, well you can figure it out or you won't. I don't care because your belief won't effect the world too much.

KILL BAD MEN!!! YEAH!!! (I just hope noone thinks I am a bad man, then I must kill myself)

And honeybee, just because Saddam is paying them doesn't mean they have to be Iraqis, he will pay palestinians also. Assumptions like that cause all kinds of false information. Now you sound like Bush.

[Pradeep1210]

And while I don't feel the need to offer "hard proof" I will offer a little guidence. First read this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in505316.shtml

When the President of a nation can't be trusted, how can you believe the words of his Defense Secretary?

[MarMan]

Obviously you can't. He is not the only source by far. You forgot to mention for some reason not to trust CBS, because they are a source also. CBS is quoting Rumsfield and Safi. So if Rumsfeld is lying then so is CBS, CNN, TIME and Newsweek. (all sources where I received similiar information, and not just Rumsfeld quotes). Arab families also admit this, so now you think they are working with Rumsfeld? Ha ha ha ha ha. Now you gave me a good laugh!! I wouldn't post something where I have doubts or it is the only source without qualifying it. I do plenty of research on certain topics to get a good idea of what's going on. You have to frequently read between the lines. It is true that Saddam paid suicide bombers, there are many sources. I suggest you do your own research because even liars tell the truth sometimes. You can't believe me or anyone for that matter. The key here is RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH. Then research some more, because what you find out today can change tomorrow.

You need a very good analytical mind to be able to decipher what is going on. And there is always an uncertanity percentage, which can be so low as to be insignificant.