For calling me ignorant and a fule (sic), simply because you misread my post.
Rtf:
Well to get semantic we have something “on the order of several hundred thousand troops” in Iraq right now.
It’s about 150k, right?
That is in the same order.
And, I’ll repeat. What makes you think this is not enough when the guy in charge over there says it is?
How do you know better than the guy doing it? Why on earth would he trun down more troops if he didn’t have enough?
There’s massive civil disorder in Iraq? Uprisings? Rioting? Looting? Lawlessness? I wasn’t aware that civil disorder was a serious problem at this point.
Could you show me?
Oh, and I do think it’s pretty self-evident that the guy on the scene managing things, at the present is in a much better position to know what he does and doesn’t need than some guy in March guessing at hypotheticals.
But since their answers are close enough I guess it doesn’t matter, does it?
The current US Ambassador over there right now seems to agree:
Full article, here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94749,00.html
So yes, while it’s true that we have some newspaper reporters, Senators, and Presidential candidates saying there’s not enough troops, the people on the scene think there are, and the ambassador on the scene says the country is not in civil disorder.
These people should know. No offense, but Senators, candidates, reporters, and you are not in the same position to know and judge.
Or perhaps the people on the scene have their necks to lose.
Regardless, I don’t see how this point relates to making the US safer.
The point was made in the OP, so I’m assuming it’s on topic.
Here’s the COmmander’s credentials.
http://www.centcom.mil/aboutus/cdrbio.htm
Looks tight to me, but I’m not qualified to judge.
How about you?
Well one must admit that the amount of money spent on security in mainland US was staggering. It certainly will keep out some terrorists… and tourists… and exchange students.
Determined terrorists will get thru thou... security guards wont stop them... only good intelligence work and good allies (if any are left.)Well, there’s a big whole in the New York skyline, which I think qualifies as an example of terrorists operating out of Iraq in a meaningful way.
Clearly though, you refer to Iraqi terrorists operating outside of Iraq.
I was under the impression that the asassination attempt on Bush the senior originated from Saddam.
But, that’s not really the issue either. The issue was Iraq aiding terrorists.
The subject is whether or not we are safer. Iraq and Saddam’s capacity to aid and train terrorists has been pretty much nullified.
We are safer in that regard.
That he was aiding terrorists was widely reported previous to the war. Powell remarks on it here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.un/
True enough. But there’s even less chance of him invading anybody now, don’t you think?
No, but they are absolutely perfect as terrorist weapons.
He won’t be doing that now, will he?
Which is pretty strong evidence that terrorists are in Iraq.
Clearly the US is much safer fighting them in Iraq then, say… New York City.
True enough. Every time we use a resource it is unavailable for use elsewhere at that time.
Military standards according to an unnamed friend of mine at the Army War College in Carlisle PA is that the US maintains forces to fight two seperate conflicts on two seperate fronts and defend the homeland.
The rational behind having enough for two seperate conflicts is exactly to counterract the danger you suggest. While we engage Iraq we are still capable of addressing other threats.
I grant you that the number of threats we can address is one less than it would be if we were not in Iraq and therefore we are less safe in that respect. But, addressing and eliminating threats is what makes us safer so this looks like a wash.
I
Mahasamatman.
Sam, the small problem with the “Bring it on” comment is that terrorists are exactly the ones who are more likely to bring it on, since they have nothing to lose.
Scylla, the terrorists weren’t in Iraq before. The US either dragged them in or homemade them like moonshine.
How do you know they weren’t there before?
But, dragging them in and fighting them in Iraq is safer than fighting them in NYC.
Downright slippery, Scylla. As I’m pretty sure we’ve discussed, the question of the “assassination” attempt on George the Elder has attracted some doubt, most especially Mr. Seymour Hersh, who raised such doubts in his story for the New Yorker. We discussed this, remember? To my knowledge, no attempt has been made to refute his account of the matter.
But, just as you say, it isn’t really relevant. So why did you bother to mention it? If it were anybody else, one might suspect you were trying to squeeze some mileage out of the implications,without having to defend an actual assertion.
