Just on the basis of what you’ve said here, shouldn’t you be drawing a big distinction between the British (who were lied to about this just as much as we were, but opposed it more strongly) and their government (which was just as duplicitous to its public as ours was, but at least didn’t believe their own lies)?
This is a whoosh, right?
Right?
Well…why? The consensus on this board is clearly that Iraq and Saddam had no connection to terrorists and none to AQ, right? So…there should be no emotional stake in Iraq at all, and in fact the terrorists seem to joyfully blow up Iraqi civilians and police/security forces with an almost fervent glee. No?
Afghanistan however definitely had ties to AQ. The Taliban supported AQ, allowed AQ to build and run training camps in Afghanistan, and even went to war for them in the end. AQ got seriously hammered in Afghanistan and the Taliban, a friendly government, was sent into exile. So…seems to me that the big bug up AQ and most of the other Islamic terrorists ass would be what the West did to Afghanistan, as well as the continued occupation of a friendly country. Iraq on the other hand is just some place to kill Americans and wack Iraqi civilians at will.
-XT
Yes, it’s a whoosh.
Yeah, I support the troops; I want to bring them home, so no more of them will die or get mutilated for life over there.
To cite recently retired four-star General Jack Keane (paraphrase of radio remarks):
So we don’t have enough troops there to do the job, but if we had any more troops there, the additional hostility they’d generate would make things even worse.
So we’ve got too few troops, and too many*, at the same time.
*OK, he isn’t saying we’ve got too many. But it seems wildly improbable that a few thousand more troops would put us over some ‘tipping point’ with respect to offending the Iraqi citizenry that we’re not already over.
Yep. And I remember “Bin Laden Determined to Strike at U.S.” Boy, that really got our C-in-C motivated, didn’t it?
Huh??
Nope.
Yeah, right. Which is why this morning’s attack caught both Britain and the U.S. completely by surprise.
Meanwhile, Bush’s CIA chief says he knows where bin Laden is, but can’t go get him, because of the political ramifications. What a wuss, huh?
And a propaganda tool for recruiting more suicide bombers.
We messed with other Muslims.
For example, say I’m not really wild about, say New York. I think they are a bunch of rude people.
But if you blow up the World Trade Center, I get pissed at you.
Again…why do you think this? Do you think that most suicide bombers come from Iraq? Is there any evidence that Iraqi’s have been involved in ANY of the suicide bombings AS bombers? How is Iraq a good place to recruite more suicide bombers, or to even rally suicide bombers to the cause? I’d say Afghanistan, home of the mujahideen and where Bin Laden got his big start is a much more emotionally charged area, especially for the terrorists we are talking about? A place where they actually had a government that supported and assisted them, where they have rallied too before (during the Soviet occupation), where they had camps and bases and homes (and a few luxury caves).
Oh, I have no doubt they are getting some propaganda milage out of Iraq…but the fury, IMHO, comes from what was done to Afghanistan. Iraq is simple a close place to go and bag your limit of Americans or maybe blow up a marketful of (Islamic) civilians in the name of god. Afaik there is no huge emotional stake about Iraq…not like the one about Afghanistan anyway which drew in hundreds of thousands of screaming fanatics when the Soviets were there.
-XT
Oh magellen, here’s another way - suddenly apropos - in which the GOP is working to save our sorry asses:
Just like the way they’re protecting our ports, our container traffic, our air cargo, our chemical and nuclear plants, etc., etc., they’re protecting our transit systems. Yup.
Last I checked, there were a few muslims here and there in Afghanistan ( 
)…and these were HELPFUL muslims, unlike the Iraqi’s under Saddam who were more secular (and, again, had no ties to terrorists or AQ). So again I’ll ask…why do folks feel Iraq is a key issue for the terrorists and not Afghanistan? I don’t even see Iraq as being more than an excuse issue for the terrorists to be honest…not in the minds of the terrorist types. WE think of Iraq as a huge issue, we have a lot of guilt and such over it (and we probably should)…but thinking about this from the terrorists perspective I’m not seeing it. Saddam didn’t support them. He was (supposedly) openly antagonistic. The Iraqi people, afaik, never went in for the whole jihad/mujahideen think, and though they are certainly muslims, I don’t see that as a plus for them…not when one looks at the increasing violence AGAINST the Iraqi civilian population by the terrorists in the last 6 or so months.
-XT
Without getting into who lied to whom… not necessarily. Had Blair lost resoundingly in the last election your point my be well taken. I realize that elections can’t always be pegged to a single issue, and the fact that Blair’s party remains in power can’t be taken as an enorsement of the war by the British people as a whole. But the British did have an oportunity to repudiate their participation in Iraq, change governments, and get the hell out. The Spanish did exactly that.
At any rate, whatever blame there is because of the Iraq war rests squarely on Blair’s shoulders. And, we don’t even know (probably never will) how much the war in Iraq was the motivation behind these bombings.
