No, it’s not. and it doesn’t matter, since the entire enterprise is vile and futile.
The terrorists were never anything but a minor problem in Iraq. And there’s no reason to believe that anything that happens in Iraq will slow terrorism; instead, it’s been given a massive boost.
Yes. Not that it matters, since such a battlefield wasn’t needed, and is counterproductive.
Garbage. Making MORE enemies is not the way to defeat them. Most of the people we are fighting in Iraq WERE NOT our enemies before we attacked Iraq. And the people who actually attacked us are alive and free, and laughing at us while we dance as their puppets. Our attack on Iraq just shows how effective terrorism is on us.
In other words, we are indeed the monsters our enemies call us.
Um because AQ wasn’t just in Afganistan…and they still got us with some box cutters and cold blooded resolve. It has been said that there are many terror cells spread out around the world, and especially in the ME(duh). What better than setting up a niiiice “honey-pot” in Iraq to draw in every last AQ wannabe that dreams of however many virgins they “get” in their heaven…let them kooks get drawn in like bees to a big 'ole pot of honey.
What battle? Was Iraq planning some massive intercontinental amphibious invasion?
Meanwhile, the terrorists are gaining strength in Afghanistan, the war the U.S. abandoned. That’s where the bulk of the terrorists are, and the USA has given them a chance to regroup. Great move. It’s as if we stopped fighting Germany in 1943 and instead invaded Argentina.
I don’t recall saying anything to the contraray. Unless this is to illustrate your view - you believe I may make that argument and be rude to you in the future, so you’re dismissing me and refuting an argument I haven’t made before I make it! Genius.
Couple of problems with this. A, they might not actually be planning to attack you. B, if they weren’t, you’ve now pissed them the hell off. C, you need to actually attack only those who are the threat. And D, if your deterrent against people attacking you is “I’ll come over there and beat the shit out of you” and you go over there and beat the shit out of them, they no longer have any reason not to attack you. After all, the response will be the same.
I’m all for a pre-emptive strike. But you need to be damn sure they’re going to attack, you need to be able to go to the world and say “Look, here’s all the evidence they were going to attack us”, you need to be able to prove your case, not just suggest it might possibly maybe be so - because otherwise you’ve not only pissed off the target, you’ve lost your deterrent for everyone else.
A man with a knife in his pocket to protect against muggings is wise. A man thrusting his knife at every possible mugger is going to get himself shot by the police.
Last I heard the surge was working…something that dems howled against (because they feared it would work). NOW the dems want ‘political’ progress tied to the war funding because our men and women are kicking ass. You guys actually think that if the dems get the white house we will pull out of Iraw lickety split? Before the job is done and the government there is able to lay the smack down on AQ? It would be political suicide…it doesn’t matter who is in the White House…we are in Iraq until the job is done.
Yeah they are there because we are kicking ass in Iraq…of course they are going to go to a softer target. We need to get more troops in Afganistan…10 more ought to do it.
Well shit what did you mean by your post then that said something about Jesus? I took it as…love thy neighbor…turn the other cheek sort of implication.
Anyways…Iraq is a honey-pot. That’s why we are there…
And by the time all that double-checking is over they will have already been celebrating a victory. In today’s digital age things happen alot faster than what we would like. And with all the red tape and bureacracy you suggest something so unreasonable…cross the t’s and dot the i’s? I don’t think that is realistic. If perhaps Saddam was a nice man who was a freely elected PM or president. If his human rights record was clean. If he hadn’t murdered all kinds of people. Fact of the matter is that this man was the RIPEST target ruling a country that is situated in a prime location. Sucks to have been him but he had his fun for a reallly long long time.
Look at the map. Where is Afganistan? What does Afganistan “have” besides sand, mountains, and opium? It’s not rocket science…sorry you are so confused…
So if Iraq is so damn attractive to Al Qaeda, how come there weren’t any there before we occupied it? Obviously, the only thing that brought them to Iraq was the American presence, which we could do in Afghanistan just as well, and with much more justification.
Not even mentioning the moral repugnance and utter monstrosity of destroying an ancient civilization which was also a pacified nation just to give us a spot to fight a completely unrelated grouping of people on.
It was a response to your “Have you all forgotten 9/11?” question - which is pretty impressive rhetorical hyperbole. It’s similar to when missionary types come to teach your o me who Jesus was; the logical disconnect that apparently atheists have honestly never heard of the guy.
Que?
Certainly there’s a fine line. To go back to my analogy, if there’s a potential mugger, you need to not flash your knife around at anything, but you do need to draw it out at some point. For the potential muggee, as it is for a country who may be attacked, that line needs to be when you’re certain you’re in danger, not just when the guy in question is mean looking.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by red tape and bureaucracy. What red tape and bureacracy would be added through my approach?
It doesn’t suck to have been him; I don’t believe there’s anyone in this thread who’d say getting rid of him was a bad thing if that were the only factor. He was a bastard, and certainly I personally am glad he’s gone. But was he worth wasting the U.S.'s deterrent on?
Contrary to what you believe, I think an event similar to 9/11 is more likely now. You can’t make any threat that will stop them, because you’re already doing whatever you could threaten to do. Elsewhere in the Middle East, people aren’t going to think “Wow, that could happen to us, i’d better be careful”. They’re going to think “Wow, that’s going to happen to us, might as well strike back while I can”. If you make it your policy that all attacks will be pre-empted, and pre-empted on little evidence; then your enemies will equally try to pre-empt you. Your own standards will be what they adopt.
So the question is; would you like them to wait until they’re sure you’re going to attack, putting off events until they’re sure? Or would you like them to strike on the merest hint of danger?
We didn’t “draw them there”. We made more. And Iraq was one of the places they were weakest, a major enemy of theirs. We did their work for them, better than they could ever have.
He was our enemy; most people are. But he wasn’t a danger.
You heard wrong. And the Democrats want political progress because that was supposedly the whole point.
And I seriously doubt that the “Dems” feared the surge would work, since there never was a chance it would.
Which means until the oil runs out. We won’t ever be “done”. We don’t even have a defined “job”.
Actually, it’s worse. We attacked Iraq, a nation that tried to cooperate, that went out of it’s way to make peace with us. And we’ve largely ignored Al Qaeda, which did attack us. We’ve demonstrated that America is nationally insane, that our actions and reality have no connection to one another.
On the other hand the American casualties have numbered in the thousands, a number far too small, but still enough to degrade its recruitment capability. Happily the number of American casualties rises constantly, to general acclaim.
Similarly, the US has lost the capability to form an international coalition based on trust and common interests. Any intelligence or strategic information with an American provenance now has zero credibility.
The idea that you can stop a group of terrorists using common everyday materials to strike “the homeland” by macromanaging the massive U.S. military machine and its penchant for solving problems with aerial bombardment and directing it to and fro from one empty mountain range or to the next field, or by telling Afghanis how to run their society is…well, I don’t know. A lot of otherwise good natured anti-war liberals seem to support the idea just because that’s where Osama was and “something had to be done.” Well, he’s not there anymore. Shall we shift our priorities and conquer Pakistan this summer? Or what? How many countries must we topple before we feel safe in bed from the boogeymen?
You may appreciate this Iraqi joke…
Q: What do you call 899 U.S. soldiers killed in a single year?
A: A good start. O-ho! Tip your kebab, try the waitress, etc.
You seem to be reversing yourself in mid-thought here. Are Iran and Syria external threats to Iraq or are they not?