How so? Why should we assume that only Saddam had the capacity to train and aid terrorists? Truth be known, there is no evidence that Saddam aided and trained terrorists. Unless you have some, and have neglected to advise the CIA.
And remains widely reported. As well as highly dubious. Not to forget highly unlikely. However, you are correct as far as that goes, it was, indeed, widely reported. So was Bigfoot.
Yes, I do. There is very little chance of Belgium invading Holland, to ravage thier windmills and plunder thier cheese. If we were to nuke those stinking Belgies, there would be considerably less risk.
Well, thats certainly a relief! He also won’t be in a position to contaminate our precious bodily fluids, either.
We haven’t the slightest evidence that Saddam posed a military threat to the US or our allies, especially given the laughable performance of his dreaded military machine. Hell, if we could have talked them into it, the Bulgarians might have been able to beat them on thier own.
As to the threat of Saddam abetting terrorists, it is another conjecture equally unhindered by fact. Which pretty much leaves the threat of voodoo curses from Satanic rituals in Baghdad. Of course, we have no evidence of that either. But we are certainly safe from them now.
Are you sure about that?
OK well there are two things I don’t have to apologise for. I do believe you have shown serious ignorance in your posts here, so I cannot apologise for that. The “any fule kno” thing is not calling you a fool, it is a humourous phrase from Molesworth. Admittedly a British cultural thing, so I do apologise if you did not pick up the reference, but it basically means “as anyone knows”.
What I thought you wanted me to apologise for was my concern that you were implying something sinister by highlighting the fact that Ba’athists were “mostly Islamic.” Which is like saying that Democrat Party Members are “mostly American.” Or Nigerians are “mostly black.” I found it both bizarre and strange that you said this. If you meant no ill by it, then you have my apology for that.
What?
Did you mean terrorists operating out of Afghanistan? There have been no links found between Al Qaeda and Iraq, nor any between 11 Sept and Iraq.
Links were found between the Afghanistan-based Taliban and Al Qaeda, hence the military action there. But nothing with Iraq.
What?
Did you mean terrorists operating out of Afghanistan? There have been no links found between Al Qaeda and Iraq, nor any between 11 Sept and Iraq.
Links were found between the Afghanistan-based Taliban and Al Qaeda, hence the military action there. But nothing with Iraq.
I think Scylla’s trying to play a “clever” semantic game with this out of Iraq thing, pretending that ‘out of Iraq’ should be read as ‘outside Iraq’ instead of ‘based from Iraq’. Kind of misses the point, no doubt intentionally, as he’s succeeded in deflecting attention away from the fact that he had no answer to the original challenge. Bait and switch.
I also must say that his attempt at indignance at the suggestion that Iraq is lacking in civil order falls rather flat. Apparently he missed RTFirefly’s link indicating that civilians in Baghdad are being killed at an extremely alarming rate. Apparently 45 bodies at the morgue per day as opposed to 20 prior to the war doesn’t indicate any problems. Perhaps Scylla doesn’t think the lives of those people matter? I have a hard time understanding how that many violent deaths could not be indicative of mass disorder. I suppose we should all just swallow everything that comes out of Centcom without any concern that they might be spouting propaganda.
I must say, the analysis of Bush supporters in this thread is rather painful to read. Compared to these strained rationalizations, there are probably watertight cases to be made that the Pope is Jewish.
Why would you think that fighting the terrorists in Iraq prevents them from fighting us in NYC?
Instead I’d say we are simply making ourselves vulnerable to terrorists who can’t afford plane tickets to America. There is no reason that the ones who can get to America would go to Iraq.
To make an anology it would be akin to having a hand singed by a fire and then deciding to put a mostly fireproof glove on and sticking your hand into the fire in order to not get burned.
Paul Bremer, US administrator of Irak:
So all the US invasion has achieved is to create one more front, one more problem. The invasion did not resolve any problems, it just created more.
And now the USA, in a very arrogant move, asks the UN to cooperate but the USA still wants to be in command and control. Not surprisingly the UN will let the USA stew in this Iraqi mess for a while.
OOps, forgot the link