Assuming that the bombers are seeking revenge or to weaken moral resolve over Iraq, one has to wonder if Italy will be next. With the Winter Olympics being held in Torino, they make a very obvious target.
Who says they’re not both? But in any case, I think the facts that Iraq is a more recent conflict and has produced more fatalities (among Muslim civilians) would make it a higher-profile issue.
I don’t think it’s a big stretch for an Islamic terrorist (assuming that Islamic terrorists were behind today’s attacks) to go, “Those wretched Westerners are out to steal our land and destroy our culture, calling us ‘terrorists’ while they ‘shock and awe’ tens of thousands of our fellow Muslims to death! It’s time for some payback!”
Okay, a Jewish kid steals your lunch money and you beat him up. That’s cool.
Then you beat the snot out of me because I’ve got a big nose.
The other Jewish kids get pissed at you.
But not Afghanistan? I don’t see why they’d not be angry about Afghanistan. The arguement goes that attacking Afghanistan was legitimate because the Taliban supported AQ. I figure AQ would be angry at both, your average Muslim guy mad that we attacked Iraq when there was no terrorist connection.
This is exaclty the kind of speghetti-spined nonsense I was talking about. If the measure of “support” is that you want everyone to go home and no one to die, then hell, I would have supprted the Japenese and germans in WWII. If you truly support the troops, you may wish them health and a speedy return home, but in the meantime, you SUPPORT their mission. You support them in their attempts to accomplish their goals. And if you don’t support them, which is certainly your perogative, at least have the balls to say it.
In the past ten years threats like that peppered the daily defense briefings constantly. To, after 9/11, then go back and connect the attack to the appropriate warning, is Monday Morning Quaterbacking at it’s cheapest. This would only be a valid point if the one could expact the administration to act on every threat in the brief, which is impossible.
The marine barracks in Beirut, The USS Cole, The Achille Loro, etc.
[QUOTE]
Somehting we agree on. I’m all for doing EVERYTHING we can to avoid a terrorist attack.
Certainly I’m not saying it couldn’t be both. I was responding to the whole ‘its America’s fault because if Iraq’ thing by trying to point out that while the muslim TERRORISTS (you know, those guys who actually plant bombs) MIGHT be upset about Iraq, they are certainly pretty pissed off about Afghanistan…so, its doubtful that Iraq sent them over the edge to bomb in London where if we hadn’t invaded Iraq they would just have grumbled a bit.
As to the other part…there are muslims in the ME that are still pissed off about the crusades in the middle ages. I doubt they have such short attention spans that they have moved on from Afghanistan and forgotten all about it yet. Also…its not the average muslim that pulled off these bombings in London (IF it even was muslim terrorists of course)…it was terrorists most likely, who actually did have a bigger stake in Afghanistan than Iraq.
I don’t think its such a stretch either. But then again, I don’t think its a big stretch to acknowledge that with or without the invasion of Iraq the terrorists would still have been pissed off about Afghanistan and still have come after Western countries, or that the terrorists really use Iraq more as an excuse than as a real emotional rallying point. Its just a lot easier to go kill Americans in Iraq than in America…or in Afghanistan for that matter.
But you do realize that the ‘average Muslim guy’ isn’t who most likely set off the bombs in London…right? If it was in fact AQ who did it then they would have been well motivated with or without the invasion of Iraq…and in fact they had a much bigger emotional stake in Afghanistan than Iraq.
-XT
That is an incredibly ridiculous position. The responsibility for the London bombing belongs solely with those persons who perpetrated the act, along with any persons who supported their activities. There is zero “blame” to be laid at the feet of any other person, nation, or organization. Yours is, quite frankly, the same sort of b.s. thinking that led the war supporters to “blame” Saddam Hussein for 9/11, and the same sort of b.s. thinking that this very day leads the war nuts to call for invading Syria and Iran.
Such as? Please be specific.
Ok, try this on for size: I do not support any part of our military effort in Iraq. I believe it was illegal and foolish to invade Iraq. I do not blame the troops on the ground, or plan to hold them each personally accountable for their actions; that blame and responsibility lies with those who ordered them into action.
I won’t let you get away with drawing a line between me and the millions of people in the armed forces, magellan01.
I won’t allow your rhetoric define me as the enemy.
My beef is not with those who must follow orders, it is with the ones who give the orders, and the nature of the orders themselves.
Bullshit. Choices have consequences. Both countries knew that retaliation would be a consequence of our own illegal invasion of Iraq. What’s the legal difference between “Shock and Awe” and the London bombings? Nothing. Why should the US be let off the hook for retalitory responses to that attack?
Why is that Americans can’t stand to admit that they might ever be on the wrong ethical side of a conflict or have any accountability for their military actions? Trying to absolve ourselves from the consequences of Iraq is just fucking gutless and hypocritical as far as I’m concerned.