So, how's that War on Terrorism going?

[rjung]

*Originally posted by The Calculus of Logic *
But we haven’t dealt with Saudi Arabia yet.

And we won’t, at least not until the oil we get out of Iraq is more than the oil we get out of Saudi Arabia.

According to Bush (who knows where he got his info) 1/2 the Al Qaeda leadership is dead or arrested.

Just out of curiousity, do you consider the possibility that George W. Bush might have been exaggerating or lying when he said that, just to make himself look good? Or do you simply believe him on blind faith?

[Fang]

*Originally posted by Nagarjuna *
**Fang:

So what´s the connection between Al Qaeda and the former Iraqi government? Has any such connection, whatsoever, been proven? No.

And of course, if there were such a connection it would have been quite absurd, given that Osama bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein and the secular regime of Iraq. So then, what were the motives behind the attack? Iraq as a possible future treat against the USA? **

Please quote the place in my post where I defended the war against Iraq. As far as I can tell, we were debating the so-called “War on Terrorism”, which I take to mean the war against al-Qaeda and its allies, subsidiaries, etc. Bush may try to spin Iraq as part of the whole effort, but that doesn’t mean I have to buy it. In fact, I was specifically refuting lawoot’s claim that terrorist groups can’t be defeated through military means.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by Fang *
**Please quote the place in my post where I defended the war against Iraq. As far as I can tell, we were debating the so-called “War on Terrorism”, which I take to mean the war against al-Qaeda and its allies, subsidiaries, etc. Bush may try to spin Iraq as part of the whole effort, but that doesn’t mean I have to buy it. In fact, I was specifically refuting lawoot’s claim that terrorist groups can’t be defeated through military means. **

Precisely what did you do to refute that claim? You provided no evidence to the contrary whatsoever.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by furt *
In a sense, yes, as is your position that it is not working. Both sides are arguing from absence, since we have no real way of knowing what would have happened. Did the Battle of Iraq inflame some militants? Certainly; many of them traveled to Iraq to take part. Did it frighten others, as well as eliminating a material supporter for some terrorists? Again, yes.

But that’s exactly what I’m questioning. If, indeed, the Iraq invasion did frighten terrorists into submission, shouldn’t we have expected to see a sudden decrease in terrorist activity, rather than the upsurge that is actually occurring?

Which one outweighs the other? Hell if I know. If you have some sort of insight into the minds of would-be terrorists, tell us.

Here’s my insight - I don’t think military campaigns such as Iraq are having the intended effect of frightening terrorists into submission. In fact, I think the opposite is occuring - angering them into more terrorism.

Better yet, apply to the CIA.

I don’t think that would be effective. The upper echelons of the CIA have a poor track record of heeding the insight of underlings.

The one thing I do know – and the Admin made this plain in the first weeks after 9/11 (and it makes complete sense, IMO) – is that the effort will take years, and success or failure will be measured in the long term.

Which is why it’s highly ironic that they would claim credit for a statistical decline in terrorism that is most likely anomalous. (One of the things we discovered in the other thread was that most of the decline was in Latin America, and had little to do with U.S. actions.)

[system]

*Originally posted by OliverH *
**You have a funny idea of what ‘routed’ looks like. For being ‘routed’, they are pretty well organized and pretty darn powerful. They might have been ousted, but certainly not routed. They have, in fact, found a new powerful ally in Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. They still have a stronger hold on some areas of Afghanistan than the new government. **

The Taleban were indeed routed, fleeing to Pakistan and going underground. Very much a route. However they have regrouped.

On CIA:

CIA is not a policy making organization, it is an executing organization (ex upper reaches).

[The_Calculus_of_Logic]

*Originally posted by rjung *
**
Just out of curiousity, do you consider the possibility that George W. Bush might have been exaggerating or lying when he said that, just to make himself look good? Or do you simply believe him on blind faith? **

good one. with a sense of humor like that i find it hard to believe that Hardees wants you to work in back with the grill and not up front where you can entertain the customers.

I said “(who knows where he got his info)” in my post, making me question if it was truthful. much of the WMD charges were fabricated or false starts so i am wary.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/31/rumsfeld.terror.war/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3014857.stm